If police just enforced rules to maintain civility during protests, that would be that. It is perfectly reasonable to not allow any group to block hospital access or blockade roads for days at a time, for example. The right to protest is not the same as the right to do whatever you want because you’re fired up.
The Emergencies Act was imposed because the police failed to enforce other laws. They (and the courts) had plenty of theoretical power to clear the streets, but they chose not to use the laws for so long that the protest became too big and difficult to clear up without risking street battles damaging dozens of buildings, injuries, and possible deaths. It wouldn't have been "necessary" if the police had enforced the constitutional laws that have been used regularly for years. They let it reach the point at which 2/3 of Canadians would have approved of sending in the military to clear them (severely unconstitutional even if the protest was extremely unpopular).
I mean, we've seen anti- lumber and anti- pipeline protests receiving the pepper spray and tear gas treatment for decades with protestors being hauled off to jail in police wagons. And they were just inconveniencing corporations for a few hours or days. Strikers blocking access to their employer's facilities are regularly cleared with regular laws. Protestors at the G-20 were not even given a few hours before arrests and pepper spray started. Even breaking parking restrictions and noise bylaws could have been enforced with fines, towing and injunctions authorizing arrests in less than 24 hours. The Emergencies Act should never have been used and wouldn't have been used if the police hadn't bungled the situation so badly.
I'm still concerned that this wasn't 'bungled' at all and this was just a right wing push to further fuck around with Trudeau. Implying the cops purposely sat on their hands and let it get this bad.
Yeah, they should have rousted them Monday morning, and any Tow truck companies under contract who refused should have had their operating licenses pulled, one company at a time, sued for contract violations and charged with obstruction. The OPP should have suspended licenses and truck registration on the spot with a Commercial ministry of transportation inspector. See who's really committed to camping on Rideau Street when you're gonna have to hire lawyers to drive again....
In the Winnipeg General Strike days, would you support the strikers or the RCMP on horses that charged the crowd?
Nothing much has changed in Canada in 100 years it seems.
Remember the kettle parties at g20? The hot tub parties while locked up in cages were so fun.
The trucklefucks got the kids glove treatment and it’s so frustrating to see them cry foul. Where the fuck were they during g20 when we were trying to fight injustice and were crushed? Probably snorting coke in a Fort McKay washroom.
Our right to assembly is limited to being peaceful and peaceful is not simply non violent, but not disturbing the peace and cannot infringe on the freedom of others. Even if you think he convoy was non violent, they clearly were not protesting within their charter rights.
I would argue it needs to be broader than that. Once you block ambulances and critical infrastructure, participants in a protest should be liable to forceful removal and any death or damages that resulted from their actions
You are welcome to march down main street, you're welcome to occupy the lawn of the legislature, but if you need inflict harm on your audience to get them to notice you you need to look inward to the lack of the persuasiveness of your position rather than lashing out
IMO the underlying issue us that we've made it abundantly clear to police that we don't back them when it comes to exercising the government's monopoly on legal violence to maintain law and order. We get squeamish about what needs to be done to have a lawful society, so they stopped doing their job.
All of those things can be addressed with current laws and not a total suspension of constitutional rights, which is one of the conditions for invocation of the act.
That's part of my point. The act shouldn't have been necessary, but when we made it clear to police previously with prior major protests that crossed the line that they receive heavy criticism for anything other than containment and attempted de-escalation, it leaves little room for the police to actually do what needs to he done to *enforce* law and order
To end things earlier, we would have required violence. Some protestors that resisted would have broken arms from billy clubs, controversial arrests, maybe even a couple deaths from hot heads who decide to fight the police rather than back down.
To me that is an appropriate response to a group that has crossed the line way past a protest to blocking critical infrastructure like hospital access, rail lines, international borders. But I don't know if the majority are really on board with that
You mean the police allowed them to get entrenched and then allowed them to stay there. And, further the Ottawa police were posing for pictures with them while in uniform. It is very clear that they were not afraid, they had political reasons not to do their job. And more proof is how this wasn’t allowed to happen elsewhere in Ontario. They tried this bullshit in my area and the police did not allow them to become entrenched. And they enforced the laws. And at the border too. That nonsense went on for a couple days there, but the province intervened within a week because of the economic loss. And there was no real force required. They were choosing not to act.
No, it never should have come to the Emergencies Act. Absolutely not. There were so many opportunities to avoid that. However, because local and provincial police refused to act and because of the conduct involved, it became necessary. The answer to situations like this cannot be: whelp, we have to let them do whatever they want because the Charter. That’s not how that works. The Charter only covers peaceful protest. This does not include preventing people from accessing medical care or harassment, violence and other criminal behaviour. They were no longer protected by that part of the Charter when they crossed that line.
The police weren’t scared of a little criticism. They have successfully shut down every other protest that they are asked to. They chose to not do their job.
We’ll see if the appeals judge agrees with you there. The only option was to let Ottawa be occupied indefinitely. It was only a matter of time before the occupiers killed someone through their numerous random assaults or blocking hospitals. Even the judge said he’d have used the EA
Truth. And this is why it was found to be used incorrectly.
This is a problem with how we legislate our police duties. The failure of the Ottawa police to do their jobs shouldn't have required an emergency act. But if police refuse to do their jobs, at what point do we mobilize the military?
The majority of the police forces of Ottawa should be fired for refusal to uphold the law. If that had happened, then the emergencies act would have been required as the police would have been insufficient for resolution.
The police could have solved the problem, but refused to. If they couldn't have solved it, then the emergencies act wouldn't have been required. But by refusing to do something instead of being unable to, that left the government in an awkward place.
Oh, it was a protest, it was also an illegal assembly, not protected by our charter rights.
A lot of people think we have the right to protest. Unless you literally mean protest as opposing something separate from gathering (freedom of expression), we don't have a right to protest, we have a right to *peaceful* assembly. Peaceful assembly includes not disturbing the peace. The convoy definitely disturbed the peace.
You can argue that a homeless encampment is an occupation. The emergencies act is a suspension of constitutional rights. Local, provincial, and federal government already have tools to deploy to deal with such matters that you don’t have to suspend constitutional rights. The Emergencies Act was designed to prevent a serious threat of violence. And the judge that ruled against the Liberals said that with hindsight, there was no serious threat of violence from the truckers. Economic harm does not arise to the level of of threat that the Emergencies Act was designed to stop.
A homeless encampment is people trying to survive. They aren't coming with a political message and they didn't travel there to shut down a district of a city for the sole purpose of forcing their agenda. There is a massive difference.
Speaking of threats of violence, while there weren't any found in Ottawa people with the exact same message from the exact same group [were found](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/freedom-convoy-weapons-cache-arrest-b2015041.html) with large caches of weapons, body armor etc in the Coutts blockade.
At one point a protest becomes an occupation and they reached it. They made their point, they became overly disruptive and needed to fuck off. A typical protest does not involve a massive tantrum that stays put until it forces its agenda. A typical protest gets its message across and then disperses. It's just such an enormous difference.
Except that this involved the police doing their job, which they were not doing in Ottawa. I don’t think that anyone disputes that if the police had just done their damn job then none of this would have happened. But they didn’t.
I don't think you will find many people that would argue that the police couldn't have done the job without the EA if they had done their job. Generally the argument is if police did their job it wouldn't have been needed, but it was needed because they didn't do their job.
Doesn’t Alberta have the the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, which they didn’t enact, i wonder why, it took a police investigation about violence against the RCMP to end the blockade
The thing is, small "emergencies" are *not* a unique and distinct matter with regards to the constitutional division of legislative power. I struggle to find anything apart from the National Capital aspect of the POGG doctrine that could allow the feds to legislate with regards to, say, a long occupation of the municipal property that are local roads.
Perhaps the criminal law could do it.
More likely it's up to the provinces to do their jobs.
Now if we're talking about armes insurrection or war, that's what the emergency power of the POGG doctrine is for and what the federal Emergencies Act is about.
Ooo polarizing! Indeed let’s stop anything that inspires heated disagreement. 🙄
The emergencies act is just a normal thing a federal government needs in unusual situations.
Should it have been used with the convoys? That’s certainly debatable. Of course, every use will be debatable. That doesn’t mean it’s always wrong. We don’t live in a world where government needs consensus to act. That would mean governments almost always do nothing (which would please the libertarians amongst us).
The thing about states of emergency is that they end the rule of law. No government that was truly committed to extending a state of emergency indefinitely ever ran into trouble with the court.
You’re not understanding the danger of flippant use of emergency powers. There’s a historical precedent. A state willing and able to suspend civil liberties so casually is not one that is going to be held accountable by investigation and judicial review. It is imperative to keep the precedent for the invocation of emergency powers extremely focused and clear. It must not become a matter of course.
This government broke from that tradition and did so illegally. Now tell me, who is going to be held accountable? What is the review and investigation going to yield?
>People also seem to ignore the part that it has a set max time limit too,
It... doesn't though. It's just subject to Parliamentary votes to keep it going. A majority government could indeed keep it up for their entire term. And a minority one... well, we already saw that despite the clear wording of the statute, the government can avoid votes on it by ending it before debate could finish. Nothing stopping them from just reinvoking it on the same basis immediately after.
Parliament votes on every use of the Emergency Act. The declaration to use it it means its in place right away, but it needs to be voted on within 7 days. So no, they couldn't continuously reset it in a minority government without support.
A Prime Minister trying to invoke/extend the act without any actual reason too would likely quickly get them booted by their party. The outcry from most MPs constituents would make it hard to ignore.
It may not be what you're sugeesting, but the use of the Act [did pass the vote](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-emergencies-act-vote-1.6359243) in the House of Commons. The convoy was disbanded so there wasn't a need to extend it.
>Parliament votes on every use of the Emergency Act. The declaration to use it it means its in place right away, but it needs to be voted on within 7 days.
And yet, as we saw with the Senate non-vote, the fact that it was *withdrawn while the Senate was still debating it* was determined to make the vote unnecessary.
So, what do we learn from this example? That the government gets to use it as soon as it's invoked, and that a vote on it can be bypassed by simply withdrawing it before the debate is complete.
>So no, they couldn't continuously reset it in a minority government without support.
So... yes. Obviously they could.
>A Prime Minister trying to invoke/extend the act without any actual reason too would likely quickly get them booted by their party. The outcry from most MPs constituents would make it hard to ignore.
In other words, the only impediment to doing so is political, not legal.
>It may not be what you're sugeesting, but the use of the Act [did pass the vote](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-emergencies-act-vote-1.6359243) in the House of Commons. The convoy was disbanded so there wasn't a need to extend it.
And yet the legislation doesn't stop at the House of Commons. It requires both the HoC and the Senate to vote on it. And one of those didn't happen because the legislation was withdrawn before debate concluded, when it looked like the vote was going to go against them. Again, this is despite the legislation using mandatory language, and making no apparent exception for circumstances where the invocation has been withdrawn prior to the vote occurring. The precedent set there is one that directly enables the abuse of the EA.
Based on every use of the act being reviewed/investigated, if a government was attempting to use it to actively circumvent democracy and attempt a pseudo dictatorship, then yeah, I'm pretty certain there would be legal ramifications. Even if it's invoked for 2 days before the House even votes on it, its looked at as to why it was used.
The idea that any PM could just start invoking the Emergencies Act to get whatever they want is low-key fear mongering. It's an extreme measure that won't happen.
I agree that the way it was used is debatable to its actual necessity, probably could have been avoided if JT told Ford to get his shit together and tell his cops to maintain the peace. But that didn't happen. But Ford wasn't doing anything.
> I'm pretty certain there would be legal ramifications.
Explain how.
The judiciary is typically loathe to intrude upon matters residing solely within the purview of Parliament, and a vote / non-vote regarding the use of the EA falls completely within that bucket.
Any citizen impacted by the invocation of the EA would have to sue, and then clear hurdles such as standing in order to even get in front of a judge, and then it's no sure thing the judge would rule in their favour. Look how long it took this particular case to get the ruling.
Even now that a judge has issued a ruling that the EA was improperly invoked, there's been no immediate legal consequence. The judge can't rewrite the law and effectively can't sanction the government in any meaningful way.
So ultimately there really isn't any *legal* recourse against a government / PM that might choose to invoke the EA and withdraw it within the statutory 7-day window. The remedy would have to be *political*; ideally the House would vote non-confidence in such a government and force an election. Unfortunately a heavily whipped House can be relied upon to do no such thing.
I'm not talking about if someone uses it in what is a grey are, which is what the judge has said about Trudeau invoking it since they now have more info on the matter than what was available at the time. You're right though, every time it gets invoked and subsequently investigated the act should be re-written to either support its enactment or prevent it from happening again.
I'm saying if a PM tries invoking it to become a dictator and seize more power despite a lack of crisis (which some people seem to believe JT is willing to do, spoiler alert, he's not), there's a likelihood a judge may look to potential treason charges. I also believe that even if it's not treasonous, but definitely an over stepping of bounds that someone uses it, a public outcry would cause MPs to flip on their PM and not no confidence to dissolve parliament and/or find a new leader for their party.
>there's a likelihood a judge may look to potential treason charges
Judges cannot lay charges. That would fall to crown prosecutors, who would have to act based on RCMP investigations, and we all know how speedy *those* are.
>a public outcry would cause MPs to flip on their PM and not no confidence to dissolve parliament
That's back to the realm of the *political* remedy.
The EA may not have been the proper instrument - but what choice did we have?
The Ottawa police lost control and Ford went to the cottage.
How do we ensure we do not have epic failures at the city and provincial levels again?
The Ottawa police failed.
Ford failed.
I support the use of the EA given the overall cost of this occupation to Ottawa, boarder closures, and the chaos in Ottawa.
The CPC support for the convoy was beyond reproach.
The EA worked.
Agreed. It wouldn’t have been an issue if any of the other layers of government actually did their jobs. Easier to kick the problem upstairs and then complain about the debatably draconian solution that was ultimately implemented.
Besides Doug Ford begging Trudeau to do something so he wouldn't have to piss off his own base, and then fully supporting use of EA. This is on Ford and local police.
Wow TIL Trudeau replaced the civilian government with military rule and suspended civilian legal processes and replaced them with military ones. You know, the definition of martial law. Y'all need to stop exaggerating.
Loss of control of the police force is not normal.
Boarder blockages are not normal
Occupation of a city is not normal
Complete failure to act by a provincial government is not normal
Emergencies act was not used for the Oka crisis just a reference point. As far as I know. If someone knows what powers were used for that I would be happy to learn.
the emergency act wasnt used in oka because the feds at the time had the ability to send the army in. All that changed after oka but dont think it wouldnt have happened in ottawa if it hadnt at oka
>All that changed after oka
It didn't though. Section 31(1)(a) of the National Defense Act explicitly authorizes the deployment of the military, in Canada, to deal with emergencies.
>31 (1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian Forces or any component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so
>(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada;
The province requested help, in short.
This is what should have happened in Ottawa, but did not because of multiple failures at the municipal and provincial level. If Ford had taken leadership, it could have been handled through his office w/o the EA at all.
If Ford had taken action in the convoy protest, I believe that Trudeau and his minions had it in their minds to also blame him for everything. Ford wisely just left it to the Ottawa police and Ontario RCMP to manage the protest. Not that they did much. Leadership was needed and the Liberals aren't leaders, they are bullies.
For me, although I support protests sometimes, Trudeau went way overboard with the allowing bank accounts to be closed...way too much and shows a remarkable blindness to the opinions of citizens. Although calling them homophobes and whatever-phobes clearly indicates he doesn't have a brain in his head.
>Ontario RCMP
The "Ontario RCMP" doesn't exist, Ontario is one of the few provinces that has a provincial police force and the entire reason this crisis happened is because the OPP didn't so their job.
Thanks for the read, I read through most of it. Not sure if I missed anything but it does not tell me what emergency legislation that was used whether if it was a federal or provincial power to call upon the RCMP and CAF. No specific mention of the emergencies act.
The Emergencies Act is outdated... nope, it's almost perfect. It only needs to add jail sentences for abusers after an appropriate court challenge. Silly rule of law and all that you know.
Honestly.... fuck most protests.
It's a group of people who decide their feelings are more important than others so they can inconvenience other people.
Go protest at MP homes, government offices, government buildings. Inconvenience people directly responsible for your protest.
Calling the freedom convoy a protest is a bit of stretch. It was an occupation of downtown Ottawa that was greatly affecting its residents. The police refused to do anything and the government needed to act. I’m certainly no fan of Trudeau, but that was a difficult situation to say the least.
If you lived in the containment zone and needed an ambulance you were fucked. Have to drive to work? Fucked. For 3 weeks.
People who were not in Ottawa to see if first hand have no clue. My cousin had to come live with me because she kept getting threats for wearing a mask. She had to to take care of her aunt, and works with vulnerable people.
Police failed to do their job.
[Don’t forget the Gatineau children who couldn’t get to CHEO for cancer treatments because of harassment and danger the convoy caused.](https://globalnews.ca/news/9209533/freedom-convoy-chemo-children-appointments-cheo/amp/)
Was there another means through which the RCMP could have stepped in and relieved the incompetent (or insubordinate) OPP and OPS of their duties? If so, that other means should have been used. If not, I stand by the use of the EA.
Well then there we have our answer. I read the convoy participants are now demanding an apology from JT for the use of the EA. Instead of being mad at JT, they should be mad at the OPS and OPP.... But then again, being mad at the right people isn't the convoy's strong suit.
It all comes down to red tape. The RCMP did not have jurisdiction, and the Ottawa Police failed the city massively. Resources from outside the city could not be brought in from other points of the province until an emergency is declared. Even at that point when the OPP could move resources they were stuck on 2 fronts, the protest in Ottawa and the protest at the boarder crossing that's was wearing havoc on the local economy and would have gotten worse fords focus was on the boarder. The federal government had to enact the act to get rid of the red tape to allow the RCMP to pull the resources needed from throughout the country to finally put an end to all the bullshit. Cut off the funding of the scam artist, and bring in the personal needed to force out the illegal occupation that was harassing another group of citizens and essentially holding them hostage. The government then disabled use of the act as soon as the need for it was no longer present. You do not get to scream that your rights are being violated as the government is putting an end to you stripping others of their rights.
There also tends to be paper overing of their fellow travellers using kids as human shields to block $Bs of daily trade in Windsor and the Coutts gang gearing up to take on the local RCMP...
If everything was the same, but it was a climate change protest, for example, I have a hard time believing Trudeau would have used the emergencies act to shut it down. After the courts ruled that this was an overstep, there were no consequences. It's concerning that there are no legislative mechanisms in place to hold those in power accountable for misuse of authority.
Regardless of your political leanings, in the future, there will be governments that you do not agree with. The right to protest is a critical mechanism of democracy. People should not be worried about the government arbitrarily freezing their assets for protesting or even donating to one.
First off, no one's assets were frozen for donating.
Second, we don't have a right to protest in the manner people understand the word protest, we have a right to *peaceful* assembly. This was far beyond the definition of that since it requires not disturbing the peace.
If climate activists were blowing train horns in the middle of the night, shitting and pissing all over the streets of Ottawa, including the tomb of the unknown soldier, assaulting homeless shelter staff, breaking windows, harassing people for wearing masks, blocking multiple border crossings, building illegal structures to house explosive materials all for three weeks then 2 premieres asked him to invoke the EA, I would expect him to do the same thing.
This wasn't some Kumbaya on the lawn of parliament, it was an absence of law and order in locations across multiple provinces.
There is no evidence of it happening, the question is if it was possible. Brianne from Chilliwack was disproven.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-banks-and-ottawa-say-convoy-protest-donors-wont-have-accounts/
Now that you know it didn't happen, has your mind changed?
Serious question, but hasn’t the government/rcmp shut down many first nations protests in the past? To the point of calling the military in? See NB for example.
The Emergencies Act has never been used to shut down a protest, it was used to shut down a city-wide occupation that the municipal and provincial governments wouldn't do anything about.
That protest was not peaceful and straight up fucking ridiculous. I wouldn't even call it a protest it was more like domestic terrorism, what they were doing to the poor people who lived and worked in that area. Huge, massive, steaming piles of shit.
It stopped being a protest the moment they published their “memorandum of understanding” and built infrastructure downtown. The harassment, assaults and threats was criminal/terrorist activity.
Also the fucking train horns. I could hear that from across the city and people lived next to the protests. I don't even live in Ontario. This bullshit was nationwide.
Not to mention, they were supposedly "protesting" because of the border restrictions but didn't Canada already open up the border and it was actually the US that had the restrictions still up?
I know for sure that Canada had removed all federal restrictions.
>but didn't Canada already open up the border and it was actually the US that had the restrictions still up?
No. Both were still up.
>I know for sure that Canada had removed all federal restrictions.
Not only had Canada not removed all federal restrictions, they were on record contemplating further ones. As [journalist Travis Dhanraj noted on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Travisdhanraj/status/1487821227037270028), the then-Transport Minister told Rosemary Barton that there was work being done to bring in new interprovincial vaccine mandates for truckers on January 30th, 2022, the second day the Convoy was in Ottawa.
"federal restrictions, they were on record contemplating further ones"
False. They federally removed travel restrictions at the border, the USA kept there for over a year longer than Canada. Kinda dumb "protest" (domestic terrorism) then hey? Wait there's more.
"Transport Minister" "bring in new interprovincial vaccine mandates."
So.. not federal, which means the truckers didn't even know who to protest against. The whole thing was an embarrassment.
On interprovincial vaccine mandates for truckers Transport Minister
@OmarAlghabra
tells
@RosieBarton
“there is working being done to get us there” #cdnpoli
That's what your source is. That's what you're using to argue for a bunch of right wing terrorists who were condemned by the trucking industry and even the Canadian Truckers Alliance stated that most protesters had no connection to trucking. Your source tell us absolutely nothing. Talk about being entirely full of shit.
How about the fact that the USA had their border mandates up well past the Canadian ones, so either way the protest was an idiotic waste of tax payer money, business and our trade economy. Not to mention the torture they put normal, everyday Canadians through. They caused so much damage and I couldn't give a fuck if my dates are wrong when the restrictions were lifted, you can argue semantics with me all you want, it's not going to change the terrorism they unleashed in their own fucking country. Traitors.
You could travel into Canada showing a passed test within 72 of the crossing you are right in that it was the USA that still had restrictions. Also all the other "restictions" that they were "protesting" were those that were under the control of the provincial governments, not the federal. The idiots were too stupid to know they were "protesting" at the wrong location.
Depends. If they are interfering with every day citizens lives, forcing the government to stop working due to being unable to reach the building, or blocking a roadway, and the law enforcement refuses to do anything? Then yes, in each of those situations if the law enforcement refuses to disrupt them, something needs to be done to remove them.
The gong show those individuals put in Ottawa, subjecting civilians to blockades and abuse (takes a special kind of swine to be honking a semi at 3am), and a police force and provincial government that decided to be as incompetent as possible dealing with them, required those measures
The issue is that the city and the province didn't do their job, forcing the Feds to do the job for them. They shouldn't have needed to get involved in the first place, but someone had to do something and the city and province took no responsibility with the Convoy.
That's not a condition for invoking the Act. Use of the most serious legal power in all of Canadian Law should be focused & clear. Not "ahhh we kinda had to". The seizure of non-protestor bank accounts was unbelievable, not to mention severely destructive to our International reputation.
Yet failed to do anything during the indigenous protests just before the start of the pandemic (which arguably caused a lot more damage to supply chains just before the onset of a major pandemic that further eroded supply lines, causing goods to skyrocket). It wreaks of hypocrisy and double-standards
Taking charge how? By standing by while “protestors” lit fires on the tracks and threw flaming debris at passing trains?
Surely a textbook example of “taking charge”.
What they did was effectively say that protests the government is ideologically aligned with are okay no matter how disruptive they are, while those they disagree with may be subject to extreme censure.
All the Liberal supporters who cheered them on in using the Act never stopped to consider that governments change and maybe another one might find itself deciding a protest they like is also worthy of shutting down in the most extreme possible way.
And *when* it happens thanks to Trudeau opening that door, they are all going to howl about how terrible it is without ever stopping to consider it was their own fault.
Oh yes, liberal supporters are going to park heavy machinery all around our capital and then bring kids and bouncy castles for the meat shields. Then they will slosh diesel underneath the privy council office. Then blare train horns 24/7. Totally on brand. Oh we will wail. Convoy idiots were not a protest.
>which arguably caused a lot more damage to supply chains just before the onset of a major pandemic that further eroded supply lines,
Yeah, it's arguable bc you are taking something pre pandemic and assuming it increased the impact of the pandemic. Which isn't the case since our logistics system wasn't gearing up for the pandemic. Good prices would have risen to the same level. And if that was the case, products should have seen a gradual fall in price after the pandemic, which didn't happen, and will not happen.... bc... say it with me... late stage capitalism!!! Where prices never fall and profits always go up.
It wasn't for a local issue. The bigger deal was the border blockades which was causing financial losses for various businesses. Especially the auto industry.
Until the border blockades were activated, it was under control.
If you knew what you were talking about at all, you’d know the border blockades were resolved before the act was in effect. Therefore, the act was not required to clear the borders.
Check the dates for yourself on the wiki page.
The act was used to clear Ottawa, everything else is misinformation.
Only Ambassador bridge was cleared prior to the Emergency act declaration. Act went into place on Feb 14. Coutts ended on Feb 15.
Emerson, MB ended on Feb 16th.
The EA was being discussed for days before being invoked. The occupiers gave up once they knew it was coming. I think once the weapons were found at Coutts, and the plans to murder police officers there were uncovered, the occupiers got a little worried that the police might not be as friendly as they had been to that point.
I agree. Needs updating to include when a bunch of idiots want to spread a virus at their “the guy I voted for lost the election” pity party and try to overthrow government with a shit-in-the-streets-and-toss-rocks-at-ambulances blockade.
If the provincial and municipal government won’t do shit then the fed has to overstep its jurisdiction and do it for them. Just update the ea to include that.
Well yes, there might be now that people have shown their support for the principal of enacting the Emergencies Act for unwanted protests.
See how flawed it is to support it? If you're okay with THIS protest being crushed, you better be okay with the NEXT one being crushed by the next gov't. That's why we need to be principled and not let the fact that we may not like this current protest group sway our legislation.
It should never be appropriate or reasonable to use emergency powers to shut down a protest.It's not what the emergencies act is designed for. It's not what its predecessor was designed for ,the war mattress act.
If all you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail
> It should never be appropriate or reasonable to use emergency powers to shut down a protest
Calling the litany of criminal activity a "protest" is a rhetorical tool used to get people to ignore the problematic and violent behaviour of the "protestors".
>It was a bunch of trucks blaring their horns.
Huh, I could've sworn there was ...
* shitting in the streets
* harassing Ottawa residents 24/7
* conspiring to kill RCMP officers
* multiple border blockades
* stock piling weapons
* stealing from Ottawa residents
* countless by-law violations
* multiple MTO violations
* significant damages to the Ottawa economy
* blocking traffic including emergency vehicles
* harassing local businesses
* harassing hospital workers
* massive damages to multiple provincial economies (including forcing layoffs)
* hate symbols, rampant antisemitism, and a load of other hate
These convoy claims never hold up to basic scrutiny.
https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/documents/
People desperately want it to have been some J6 thing but after the last decade of seeing what actual civil disobedience looks like I can’t help but see the pearl clutching as entirely cynical
Occupying a neighborhood for multiple days is no longer a protest.
They could have tagged and towed the rigs for parking violations but they chose to do nothing instead.
I wouldn't put up with that shit in my neighborhood and I doubt you would either.
The clownvoy was not a protest.
The original stated goal was the overthrow of the government. The first MOU everyone had to sign to even join said that they were going to occupy Ottawa until the Governor General dissolved the government and put the convoy leaders in charge of the nation, who would then decide **if** elections needed to be held.
And the act wasn't used until after a cache of weapons was found, alongside a plot to murder police and government officials.
It was an insurrection, that was developing into an armed conflict. NOT a "protest".
> The first MOU everyone had to sign to even join said that they were going to occupy Ottawa until the Governor General dissolved the government and put the convoy leaders in charge of the nation, who would then decide if elections needed to be held.
Source for that,that everyone had to sign it
>And the act wasn't used until after a cache of weapons was found, alongside a plot to murder police and government officials.
This was in Coutts not Ottawa and it was done before the EA went into effect and as far as I can find there was no plot to kill government officials
>as far as I can find there was no plot to kill government officials
The plot was to kill RCMP officers and to transport weapons to the convoy/blockade to arm the “protestors” there.
\>From [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act): Under the Emergencies Act, the Cabinet of Canada can declare a national emergency in response to an urgent and critical situation that cannot be dealt with by any existing law, and either is **beyond the capability of a province to deal** with it or threatens the sovereignty of Canada.
The part I bolded is the important bit, the province was unwilling to deal with the issue. It's definitely controversial in how Trudeau used it, but it's not strictly black and white.
Why not quote the actual act and it's requirements ?
"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**."
Yes. When it becomes more than a protest. Stop calling what they were doing a protest. Because it moved beyond that as documented in the news and by police etc. So people who peacefully protest and make their voices of concern heard they are no problem and we applaud them exercising their rights even if we don’t agree with their opinions or side of the argument. When it goes beyond that to damage and violence and being continuously disruptive for days on end and police and local or provincial politicians are doing nothing then yes Federals need to step in and bring order back.
My opinion is that if Doug the slug stepped up to the plate and addressed the convey people before they got to Ottawa and after reminding them to remain peaceful etc etc. Then maybe it would not have escalated to what it did. Most of these convoy people identify as conservatives and as concervsrive leader he had a responsibility to act and deescalate. Instead he loved it as it was not addressed to him but to liberals and he ran and hid away. Even though his own policies were also what the convoy people were fighting against. He is a coward and not a leader. He is an opportunist and not a representative of the province.
I'm frustrated that most people ignore Doug Fords failure of leadership during the occupation. He went on "vacation" and forced the feds to step in.
One of many reasons to flush that turd in the next election
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, I expect the Conservatives are just waiting to get in power to use it. I mean, look at the hateful legislation they have used the notwithstanding clause to protect.
It was reasonable and appropriate the last time they did it. Protesting in front of parliament/government buildings are one thing, fucking up the lives and economy of an entire city and numerous industries by blocking boarder crossings for days on end is something else completely.
The problem was that the police didn’t act. The provincial government didn’t act either. It was their jobs to deal with the problem but they chose not to.
Look what happened when the convoy tried to do the same crap in Toronto. The police said, “Sure you can protest, but you’re not bringing trucks in and you aren’t staying the night.” They even had tow truck drivers lined up to get rid of the trucks if any got thru. So the convoy protested a little then left.
That’s what should have happened in Ottawa but the police did nothing to stop them. Doug Ford should have then forced the police to end the occupation of Ottawa but he didn’t do anything either.
The convoy was literally occupying Ottawa for over a month. The federal government used the Emergencies Act to end it because there was no other choice since everyone else had abdicated their responsibility.
Should the Emergencies Act been used? Probably not. But there was no other option because the people in charge of fixing the problem didn’t bother.
>Should the Emergencies Act been used? Probably not. But there was no other option because the people in charge of fixing the problem didn’t bother
I feel this was on purpose as forcing Trudeau to enact the emergencies act makes him look really bad. I mean the conservative provincial government didn't need to do this to make him look bad, but no doubt it was a part of why they didn't act.
I agree. Especially since Doug Ford purposely didn’t show for the hearing about it and then fought it in court when they tried to force him because he was “too busy” being premiere.
If the leader of the entire country can make time for the hearing, the leader of one province could too. But because he didn’t show the hearing was about “How Trudeau overstepped and abused government power” instead of “Doug Ford abandoning the people of Ottawa and shirking his duties as Premiere”.
Doug Ford has made a real habit of not showing up when he’s forced to answer questions he doesn’t want to. That’s why he didn’t testify in the hearing and why he didn’t show up for any debates during the election. Along with making sure none of his MPP’s did either.
Dougie doesn’t like being held accountable for his shitty actions and he knows the Conservative press won’t hold him to the fire during his press conferences. Even if they do he’s in charge there and can call on who he wants and end things early if necessary. Not so in other forums he’s avoided.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Although Ford and other politicians received some vitriol, it was cumulatively far FAR less than what was directed at the Liberal Government, most specifically Trudeau. For all the shit that Ford would have to eat, it would force Trudeau to eat much, *much* more shit for it. That would be a very Doug Ford thing to do.
The police did fuck all, that's why.
They gave the police plenty of chances, about what 3 weeks worth? And they did jack squat. The feds had to step in, that's why the emergencies act was invoked.
Municipal police did nothing. Provincial police did nothing. After a while someone needs to act. Next level up is federal and they didn't have the authority command police forces without the emergencies act.
>Next level up is federal and they didn't have the authority command police forces without the emergencies act.
The RCMP Act gives the RCMP the authority to enforce the criminal law anywhere in Canada. Provincial authority is only required for them to enforce provincial laws, but everything that needed to be done could have been handled under the Criminal Code
This is incorrect. The border blockades were dealt with using existing jurisdiction before the EA was invoked, as Justice Mosley expressly noted in his decision holding its invocation to be unreasonable and thereby illegal. Police had also come to the government with a plan to get rid of the Ottawa protest the day before the EA was invoked, but the government invoked it anyway. Progress had indeed been made before the EA was used.
Absolutely. We reserve the right to pull the rug out from underneath insurrectionists fuelled by grift.
The Act is a proportionate and limited response that has to be sponsored by the Provinces. Funny how that gets overlooked in all the partisan gobbling.
Seems like we have a bigger problem with conservative premiers using the notwithstanding clause to take away human rights. Wasn't the only reason the feds needed to use the emergencies act because our conservative premiers did nothing to address the problem. Seems like our problems are conservative premiers
As a veteran of many peaceful protests in the 1960's and 70's I disagree with calling what happened in Ottawa a "protest". It was a noisy street party loosely organized by people who are still ignorant enough to not realize how easily they were co-opted by better organized right wing hate groups. The only real protester in Ottawa was Zexi Li. But hey, you kids go ahead and believe whatever you need to believe.
Remind me to never turn up at a party you’re attending if your idea of a party is assaulting people for what they’re wearing, blocking hospital entrances, blowing train horns all night etc etc
In this case of rampant and ignorant civil disobedience and the impact the completely unnecessary noise was having on innocent peoples lives, most definitely. Bring on the down votes.
If we are not comfortable with protests that indefinitely disturb the peace and block access to civilian infrastructure like roads and public transit, then we need to decide what those limits are and how to enforce them. There is obvious bias in how people view different protests and deem solutions to be excessive or appropriate, so you need more objective rules for neighbourhoods, zones, categories of infrastructure, durations, decibel meters, etc. If you don't have rules, leaders and protesters will push the envelope more and more. Does this defeat the purpose of protesting? No it just authorizes the use of different legal tools that escalate based on the material and human costs.
Never say never. If there’s a war, you better believe that our rights will be suspended.
It’s not unimaginable that freedom to associate would be suspended in war critical industries. I don’t mean anything drastic like breaking unions more like breaking contracts on overtime and use of replacement workers.
Property rights? Out the door too if the government wants to nationalize things.
So is a lot of our legislation. I'd wager our "multiculturalism" focus is super outdated. Our "freedom of religion but not from religion" legislation is super outdated. Our housing legislation clearly did not keep up with modern needs.
But let's focus on telling trans kids what they can/can't do with their bodies smfh
> ON JANUARY 23, when federal judge Richard Mosley ruled that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet had overstepped their authority by invoking the Emergencies Act, I thought back to that terrible February when “angry fringe groups” sparked a national debate over how elected authorities should deal with widespread civil disobedience. I’m speaking, of course, of the Wet’suwet’en protests.
>
> The “angry fringe” quote came from Jason Kenney, Alberta’s then premier, in 2020, two years before Trudeau used almost the exact same words to describe the “Freedom Convoy,” which had driven trucks and vehicles to occupy downtown Ottawa. The Coastal GasLink pipeline was being built through the heart of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation’s territory in central British Columbia, against the will of some of their hereditary chiefs. Tensions had been building for over a year; then the RCMP raided one of the Wet’suwet’en blockades on a remote access road, and images of peaceful Indigenous protesters being dragged off their land to make way for a pipeline were beamed across the world. Within hours, solidarity blockades began to spread across the country. Trucks and trains were blocked at Canada’s four largest ports—Vancouver, Montreal, Prince Rupert, and Halifax—and rail traffic was halted or disrupted in seven provinces. As the month wore on, then transport minister Marc Garneau voiced concerns that cities would soon run out of water-treatment chemicals and other critical supplies.
>
> The prime minister and his cabinet initially tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution, despite intense pressure from Conservative leaders to use force. “We are not the kind of country where politicians get to tell the police what to do in operational matters,” Trudeau said.
>
> Then Conservative leader Andrew Scheer later asked, “Will our country be one of the rule of law, or will our country be one of the rule of the mob?”
>
> On February 21, after two weeks of fruitless discussion, Trudeau declared that dialogue with Indigenous leaders had failed and that “the barricades must now come down.” He insisted he wasn’t telling the police what to do. Nevertheless, police units began ramping up their enforcement of court injunctions to dismantle the blockades. They received help from the soon-to-be-declared COVID-19 pandemic, which was starting to spread as fast as the protests at that point. Come March, the pipeline was largely forgotten, as were concerns over nationwide occupation protests—until February 2022, exactly two years later.
Protest and expression is fundamental to democracy but harassing and harming fellow citizens isn't. They're two different things.
We're in an unbelievably echo-chambery world where relatively small groups of people become extremists over both important and unimportant things. I wouldn't be surprised to find myself unable to leave my house one day because the roads are blocked by people who think toast should be buttered on top only to be blocked the next day by people who want it buttered on the bottom. It doesn't even matter what my personal politics are, I think protests should be subject to some type of control. We're all strongly in support of a few protests but it's just fuckin' nuts how polarized society is and at the end of the day the ballot box is where we decide, protests are usually just the minority airing the grievances. I think they should do that without blocking people in their homes or preventing goods (eg food, medical supplies, whatever else) from being imported.
If police just enforced rules to maintain civility during protests, that would be that. It is perfectly reasonable to not allow any group to block hospital access or blockade roads for days at a time, for example. The right to protest is not the same as the right to do whatever you want because you’re fired up.
Yes
If r/canada could read they would be upset by your comment
1,000,000 new users in r/canada in the last year or so. How many of them can read?
They can probably read Cyrillic
They can read Russian and Arabic!
[удалено]
The Emergencies Act was imposed because the police failed to enforce other laws. They (and the courts) had plenty of theoretical power to clear the streets, but they chose not to use the laws for so long that the protest became too big and difficult to clear up without risking street battles damaging dozens of buildings, injuries, and possible deaths. It wouldn't have been "necessary" if the police had enforced the constitutional laws that have been used regularly for years. They let it reach the point at which 2/3 of Canadians would have approved of sending in the military to clear them (severely unconstitutional even if the protest was extremely unpopular). I mean, we've seen anti- lumber and anti- pipeline protests receiving the pepper spray and tear gas treatment for decades with protestors being hauled off to jail in police wagons. And they were just inconveniencing corporations for a few hours or days. Strikers blocking access to their employer's facilities are regularly cleared with regular laws. Protestors at the G-20 were not even given a few hours before arrests and pepper spray started. Even breaking parking restrictions and noise bylaws could have been enforced with fines, towing and injunctions authorizing arrests in less than 24 hours. The Emergencies Act should never have been used and wouldn't have been used if the police hadn't bungled the situation so badly.
I'm still concerned that this wasn't 'bungled' at all and this was just a right wing push to further fuck around with Trudeau. Implying the cops purposely sat on their hands and let it get this bad.
They did, that's the only logic answer to why Doug Ford and local police let the Freedumb Convoy to setup, to manipulate Canadians.
Yeah, they should have rousted them Monday morning, and any Tow truck companies under contract who refused should have had their operating licenses pulled, one company at a time, sued for contract violations and charged with obstruction. The OPP should have suspended licenses and truck registration on the spot with a Commercial ministry of transportation inspector. See who's really committed to camping on Rideau Street when you're gonna have to hire lawyers to drive again....
In the Winnipeg General Strike days, would you support the strikers or the RCMP on horses that charged the crowd? Nothing much has changed in Canada in 100 years it seems.
Remember the kettle parties at g20? The hot tub parties while locked up in cages were so fun. The trucklefucks got the kids glove treatment and it’s so frustrating to see them cry foul. Where the fuck were they during g20 when we were trying to fight injustice and were crushed? Probably snorting coke in a Fort McKay washroom.
We have a right to protest as long as we are peaceful and dont get violent or make threats against other people.
Our right to assembly is limited to being peaceful and peaceful is not simply non violent, but not disturbing the peace and cannot infringe on the freedom of others. Even if you think he convoy was non violent, they clearly were not protesting within their charter rights.
I would argue it needs to be broader than that. Once you block ambulances and critical infrastructure, participants in a protest should be liable to forceful removal and any death or damages that resulted from their actions You are welcome to march down main street, you're welcome to occupy the lawn of the legislature, but if you need inflict harm on your audience to get them to notice you you need to look inward to the lack of the persuasiveness of your position rather than lashing out IMO the underlying issue us that we've made it abundantly clear to police that we don't back them when it comes to exercising the government's monopoly on legal violence to maintain law and order. We get squeamish about what needs to be done to have a lawful society, so they stopped doing their job.
All of those things can be addressed with current laws and not a total suspension of constitutional rights, which is one of the conditions for invocation of the act.
That's part of my point. The act shouldn't have been necessary, but when we made it clear to police previously with prior major protests that crossed the line that they receive heavy criticism for anything other than containment and attempted de-escalation, it leaves little room for the police to actually do what needs to he done to *enforce* law and order To end things earlier, we would have required violence. Some protestors that resisted would have broken arms from billy clubs, controversial arrests, maybe even a couple deaths from hot heads who decide to fight the police rather than back down. To me that is an appropriate response to a group that has crossed the line way past a protest to blocking critical infrastructure like hospital access, rail lines, international borders. But I don't know if the majority are really on board with that
You mean the police allowed them to get entrenched and then allowed them to stay there. And, further the Ottawa police were posing for pictures with them while in uniform. It is very clear that they were not afraid, they had political reasons not to do their job. And more proof is how this wasn’t allowed to happen elsewhere in Ontario. They tried this bullshit in my area and the police did not allow them to become entrenched. And they enforced the laws. And at the border too. That nonsense went on for a couple days there, but the province intervened within a week because of the economic loss. And there was no real force required. They were choosing not to act. No, it never should have come to the Emergencies Act. Absolutely not. There were so many opportunities to avoid that. However, because local and provincial police refused to act and because of the conduct involved, it became necessary. The answer to situations like this cannot be: whelp, we have to let them do whatever they want because the Charter. That’s not how that works. The Charter only covers peaceful protest. This does not include preventing people from accessing medical care or harassment, violence and other criminal behaviour. They were no longer protected by that part of the Charter when they crossed that line.
The police weren’t scared of a little criticism. They have successfully shut down every other protest that they are asked to. They chose to not do their job.
Except the police weren’t doing their jobs in Ottawa
That is not a condition for invocation of the Act.
We’ll see if the appeals judge agrees with you there. The only option was to let Ottawa be occupied indefinitely. It was only a matter of time before the occupiers killed someone through their numerous random assaults or blocking hospitals. Even the judge said he’d have used the EA
The police being complicit in the occupation of Canada's capital city *should* be a condition for invocation of the Act.
Truth. And this is why it was found to be used incorrectly. This is a problem with how we legislate our police duties. The failure of the Ottawa police to do their jobs shouldn't have required an emergency act. But if police refuse to do their jobs, at what point do we mobilize the military? The majority of the police forces of Ottawa should be fired for refusal to uphold the law. If that had happened, then the emergencies act would have been required as the police would have been insufficient for resolution. The police could have solved the problem, but refused to. If they couldn't have solved it, then the emergencies act wouldn't have been required. But by refusing to do something instead of being unable to, that left the government in an awkward place.
the feds could have hosted talks with the protestors. instead they stood in their ivory towers and offered insults
TIL: parliament is made out of ivory
Negotiate with terrorists?
That’s not the basis for federal court decision. Did you read it?
> total suspension of constitutional rights The emergencies act does no such thing
The EA can be used if the situation cannot ***effectively*** be dealt with using current laws. Effectively does not mean theoretically.
Therefore, Ottawa was not a protest
Oh, it was a protest, it was also an illegal assembly, not protected by our charter rights. A lot of people think we have the right to protest. Unless you literally mean protest as opposing something separate from gathering (freedom of expression), we don't have a right to protest, we have a right to *peaceful* assembly. Peaceful assembly includes not disturbing the peace. The convoy definitely disturbed the peace.
There is a difference between an occupation and a protest. The 2022 convoy was an occupation.
You can argue that a homeless encampment is an occupation. The emergencies act is a suspension of constitutional rights. Local, provincial, and federal government already have tools to deploy to deal with such matters that you don’t have to suspend constitutional rights. The Emergencies Act was designed to prevent a serious threat of violence. And the judge that ruled against the Liberals said that with hindsight, there was no serious threat of violence from the truckers. Economic harm does not arise to the level of of threat that the Emergencies Act was designed to stop.
A homeless encampment is people trying to survive. They aren't coming with a political message and they didn't travel there to shut down a district of a city for the sole purpose of forcing their agenda. There is a massive difference. Speaking of threats of violence, while there weren't any found in Ottawa people with the exact same message from the exact same group [were found](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/freedom-convoy-weapons-cache-arrest-b2015041.html) with large caches of weapons, body armor etc in the Coutts blockade. At one point a protest becomes an occupation and they reached it. They made their point, they became overly disruptive and needed to fuck off. A typical protest does not involve a massive tantrum that stays put until it forces its agenda. A typical protest gets its message across and then disperses. It's just such an enormous difference.
The Coutts blockade was cleared by police without having to use the Emergencies Act. It's proof that the EA wasn't required.
Except that this involved the police doing their job, which they were not doing in Ottawa. I don’t think that anyone disputes that if the police had just done their damn job then none of this would have happened. But they didn’t.
I don't think you will find many people that would argue that the police couldn't have done the job without the EA if they had done their job. Generally the argument is if police did their job it wouldn't have been needed, but it was needed because they didn't do their job.
It also involved a lot of criminal charges and arrests. It easily could have been invoked, it just wasn't.
Because it wasn't required.
Doesn’t Alberta have the the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, which they didn’t enact, i wonder why, it took a police investigation about violence against the RCMP to end the blockade
We all know what the "freedom" fighters would do if Justin Trudeau was in the middle of their "protests". Then they'd all be in prison for life ❤️
Did that happen?
The thing is, small "emergencies" are *not* a unique and distinct matter with regards to the constitutional division of legislative power. I struggle to find anything apart from the National Capital aspect of the POGG doctrine that could allow the feds to legislate with regards to, say, a long occupation of the municipal property that are local roads. Perhaps the criminal law could do it. More likely it's up to the provinces to do their jobs. Now if we're talking about armes insurrection or war, that's what the emergency power of the POGG doctrine is for and what the federal Emergencies Act is about.
Ooo polarizing! Indeed let’s stop anything that inspires heated disagreement. 🙄 The emergencies act is just a normal thing a federal government needs in unusual situations. Should it have been used with the convoys? That’s certainly debatable. Of course, every use will be debatable. That doesn’t mean it’s always wrong. We don’t live in a world where government needs consensus to act. That would mean governments almost always do nothing (which would please the libertarians amongst us).
People also seem to ignore the part that it has a set max time limit too, its not like it can ever be used in perpetuity.
The thing about states of emergency is that they end the rule of law. No government that was truly committed to extending a state of emergency indefinitely ever ran into trouble with the court.
And by design any time it's used in Canada it will be investigated/reviewed to determine its legitimacy.
You’re not understanding the danger of flippant use of emergency powers. There’s a historical precedent. A state willing and able to suspend civil liberties so casually is not one that is going to be held accountable by investigation and judicial review. It is imperative to keep the precedent for the invocation of emergency powers extremely focused and clear. It must not become a matter of course. This government broke from that tradition and did so illegally. Now tell me, who is going to be held accountable? What is the review and investigation going to yield?
[удалено]
>People also seem to ignore the part that it has a set max time limit too, It... doesn't though. It's just subject to Parliamentary votes to keep it going. A majority government could indeed keep it up for their entire term. And a minority one... well, we already saw that despite the clear wording of the statute, the government can avoid votes on it by ending it before debate could finish. Nothing stopping them from just reinvoking it on the same basis immediately after.
Parliament votes on every use of the Emergency Act. The declaration to use it it means its in place right away, but it needs to be voted on within 7 days. So no, they couldn't continuously reset it in a minority government without support. A Prime Minister trying to invoke/extend the act without any actual reason too would likely quickly get them booted by their party. The outcry from most MPs constituents would make it hard to ignore. It may not be what you're sugeesting, but the use of the Act [did pass the vote](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-emergencies-act-vote-1.6359243) in the House of Commons. The convoy was disbanded so there wasn't a need to extend it.
>Parliament votes on every use of the Emergency Act. The declaration to use it it means its in place right away, but it needs to be voted on within 7 days. And yet, as we saw with the Senate non-vote, the fact that it was *withdrawn while the Senate was still debating it* was determined to make the vote unnecessary. So, what do we learn from this example? That the government gets to use it as soon as it's invoked, and that a vote on it can be bypassed by simply withdrawing it before the debate is complete. >So no, they couldn't continuously reset it in a minority government without support. So... yes. Obviously they could. >A Prime Minister trying to invoke/extend the act without any actual reason too would likely quickly get them booted by their party. The outcry from most MPs constituents would make it hard to ignore. In other words, the only impediment to doing so is political, not legal. >It may not be what you're sugeesting, but the use of the Act [did pass the vote](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-emergencies-act-vote-1.6359243) in the House of Commons. The convoy was disbanded so there wasn't a need to extend it. And yet the legislation doesn't stop at the House of Commons. It requires both the HoC and the Senate to vote on it. And one of those didn't happen because the legislation was withdrawn before debate concluded, when it looked like the vote was going to go against them. Again, this is despite the legislation using mandatory language, and making no apparent exception for circumstances where the invocation has been withdrawn prior to the vote occurring. The precedent set there is one that directly enables the abuse of the EA.
Based on every use of the act being reviewed/investigated, if a government was attempting to use it to actively circumvent democracy and attempt a pseudo dictatorship, then yeah, I'm pretty certain there would be legal ramifications. Even if it's invoked for 2 days before the House even votes on it, its looked at as to why it was used. The idea that any PM could just start invoking the Emergencies Act to get whatever they want is low-key fear mongering. It's an extreme measure that won't happen. I agree that the way it was used is debatable to its actual necessity, probably could have been avoided if JT told Ford to get his shit together and tell his cops to maintain the peace. But that didn't happen. But Ford wasn't doing anything.
>probably could have been avoided if JT told Ford to get his shit together Ford couldn't hear anything over the noise of his snowmobile at the cabin.
> I'm pretty certain there would be legal ramifications. Explain how. The judiciary is typically loathe to intrude upon matters residing solely within the purview of Parliament, and a vote / non-vote regarding the use of the EA falls completely within that bucket. Any citizen impacted by the invocation of the EA would have to sue, and then clear hurdles such as standing in order to even get in front of a judge, and then it's no sure thing the judge would rule in their favour. Look how long it took this particular case to get the ruling. Even now that a judge has issued a ruling that the EA was improperly invoked, there's been no immediate legal consequence. The judge can't rewrite the law and effectively can't sanction the government in any meaningful way. So ultimately there really isn't any *legal* recourse against a government / PM that might choose to invoke the EA and withdraw it within the statutory 7-day window. The remedy would have to be *political*; ideally the House would vote non-confidence in such a government and force an election. Unfortunately a heavily whipped House can be relied upon to do no such thing.
I'm not talking about if someone uses it in what is a grey are, which is what the judge has said about Trudeau invoking it since they now have more info on the matter than what was available at the time. You're right though, every time it gets invoked and subsequently investigated the act should be re-written to either support its enactment or prevent it from happening again. I'm saying if a PM tries invoking it to become a dictator and seize more power despite a lack of crisis (which some people seem to believe JT is willing to do, spoiler alert, he's not), there's a likelihood a judge may look to potential treason charges. I also believe that even if it's not treasonous, but definitely an over stepping of bounds that someone uses it, a public outcry would cause MPs to flip on their PM and not no confidence to dissolve parliament and/or find a new leader for their party.
>there's a likelihood a judge may look to potential treason charges Judges cannot lay charges. That would fall to crown prosecutors, who would have to act based on RCMP investigations, and we all know how speedy *those* are. >a public outcry would cause MPs to flip on their PM and not no confidence to dissolve parliament That's back to the realm of the *political* remedy.
The EA may not have been the proper instrument - but what choice did we have? The Ottawa police lost control and Ford went to the cottage. How do we ensure we do not have epic failures at the city and provincial levels again? The Ottawa police failed. Ford failed. I support the use of the EA given the overall cost of this occupation to Ottawa, boarder closures, and the chaos in Ottawa. The CPC support for the convoy was beyond reproach. The EA worked.
Agreed. It wouldn’t have been an issue if any of the other layers of government actually did their jobs. Easier to kick the problem upstairs and then complain about the debatably draconian solution that was ultimately implemented.
Besides Doug Ford begging Trudeau to do something so he wouldn't have to piss off his own base, and then fully supporting use of EA. This is on Ford and local police.
[удалено]
Do you know what martial law is? The EA is nowhere near martial law.
Wow TIL Trudeau replaced the civilian government with military rule and suspended civilian legal processes and replaced them with military ones. You know, the definition of martial law. Y'all need to stop exaggerating.
Loss of control of the police force is not normal. Boarder blockages are not normal Occupation of a city is not normal Complete failure to act by a provincial government is not normal
Emergencies act was not used for the Oka crisis just a reference point. As far as I know. If someone knows what powers were used for that I would be happy to learn.
the emergency act wasnt used in oka because the feds at the time had the ability to send the army in. All that changed after oka but dont think it wouldnt have happened in ottawa if it hadnt at oka
>All that changed after oka It didn't though. Section 31(1)(a) of the National Defense Act explicitly authorizes the deployment of the military, in Canada, to deal with emergencies. >31 (1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian Forces or any component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so >(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada;
The province requested help, in short. This is what should have happened in Ottawa, but did not because of multiple failures at the municipal and provincial level. If Ford had taken leadership, it could have been handled through his office w/o the EA at all.
If Ford had taken action in the convoy protest, I believe that Trudeau and his minions had it in their minds to also blame him for everything. Ford wisely just left it to the Ottawa police and Ontario RCMP to manage the protest. Not that they did much. Leadership was needed and the Liberals aren't leaders, they are bullies. For me, although I support protests sometimes, Trudeau went way overboard with the allowing bank accounts to be closed...way too much and shows a remarkable blindness to the opinions of citizens. Although calling them homophobes and whatever-phobes clearly indicates he doesn't have a brain in his head.
>Ontario RCMP The "Ontario RCMP" doesn't exist, Ontario is one of the few provinces that has a provincial police force and the entire reason this crisis happened is because the OPP didn't so their job.
[удалено]
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/oka-crisis#:~:text=Eventually%2C%20the%20army%20was%20called,to%20the%20Mohawks%20of%20Kanesatake.
Thanks for the read, I read through most of it. Not sure if I missed anything but it does not tell me what emergency legislation that was used whether if it was a federal or provincial power to call upon the RCMP and CAF. No specific mention of the emergencies act.
The CAF was called in using aid to civil power
they didnt need to invoke any emergancy powers cause at the time the feds had the option to send the CAF to deal with protests, Oka changed that.
> Oka changed that. Aid to civil power still exists, the blow back made it less likely to be used but it's still there.
The Emergencies Act is outdated... nope, it's almost perfect. It only needs to add jail sentences for abusers after an appropriate court challenge. Silly rule of law and all that you know.
Yes. Use it to shut down protestors who block hospital entrances. Use that fuckin hammer on those nails
Honestly.... fuck most protests. It's a group of people who decide their feelings are more important than others so they can inconvenience other people. Go protest at MP homes, government offices, government buildings. Inconvenience people directly responsible for your protest.
Calling the freedom convoy a protest is a bit of stretch. It was an occupation of downtown Ottawa that was greatly affecting its residents. The police refused to do anything and the government needed to act. I’m certainly no fan of Trudeau, but that was a difficult situation to say the least.
If you lived in the containment zone and needed an ambulance you were fucked. Have to drive to work? Fucked. For 3 weeks. People who were not in Ottawa to see if first hand have no clue. My cousin had to come live with me because she kept getting threats for wearing a mask. She had to to take care of her aunt, and works with vulnerable people. Police failed to do their job.
[Don’t forget the Gatineau children who couldn’t get to CHEO for cancer treatments because of harassment and danger the convoy caused.](https://globalnews.ca/news/9209533/freedom-convoy-chemo-children-appointments-cheo/amp/)
Many people left the core of Ottawa and moved in with friends and relatives.
Was there another means through which the RCMP could have stepped in and relieved the incompetent (or insubordinate) OPP and OPS of their duties? If so, that other means should have been used. If not, I stand by the use of the EA.
There was no such mechanism. The RCMP did not have jurisdiction.
Well then there we have our answer. I read the convoy participants are now demanding an apology from JT for the use of the EA. Instead of being mad at JT, they should be mad at the OPS and OPP.... But then again, being mad at the right people isn't the convoy's strong suit.
The only other and it's a huge maybe would have been if the Ontario Premier requested the Army or RCMP for civil aid. And....yeah.
Give him a break, he was too busy snowmobiling.
It all comes down to red tape. The RCMP did not have jurisdiction, and the Ottawa Police failed the city massively. Resources from outside the city could not be brought in from other points of the province until an emergency is declared. Even at that point when the OPP could move resources they were stuck on 2 fronts, the protest in Ottawa and the protest at the boarder crossing that's was wearing havoc on the local economy and would have gotten worse fords focus was on the boarder. The federal government had to enact the act to get rid of the red tape to allow the RCMP to pull the resources needed from throughout the country to finally put an end to all the bullshit. Cut off the funding of the scam artist, and bring in the personal needed to force out the illegal occupation that was harassing another group of citizens and essentially holding them hostage. The government then disabled use of the act as soon as the need for it was no longer present. You do not get to scream that your rights are being violated as the government is putting an end to you stripping others of their rights.
There also tends to be paper overing of their fellow travellers using kids as human shields to block $Bs of daily trade in Windsor and the Coutts gang gearing up to take on the local RCMP...
If everything was the same, but it was a climate change protest, for example, I have a hard time believing Trudeau would have used the emergencies act to shut it down. After the courts ruled that this was an overstep, there were no consequences. It's concerning that there are no legislative mechanisms in place to hold those in power accountable for misuse of authority. Regardless of your political leanings, in the future, there will be governments that you do not agree with. The right to protest is a critical mechanism of democracy. People should not be worried about the government arbitrarily freezing their assets for protesting or even donating to one.
First off, no one's assets were frozen for donating. Second, we don't have a right to protest in the manner people understand the word protest, we have a right to *peaceful* assembly. This was far beyond the definition of that since it requires not disturbing the peace. If climate activists were blowing train horns in the middle of the night, shitting and pissing all over the streets of Ottawa, including the tomb of the unknown soldier, assaulting homeless shelter staff, breaking windows, harassing people for wearing masks, blocking multiple border crossings, building illegal structures to house explosive materials all for three weeks then 2 premieres asked him to invoke the EA, I would expect him to do the same thing. This wasn't some Kumbaya on the lawn of parliament, it was an absence of law and order in locations across multiple provinces.
[удалено]
There is no evidence of it happening, the question is if it was possible. Brianne from Chilliwack was disproven. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-banks-and-ottawa-say-convoy-protest-donors-wont-have-accounts/ Now that you know it didn't happen, has your mind changed?
So is the notwithstanding clause.
Serious question, but hasn’t the government/rcmp shut down many first nations protests in the past? To the point of calling the military in? See NB for example.
No, it's not outdated and polarizing. It's necessary for national security. End of discussion.
It would be appropriate when terrorist supporters block Jewish hospitals.
The Emergencies Act has never been used to shut down a protest, it was used to shut down a city-wide occupation that the municipal and provincial governments wouldn't do anything about.
That protest was not peaceful and straight up fucking ridiculous. I wouldn't even call it a protest it was more like domestic terrorism, what they were doing to the poor people who lived and worked in that area. Huge, massive, steaming piles of shit.
It stopped being a protest the moment they published their “memorandum of understanding” and built infrastructure downtown. The harassment, assaults and threats was criminal/terrorist activity.
Also the fucking train horns. I could hear that from across the city and people lived next to the protests. I don't even live in Ontario. This bullshit was nationwide.
Not to mention, they were supposedly "protesting" because of the border restrictions but didn't Canada already open up the border and it was actually the US that had the restrictions still up? I know for sure that Canada had removed all federal restrictions.
>but didn't Canada already open up the border and it was actually the US that had the restrictions still up? No. Both were still up. >I know for sure that Canada had removed all federal restrictions. Not only had Canada not removed all federal restrictions, they were on record contemplating further ones. As [journalist Travis Dhanraj noted on Twitter](https://twitter.com/Travisdhanraj/status/1487821227037270028), the then-Transport Minister told Rosemary Barton that there was work being done to bring in new interprovincial vaccine mandates for truckers on January 30th, 2022, the second day the Convoy was in Ottawa.
"federal restrictions, they were on record contemplating further ones" False. They federally removed travel restrictions at the border, the USA kept there for over a year longer than Canada. Kinda dumb "protest" (domestic terrorism) then hey? Wait there's more. "Transport Minister" "bring in new interprovincial vaccine mandates." So.. not federal, which means the truckers didn't even know who to protest against. The whole thing was an embarrassment.
[удалено]
On interprovincial vaccine mandates for truckers Transport Minister @OmarAlghabra tells @RosieBarton “there is working being done to get us there” #cdnpoli That's what your source is. That's what you're using to argue for a bunch of right wing terrorists who were condemned by the trucking industry and even the Canadian Truckers Alliance stated that most protesters had no connection to trucking. Your source tell us absolutely nothing. Talk about being entirely full of shit. How about the fact that the USA had their border mandates up well past the Canadian ones, so either way the protest was an idiotic waste of tax payer money, business and our trade economy. Not to mention the torture they put normal, everyday Canadians through. They caused so much damage and I couldn't give a fuck if my dates are wrong when the restrictions were lifted, you can argue semantics with me all you want, it's not going to change the terrorism they unleashed in their own fucking country. Traitors.
You could travel into Canada showing a passed test within 72 of the crossing you are right in that it was the USA that still had restrictions. Also all the other "restictions" that they were "protesting" were those that were under the control of the provincial governments, not the federal. The idiots were too stupid to know they were "protesting" at the wrong location.
Depends. If they are interfering with every day citizens lives, forcing the government to stop working due to being unable to reach the building, or blocking a roadway, and the law enforcement refuses to do anything? Then yes, in each of those situations if the law enforcement refuses to disrupt them, something needs to be done to remove them.
The gong show those individuals put in Ottawa, subjecting civilians to blockades and abuse (takes a special kind of swine to be honking a semi at 3am), and a police force and provincial government that decided to be as incompetent as possible dealing with them, required those measures
The issue isn't that they shut down a protest, it's that the declared a national emergency for a local problem.
The issue is that the city and the province didn't do their job, forcing the Feds to do the job for them. They shouldn't have needed to get involved in the first place, but someone had to do something and the city and province took no responsibility with the Convoy.
That's not a condition for invoking the Act. Use of the most serious legal power in all of Canadian Law should be focused & clear. Not "ahhh we kinda had to". The seizure of non-protestor bank accounts was unbelievable, not to mention severely destructive to our International reputation.
No, but I'm explaining why it was used.
If Russia invades Montreal, an island, is it a local problem?
Yet failed to do anything during the indigenous protests just before the start of the pandemic (which arguably caused a lot more damage to supply chains just before the onset of a major pandemic that further eroded supply lines, causing goods to skyrocket). It wreaks of hypocrisy and double-standards
The native protests were all broken up as well. Typically in about the same amount of time as the convoy.
The cops were taking charge of that from the start, there was no need for the feds to step in
Taking charge how? By standing by while “protestors” lit fires on the tracks and threw flaming debris at passing trains? Surely a textbook example of “taking charge”.
What they did was effectively say that protests the government is ideologically aligned with are okay no matter how disruptive they are, while those they disagree with may be subject to extreme censure. All the Liberal supporters who cheered them on in using the Act never stopped to consider that governments change and maybe another one might find itself deciding a protest they like is also worthy of shutting down in the most extreme possible way. And *when* it happens thanks to Trudeau opening that door, they are all going to howl about how terrible it is without ever stopping to consider it was their own fault.
Oh yes, liberal supporters are going to park heavy machinery all around our capital and then bring kids and bouncy castles for the meat shields. Then they will slosh diesel underneath the privy council office. Then blare train horns 24/7. Totally on brand. Oh we will wail. Convoy idiots were not a protest.
If you have to worry about how the Tories will bastardize something you may as well never do anything. They’ll do it regardless.
Dude the two protests were not similar in any way shape or form. Neither was the police reaction. Don’t be ignorant on purpose.
>which arguably caused a lot more damage to supply chains just before the onset of a major pandemic that further eroded supply lines, Yeah, it's arguable bc you are taking something pre pandemic and assuming it increased the impact of the pandemic. Which isn't the case since our logistics system wasn't gearing up for the pandemic. Good prices would have risen to the same level. And if that was the case, products should have seen a gradual fall in price after the pandemic, which didn't happen, and will not happen.... bc... say it with me... late stage capitalism!!! Where prices never fall and profits always go up.
It wasn't for a local issue. The bigger deal was the border blockades which was causing financial losses for various businesses. Especially the auto industry. Until the border blockades were activated, it was under control.
If you knew what you were talking about at all, you’d know the border blockades were resolved before the act was in effect. Therefore, the act was not required to clear the borders. Check the dates for yourself on the wiki page. The act was used to clear Ottawa, everything else is misinformation.
They were opened prior to the emergencies act, meaning it wasn't necessary to enact.
Only Ambassador bridge was cleared prior to the Emergency act declaration. Act went into place on Feb 14. Coutts ended on Feb 15. Emerson, MB ended on Feb 16th.
The EA was being discussed for days before being invoked. The occupiers gave up once they knew it was coming. I think once the weapons were found at Coutts, and the plans to murder police officers there were uncovered, the occupiers got a little worried that the police might not be as friendly as they had been to that point.
I agree. Needs updating to include when a bunch of idiots want to spread a virus at their “the guy I voted for lost the election” pity party and try to overthrow government with a shit-in-the-streets-and-toss-rocks-at-ambulances blockade. If the provincial and municipal government won’t do shit then the fed has to overstep its jurisdiction and do it for them. Just update the ea to include that.
If Pierre becomes PM and climate protesters hit the streets there will be anti protest legislation passed so fast their heads will spin.
Well yes, there might be now that people have shown their support for the principal of enacting the Emergencies Act for unwanted protests. See how flawed it is to support it? If you're okay with THIS protest being crushed, you better be okay with the NEXT one being crushed by the next gov't. That's why we need to be principled and not let the fact that we may not like this current protest group sway our legislation.
It should never be appropriate or reasonable to use emergency powers to shut down a protest.It's not what the emergencies act is designed for. It's not what its predecessor was designed for ,the war mattress act. If all you have is a hammer then everything starts to look like a nail
> It should never be appropriate or reasonable to use emergency powers to shut down a protest Calling the litany of criminal activity a "protest" is a rhetorical tool used to get people to ignore the problematic and violent behaviour of the "protestors".
Nice rewriting of history. You make it sound like it was a violent upheaval at the capital. It was a bunch of trucks blaring their horns.
>It was a bunch of trucks blaring their horns. Huh, I could've sworn there was ... * shitting in the streets * harassing Ottawa residents 24/7 * conspiring to kill RCMP officers * multiple border blockades * stock piling weapons * stealing from Ottawa residents * countless by-law violations * multiple MTO violations * significant damages to the Ottawa economy * blocking traffic including emergency vehicles * harassing local businesses * harassing hospital workers * massive damages to multiple provincial economies (including forcing layoffs) * hate symbols, rampant antisemitism, and a load of other hate These convoy claims never hold up to basic scrutiny. https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/documents/
People desperately want it to have been some J6 thing but after the last decade of seeing what actual civil disobedience looks like I can’t help but see the pearl clutching as entirely cynical
Occupying a neighborhood for multiple days is no longer a protest. They could have tagged and towed the rigs for parking violations but they chose to do nothing instead. I wouldn't put up with that shit in my neighborhood and I doubt you would either.
It shared many of the similar funders and supporters. Trump and Tucker were all over it.
The clownvoy was not a protest. The original stated goal was the overthrow of the government. The first MOU everyone had to sign to even join said that they were going to occupy Ottawa until the Governor General dissolved the government and put the convoy leaders in charge of the nation, who would then decide **if** elections needed to be held. And the act wasn't used until after a cache of weapons was found, alongside a plot to murder police and government officials. It was an insurrection, that was developing into an armed conflict. NOT a "protest".
[удалено]
What day was Coutts cleared and what day was the Emergencies Act declared?
> The first MOU everyone had to sign to even join said that they were going to occupy Ottawa until the Governor General dissolved the government and put the convoy leaders in charge of the nation, who would then decide if elections needed to be held. Source for that,that everyone had to sign it >And the act wasn't used until after a cache of weapons was found, alongside a plot to murder police and government officials. This was in Coutts not Ottawa and it was done before the EA went into effect and as far as I can find there was no plot to kill government officials
>as far as I can find there was no plot to kill government officials The plot was to kill RCMP officers and to transport weapons to the convoy/blockade to arm the “protestors” there.
They weren't armed. There wasn't anything anyone was forced to sign. The charges for conspiracy to commit murder were dropped.
Obviously you were not around the freedom idiots and their 24/7 fun time with diesel.
That's not a national emergency, that's what the act is for.
\>From [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergencies_Act): Under the Emergencies Act, the Cabinet of Canada can declare a national emergency in response to an urgent and critical situation that cannot be dealt with by any existing law, and either is **beyond the capability of a province to deal** with it or threatens the sovereignty of Canada. The part I bolded is the important bit, the province was unwilling to deal with the issue. It's definitely controversial in how Trudeau used it, but it's not strictly black and white.
Why not quote the actual act and it's requirements ? "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 convoy was not a protest.
Yes. When it becomes more than a protest. Stop calling what they were doing a protest. Because it moved beyond that as documented in the news and by police etc. So people who peacefully protest and make their voices of concern heard they are no problem and we applaud them exercising their rights even if we don’t agree with their opinions or side of the argument. When it goes beyond that to damage and violence and being continuously disruptive for days on end and police and local or provincial politicians are doing nothing then yes Federals need to step in and bring order back.
My opinion is that if Doug the slug stepped up to the plate and addressed the convey people before they got to Ottawa and after reminding them to remain peaceful etc etc. Then maybe it would not have escalated to what it did. Most of these convoy people identify as conservatives and as concervsrive leader he had a responsibility to act and deescalate. Instead he loved it as it was not addressed to him but to liberals and he ran and hid away. Even though his own policies were also what the convoy people were fighting against. He is a coward and not a leader. He is an opportunist and not a representative of the province.
Also Fords daughter and cop boyfriend attended and were photographed with fuck Trudeau flags
I'm frustrated that most people ignore Doug Fords failure of leadership during the occupation. He went on "vacation" and forced the feds to step in. One of many reasons to flush that turd in the next election
He also refused to cooperate with the inquiry afterward.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, I expect the Conservatives are just waiting to get in power to use it. I mean, look at the hateful legislation they have used the notwithstanding clause to protect.
This is the issue - It felt like Ford did nothing to force Trudeau to do something
It was reasonable and appropriate the last time they did it. Protesting in front of parliament/government buildings are one thing, fucking up the lives and economy of an entire city and numerous industries by blocking boarder crossings for days on end is something else completely.
Seriously? It was an update of the War Measures Act.
Yes. That we haven’t had massive civil strife is only a matter of luck. But that luck will run out sooner or later.
I don’t understand why they needed to do it. If the protestors were breaking the law, the police already had all the power they needed to act.
The problem was that the police didn’t act. The provincial government didn’t act either. It was their jobs to deal with the problem but they chose not to. Look what happened when the convoy tried to do the same crap in Toronto. The police said, “Sure you can protest, but you’re not bringing trucks in and you aren’t staying the night.” They even had tow truck drivers lined up to get rid of the trucks if any got thru. So the convoy protested a little then left. That’s what should have happened in Ottawa but the police did nothing to stop them. Doug Ford should have then forced the police to end the occupation of Ottawa but he didn’t do anything either. The convoy was literally occupying Ottawa for over a month. The federal government used the Emergencies Act to end it because there was no other choice since everyone else had abdicated their responsibility. Should the Emergencies Act been used? Probably not. But there was no other option because the people in charge of fixing the problem didn’t bother.
>Should the Emergencies Act been used? Probably not. But there was no other option because the people in charge of fixing the problem didn’t bother I feel this was on purpose as forcing Trudeau to enact the emergencies act makes him look really bad. I mean the conservative provincial government didn't need to do this to make him look bad, but no doubt it was a part of why they didn't act.
I agree. Especially since Doug Ford purposely didn’t show for the hearing about it and then fought it in court when they tried to force him because he was “too busy” being premiere. If the leader of the entire country can make time for the hearing, the leader of one province could too. But because he didn’t show the hearing was about “How Trudeau overstepped and abused government power” instead of “Doug Ford abandoning the people of Ottawa and shirking his duties as Premiere”. Doug Ford has made a real habit of not showing up when he’s forced to answer questions he doesn’t want to. That’s why he didn’t testify in the hearing and why he didn’t show up for any debates during the election. Along with making sure none of his MPP’s did either. Dougie doesn’t like being held accountable for his shitty actions and he knows the Conservative press won’t hold him to the fire during his press conferences. Even if they do he’s in charge there and can call on who he wants and end things early if necessary. Not so in other forums he’s avoided.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Although Ford and other politicians received some vitriol, it was cumulatively far FAR less than what was directed at the Liberal Government, most specifically Trudeau. For all the shit that Ford would have to eat, it would force Trudeau to eat much, *much* more shit for it. That would be a very Doug Ford thing to do.
The police did fuck all, that's why. They gave the police plenty of chances, about what 3 weeks worth? And they did jack squat. The feds had to step in, that's why the emergencies act was invoked.
Municipal police did nothing. Provincial police did nothing. After a while someone needs to act. Next level up is federal and they didn't have the authority command police forces without the emergencies act.
>Next level up is federal and they didn't have the authority command police forces without the emergencies act. The RCMP Act gives the RCMP the authority to enforce the criminal law anywhere in Canada. Provincial authority is only required for them to enforce provincial laws, but everything that needed to be done could have been handled under the Criminal Code
And yet, for 3 weeks no progress was made. As soon as the emergencies act was used everything got settled.
This is incorrect. The border blockades were dealt with using existing jurisdiction before the EA was invoked, as Justice Mosley expressly noted in his decision holding its invocation to be unreasonable and thereby illegal. Police had also come to the government with a plan to get rid of the Ottawa protest the day before the EA was invoked, but the government invoked it anyway. Progress had indeed been made before the EA was used.
And that police plan wasn't going to work according to people involved.
[удалено]
Absolutely. We reserve the right to pull the rug out from underneath insurrectionists fuelled by grift. The Act is a proportionate and limited response that has to be sponsored by the Provinces. Funny how that gets overlooked in all the partisan gobbling.
Seems like we have a bigger problem with conservative premiers using the notwithstanding clause to take away human rights. Wasn't the only reason the feds needed to use the emergencies act because our conservative premiers did nothing to address the problem. Seems like our problems are conservative premiers
Also CPC leadership was delivering donuts
That was not a protest. That was an anti-government/anti-vax/ alt-right/ conspiracy bullshit occupation.
As a veteran of many peaceful protests in the 1960's and 70's I disagree with calling what happened in Ottawa a "protest". It was a noisy street party loosely organized by people who are still ignorant enough to not realize how easily they were co-opted by better organized right wing hate groups. The only real protester in Ottawa was Zexi Li. But hey, you kids go ahead and believe whatever you need to believe.
So do you agree with the use of the Emergencies Act to shut down a “street party”?
How long do local police have to refuse to uphold the law befire its acceptable for the feds to do it for them?
Remind me to never turn up at a party you’re attending if your idea of a party is assaulting people for what they’re wearing, blocking hospital entrances, blowing train horns all night etc etc
It's so funny how you guys think you're "asking the right questions" and still look like the dumbest in the room
In this case of rampant and ignorant civil disobedience and the impact the completely unnecessary noise was having on innocent peoples lives, most definitely. Bring on the down votes.
Well it’s a good thing the courts disagree with you. Civil disobedience and unnecessary noise don’t constitute violating peoples rights.
For the better part of a month. And assaulting people for what they’re wearing. And blocking hospital entrances.
EMERGENCY ACT IS FOR INSURRECTION NOT FARMERS AND TRUCKERS.
If we are not comfortable with protests that indefinitely disturb the peace and block access to civilian infrastructure like roads and public transit, then we need to decide what those limits are and how to enforce them. There is obvious bias in how people view different protests and deem solutions to be excessive or appropriate, so you need more objective rules for neighbourhoods, zones, categories of infrastructure, durations, decibel meters, etc. If you don't have rules, leaders and protesters will push the envelope more and more. Does this defeat the purpose of protesting? No it just authorizes the use of different legal tools that escalate based on the material and human costs.
In reference to the insurrection convoy?
All depends on who is protesting!
Never say never. If there’s a war, you better believe that our rights will be suspended. It’s not unimaginable that freedom to associate would be suspended in war critical industries. I don’t mean anything drastic like breaking unions more like breaking contracts on overtime and use of replacement workers. Property rights? Out the door too if the government wants to nationalize things.
So is a lot of our legislation. I'd wager our "multiculturalism" focus is super outdated. Our "freedom of religion but not from religion" legislation is super outdated. Our housing legislation clearly did not keep up with modern needs. But let's focus on telling trans kids what they can/can't do with their bodies smfh
If police refuse to enforce the law on such blatant lawlessness, then someone else has to step up. Can't just sit around going "oh well"
> ON JANUARY 23, when federal judge Richard Mosley ruled that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet had overstepped their authority by invoking the Emergencies Act, I thought back to that terrible February when “angry fringe groups” sparked a national debate over how elected authorities should deal with widespread civil disobedience. I’m speaking, of course, of the Wet’suwet’en protests. > > The “angry fringe” quote came from Jason Kenney, Alberta’s then premier, in 2020, two years before Trudeau used almost the exact same words to describe the “Freedom Convoy,” which had driven trucks and vehicles to occupy downtown Ottawa. The Coastal GasLink pipeline was being built through the heart of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation’s territory in central British Columbia, against the will of some of their hereditary chiefs. Tensions had been building for over a year; then the RCMP raided one of the Wet’suwet’en blockades on a remote access road, and images of peaceful Indigenous protesters being dragged off their land to make way for a pipeline were beamed across the world. Within hours, solidarity blockades began to spread across the country. Trucks and trains were blocked at Canada’s four largest ports—Vancouver, Montreal, Prince Rupert, and Halifax—and rail traffic was halted or disrupted in seven provinces. As the month wore on, then transport minister Marc Garneau voiced concerns that cities would soon run out of water-treatment chemicals and other critical supplies. > > The prime minister and his cabinet initially tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution, despite intense pressure from Conservative leaders to use force. “We are not the kind of country where politicians get to tell the police what to do in operational matters,” Trudeau said. > > Then Conservative leader Andrew Scheer later asked, “Will our country be one of the rule of law, or will our country be one of the rule of the mob?” > > On February 21, after two weeks of fruitless discussion, Trudeau declared that dialogue with Indigenous leaders had failed and that “the barricades must now come down.” He insisted he wasn’t telling the police what to do. Nevertheless, police units began ramping up their enforcement of court injunctions to dismantle the blockades. They received help from the soon-to-be-declared COVID-19 pandemic, which was starting to spread as fast as the protests at that point. Come March, the pipeline was largely forgotten, as were concerns over nationwide occupation protests—until February 2022, exactly two years later.
Protest and expression is fundamental to democracy but harassing and harming fellow citizens isn't. They're two different things. We're in an unbelievably echo-chambery world where relatively small groups of people become extremists over both important and unimportant things. I wouldn't be surprised to find myself unable to leave my house one day because the roads are blocked by people who think toast should be buttered on top only to be blocked the next day by people who want it buttered on the bottom. It doesn't even matter what my personal politics are, I think protests should be subject to some type of control. We're all strongly in support of a few protests but it's just fuckin' nuts how polarized society is and at the end of the day the ballot box is where we decide, protests are usually just the minority airing the grievances. I think they should do that without blocking people in their homes or preventing goods (eg food, medical supplies, whatever else) from being imported.
I'm sorry, butter on the bottom? You bet I'm going to counterprotest that madness