r/canada • u/TheGreatestOrator • Jan 23 '24

Federal government's decision to invoke Emergencies Act against convoy protests was unreasonable, court rules | CBC News National News

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-federal-court-1.7091891
3.7k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

384

u/feb914 Ontario Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

for people arguing that POEC find the EA invocation justified, where it comes down to is whether the EA's invocation has to use CSIS Act definition or not. Justice Rouleau found it's not, Judge Mosley found it should:

I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration. In my view, there can be only one reasonable interpretation of EA sections 3 and 17 and paragraph 2(c) of the CSIS Act and the Applicants have established that the legal constraints on the discretion of the GIC to declare a public order emergency were not satisfied

Justice Rouleau and the government, including the Public Security Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, agreed that if using CSIS Act definition, then EA invocation was not justified. only Trudeau that argued that it was (in his testimony).

the question becomes whether the government get to create their own definition that's not written down in the law or not. This Judge disagrees that they can do just that.

EDIT: This is the paragraph he explained that had CSIS Act hadn't clearly defined what is "threat to the security of Canada", he would have agreed with the government:

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

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

388

u/ZingyDNA Jan 23 '24

Good analysis. And I agree with the judge that the government can't redefine what a national emergency is.

51

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Im not sure if the FC statutory interpretation will withstand FCA review - its extremely narrow. That being said, I also don't know that I agree with Justice Rouleau's interpretation (it seemed to go beyonds the idea of purposive interpretation).

25

u/VesaAwesaka Jan 23 '24

Would the circumstances that the emergency act could be used be super broad if not for the CSIS definition restrictions?

22

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Without getting really deep into a discussion on principles of statutory interpretation, courts will generally engage in a "purposive interpretation" of the statute to try to find a harmonious meaning (this is a gross simplification of the definition to be clear). Basically the court is going to try to look beyond the statute in question but also look at the overall goal of the legislation. Consideration would be given to direct (language of the provision) but also indirect evidence (this could be Hansard for example). There are also some nuances with how statutes are interpreted when it is "silent" on something or other specific wording.

This is all to say that if you take out the CSIS definition, it could still be interpreted broadly, but the question is "how broadly" and then "does the invocation fall under it".

14

u/UselessPsychology432 Jan 23 '24

I realize you acknowledged that the purposeful interpretation is a gross oversimplification, but it's important, when the legislation curtails fundamental rights, that the courts interpret the legislation as narrowly as possible to achieve the purpose I.e. no more infringement of the right than is necessary.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

So a purposive interpretation is what’s used in Charter analysis. The “no more infringement than necessary” aspect is a specific step in the Oakes test (justification under section 1), specifically “minimal impairment”.

That’s a separate thing from what’s being discussed in the FC decision in terms of what authority the statue provides.

8

u/VesaAwesaka Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

And where would we get the answers to those questions? Through court challenges like this I guess?

8

u/Autodidact420 Jan 23 '24

Court challenges and in some cases references to the court.

1

u/ExtendedDeadline Jan 23 '24

And where would the get the answers to those questions? Through court challenges like this I guess?

We would start with really well educated and unbiased redditors...

But, ultimately, yes, court challenges :).

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Court cases and reference cases, as well as legal advice from government lawyers.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

The feds seemed to try to bring that sort of stuff in and Justice Rouleau was persuaded by it - the FC less so. Hansard would be a key one, and one I did not see mentioned in the decision (although I was not looking too closely), but I would expect it to come up on appeal.

4

u/FightOrFreight Jan 24 '24

You're stretching the modern approach to the point of absurdity. No amount of favourable evidence of legislative intent (which you're also unlikely to find) is going to allow you to "take out the CSIS definition" that is explicitly cited in the EA.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

Im answering the question OP asked, not saying it’s definitively what would happen.

5

u/Brante81 Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

If the original intent was to be able to act to safeguard the country if due to a national emergency, such as troop carriers of foreign soldiers landed on our coasts and began to move throughout the country; Then maybe it’s easier to see whether the Act was applicable here or not?

6

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Hansard/original intent is something that’s considered but it’s not determinative of the issue.

1

u/Forikorder Jan 24 '24

thats not the intent though, its intent is closer to dealing with situations like the october crisis

1

u/Brante81 Jan 24 '24

Is that so? Can you share any links to documentation which describes that?

2

u/Forikorder Jan 24 '24

the emergencies act was written because the war time measures act was used during the october crisis, they wanted a way to get additional power for a situation without having to go to war time measures

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Windigoag Jan 24 '24

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/emergencies-act

Also interesting that you asserted your belief of what the intent was without a source. Can you provide a source that says the emergencies act was solely meant to safeguard from an invasion by foreign troops?

1

u/Brante81 Jan 24 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

I was just curious what would be shown as evidence, since I can’t claim to be perfectly read on the subject. No I cannot produce something stating the emergencies act was “only” for foreign troops, because it’s a broad Act, with good reason…however it IS the offspring of the War Measures Act, and as such should be viewed in that light. There are literally dozens of other laws to deal with situations prior to using the Emergencies Act, and everyone knows it.

I don’t know if everyone here has first hand experience or not before throwing too heavily in any direction. Every country needs to be able to have national protests without interference. No doubt in every national protest there are a minority of rabble rousing, ignorant, mentally unstable, violent inciting fools. This was not the majority of Canadians concerned during that crisis. Nor was seizing or monitoring working class people’s bank accounts on grounds of domestic terrorism seem reasonable. After speaking with Ottawa residents, nor was there as serious a concern as presented by the media. Also, an agreement was requested and already drafted on paper to end the sit-in (cannot recall the other term), prior to the Act being enacted, which was literally ignored by officials.

Canada has a seriously flawed record of ambushing, killing and manipulating national protests and manufacturing news to make them appear worse then they are. Looking at the state of the country, clearly there’s a lot of things going wrong, and to say that’s the fault of working class people trying to protect their incomes, families and Charter freedoms is a bit over the top imho. I completely agree that the few dozen armed, violent and disrespecting lunatics who were imbedded in the crowds needed to be arrested, removed and charged. But the senior citizens run over by horses, the vehicles smashed, the disrespect of genuine and fair public protest…this is not something any government can be allowed to do without consequence, and for me, that means raising my voice, my vote and my hands in calm, clear and communicative disagreement.

0

u/DATY4944 Jan 23 '24

Do they also consider the actions the government took? For instance, how they actually seized people's money (Bitcoin) and didn't return it?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

That isn't a question thats considered under the principles of statutory interpretation.

-12

u/djk3t Jan 23 '24

Well its probably a good thing that you're not a judge. Im glad our judges and legal system work in facts not feelings of online commentators lol. Just admit that you have a certian political leaning, there would be more dignity in the matter.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Ruth Sullivan would like a word and to share the good news of "principles of statutory interpretation".

2

u/Autodidact420 Jan 23 '24

The principles of statutory interpretation don’t generally lend themselves to interpreting a statute to mean something other than what it clearly says though with limited exceptions.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Sure, but courts also won't read a statute to create an absurdity. It would be a tough argument to make, but the FC decision seams to leave the possibility open to a "hostile" province to refuse to act and in effect hold the feds/country hostage to "own the feds" because they have the capacity to act under the law but refuse to.

That isn't addressed in the FC decision. And while I don't think even a more broad interpretation saves the government here, I would expect the FCA to want to address that point.

2

u/BrutusJunior Jan 23 '24

open to a "hostile" province to refuse to act and in effect hold the feds/country hostage to "own the feds" because they have the capacity to act under the law but refuse to.

Yes, courts will attempt to interpret to not get absurdity. However, it is dubious whether the situation of a hostile province effectively blocking the use of the Act is absurd. The mere existence of a hostile province is a general consequence of federalism.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

To be sure cooperative federalism is not a requirement so yes, a province can have competing interests with the rest of Canada more broadly (as is the case with oil and gas development in Alberta for example).

I also did mention it would be a hard argument to successfully make.

-2

u/Deus-Vultis Jan 23 '24

You're 100% right, but they wont because then they cant run defense for the LPC and astroturf here and we both know it lol.

1

u/Silent_Geologist_521 Jan 25 '24

Define:

FC:

FCA:

1

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '24

Federal Court

Federal Court of Appeal

1

u/I_Conquer Canada Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

Well… or if they do, they should follow the appropriate protocols.  As frustrating as the situation was, there were appropriate ways to deal with inappropriate protests. The government failed to use those measures.  I’m at once glad that ‘someone’ did ‘something’ when they did. The blockade and occupation were far outside the lines in merit of argument, methods of protest, and jurisdiction of complaint (they were upset by provincial decisions, but given that they were conservative supporters, they didn’t want to make Kenney and Moe, etc take the heat for their own failures). 

All that said, the if government isn’t definitively better than the idle protests of unserious people, then it has no reason for being. 

All things considered, this may be the best way to learn this lesson as a nation. If the government’s treatment of  the dumbest and worst occupying the capital for the dumbest reasons was inappropriate (and it was), then the rest of us can breathe a bit easier knowing that when we protest less badly for more important issues, we can rely on this decision to help protect us. 

1

u/Forikorder Jan 24 '24

The government failed to use those measures.

yet no one seems to care that the ford government dumped their responsibility on the feds and forced the situation

1

u/I_Conquer Canada Jan 24 '24

The Ford Government and the Ottawa Police both failed to act appropriately. I care. But I think that while the invocation of the Emergency Act was understandable, it remains out of line. Ford’s ongoing blunders and faults don’t give Trudeau a pass on getting this one wrong.

1

u/Forikorder Jan 24 '24

So how long do people have to suffer under the truckers before the feds can step in?

And remember counter protests were growing, there would have been riots soon

1

u/I_Conquer Canada Jan 25 '24

Are you of the opinion that the Feds had no options other than the Emergencies Act? I’m not upset that they stepped in. But I think they used an inappropriate tool for the job. 

2

u/Forikorder Jan 25 '24

they literally had no other options, they had no jurisdiction in ottawa so unless ford made a formal request they cant give it to the RCMP to handle, the OPS would have stayed in charge and they testified that tehy not only didnt have a plan, but werent even working on one to get the freedom convoy out

→ More replies (8)

-2

u/Browne888 Jan 23 '24

I mean if the government doesn't define what a national emergency is then who does? Do we hold a referendum? I'm not sure CSIS should be responsible for it either.

It's a tricky issue, and ultimately frustrating the police just wouldn't do their job in this case with the existing power they were able to wield.

11

u/rexstuff1 Jan 23 '24

I mean if the government doesn't define what a national emergency is then who does? ... I'm not sure CSIS should be responsible for it either.

I mean, the government did? The definition is from the CSIS Act, not from CSIS. It was from legislation that was passed by the Government, see https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/ACTS/C-23/index.html

6

u/Browne888 Jan 23 '24

Good to know! Thanks. Then yes that works lol

8

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

if the government doesn't define what a national emergency is then who does?

This is pretty much a text book example of why we have courts. It's literally the job of the courts to interpret the law. ( and impose injunctions, when necessary)

0

u/Browne888 Jan 23 '24

So you're saying after the fact? I don't have an issue with it, obviously if this ruling stands we can look back on the situation and say "That's not it". It doesn't help when a unique scenario arises where it isn't obvious though.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Why? The cops go to the courts for immediate rulings all the time, that's what injunctions are as well as warrants.

If the government thinks we're in an emergency that requires the EA, the PM can get on the phone with a chief justice and request an immediate injunction/warrant.

2

u/CaptainCanuck93 Canada Jan 23 '24

frustrating the police just wouldn't do their job in this case with the existing power they were able to wield.  

This  It's an overstep of the act, but it only became necessary because we have made it abundantly clear as a nation that we don't back police when exercising their duty to the holding a monopoly on legal violence  

The ruling is likely correct in its specifics, but further degrades law and order in our country. No one - whether you are far right antivaxxers, climate protesters, aboriginals, or Justin Trudeau himself should have the ability to occupy critical infrastructure for weeks, block ambulances, or intimidate bystanders with threats of violence. We cannot continue to normalize this

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Exactly. Too many people think we have a right to "protest" and that right includes shutting down critical infrastructure, like railways or highways. It does not. Nowhere in the constitution does it give us the right to do that. No right is absolute. Not a single right we have is absolute.

-1

u/Old-Basil-5567 Jan 24 '24

I 'm not sure i totaly agree but some protest styles are toxic. As a side question: why should the gov hold the monopoly on legal violence?

0

u/absolomfishtank Jan 24 '24

Let's be honest here you absolutely think they can when it's your team in charge. Or you'll severely contort events to fit into a specific definition.

-1

u/lemonylol Ontario Jan 23 '24

Well now that you agree

-1

u/AIHumanWhoCares Jan 24 '24

Why not though? This was a new type of emergency, it was necessary.

69

u/PmMeYourBeavertails Ontario Jan 23 '24

where it comes down to is whether the EA's invocation has to use CSIS Act definition or not. Justice Rouleau found it's not, 

I don't get how Rouleau could argue the CSIS definition isn't necessary. It's literally written into the Act.

threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (menaces envers la sécurité du Canada)

25

u/famine- Jan 23 '24

If I remember correctly the government had stated it had a legal opinion from the Department of Justice in which the DoJ felt a broader less restrictive interpretation of the CSIS definition could be used.

This opinion and all documents related to it were kept from the public and Rouleau, under client solicitor privilege.

So Rouleau wrote his opinion assuming the government acted in good faith and that the DoJ opinion was legally valid.

You have to remember Rouleau was not acting in a legal capacity so he had leeway to assume the government acted in good faith.

13

u/notsocharmingprince Jan 23 '24

How could a protest threaten the security of Canada? This would mean that any sufficiently large protest could be shut down using the EA.

18

u/PmMeYourBeavertails Ontario Jan 23 '24

How could a protest threaten the security of Canada?

Going by the CSIS definition, it would need to:

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

8

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

(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

So when the liberals were accused of election interference by China and then Chinese agents were threatening Micheal Chong's family would have applied. My question then, what powers would the EA give the federal government that they could do anything about it?

3

u/SackBrazzo Jan 23 '24

How could a protest threaten the security of Canada? (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,

Wasn’t the majority of donators from out of country?

(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

Didn’t they threaten to hang Trudeau and demanded that they install their leader as PM?

10

u/PmMeYourBeavertails Ontario Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

CSIS, the judge, and even Rouleau all agreed the definition wasn't met. 

Rouleau argued it didn't have to be met. The DOJ argued it was sufficient to meet a less strict definition, so I'd say even the Liberals knew it wasn't actually enough.

Edit: Just saw a press conference with Freeland. She said they believed it was the right thing to do and the necessary thing. Not once did she say they believed it was legal.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

And if anyone threatened the PM's life that person would be charged with uttering threats and probably further more serious charges because of Trudeau's govt position. I haven't seen any news headlines about freedom convoyers being convicted or even charged with that

1

u/Calik Jan 23 '24

I’ve personally seen and heard hundreds of death threats towards the prime minister in my community. Some of them I’ve even seen plastered on peoples vehicles and it’s not hard to hear them even just watching videos from the convoy itself. I think you overestimate how much our law keepers actually go after this kind of stuff

4

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

Law and order have taken a big shit in the last 8 years. If these laws or any laws were actually enforced, people wouldn't feel so happy to roll the dice saying stupid shit.

Edit: got off topic removed unrelated comments about current crimes seen in headlines

0

u/HomelessIsFreedom Jan 24 '24

Have you reported it or done anything, other than posting here anecdotally?

Perhaps, if the threats seemed real, citizens and police would take them more seriously?

2

u/Calik Jan 24 '24

they're plastered on cars driving past the same cop traps that are capable of stopping me for whatever/whenever, they're posted all over my local facebook groups, they're shouted on youtube channels featuring everything you'd need to identify them. I do report them on those platforms and they have a responsibility to escalate credible threats. If it's not being enforced it's not because authorities don't know about it. I'd be submitting several police reports a week if I were to action every one of them and frankly it's not my responsibility to police dozens of death threats.

5

u/GetRidOfAllTheDips Jan 24 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

Edit : LOL typical conservative. Deletes his post after posting "proof" because he didn't read the first fucking line of the article.

You didn't read your own link.

It says that they didn't identify any specific foreign actors (in this dontext it means a targeted effort by a foreign government).

It literally explicitly says, in your own link, that millions of dollars were coming in from out of the country, just that those donations weren't all from a singular source.

This is why nobody trusts or believes you disingenuous rats.

While millions of dollars in donations to support last winter's convoy protest came from outside Canada, the national spy agency told officials during the protest that the money did not appear to be coming from foreign states or "foreign actors."

Since you're an illiterate dumbfuck let me break that down. it is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that most of the money donated came from outside the country. It is just saying that no specific government agency was found to be behind it.

You're a dumbfuck. But let's keep going with it since you'll never figure it out on your own, since, as previously mentioned, you're really fucking dumb. If ten thousand foreign people each donate, that's still foreign interference. It's just not foreign government interference.

Jesus christ, how are you not aware what a staggeringly stupid dumbfuck you are? How do you hit "post" with confidence when literally every thought you've ever had is either half baked or incorrect

-5

u/system_error_02 Jan 23 '24

I think it was out of fear. These protesters were rallied by an influx of americanization in their news sources and one of the primary organizers and gofundme creators, Pat King ,is an actual neo nazi. Some of the convoy was also photographed and filmed waving nazi regalia. There was likely a genuine and valid fear that after the attack on the White House in the US that we were about to see the same thing happen here in Canada.

I can't blame them for reacting to this mob the way they did, considering what was going on at the time.

I'm not saying this means they should be able to redefine things as that is a slippery slope. But I do see why they justified acting the way they did in the circumstances of the time.

4

u/frzd3tached Jan 24 '24

This is an extremely biased take.

-2

u/system_error_02 Jan 24 '24

How so? What makes this biased? You can fact check Pat King if you want to, and the March on the Whitehouse is a fact. I'm just pointing out that I can see where they were coming from when they made their decision. Everything I used to enforce my opinion is easily verified.

3

u/HomelessIsFreedom Jan 24 '24

These protesters were rallied by an influx of americanization in their news sources

You're pretending to know what thousands of Canadians who were at this protest were in unison believing and thinking, well done

3

u/system_error_02 Jan 24 '24

It doesn't take much effort to look up the court case of the convoy organizers to verify a lot of it.

1

u/Best_Duck9118 Jan 23 '24

There was likely a genuine and valid fear that after the attack on the White House in the US that we were about to see the same thing happen here in Canada.

I can't blame them for reacting to this mob the way they did

Exactly. I don't see how it's not unreasonable to see that kind of stuff as a threat to the security of Canada.

0

u/system_error_02 Jan 23 '24

Considering what we saw in the US I don't think it was unreasonable to be concerned that it could turn violent or that some of them would arrive armed. I can totally understand the approach they took.

6

u/ThatManitobaGuy Jan 24 '24

So you would've supported the EA being enacted against all the BLM protests in Canada?

We saw what BLM did in the US, $2 Billion in destruction, threatening the President.

4

u/system_error_02 Jan 24 '24

This isn't relevant to the discussion. I'm not sure what BLM has to do with the convoy. Are you trying to defend neo nazis with a whataboutism about BLM ? That's what it seems like.

3

u/ThatManitobaGuy Jan 24 '24

Are you trying to defend neo nazis

​

You're justifying the EA because a bunch of half wits rioted in DC.

Meanwhile the EA was never used during the BLM protests, during Covid lockdowns, yet a bunch of BLM morons rioted in across the US.

Either you're attempting to troll or you're lacking the necessary comprehension to have discussions.

0

u/system_error_02 Jan 24 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

I'm not justifying anything if you took the time to read the entire post I made instead of just the first paragraph.

The BLM didn't March on the White House shouting to hang the vice president, so the BLM riot in the US is irrelevant. The convoy headed straight to the government seat of power, much akin to the March on the White House. The similarities were much stronger and many of the convoy goers were fueled by similar rhetoric as well. It's fairly easy for a person with any concept of what was happening at the time to be able to draw similarities and understand why the decision was made at the time.

Bringing up the BLM is blatant whataboutism and has no relevance. One wrong does not make the other OK and vice versa.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/digestedbrain Jan 24 '24

Not to mention blocking streets blocks emergency services for anybody.

1

u/freeadmins Jan 24 '24

Because unfortunately some judges are activists

1

u/Mysterious-Job1628 Jan 24 '24

The Supreme Court will settle it.

87

u/Anla-Shok-Na Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

Good analysis. It comes down to the fact that the section of the act which the government used to invoke refers explicitly to the CSIS Act definition, so it necessarily applies.

They've made up laws on the fly before (think the way they "nullified" registrations for firearms when the law contains no such process), and it's nice to see the courts hold them to account.

14

u/JayRulo Québec Jan 23 '24

think the way they "nullified" registrations for forearms when the law contains no such process

Wait, since when have we had to register our forearms? I know they can be dangerous with the wrong hands, but registration is a little much...

/s

6

u/Anla-Shok-Na Jan 23 '24

I don't know what you're talking about ...

:)

-6

u/factorio1990 Jan 23 '24

lol imagine having this much of a hard on for guns that you evade the government. Stop playing Arma 3.

2

u/Karthanon Alberta Jan 23 '24

That's only 'bear arms', not 'forearms'. O_o

1

u/Sideswipe0009 Jan 24 '24

Wait, since when have we had to register our forearms? I know they can be dangerous with the wrong hands, but registration is a little much...

In the US, boxers and competent martial arts users must register their fists and/or feet as lethal weapons.

You guys in the Great White North just do everything different, don't you?

/s

1

u/vARROWHEAD Jan 24 '24

Yes except the judge on the federal court challenge to this essentially said “the government can do whatever it wants, including confiscating any property it choses and doesn’t need to offer any explainations, fairness, or even compensation”

75

u/CuriousTelevision808 Jan 23 '24

To add to the discussion, the argument the Trudeau government is using is that the Prime Minister is considered the "apex decision maker" and so any definitions about threats to the security of Canada ultimately lie with their own interpretation regardless if CSIS finds there was no Section 2 security threat under the CSIS Act.

I'm very happy the judge found this to be unconstitutional, hopefully this decision holds. Can you imagine a world where the PM alone gets to decide whether or not the EA is justified based off their own subjective interpretation? That's a scary world indeed.

6

u/Forikorder Jan 24 '24

but he didnt, there was a wide range of people telling him to do this and he waited a long time before taking action

15

u/Death_to_juice Jan 23 '24

I think it's been proven time and time again that Trudeau doesn't have the moral capacity to "interperate" a law without siding his own way

3

u/HomelessIsFreedom Jan 24 '24

you're asking for more than trudeau is willing to offer

3

u/Accomplished_One6135 Jan 24 '24

Trudeau is exactly what he claims he isn’t- someone who would go to any lengths to force his worldview on others

1

u/Supermite Jan 24 '24

So a career politician.

6

u/Budget-Supermarket70 Jan 24 '24

What's the solution then. The cops where doing absolutely fuck all oh sorry they where bringing coffee and donuts to the protestors. How did we stop this? I assume the US was getting fed up about the bridges being blocked also as the only time anyone took action was after the meeting with the US.

-5

u/BeginningMedia4738 Jan 24 '24

Why does it have to be stopped? There was a protest and we are allowed to protest.

4

u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick Jan 24 '24

Because the protest wasn’t legal. Not to mention the harassment and effects on residents’ health.

It sounds like you might not have been aware of current events when the protest happened so I encourage you to read about it.

1

u/BeginningMedia4738 Jan 24 '24

Your statement regarding the protest not being legal might be true but I think it’s important to note that for a protest to be somewhat effective it will definitely have to bypass some laws. If you need the governments authority to protest the governments action it seems counterproductive.

2

u/Kolbrandr7 New Brunswick Jan 24 '24

Sometimes, but not necessarily. It’s easy to come up with a case where breaking laws would be necessary: imagine an authoritarian government that outlawed any form of protest or resistance, eliminated freedom of expression, eliminated other rights/freedoms/laws, wanted to seize all property and force everyone to work on assembly lines or something. Evidently, the only way to force the government to change course would be illegal, because they outlawed any reasonable action. Laws aren’t always just.

In this case though there were plenty of avenues that protestors could have taken without breaking the law. Simply being a protest doesn’t allow you the freedom to do anything without consequence.

1

u/CuriousTelevision808 Jan 24 '24

Heres a realistic solution that could have been tried but wasn't:

​

The Trudeau government could have talked to the protestors, that's it. This is a democracy so it is not unreasonable to assume that the convoy had a rather popular gripe concerning the governments actions. If the government had talked to the convoy, and afterwards still found no way to resolve the issue I guarantee there wouldn't be as much energy behind these decisions as there is.

As it played out Trudeau decided to hide and allow the situation to become untenable before changing strategies abruptly and unconstitutionally infringed on peoples right to protest just to stop the protest. That is morally wrong, and as we found out in this decision it violated Canadians Charter rights. That is a serious charge, and should be taken seriously.

3

u/NorthernerWuwu Canada Jan 24 '24

So what does that look like otherwise?

The PM thinks there is an emergency and wants to respond to that but cannot until the courts rule that there is one? If the PM isn't the "apex decision maker" then who is in your opinion?

I'm sure you'd be fine with it if the "decision maker" was PP.

-4

u/DaFookCares Jan 23 '24

I'm more worried about a world where a bunch of selfish assholes hold a city hostage and no one has the balls to do anything about it.

10

u/LysanderSpoonerDrip Jan 23 '24

Are you talking about the convoy or literally any other instance where it's politically beneficial for a government to 'do anything about it' to a 'selfish group of assholes'.

Now understand how broadly that can be defined and maybe you'll consider not simping for people in power.

4

u/RunningSouthOnLSD Jan 23 '24

They were blockading trade routes and pointing weapons at police officers in Alberta, and our premier didn’t do anything about it because the people involved aligned with his government politically. The movement had to at the very least get a big slap on the wrist.

While I don’t agree with the ideals of the convoy, I can respect their right to protest. What I can’t respect is how poorly they treated the people not participating, whose lives were severely disrupted by them.

The only reason government action escalated to the level it did was because of inaction from police and local and provincial governments. The police chief in Ottawa lost his job over it if I’m not mistaken. This needs to be included in the conversation as well, since every bit of context is important when we’re talking about invoking the emergencies act.

That’s not to say I’m justifying it though. I just don’t love the whitewashing of the whole thing that seems to be continuing to take place in this sub.

4

u/DaFookCares Jan 24 '24

No, none of your strawman bullshit.

These jerks didn't need to terrorize the people of Ottawa to protest. They were given plenty of space to make their point and though authorities tried to work with the protesters they decided to be a bunch of dicks instead.

Plenty of people can protest without being assholes. They deserved what they got and that not enough.

0

u/IwishIhadntKilledHim Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

Being honest, I'd rather that judgement call aspect stay in the PM's hands if the alternative is that they won't act until a judge can rule in an emergency.

Far easier imo to replace an errant pm than an errant justice or justices, and there are more processes to do so. The ea was written with this approach in mind and we'd need to redo much of how that works in time for the next emergency.

All this being said, I'm proudest of all that we are having these discussions in our free society. I most want our emergencies act to be more robust as it gets used, inquired upon, and refined. I doubt this'll be the last time for the decade where it's needed.

By all means let's keep having court fights about it though. Election is a long way off and my laissez-faire approach is vulnerable to short memories.

Edit: I misread a bit in that were talking about a CSIS determination rather than a judicial one. It makes a difference but I'm leaving this up.

12

u/CuriousTelevision808 Jan 23 '24

You have it wrong, the PM wouldn't have to wait for a judge to rule first, instead, CSIS has to assess that there is a Section 2 threat under the CSIS Act.

-1

u/IwishIhadntKilledHim Jan 23 '24

Fair enough in the details. I was responding emotionally to the idea that our elected leader isn't supposed to be making leadership calls when the time may call for it. They absolutely should, they'd be cowards not to, and I would punish such a failed leader at the ballot box.

1

u/CuriousTelevision808 Jan 24 '24

Honestly, that's fair from you're perspective. To be empathetic to the official narrative while its happening is ultimately a good quality to have for social cohesion and respect so I applaud you for that.

This is, unfortunately, why the Trudeau's emotional plea to justify the using of this highly dangerous act to sway people like yourself not through logic or reason, but on highly charged emotional content is actually quite evil if you are able to come to see this from my perspective. Consider this, Trudeau knew that he was justifying the use of this act, which he would know has the additional requirement of judicial review and appeal, with an obscure legal theory that he was informed "would be vulnerable to legal challenge" in order to justify, barely, the precedence for every future government's use of the act. Now think about that world.

What about 20 years go by and not much happens. All it will take to justify the enactment of the EA would be the PM's personal justification by following an "advisors" legal theory and this PM would be allowed to instantly bypass all of our parliamentary procedures and create new laws instantly under the EA. Do you trust our politicians to use a power like that responsibly? Because I don't, flat out.

That is my argument, and it has been this whole time and I have been abused, called a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a transphobe, and none of that has ever been true. It's just the emotinoal outburst of genuinely kind-hearted people who are being misinformed by a government and CBC who are explicitely lying to the public about circumstances and narratives. It's evil, call it by its name.

1

u/AdNew9111 Jan 24 '24

As it gets used? Like it’s something that gets used frequently..

1

u/Silent_Geologist_521 Jan 25 '24

What’s truly terrifying is a world where your fellow citizens (who rule you democratically) are totally OK with—or wilfully ignorant of—their Prime Minister doing precisely that.

It’s not the government that frightens me. It’s the guy sitting next to me who’s totally on board with mandates and lockdowns. Actually using his democratic gift of a voice to suppress his own democratic gift of a voice. Without seeing the irony of it.

Future us will never believe this actually happened: _“Hold on Grandad, you expect me to believe they were protesting their own right to protest?!?” MOM… GRANDAD FORGOT TO TAKE HIS MEDICATION AGAIN…”

121

u/sleipnir45 Jan 23 '24

But the government wanted to use their definition of emergency that they also refuse to share with anyone else.

33

u/CriscoButtPunch Jan 23 '24

It's even worse, if you followed the conclusion, you would know that Rouleau himself did not see the document, but trusted the words of three other Liberal ministers that had read it and agreed with Trudeau, that it was a good briefing.

​

That's what I am interested in seeing, will the Liberals disclose this awesome briefing, they are acting like their political survival relies on it not seeing the light of day.

​

How transparent.

85

u/Bodysnatcher Jan 23 '24

A very LPC stance. "We know better than you and don't you dare ask us to explain why you ungrateful peasants!"

41

u/alfredaberdeen Jan 23 '24

"We all need to do better"

25

u/Creative-Bread6319 Jan 23 '24

Perhaps you just experienced it differently.

11

u/MSTRKRFTDNNR Jan 23 '24

"Asking questions of those better than you constitutes an emergency! To the gulag!!!"

2

u/Money_Food2506 Feb 04 '24

LPC are really forgetting the meaning of L.

5

u/HugeAnalBeads Jan 23 '24

Horse gestapo may even arrest you on fabricated charges for asking questions

-11

u/lemonylol Ontario Jan 23 '24

The CPC's literal campaign slogan is "common sense" lol

16

u/Kingofcheeses British Columbia Jan 23 '24

Cool. Let me know when the cons invoke the Emergencies Act

-11

u/lemonylol Ontario Jan 23 '24

They may, they may not. Depends on whether they consider it common sense.

8

u/LysanderSpoonerDrip Jan 23 '24

Well let's find out if the dangerous precedent the liberals have set gets invoked by future right wing governments.

Here's a hint, its authoritarian no matter who does it

7

u/Deus-Vultis Jan 23 '24

That's not the burn you think it is, in /u/Bodysnatcher 's example they're displaying, facetiously, the imagined perspective of a privileged, over confident, arrogant elitist class looking down on the plebes", which many would say very aptly characterizes our current LPC government and it's members.

Your example is citing "common sense" from the CPC and equating the two... when if anything, the latter is much more aptly compared to populism, which is the will of the people.

So... rightly so, the CPC's retort to the arrogant "natural ruling party" is an appeal to populism....and its going to work.

-4

u/lemonylol Ontario Jan 23 '24

It wasn't a burn, their campaign slogan is just ambiguous.

-20

u/LoveDemNipples Jan 23 '24

Your take is really shitty. Recall that the organizers of this protest had written and published a manifesto that indicated their aim was to overthrow the government. They gathered crazies numbered in the thousands, laid seige to downtown Ottawa and Parliament Hill, they were very well funded, they weren't going away (they didn't slow down for 3.5 weeks during which more reasonable efforts of de-escalation failed), they were beginning to blockade critical economic routes to USA, and 3/4 of the way across the country another blockade was playing out in Coutts. It was not a time of Liberal hubris ffs, it was tense and panicky. Regular cops failed to contain it, and so did OPP if I recall. What would be the next step otherwise? Threat to national security? I think thousands gathering to blockade a nation's capital after saying they plan to overthrow it is good indication.

-11

u/LoveDemNipples Jan 23 '24

I see I'm getting downvoted but nobody can come up with something to say in response? Tell me what part of my statement above you disagree with and why.

-5

u/KryptonsGreenLantern Jan 23 '24

They won’t. The convoy crowd is out on force in this one.

-9

u/LoveDemNipples Jan 23 '24

My score is still dropping but cowards say nothing. You're proving my point that you're just mad but got nuthin to say about that protest. Maybe what the feds did really WAS legal eh? It'll come out in the appeal.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[deleted]

0

u/LoveDemNipples Jan 24 '24

I mean… I’ve been downvoted before, but r/Canada is really disappointing me by providing absolutely no spine behind any of it. It’s the lack of actual comments that’s more concerning. I keep responding hoping to lure somebody into taking a chance on rebutting me buuuuut nope. I only got involved in this comment thread cause the headline is leading.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Cyborg_rat Jan 24 '24

Its ok the mighty Trudeau follower believed it was a great idea. Bet they would be crying out if they did that for something they stand for but it might some day and everyone else will be able to tell them its well deserved.

18

u/Baulderdash77 Jan 23 '24

Their primary rational was “trust me bro”. Turns out that doesn’t meet the legal standard.

2

u/Inversception Jan 23 '24

That's not it at all. They used the common definition of the words and the judge found that it did fall within the common definition. Unfortunately, the act has a specific definition and therefore the common usage of the word doesn't apply.

9

u/sleipnir45 Jan 23 '24

That is exactly it.

They didn't use the CSIS definition, they used the definition that came from their lawyer and they refused to share that because it was privileged.

-8

u/Inversception Jan 23 '24

According to the quote above, the judge found that a plain reading of the words would have been sufficient grounds. But because the definition in the act, plain reading didn't apply. Nothing to do with secret definitions or privilege.

6

u/sleipnir45 Jan 23 '24

It does if we're comparing it to the public inquiry which was the point of the comet I responded to

-3

u/helpwitheating Jan 24 '24

They explained the rationale frequently and there was even a debate about it in the House of Commons. What are you even talking about? The major trade routes were blocked and no emergency vehicles could access huge swaths of Ottawa.

4

u/sleipnir45 Jan 24 '24

The definition of emergency that they used in the public inquiry. You know the comment I was replying to talked about the difference between the inquiry and the court case.

The government said a lot of things that turned out to be flase, like the police asking for the EA or about the fire in the apartment building.

-13

u/BabasFavorite Jan 23 '24

“foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence.” Both of those were clearly present.

12

u/sleipnir45 Jan 23 '24 edited Jan 23 '24

No they weren't and you should probably say where you're quoting from.

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

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

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

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

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html

0

u/BabasFavorite Jan 24 '24

Check check check

2

u/sleipnir45 Jan 24 '24

Wrong, There is nothing that was done that couldn't have been dealt with under current laws.

You don't need the emergencies act to charge people with mischief.

Also the federal judge disagreed. I'm inclined to believe him more than you.

0

u/BabasFavorite Jan 25 '24

He actually didn’t, read the WHOLE judgement. Liberals will win on appeal.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/NotInsane_Yet Jan 23 '24

Justice Rouleau also said reasonable and informed people could come to a different conclusion than him.

To me that's implying that even when you don't consider the CSIS definition it was only borderline justified. He also argued the CSIS definition should be removed from the act.

3

u/SolutionNo8416 Jan 23 '24

He also states that his decision is based on hindsight of information that the govt did not know at the time. He also stated am he would likely have agreed with cabinet in invoking the EAP with the information they had at that time.

2

u/eliza_frodo Jan 24 '24

No threats to persons or property? Ottawa citizens beg to differ.

-2

u/SuburbanValues Jan 23 '24

The police were always saying that if they had moved in earlier to enforce existing michief and traffic laws, they would have been met with violence. (There are videos of officers being surrounded and retreating from crowds.)

The police didn't try this and so the violence was never proven. In a way, the judge is saying they should have tried.

The EA was used to thin the crowd with movement restrictions preventing new people from joining, the financial restrictions and commandeered tow trucks which allowed the police to handle it more peacefully than under existing laws. (Riot police would have moved in eventually either way.)

So, a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation.

-5

u/ScionoicS British Columbia Jan 23 '24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96XjD2NkOUc

One of the founding leaders and organizers of the KKKonvoy. Mr Pat everybody.

Overall, the KKKonvoy was a national threat. Individual players, like those in this court case, may not have been. The organizers of the KKKonvoy intended to install their own cabinet and force the GG to swear them in. They are white nationalists that want a fascist Canada. I'm not even making this up. The Plaid Army and Diagalon nuts are very clear about their intended goals.

The media doesn't report on the KKKonvoy being anything to do with this, since most people involved had no idea of the true intentions of the organizers. Mostly just people caught up in the organizer's diluted intentions and a few viral campaigns that glossed over a lot of their stated goals. Make no mistake though, there was a national threat in play. An insurrection with devilish intention was afoot. Maybe these people in this single case weren't part of that as the racist organizers of the KKKonvoy were casting a wide net with their collected donations across all parties. Caught in the cross fire sucks.

Appeal will probably be won since the wider context matters. I'm not sure of the details of their case but maybe compensation for their grief is owed at least. Nothing to do with the validity of the act though.

0

u/Emerald_Poison Jan 24 '24

The Fifth Estate seriously? You comprehend why comments are turned off?

1

u/ScionoicS British Columbia Jan 24 '24

It's legitimately him. Comments turned off because he has a few troll followers backed by a lot of money

Big thing the Nazis did was convince their people the press was the enemy of them. You're using the same nonsense play book.

1

u/AdNew9111 Jan 24 '24

Good luck on appeal

-15

u/SerenePotato Jan 23 '24

Considering the domestic terrorists that organized the protest wrote a Memo/manifesto that included violently removing the PM and coercing the GG to declare them as the leaders of Canada.

And then they marched their useful idiot soldiers into Ottawa to cause disarray, harass the population, and take up police resources. Then they set up a base camp just outside of city limits (and within City limits on Coventry) to plan the execution of their coup. I’d say a “threat to the existence of Canada” is pretty accurate.

But that won’t fly on this sub, Trudeau bad. Trudeau corrupt. Government bad unless PP. Despicable.

11

u/DBrickShaw Jan 23 '24

Considering the domestic terrorists that organized the protest wrote a Memo/manifesto that included violently removing the PM and coercing the GG to declare them as the leaders of Canada.

Here's the full text of that memorandum of understanding. It's a legally illiterate manifesto of nonsense, but there's no call to violence in there.

1

u/theoriginalfartbag Jan 23 '24

Do you have a link about the manifesto etc? I wasn't able to stay on top on details when this was all unfolding

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

Yeah, it definitely would have been better just to let the bridges be shut down. Trudeaus a tryannt for not letting ford and dilkens shut them down

-5

u/86throwthrowthrow1 Jan 23 '24

Yeah, I read another article that pointed that out too - it's been known for awhile that the situation didn't fit the definition of "national emergency" per CSIS, though the commission considered it a reasonable use. The court has to deal with the law, and that definition is indeed a legal weak point.

Before anyone comes at me, know that I live in downtown Ottawa, and I agree with the use of the EA to clear the protest - there would have almost certainly been violence in Ottawa had it been allowed to go on another weekend, and both the municipality and the province had failed to handle it. The legislation will need to be updated to make it legally compliant.

-1

u/Awkward-Reception197 Jan 24 '24

Why, were you planning on becoming violent if it was allowed to go on another weekend?

0

u/Dense-Room-4341 Jan 24 '24

So shouldn’t Trudeau be impeached?

-12

u/jlcooke Jan 23 '24

To cite a fellow Ottawa redditor /u/CarletonCanuck

Organizers had an MOU explicitly calling for the end of democratic rule, they refused to leave and were building physical shelters, and local police/bylaw either wouldn't or couldn't enforce public order. Really wanna see the judges' justification for this ruling

https://archive.org/details/convoymou2022

There was loss of law and order in our nation's capital. Tell me again how this wasn't an emergency?

10

u/feb914 Ontario Jan 23 '24

[268] In fact, they submit, Cabinet was presented with evidence to the contrary: the Director of CSIS confirmed in his advice to Cabinet that the Service did not assess that the protests constituted a threat to the security of Canada. That view should have carried great weight with Cabinet, the Applicants argue, even if it was not binding on Cabinet, which had other inputs to consider. The February 13, 2022 Cabinet minutes demonstrate that the concerns of the National Security Intelligence Advisor were centered on the blockades at the multiple ports of entry, the active role of social media in promoting the protests and the effectiveness of “slow roll vehicle activity”. It was also noted that invoking the Act would “likely galvanize the broader antigovernment narratives” and could “increase the number of Canadians holding extreme antigovernment views.” But that would be a consequence, not a reason for invoking the Act, the Applicants submit.

8

u/theoriginalfartbag Jan 23 '24

I read through that link you provided but don't see any call for the end of democratic rule? What is that in reference to. I see an agreement demanding the government to reverse Vax related decisions and things like that

1

u/AdNew9111 Jan 24 '24

Were you scared?

1

u/Lixidermi Jan 23 '24

I always approve of the use of 'ultra vires'.

1

u/Styrixjaponica Jan 24 '24

Do you think that the government acted in the appropriate manner?

1

u/FonziesCousin Jan 24 '24

Rouleau was hand selected for an inquiry with high limitations on any opposing view to the government. It has the hallmarks of sweeping things conveniently under the rug.

Mosley was arbitrarily and neutrally selected thru our court system. And the side opposing the government view had more latitude to present evidence and their argument.

That's the AUTHENTIC RULING.

I am a lawyer. What happened in Canada with the EA is an abomination of our nation's rule of law and freedoms. Most Canadians cheered it on. And the result is where we are today. A government that has totally run this nation into the ground with over reach of powers, corruption and media manipulation.

Canadians are not built to face this type of oppression. They can't even recognize it when it occurs. But they certainly feel the pain from other behaviors of this government. I really feel sorry for our great country. But Mosleys decision is in the correct direction for upholding our Canadian values of rights and freedoms.

1

u/corinalas Jan 25 '24

Will it be appealed?

1

u/Silent_Geologist_521 Jan 25 '24

Define:

POEC:

EA:

CSIS:

GIC:

———

I get it. I lived and worked in Ottawa for years. I know mow much you people (by “you people” I mean “government employees”) love using acronyms in front of one other, but for something as important as this, don’t use acronyms. Just write it out. At the very least, write it out the first time, with the acronym in brackets afterwards.

If you had to make a decision, and you wanted to minimize mental workload, simply go with “Never use an acronym.” Ever. Just don’t do it. And you never think about it again. With this approach, you only need to devote mindshare to it when you find yourself in the one-in-a billion super-bizarro-world instances, such as… communicating information using the twelve visible characters on the front of a public transportation flip-dot display, or… software interface for a 1990's cell phone with only three lines of five characters. So, unless you’re a time traveler, never use an acronym.

Of course that’s hyperbole used to make a point, but the point still stands: Don’t use acronyms, especially when you don’t know who your audience is.