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. 🤔
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.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).
He must have been.I am embarrassed for my former profession.
Doug FordI believe that Chief Bill Blair is an honourable public servant and a person of high integrity.
I read that Vigneault mentioned the details of briefing the PM in camera, but not that there was an actual product presented.Paper was apparent disclosed in camera.
I wonder if felt a little twinge during the G7/G20 events in Toronto.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.
Pretty good rundown, and tracking of the statutory requirements and legal criteria discussed farther upthread.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
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
- (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
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).
- (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,
I expect that articulation will include a few ummms, ahhhhs, and maybe a drinking box water thing.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.
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.
One would think the NSA would be key in bottlenecking those silos for the PM. Her testimony was lacking.
You expect Trudeau to tell the truth? Ever? The master of obfuscation.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 .........
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.You expect Trudeau to tell the truth? Ever? The master of obfuscation.