• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,324
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
  • (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.


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,
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).
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,324
Points
1,010
Interesting that we don’t have a paper/electronic trail of CSIS Director’s advice to government, just his verbal testimony. 🤔
There was some language about what the government can interpret as a threat to the security of Canada beyond the CSIS section 2 definition.

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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,192
Points
960
There was some language about what the government can interpret as a threat to the security of Canada beyond the CSIS section 2 definition.

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).
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?
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,260

I am embarrassed for my former profession.
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.

I believe that Chief Bill Blair is an honourable public servant and a person of high integrity.
Doug Ford
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
12,021
Points
1,360
Paper was apparent disclosed in camera.
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
1,678
Points
1,040
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
I wonder if felt a little twinge during the G7/G20 events in Toronto.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
16,910
Points
1,160
Some choice quotes from Bill Blair.

"I can't believe that I am hoping that Doug Ford will save us."


Joe Dirt GIF by MOODMAN
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,542
Points
1,110
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
  • (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.


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,
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).
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.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,358
Points
1,110
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.
I expect that articulation will include a few ummms, ahhhhs, and maybe a drinking box water thing.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,324
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.
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,542
Points
1,110
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.

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.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,324
Points
1,010
One would think the NSA would be key in bottlenecking those silos for the PM. Her testimony was lacking.
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,542
Points
1,110
One would think the NSA would be key in bottlenecking those silos for the PM. Her testimony was lacking.

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.
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
194
Points
710
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 .........
You expect Trudeau to tell the truth? Ever? The master of obfuscation.
 

brihard

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
8,542
Points
1,110
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.
 
Top