Saw that on tv.
Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]
- Thread starter Quirky
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,568
- Points
- 1,260
He’s a boot licking toadie and will be under bussed when JT needs a scapegoat
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,213
- Points
- 1,010
With very senior government bureaucrats flirting with the reasons for invoking the EA, here's a reminder of a few important legal definitions:
Emergencies Act Emergencies Act
Declaration of a public order emergency
17(1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.
a public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency;
threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the CSIS Act.
a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
CSIS Act Section 2 Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act
threats to the security of Canada means
Emergencies Act Emergencies Act
Declaration of a public order emergency
17(1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.
a public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency;
threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the CSIS 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
CSIS Act Section 2 Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act
threats to the security of Canada means
- (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
- (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
- (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
- (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
- Reaction score
- 27,570
- Points
- 1,090
Paper was apparent disclosed in camera.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,213
- Points
- 1,010
There was some language about what the government can interpret as a threat to the security of Canada beyond the CSIS section 2 definition.Interesting that we don’t have a paper/electronic trail of CSIS Director’s advice to government, just his verbal testimony.
The potential problem arising from these lines of testimony (also came up with the NSA) suggests the government believes it can broadly interpret legal definitions beyond what the specific definitions in law are... in this case; what constituted a threat to the security of Canada, which wasn't made out in CSIS Act S. 2, as CSIS stated. This floating interpretation is troublesome.
But considering all other things that so vexed the government of the day (things such as "shitposting" and international embarrassment), the government felt the security of Canada as a sovereign nation was totally at risk... (and if they say it enough, we'll all surely believe it).
TacticalTea
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,485
- Points
- 1,160
As far as I know, that interpretation makes no sense; laws that grant powers to the government are supposed to be interpreted in a restrictive manner.
#NotALawyer, though, so take that with a grain of salt.
What I do find funny is this coming out right after the Director's comments:
Bit of give and take, ya?
- Reaction score
- 1,517
- Points
- 1,260
He must have been.
Seeing Ottawa police lose control of their streets, he likely remembered his days on the old Metro force.
Control the streets at all times. Give no slack and take no sh%t from anyone.
Running people out of Yorkville, off the Yonge Street strip and Rochdale College. Sometimes on horse back.
Doug Ford
- Reaction score
- 22,076
- Points
- 1,360
I read that Vigneault mentioned the details of briefing the PM in camera, but not that there was an actual product presented.
Given the PM’s floppy-floppy position on other things CSIS has, or hasn’t, or has again, or still hasn’t briefed the PM (and/or cabinet…which the PM may have forgotten he is a part of), I seriously question the voracity of anything that any of our public servants are alleged to have said, but for which there is no physical proof of having taken place…
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,727
- Points
- 1,160
I wonder if felt a little twinge during the G7/G20 events in Toronto.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,255
- Points
- 1,160
Pretty good rundown, and tracking of the statutory requirements and legal criteria discussed farther upthread.
Just to offer one point of clarification - and this isn’t coming from you saying anything incorrect, but just to expound on one point - the importation of the term “threat to the security of Canada” from the CSIS act does not mean that, for the purpose of invoking the EA, that determination has to be made by CSIS. It simply means that the criteria to be met include that definition.
The Governor General must believe that such a threat exists to proclaim the emergency regulations. Or, in practice, under our constitutional principle of Responsible Government, the GG is responsive to such a belief being held by Cabinet and, in particular, the PM.
Ultimately the buck stops with Trudeau on this, and all testimony prior to his will simply be building towards him having to articulate why he formed the opinion that a ‘threat to the security of Canada’ was present, as well as the other requisite criteria of the EA.
- Reaction score
- 6,701
- Points
- 1,140
I expect that articulation will include a few ummms, ahhhhs, and maybe a drinking box water thing.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,392
- Points
- 1,260
You might be expecting more than he can give....
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,213
- Points
- 1,010
Unless I've missed it, I have not yet heard evidence presented that there existed:
1. threats to the security of Canada (as defined in CSIS Act S. 2); and
2. a national emergency (as defined in the EA).
To invoke the EA, both of these should be easily and clearly articulable by the various senior bureaucrats.
1. threats to the security of Canada (as defined in CSIS Act S. 2); and
2. a national emergency (as defined in the EA).
To invoke the EA, both of these should be easily and clearly articulable by the various senior bureaucrats.
I agree that those are the boxes to tick. I’m not necessarily convinced that the whole range of senior bureaucrats would each have had a sufficiently fulsome picture. It sounds like there were a few info silos, and some varied cross-talk between departments and across levels of government. It also sounds like the perception at the very top continued to evolve right up until invocation, and that even being a half day behind the loop at the time the decision was made could mean an individual bureaucrat could be missing an important part of the picture. For the purpose of the commission, what matters is what people can articulate about what they knew, perceived, and believed at the time.
The decision was made at the very top, and info flowed up to the PM who made his call based on the totality. I want to know what he has to say.
I am not yet convinced one way or another, but I consider the onus to be on the PM to explain why he believed it necessary under the criteria you identified.
I’ve not been in a position to compare her testimony to the statement she gave or to the documents she submitted. While the public testimony has mostly been the more sensational and noticeable part of this, the commission has also received and published thousands of documents, some in camera, which will form part of the body of evidence they consider. I actually doubt that the oral testimony will add much that wasn’t previously obtained by the commission through statements and documentary evidence. The testimonial portion mostly seems like a means by which the various parties who were granted standing can test the veracity and interpretation of the submitted evidence. And, of course the oral testimony is how we in the public become aware of much of this unless we’re actively digging through documents, or reading the work of others who have… I just don’t have the time to do much of that.
- Reaction score
- 1,414
- Points
- 1,160
You expect Trudeau to tell the truth? Ever? The master of obfuscation.
I have no particular expectations for this commission- but I do know that a ton of written correspondence and briefings were generated during the convoys and have been submitted to the commission. Anything the Prime Minister states or claims will be tested against those receipts.
Similar threads
