Maybe it's just the media coverage, but I still haven't seen any justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, or for its continuance. I hope the Senate asks for it.
If some trucks parked at various lots outside the city are a threat to Canada itself, we are in deep doo-doo.
First I'm neither a constitutional expert nor a professor of law, simply a citizen of Canadian democracy. This piece brings together two somewhat separate and, dare I say, equally contentious issues, the Emergencies Act and the role of the Senate in the governance of Canada. However, I'm not sure the equality reaches to the foundation of the functioning of the House and Senate as is being suggested here.
As noted the role of the Senate has evolved to having at best the role of sending items back for reconsideration (ex., with amendments) to the House, however, if the House reaffirms a piece of legislation the appointed Senate defers to the elected body's choice.
This seems a pretty clear principle in the assertion of legal authority, the elected House is clearly privileged over the appointed Senate in the event of conflict. The House and Senate are not equal in the determination of how legal authority is exercised over the democratic citizens of Canada. Full historical stop.
The writer contends that with the Emergencies Act "Parliament meant for the Senate to exercise independent judgement". I'm not familiar with the detailed history of the Emergencies Act, however, was it truly the intention of the House of Commons at the time to allow the appointed Senate to override the will of the elected members of the House? I gather there is no provision for the Act to go back to the House for reconsideration, as with legislation. Unless it specifically says so in the act or in the Parliamentary debates that produced it, it seems just as likely to imply an oversight by the makers of the Act.
That the appointed Senate could bring down a government which is how I interpret the conditional statement "If the Senate defeats Mr. Trudeau's government", would that not precipitate a constitutional crisis, probably a lot larger and more consequential for the Senate than the Emergencies Act?
So the writer is suggesting the trucker blockades should be able to bring down a government in effect and precipitate a constitutional crisis. The history seems pretty clear the Senate does not bring down governments and it does not call elections. Yet somehow the Emergencies Act should precipitate a constitutional crisis akin to the King-Bing Affair?
As some have noted, the convoy protestors came for Trudeau, the person they brought down was O'Toole. Now the idea appears to be, they came to become the government by appointment of the GG and the Senate, but they may in effect bring down the Senate? That's where the writer thinks this should go?
"The constitution is not to be messed with". Yet is that not exactly what is being contemplated here?
Conservatives are wildly misreading the room if they think there is public concern about the Act.
Trudeau must be our best room-reader, the guy who spotted he could champion cannabis legalization ten years ago, and survive the "your brain on drugs" types who had taken support of that for granted as it slipped away.
Only an idiot could not read this room, just check the three Leger surveys done on the convoy. The basic for/against numbers didn't budge a percent: 29% in-favour on the first and the last. A few percent moved from "somewhat" to "strongly". The ONLY big move was on the other side, where TWENTY (!) percent moved from "somewhat oppose" to "strongly", creating a bizarre statistic where the extreme-convoy-haters much-outnumber the moderates. (47% strongly against, 17% somewhat).
And an amazing 75% of Canadians are strongly against their tactics (survey taken after border closed for 3 days), which is what the Act is targeting. It means many of those supporting the convoy, don't support their recent tactics. They threw away support.
Fair point, Roy. I would caution attempting to read so much from polls. Provincial COVID policy has largely been driven by polls over the last year and was likely one of the primary factors that triggered the protest in the first place.
Should I not read from the polls that harsher measures against the protests were not popular, not likely to encourage re-election? I can't see why I would disbelieve that.
It wouldn't have been an emergency if it had been dealt with the first weekend. But the occupation of Ottawa, and copycat follow up protests that impacted the economy were. It was a failure of leadership...something we are all sadly too familiar with.
It was a failure of logistics. Police never pick on anybody their own size, because they aren't warriors who just attack Bad People, "win, or lose"; they're enforcers who can't enforce unless they totally dominate the situation. So they don't enforce if they can't with total personal safety and situational dominance.
Nobody must ever imagine they might prevail against police in an encounter; that's why police kneel on people, arrest them with maximum control and humiliation, that's why 10-year-olds get handcuffs. That aura of invincibility is their greatest asset, their best PPE.
The "Leadership" can shout at cops all they want, but they couldn't make them go out there, outnumbered, and out-vehicled.
The protesters simply showed up with 400 multi-ton assets costing $200K each. (Unprecedented, as most protesters are poor; if they weren't poor, nobody would put a pipeline through their land, ignore their missing and murdered. ) Guys with $200K assets rarely revolt.
I think there is one power needed; the ability to declare an area a no-protest zone, which would be just border crossings and the Wellington area.
Normally, police can't stop a demonstration until it gets unruly, but if the protest organization can bring hundreds of $200K multi-ton assets, they can overwhelm police, and we'd need another few weeks to build up staff to enforce the law they'd been breaking since hour one. We can't afford to keep 1800 cops on staff and a hundred at every border crossing, forever.
We actually need a permanent law to protect those border crossings. That's what really stimulated the Act, not Ottawa (for weeks). It was barely 48 hours after the first American politicians started to say "we have to move manufacturing back to America, First, Canada can't be relied upon"...that was an existential threat, and I want to know if there was coordination between American donors advocating the border strategy, and American politicians who've had an America First agenda since before Trump tariffed us on grounds we were a "national security threat". (Forgot that one?)
If you look carefully, you'll see that I was not replying to you but rather making a first instance comment directed at the author Mr. Sirota. I can understand that you thought I was aiming at you, as my comment followed yours sequentially, but I was not.
Incidentally, I am not sure that it was indeed a confidence vote. One Liberal MP said so, and the PM did not deny it, so maybe it was, but usually a confidence vote (other than on primary financial issue) is declared by the government, no? I did not see any such declaration in this instance.
I think the issue of it all is the vagueness exhibited by the pm on such an important distinction. By not being clear, he is essentially coercing people with the threat of another election
Fair enough- perhaps coerce is hyperbole. At the very least it is intentionally making it difficult to make a clear and confident decision as an MP. The article did say, "Third, remarkably and quite inappropriately, the prime minister bullied the House of Commons into approving the emergency declaration by making the vote one of confidence, meaning that he would ask the governor general to call an election if he were defeated. One Liberal MP has publicly said that this was the reason why he voted to support the government". That's his own guy publicly stating his boss' poor communication affected his vote
The article, and the MP, both misstated the truth. It was not a confidence motion.
Consider this. The Emergencies Act has both a 30-day sunset clause (automatically revocation unless extended by Parliament) and an immediate recall clause (it is stopped if Parliament so votes at any time). If the government expressly did NOT declare Monday’s vote a matter of confidence, which is the case, then what will the government do if faced with expiration or revocation votes? Make those questions a matter of confidence? Clearly not.
This is the first time I've come across this very interesting piece of info and it was quite the WTF moment for me. "Third, remarkably and quite inappropriately, the prime minister bullied the House of Commons into approving the emergency declaration by making the vote one of confidence, meaning that he would ask the governor general to call an election if he were defeated. One Liberal MP has publicly said that this was the reason why he voted to support the government. Who knows how many others did too, without admitting it?" Gives me hope for these MP's.
Even (or rather hopefully) if the Senate puts a stop to this, the damage is already done. Trudeau has made his point .... fight back against him and he will take you out.
I wonder if it would be better to have an elected, rather than politically appointed, Senate. Of course, we could then see the political log jams that occur in the US.
False hope here. The chances of the Senate stopping the Act are between Zero and none. The chances of this causing Parliament to fold is also zero. The best the Senate can do is send it back to the house. But the Act will still be in force. They can spend 30 days playing back and forth to no effect. All theater with no substance I'm afraid.
If your a Plebeian (blue collar worker) and you act up, you will be crushed. The message cannot be clearer. Funny how things never change.
I think this began when the PMO started running the country...Chretien was the real genesis of that, wasn't he? And while I think Trudeau needs to resign over this...and several other things, the border blockades and the occupation of Ottawa were justification. In no way, shape or form was this a legal peaceful protest...something leadership at all levels allowed the first weekend. But let's not forget that the CPC supported it....right up until they didn't.
I agree with everything you said except for the "Assault on rights and freedoms". I say that because it ignores the rights and freedoms of the people of Ottawa, and the workers who wanted to get back and forth across the border. They had a 3 week ride; that seems pretty free. There has to be a balance; social responsibility has to fit in there somewhere...assuming it still exists.
Happily, the emergency is over, before the Senate even finished their debate. It has now been used twice in my lifetime. I hope there isn't a third. As little faith I have in all our assorted governments, I don't believe they'll use this rashly. I believe the majority of public opinion supported this, and I believe they were right to use it...but I still think the major motivator were the words of condemnation from the US. That scared Ottawa...and Queen's Park.
Maybe it's just the media coverage, but I still haven't seen any justification for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, or for its continuance. I hope the Senate asks for it.
If some trucks parked at various lots outside the city are a threat to Canada itself, we are in deep doo-doo.
Clear, well-written article. Looks just like a Gurney/Gurson article but without the swear words.
First I'm neither a constitutional expert nor a professor of law, simply a citizen of Canadian democracy. This piece brings together two somewhat separate and, dare I say, equally contentious issues, the Emergencies Act and the role of the Senate in the governance of Canada. However, I'm not sure the equality reaches to the foundation of the functioning of the House and Senate as is being suggested here.
As noted the role of the Senate has evolved to having at best the role of sending items back for reconsideration (ex., with amendments) to the House, however, if the House reaffirms a piece of legislation the appointed Senate defers to the elected body's choice.
This seems a pretty clear principle in the assertion of legal authority, the elected House is clearly privileged over the appointed Senate in the event of conflict. The House and Senate are not equal in the determination of how legal authority is exercised over the democratic citizens of Canada. Full historical stop.
The writer contends that with the Emergencies Act "Parliament meant for the Senate to exercise independent judgement". I'm not familiar with the detailed history of the Emergencies Act, however, was it truly the intention of the House of Commons at the time to allow the appointed Senate to override the will of the elected members of the House? I gather there is no provision for the Act to go back to the House for reconsideration, as with legislation. Unless it specifically says so in the act or in the Parliamentary debates that produced it, it seems just as likely to imply an oversight by the makers of the Act.
That the appointed Senate could bring down a government which is how I interpret the conditional statement "If the Senate defeats Mr. Trudeau's government", would that not precipitate a constitutional crisis, probably a lot larger and more consequential for the Senate than the Emergencies Act?
So the writer is suggesting the trucker blockades should be able to bring down a government in effect and precipitate a constitutional crisis. The history seems pretty clear the Senate does not bring down governments and it does not call elections. Yet somehow the Emergencies Act should precipitate a constitutional crisis akin to the King-Bing Affair?
As some have noted, the convoy protestors came for Trudeau, the person they brought down was O'Toole. Now the idea appears to be, they came to become the government by appointment of the GG and the Senate, but they may in effect bring down the Senate? That's where the writer thinks this should go?
"The constitution is not to be messed with". Yet is that not exactly what is being contemplated here?
Conservatives are wildly misreading the room if they think there is public concern about the Act.
Trudeau must be our best room-reader, the guy who spotted he could champion cannabis legalization ten years ago, and survive the "your brain on drugs" types who had taken support of that for granted as it slipped away.
Only an idiot could not read this room, just check the three Leger surveys done on the convoy. The basic for/against numbers didn't budge a percent: 29% in-favour on the first and the last. A few percent moved from "somewhat" to "strongly". The ONLY big move was on the other side, where TWENTY (!) percent moved from "somewhat oppose" to "strongly", creating a bizarre statistic where the extreme-convoy-haters much-outnumber the moderates. (47% strongly against, 17% somewhat).
And an amazing 75% of Canadians are strongly against their tactics (survey taken after border closed for 3 days), which is what the Act is targeting. It means many of those supporting the convoy, don't support their recent tactics. They threw away support.
Fair point, Roy. I would caution attempting to read so much from polls. Provincial COVID policy has largely been driven by polls over the last year and was likely one of the primary factors that triggered the protest in the first place.
Should I not read from the polls that harsher measures against the protests were not popular, not likely to encourage re-election? I can't see why I would disbelieve that.
It wouldn't have been an emergency if it had been dealt with the first weekend. But the occupation of Ottawa, and copycat follow up protests that impacted the economy were. It was a failure of leadership...something we are all sadly too familiar with.
It was a failure of logistics. Police never pick on anybody their own size, because they aren't warriors who just attack Bad People, "win, or lose"; they're enforcers who can't enforce unless they totally dominate the situation. So they don't enforce if they can't with total personal safety and situational dominance.
Nobody must ever imagine they might prevail against police in an encounter; that's why police kneel on people, arrest them with maximum control and humiliation, that's why 10-year-olds get handcuffs. That aura of invincibility is their greatest asset, their best PPE.
The "Leadership" can shout at cops all they want, but they couldn't make them go out there, outnumbered, and out-vehicled.
The protesters simply showed up with 400 multi-ton assets costing $200K each. (Unprecedented, as most protesters are poor; if they weren't poor, nobody would put a pipeline through their land, ignore their missing and murdered. ) Guys with $200K assets rarely revolt.
I think there is one power needed; the ability to declare an area a no-protest zone, which would be just border crossings and the Wellington area.
Normally, police can't stop a demonstration until it gets unruly, but if the protest organization can bring hundreds of $200K multi-ton assets, they can overwhelm police, and we'd need another few weeks to build up staff to enforce the law they'd been breaking since hour one. We can't afford to keep 1800 cops on staff and a hundred at every border crossing, forever.
We actually need a permanent law to protect those border crossings. That's what really stimulated the Act, not Ottawa (for weeks). It was barely 48 hours after the first American politicians started to say "we have to move manufacturing back to America, First, Canada can't be relied upon"...that was an existential threat, and I want to know if there was coordination between American donors advocating the border strategy, and American politicians who've had an America First agenda since before Trump tariffed us on grounds we were a "national security threat". (Forgot that one?)
You lost me at “bullied”. Until then I thought I was reading a balanced analysis.
I'm sorry if I confused you.
If you look carefully, you'll see that I was not replying to you but rather making a first instance comment directed at the author Mr. Sirota. I can understand that you thought I was aiming at you, as my comment followed yours sequentially, but I was not.
Incidentally, I am not sure that it was indeed a confidence vote. One Liberal MP said so, and the PM did not deny it, so maybe it was, but usually a confidence vote (other than on primary financial issue) is declared by the government, no? I did not see any such declaration in this instance.
I think the issue of it all is the vagueness exhibited by the pm on such an important distinction. By not being clear, he is essentially coercing people with the threat of another election
Can you really transmute the NON-declaration of a confidence vote into 'essentially coercing people'?
I think all MPs voted along party lines (except the Greens, who apparently have no party line).
How could anyone expect otherwise under the circumstances?
If the government HAD declared a confidence vote, you would have a point. But it didn't, and you haven't.
Fair enough- perhaps coerce is hyperbole. At the very least it is intentionally making it difficult to make a clear and confident decision as an MP. The article did say, "Third, remarkably and quite inappropriately, the prime minister bullied the House of Commons into approving the emergency declaration by making the vote one of confidence, meaning that he would ask the governor general to call an election if he were defeated. One Liberal MP has publicly said that this was the reason why he voted to support the government". That's his own guy publicly stating his boss' poor communication affected his vote
The article, and the MP, both misstated the truth. It was not a confidence motion.
Consider this. The Emergencies Act has both a 30-day sunset clause (automatically revocation unless extended by Parliament) and an immediate recall clause (it is stopped if Parliament so votes at any time). If the government expressly did NOT declare Monday’s vote a matter of confidence, which is the case, then what will the government do if faced with expiration or revocation votes? Make those questions a matter of confidence? Clearly not.
This is the first time I've come across this very interesting piece of info and it was quite the WTF moment for me. "Third, remarkably and quite inappropriately, the prime minister bullied the House of Commons into approving the emergency declaration by making the vote one of confidence, meaning that he would ask the governor general to call an election if he were defeated. One Liberal MP has publicly said that this was the reason why he voted to support the government. Who knows how many others did too, without admitting it?" Gives me hope for these MP's.
Even (or rather hopefully) if the Senate puts a stop to this, the damage is already done. Trudeau has made his point .... fight back against him and he will take you out.
I wonder if it would be better to have an elected, rather than politically appointed, Senate. Of course, we could then see the political log jams that occur in the US.
I have little faith in sober thought from any in the parliament buildings at this time. I hope they prove me wrong.
Well , I guess we can hope they will shut it down before it does anymore harm. Doubt they will though
It's 4:07pm. Coincidentally at this very moment, an hour after your comment, the Prime Minister is revoking the Emergencies Act.
Please donate to the CCLA in support of their lawsuit against the federal government and the Emergencies Act
https://ccla.org/
False hope here. The chances of the Senate stopping the Act are between Zero and none. The chances of this causing Parliament to fold is also zero. The best the Senate can do is send it back to the house. But the Act will still be in force. They can spend 30 days playing back and forth to no effect. All theater with no substance I'm afraid.
If your a Plebeian (blue collar worker) and you act up, you will be crushed. The message cannot be clearer. Funny how things never change.
The EA should be changed so that a free vote is required to approve the use of the EA.
I think this began when the PMO started running the country...Chretien was the real genesis of that, wasn't he? And while I think Trudeau needs to resign over this...and several other things, the border blockades and the occupation of Ottawa were justification. In no way, shape or form was this a legal peaceful protest...something leadership at all levels allowed the first weekend. But let's not forget that the CPC supported it....right up until they didn't.
I agree with everything you said except for the "Assault on rights and freedoms". I say that because it ignores the rights and freedoms of the people of Ottawa, and the workers who wanted to get back and forth across the border. They had a 3 week ride; that seems pretty free. There has to be a balance; social responsibility has to fit in there somewhere...assuming it still exists.
Happily, the emergency is over, before the Senate even finished their debate. It has now been used twice in my lifetime. I hope there isn't a third. As little faith I have in all our assorted governments, I don't believe they'll use this rashly. I believe the majority of public opinion supported this, and I believe they were right to use it...but I still think the major motivator were the words of condemnation from the US. That scared Ottawa...and Queen's Park.