Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Canadian politics 2023

stetsonstetson Shipmate
edited February 2023 in Purgatory
Just saw that RCMP commish Brenda Lucki, who got a bit of attention on the CP2022 thread, is now stepping down. Haven't read the articles to see what her precise reasons are.

And yeah, John Tory. I've been mostly avoiding the articles and opinion-pieces on his resignation, probably for fear of overdosing on Toronto The Good Has A Sex-Scandal jokes.
«13456710

Comments

  • In France this isn't even a scandal.
  • In France this isn't even a scandal.

    Well, if I'm understanding the story correctly, the woman was still on his staff at the time of the affair, so there's possibly an issue of power-imbalance there. Though no one seems to be making a big issue of that.
  • This country can't even have a good sex scandal. We're so sugar-plum wholesome we're saccharine.

    In France if the President does not have a mistress, people start to wonder about just who they elected. It's one of the trappings of office, like the tricolour sash and bands playing La Marseillaise wherever you go.
  • This country can't even have a good sex scandal. We're so sugar-plum wholesome we're saccharine.

    Well, as a good Albertan, I have to refer you to the name "John E. Brownlee", the star of probably the most salacious sex-scandal that I can think of in Canadian history.

    Brownlee was tried in court for "seduction", which apparently means something like "making the young lady less of an attractive marriage prospect". The jury found him guilty, but the judge didn't like that verdict, so chucked it out, but was in turn over-ruled by the SCOC, who sided with the ruined woman.

    Brownlee's camp claimed that the Liberals had masterminded a big frame-up against the premier, which, if true, woulda been a lot of effort for no payback, since the Libs never came back to power anyway.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Purgatory Host, Circus Host
    This country can't even have a good sex scandal. We're so sugar-plum wholesome we're saccharine.

    In France if the President does not have a mistress, people start to wonder about just who they elected. It's one of the trappings of office, like the tricolour sash and bands playing La Marseillaise wherever you go.

    Err no. Emmanuel Macron's wife may have the whiff of scandal about her, but there's no suggestion of anything else.

    Also, the power imbalance of having an affair with someone who works for you is undergoing a major reevaluation.
  • This country can't even have a good sex scandal. We're so sugar-plum wholesome we're saccharine.

    In France if the President does not have a mistress, people start to wonder about just who they elected. It's one of the trappings of office, like the tricolour sash and bands playing La Marseillaise wherever you go.

    Err no. Emmanuel Macron's wife may have the whiff of scandal about her, but there's no suggestion of anything else.

    Also, the power imbalance of having an affair with someone who works for you is undergoing a major reevaluation.

    And I am taken to understand that the de Gaulles were strictly monogamous.
  • Justice Rouleau's just-tabled report has concluded that the government met the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act against the Convoys.

    And he chastises the Ontario government for its inaction during the crisis. Not that that is going to reverse the results of the June 2022 provincial election.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    I wonder how Polievre will try to spin this one as an indictment of the Trudeau government.
    A good summary in the CBC web story https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday-1.6750919
  • In other Canadian poltical news, the NB Government has scrapped their controversial proposal to change the French Immersion Programme: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/higgs-scraps-french-immersion-1.6752225
  • Caissa wrote: »
    I wonder how Polievre will try to spin this one as an indictment of the Trudeau government.
    A good summary in the CBC web story https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday-1.6750919

    He probably doesn't really have to. Most people who were already voting Conservative Christians will just dismiss the report as "Liberal judge exonerates Liberal government, film at 11", assuming they're even still thinking about the issue.

    It'll be interesting to see what effect this has on Doug Ford's popularity, now that he's been officially declared a blockhead. Probably a bit of "Liberal judge condemns Conservative government, film at 11", but I think Ford's coalition must include quite a few non-partisans who won't automatically make such assumptions.
  • While the Conservatives today do have quite a following among conservative Christians, that is not what I meant to type above. Simply "Conservatives".
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    The Globe, which has since at least the early 90s given relatively extensive coverage to China-related issues, is reporting that CSIS says there was Chinese skullduggery in the last election, with the purpose of keeping Conservatives out and maintaining a Liberal minority.

    So, if you're someone who thinks foreign-meddling in elections is a big problem for Canada(*), I guess this is a pretty bad look for the Liberals. Poilevere, of course, will try to run with this.

    (*) I personally don't really care, and I say that whether it's Ted Cruz tweeting "yee-haw!" to the Convoy, or China doing whatever kind of shit they were up to in Canada. Foreigners are free to propagandize as they wish about another country's elections, and the electorate should have the street-smarts to analyze the arguments as they do anyone else's. Of course, if laws were broken, that's another story.

    And I wonder if Justin will try to overcompensate for the awkwardness of it all by kicking out a few Chinese diplomats or something along those lines. [Insert Harper's Pandas joke here.]
  • The suspicious part is claiming to aim for a Liberal minority. That smacks of post-facto reasoning. As a somwhat seasoned campaigner, I can tell you there is nothing predictable about a majority or minority government. Any effort to be that specific is a fool s errand. The only suspicious allegation is an accusation of small-time tax scheme with certain ridings. Fools. Riding money is small potatoes; the real budgets are the national media xampaigns paid for from central coffers.

    So China is alleged to have paid for whar amounts toa few lawn signs or a fast-food meals for campaign workers?

    🤣
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    The suspicious part is claiming to aim for a Liberal minority. That smacks of post-facto reasoning. As a somwhat seasoned campaigner, I can tell you there is nothing predictable about a majority or minority government. Any effort to be that specific is a fool s errand. The only suspicious allegation is an accusation of small-time tax scheme with certain ridings. Fools. Riding money is small potatoes; the real budgets are the national media xampaigns paid for from central coffers.

    So China is alleged to have paid for whar amounts toa few lawn signs or a fast-food meals for campaign workers?

    🤣

    Good analysis. Yeah, I was wondering about the plausilibility of the "minority government" telos myself. Seems a little too precise a goal.

    As for targeting specific ridings vs. the national campaigns, well, didn't I read somewhere that they were especially concerned with turfing out certain Conservative MPs who were considered too anti-China? If that is the case, it might make sense to direct resources locally.
  • Only if the ridings are exceptionally competitive, which most strident anti-China MPs weren't. In the GTA suburbs escpecially, it's the leader's media image that drives the vote. The Tories could run a stuffed toy as their candidate in Whitby and still win.

    Besides, when do individual MP's matter that much? It's the Kids in Short Pants who really run everything. They run Vetting and everything else.
  • I first ran into Chinese government activity about a quarter century ago when one of the Vancouver-area school boards was deciding whether or not classical characters (Taiwan & Hong Kong) or modern characters (PRC) were to be used in teaching Chinese to the kids. The board expected the usual dozen or so parents and ideographic nerds, but had to hire a hall and security for the 800 who turned up, primarily at the instance of the PRC consulate in Vancouver. I cannot recall if it was the RCMP or the local constabulary who were called in to restore order.

    Some of this strikes me as the PRC equivalent of boys in short pants working at the Consulate and trying to justify their jobs with an inane quest. I would still like to see a few of them given their walking papers, but that's because I'm mean.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    @Augustine the Aleut

    Interesting anecdote. At the end of the day, if people want to show up at school-board meetings to push for modern characters, even if it's at the instigation of a foreign embassy, they can do that, and the board members can use their own judgement about how seriously they need to take these opinions.

    Though I suppose there's a certain amount of deception involved, if the board thinks this is a grassroots uprising for the old characters, when it's actually just astroturf. But anyone with enough experience in politics to get elected to the school board should be wise to those kinda tricks.
  • I can't remember what the board decided, but it was clear to them (and to the press, which covered this in detail) that the Consulate General was involved. I had heard of PRC fiddling in the Chinese Canadian community, but this was the first major episode I encountered (by the way, lots of governments interfered with community life, and a few with Canadian politics, generally all pretty ineptly-- can you imagine what Canadian involvement in ... say... Argentine politics might look like?).
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    can you imagine what Canadian involvement in ... say... Argentine politics might look like?

    When I originally read your story of the astroturfed school-board meeting, I tried to picture the Canadian embassy in the Republic Of Korea herding a buncha expat canucks(which would be mostly Gen Y and younger ESL teachers and a few businessmen) into some political forum. I can't even begin to imagine how they would go about managing a coherent front on any domestic issue.
  • And while obviously we can't make any firm judgements about a given person's citizenship via his opinions on political issues, it would stand to reason that, among a group who are obsessed with what version of an overseas language is taught in schools, and are known to be protesting at the behest of a foreign embassy, there would probably be a hefty number who don't qualify to vote in a school-board election anyway. So that is probably something the trustees would take into account when deciding how to weigh the importance of their opinions.
  • stetson wrote: »
    And while obviously we can't make any firm judgements about a given person's citizenship via his opinions on political issues, it would stand to reason that, among a group who are obsessed with what version of an overseas language is taught in schools, and are known to be protesting at the behest of a foreign embassy, there would probably be a hefty number who don't qualify to vote in a school-board election anyway. So that is probably something the trustees would take into account when deciding how to weigh the importance of their opinions.

    While the citizenship take-up among Chinese immigrants is relatively high, aside from senior citizens, knowledge of an official language is required to pass the citizenship exam, and who knows how many had done this. School board trustees are closer to the ground than many elected folk but they have a tendency to focus on the issue at hand-- so it's anyone's guess.

    Meanwhile, I have downloaded Justice Rouleau's report (disclosure-- before he was appointed to the bench, he was my mother's divorce lawyer) to read some of the details but I fear that I might fade after the summary.
  • TrudyTrudy Heaven Host
    Surely the most important question is not whether the Chinese tried to meddle in our elections to benefit one party over the other, but whether any Canadian politician co-operated with or abetted them in any way?
  • Trudy wrote: »
    Surely the most important question is not whether the Chinese tried to meddle in our elections to benefit one party over the other, but whether any Canadian politician co-operated with or abetted them in any way?

    That's basically it for me. Plus, if the Chinese embassy broke any laws in their efforts to sway the election, that's an issue, too. Not much you can do about that beyond expulsions, I'd wager.
  • stetson wrote: »
    And while obviously we can't make any firm judgements about a given person's citizenship via his opinions on political issues, it would stand to reason that, among a group who are obsessed with what version of an overseas language is taught in schools, and are known to be protesting at the behest of a foreign embassy, there would probably be a hefty number who don't qualify to vote in a school-board election anyway. So that is probably something the trustees would take into account when deciding how to weigh the importance of their opinions.

    While the citizenship take-up among Chinese immigrants is relatively high, aside from senior citizens, knowledge of an official language is required to pass the citizenship exam, and who knows how many had done this. School board trustees are closer to the ground than many elected folk but they have a tendency to focus on the issue at hand-- so it's anyone's guess.

    Meanwhile, I have downloaded Justice Rouleau's report (disclosure-- before he was appointed to the bench, he was my mother's divorce lawyer) to read some of the details but I fear that I might fade after the summary.

    It’s a massive (and impressive) set of documents. I hope to read my way through volume 1 at some point.

    The leaked CSIS documents seem to be generally consistent with what CSIS has been saying in the last few years about covert activity in Canada by the PRC. It would be very interesting to know who leaked these documents and why.

    @Trudy there have been public
    allegations by CSIS that a few Canadian politicians (maybe just one actually) are too close to the PRC though I don’t think CSIS has ever tried to spell out exactly what “too close” means.
  • @Stetson - I believe that the politician in question was a provincial Liberal MLA who held a minor position in Mrs Wynne's cabinet for a while. He denies it all with force. "Too close" might mean direct influence, or it might mean downright foolish. I'd be interested in knowing more. I'd be interested as well in knowing what was leaked, by whom, and for what reason. Leaks are sometimes godly, but sometimes slimy.

    I do not believe that any major party office/ leader's office would be stupid enough to accept dosh from Chinese sources (and under the Wynne government's funding rules, since changed by Mr Ford, this would have been nigh-impossible). But it's possible that local campaigners, particularly in the rather-too-unsupervised nomination process, might have dabbled. If so, prosecutions are in order.
  • edited February 2023
    I have read part of Justice Rouleau's report. Comprehensive, but minced. He subtly substitutes a policy choice without question. He notes when the Emergencies Act was passed, Aid to the Civil Power under the National Defence Act was stated to be clearly preferable to the Emergencies Act (referring to Hansard on the topic). Hence Oka. In the meantime this clear rule has apparently been reversed for reasons unexamined.

    Second, he notes a failure of federalism but doesn't delve into Ontario's role or responsibility as constitutional administrator of law in the province. The OPS gets much examination, but it like the City of Ottawa is just a creature of the province.
  • @Stetson - I believe that the politician in question was a provincial Liberal MLA who held a minor position in Mrs Wynne's cabinet for a while. He denies it all with force. "Too close" might mean direct influence, or it might mean downright foolish. I'd be interested in knowing more. I'd be interested as well in knowing what was leaked, by whom, and for what reason. Leaks are sometimes godly, but sometimes slimy.

    I do not believe that any major party office/ leader's office would be stupid enough to accept dosh from Chinese sources (and under the Wynne government's funding rules, since changed by Mr Ford, this would have been nigh-impossible). But it's possible that local campaigners, particularly in the rather-too-unsupervised nomination process, might have dabbled. If so, prosecutions are in order.

    I was trying to avoid mentioning names, but I should have made it clearer that the individual I was thinking of wasn’t a particularly big name.

    Also, I may have been wrong in thinking that these allegations were ever made public by CSIS.

  • I have read part of Justice Rouleau's report. Comprehensive, but minced. He subtly substitutes a policy choice without question. He notes when the Emergencies Act was passed, Aid to the Civil Power under the National Defence Act was stated to be clearly preferable to the Emergencies Act (referring to Hansard on the topic). Hence Oka. In the meantime this clear rule has apparently been reversed for reasons unexamined.

    Just to be clear, you mean he mentions the preference for Aid To The Civil Power, but fails to explain why it was followed during The Oka Crisis but not during the Convoy?
  • Here’s the quote from the Report (volume 1 page 213):
    Finally, although the option of deploying the Canadian Armed Forces continued to exist, I agree with the Federal Government’s view that it was not an appropriate solution in these circumstances. In saying this, I recognize that when the Emergencies Act was adopted, use of the military against civilians to quell protests was considered not only a viable option, but preferable to using emergency powers. The white paper proposes that “[l]ess serious emergencies arising from the breakdown of public order would continue to be dealt with under the Criminal Code or Part XI of the National Defence Act (which covers aid to the Civil Power [...]).” … Much has changed since then.

    And more on Rouleau’s view on this issue on page 179:
    The use of the Canadian Armed Forces, while technically an available option, was never seriously considered by the IRG [Incident Response Group], nor should it have been. Soldiers are trained for combat, not for crowd control. Even the appearance of military involvement risked exacerbating the protests rather than resolving them.

    And obviously, bringing in the military doesn’t necessarily mean that Emergency powers won’t be required. The worst case scenario is that you end up needing both.
  • edited February 2023
    Yes, that is the quote, and Justice Rouleau is arm-waving quite heavily there to make a conceptual problem go away.

    What, precisely, has changed since Oka in law with respect to Aid to the Civil Power and the enforcement of law against civil unrest? Nothing.

    I would like the teleology of the honorable justice's position examined because according to the White Paper, which puts forth the classical understanding of the law in this area, he is advancing new law in Canada.

    Lastly, as I have stated previously, the police already had ample legal authority to prevent and surpress tumultuous breaches of the peace through the Criminal Code. The Emergencies Act did not bring anything new to the table and to think that it did blinds us to the power of the existing law under the Criminal Code and does considerable violence to the existing constitutional order in Canada.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    @Sober Preacher's Kid

    Your critique of Rouleau's reasoning, if valid, would reinforce my long-held suspicion that the main factor pivoting toward Invocation was the damage inflicted upon the economy. Not security-concerns as the idea of a security-concern is generally understood.

    Unless we're including as a security-concern Joseph R. Finnegan calling up Justin in the middle-of-the night and muttering jokes about the Fenian Raids.
  • stetson wrote: »
    @Sober Preacher's Kid

    Your critique of Rouleau's reasoning, if valid, would reinforce my long-held suspicion that the main factor pivoting toward Invocation was the damage inflicted upon the economy. Not security-concerns as the idea of a security-concern is generally understood.

    Unless we're including as a security-concern Joseph R. Finnegan calling up Justin in the middle-of-the night and muttering jokes about the Fenian Raids.

    Why? The report itself addresses the relevance of economic considerations in section 27.6 of the Executive Summary at pages 197-198 of volume 1. The short answer is that an economic crisis does not in itself justify the invocation of the Act.

    SPK I’m sorry but I’m mostly not following what you’re saying and I don’t think the problem is entirely with me.

  • Marsupial wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    @Sober Preacher's Kid

    Your critique of Rouleau's reasoning, if valid, would reinforce my long-held suspicion that the main factor pivoting toward Invocation was the damage inflicted upon the economy. Not security-concerns as the idea of a security-concern is generally understood.

    Unless we're including as a security-concern Joseph R. Finnegan calling up Justin in the middle-of-the night and muttering jokes about the Fenian Raids.

    Why? The report itself addresses the relevance of economic considerations in section 27.6 of the Executive Summary at pages 197-198 of volume 1. The short answer is that an economic crisis does not in itself justify the invocation of the Act.

    SPK I’m sorry but I’m mostly not following what you’re saying and I don’t think the problem is entirely with me.

    Well, if I understand @SPK's argument, we can frame it as a question...

    Marsupial, based on your reading of Rouleau's report, what factors existed in 2022 to justify the EA in the Convoy situation, that hadn't existed in 1990 to justify the EA in the Oka situation?
  • And, just to be clear, the fact that Rouleau said in 2023 that economic concerns don't justify the EA is not incompatibe with the possiblity that the government invoked it for economic concerns in 2022.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    @Sober Preacher's Kid

    Your critique of Rouleau's reasoning, if valid, would reinforce my long-held suspicion that the main factor pivoting toward Invocation was the damage inflicted upon the economy. Not security-concerns as the idea of a security-concern is generally understood.

    Unless we're including as a security-concern Joseph R. Finnegan calling up Justin in the middle-of-the night and muttering jokes about the Fenian Raids.

    Why? The report itself addresses the relevance of economic considerations in section 27.6 of the Executive Summary at pages 197-198 of volume 1. The short answer is that an economic crisis does not in itself justify the invocation of the Act.

    SPK I’m sorry but I’m mostly not following what you’re saying and I don’t think the problem is entirely with me.

    Well, if I understand @SPK's argument, we can frame it as a question...

    Marsupial, based on your reading of Rouleau's report, what factors existed in 2022 to justify the EA in the Convoy situation, that hadn't existed in 1990 to justify the EA in the Oka situation?

    I don’t actually know offhand whether invoking the EA at Oka could have been justified. I doubt it, because (unlike the Convoy) it was a specific crisis at a specific place, and that specific place wasn’t the national capital and Parliamentary precinct thereby affecting Parliament’s ability to govern the country. There seems to concern among some civil liberties groups that the EA is going to be invoked every time a political protest gets messy but based on my reading of the Rouleau report so far (I haven’t finished volume 1 yet) I don’t think this should actually be a concern.

    I actually thought SPK was making a different point about the relationship between the EA and aid to the civil power and I wasn’t following him at all on that argument.

    I haven’t finished reading the first volume of the Rouleau report yet and may have more to say about it when I have. It has lots of interesting bits but the most relevant sections in terms of whether the invocation was justified are sections 27 and 28 (which I have not yet finished reading yet).





  • Marsupial wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    @Sober Preacher's Kid

    Your critique of Rouleau's reasoning, if valid, would reinforce my long-held suspicion that the main factor pivoting toward Invocation was the damage inflicted upon the economy. Not security-concerns as the idea of a security-concern is generally understood.

    Unless we're including as a security-concern Joseph R. Finnegan calling up Justin in the middle-of-the night and muttering jokes about the Fenian Raids.

    Why? The report itself addresses the relevance of economic considerations in section 27.6 of the Executive Summary at pages 197-198 of volume 1. The short answer is that an economic crisis does not in itself justify the invocation of the Act.

    SPK I’m sorry but I’m mostly not following what you’re saying and I don’t think the problem is entirely with me.

    As referred to in the report, the White Paper of 1987 when the Emergencies Act was introduced enunciated the classical legal understanding of Canadian Law as regards civil unrest, Aid to the Civil Power and the Emergencies Act and how these inersect. This is the understanding I hold.

    1) Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the enforcement of law in a province is exclusively a provincial responsibility. Provinces can and do commission local police forces to perform this duty, but they are creatures of the Province, as are municipalities.

    2a) If a local police service is unable to enforce the law through a lack of constables, its recourse is to request additional constables through the provincial government. If the provincial government is unable to provide these through police reinforcements, resort is then had to Aid to the Civil Power through the National Defence Act at the request of the provincial Attorney General. This is stated in the 1987 White Paper which the Report refers to.

    Moreover, this is how Canada handles English common law Aid to the Civil Power on our federal state.

    2b) The police had the ability to arrest for Unlawful Assemblies of three people and at 12 people would be able to invoke Section 67 of the Criminal Code, the Riot Act.

    Enforcement using the Riot Act is done through the reading of the Proclamation as a disuasion, the securing of the area through a line of police and arrest of those who are 'found in' the area after 30 minutes', which is an offence.

    This was not done in Ottawa, though the entire Ottawa incident was summarized as a 'Breach of the Peace'.

    Curiously, Part 5 of the report, the academic sources, does not analyze section 67 at all, passing over it as 'antiquated'. It was last used to my knowledge 10 years ago so I cannot comprehend the 'antiquated' part.

    3) The Emergencies Act's substantive proclamation was against 'breaches of the peace' and public assemblies in Ottawa. Curiously there are Crimibal Code provisions dealing with that that remained unused.

    4) What the Emergencies does do is it permits the Federal Government to relieve a province of its law enforcement powers and responsibilities, which is what was done. Under the Constitution, there is no other way to do this.

    As the Emergencies Act was not used during Oka, though that was more violent and Aid to the Civil Power was used, I would like to know what changed in the intervening years and why Ontario felt unable to do what Quebec was able to do.

    The noisome effect of the Emergencies Act in the present case is to relieve Ontario of being examined for what the Commission calls 'a failure of federalism.
  • Thanks - I think I now understand what you are saying and will try to respond sometime soon when I can find some time.
  • SPK asks why Ontario felt unable to do what Quebec was able to do and I suspect that the answer is not favourable toward Mr Ford--his priorities were partisan in two ways. He was aware of an element in Ontario Conservatism which was strongly favourable to the demonstrations (as Mr Polièvre seemed to be at times) and, wishing to not alienate them, he was trying to sit on the fence until such time as he felt forced to make a stand. The second aspect was that he did not mind making things a little uncomfortable for Mr Trudeau.
  • SPK asks why Ontario felt unable to do what Quebec was able to do and I suspect that the answer is not favourable toward Mr Ford--his priorities were partisan in two ways. He was aware of an element in Ontario Conservatism which was strongly favourable to the demonstrations (as Mr Polièvre seemed to be at times) and, wishing to not alienate them, he was trying to sit on the fence until such time as he felt forced to make a stand. The second aspect was that he did not mind making things a little uncomfortable for Mr Trudeau.

    And Rouleau seems to be basically on the same page with this criticism of Ford and his solicitor-general (i.e., the two relevant political actors). Though Rouleau does not make the same criticism of the provincial police, who provided assistance to the Ottawa police early on.

    The real issue is not whether Ford dropped the ball on this, but whether there is something Ontario could have done that would have rendered the EA unnecessary. Rouleau seems to think no, but I still haven’t finished reading the relevant part of the Report.

  • As I stated, Rouleau explicitly rewrites the accepted escalation path of law enforcement in Canada, omitting Aid to the Civil Power and passing over Section 67 of the Criminal Code without the slightest analysis. I believe this is legally wrong and pushes his analysis in the wrong direction. If you omit Section 67 you wind up at the Emergencies Act without much of a problem, cynical types might wonder at this glaring omission.

    I would also say that there is no distinction between "Ford dropping the ball" and "was there anything Ontario could have done". In our parliamentary system, they end up at the same place. Ontario is constitutionally responsible for law enforcement in Ottawa and the general security of the capital, the federal government is not. We don't have a federal capital district in Canada, much to the amazement of several Australians and Americans I have met.

    Moreover, taking Oka as an example, clearly yes, there were additional steps Ontario could have used, all of which required the active participation of the premier, the cabinet and Attorney General of Ontario. They are the essential lynch-pins between the local police and the Emergencies Act and Aid to the Civil Power. Yet their role here remains unexamined to a large extent and that is a serious constitutional mischief. Obviating responsibility like this is something anyone schooled in Westminster parliamentary democracy should be very, very concerned about.

    Lastly, I am unconvinced about doubts about efficacy of the Criminal Code prohibitions against unlawful assemblies and riots over doubts about the convoy not being in a single location. The report says they were and lists the examples. The fact that the location is larger than an assembly on foot would be is simply a curiosity, not an obstacle. The law is certainly capable of dealing a location that is a little larger than a foot demonstration simply because vehicles are involved, it is just a logical evolution, a living tree example if you will. I for one would certainly take my chances in court as a prosecutor on that one.
  • Lastly, I am unconvinced about doubts about efficacy of the Criminal Code prohibitions against unlawful assemblies and riots over doubts about the convoy not being in a single location. The report says they were and lists the examples. The fact that the location is larger than an assembly on foot would be is simply a curiosity, not an obstacle. The law is certainly capable of dealing a location that is a little larger than a foot demonstration simply because vehicles are involved, it is just a logical evolution, a living tree example if you will. I for one would certainly take my chances in court as a prosecutor on that one.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that Rouleau said the Convoy protests were more difficult to deal with because they were taking place in multiple locations, and that you disagree with this?
  • It has been contended that the provisions in the Criminal Code against unlawful assemblies and riots did not apply because the protests were not in a singe "place", which the Criminal Code presumes, as the protesters were truckers who were mobile. Poppycock. Aside from the fact that they parked in defined places for protest, as the report notes, they were clearly assembled in the City of Ottawa, which would serve as a place for the purposes of the law.

    The Criminal Code provisions were drafted before the use of automobiles so they presume a protest on foot gathered in a park, a square or a marketplace. A more widespread but still very defined area for the unlawful assembly, such as within the city limits of Ottawa would suffice as the truckers were united by a common purpose and tactics. A place is not a spot on a map, it's a delimited area. This is just a case of the law going through one of its 'living tree' moments where modernity can live quite happily with existing law.

    For that matter the Riot Act proclamation could by made by Emergency Text so as to cover the whole of Ottawa simultaneously. Let the courts argue about the blast radius of a riot act proclamation.
  • Thanks for the summation. Not neccessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your analysis, but it was a clear read.
    It has been contended that the provisions in the Criminal Code against unlawful assemblies and riots did not apply because the protests were not in a singe "place", which the Criminal Code presumes, as the protesters were truckers who were mobile.

    Heh. It sounds as if Rouleau bought into the truckers' self-perception as free-wheeling outlaws, with nowhere to call home but the dusty road.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Thanks for the summation. Not neccessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your analysis, but it was a clear read.
    It has been contended that the provisions in the Criminal Code against unlawful assemblies and riots did not apply because the protests were not in a singe "place", which the Criminal Code presumes, as the protesters were truckers who were mobile.

    Heh. It sounds as if Rouleau bought into the truckers' self-perception as free-wheeling outlaws, with nowhere to call home but the dusty road.

    I’m not sure where SPK is getting this, but if it’s from his copy of the Rouleau report, he seems to be reading from a different version than I am. It’s not a question of whether the Criminal Code applied. It’s a question of whether the authorities could have effectively enforced the law without the use of emergency powers. One thing that seems pretty clear from the Rouleau report is that the Ottawa police lost control of the situation relatively early in the game, for a number of reasons some of which may not really have been their fault but also including some that may well have been their fault, apparently including some serious problems in upper management at the time. Once that happened the problem was not so much the theoretical applicability of the law as their practical ability to enforce it.

    I’ve finished with volume 1 of the Report and basically my bottom line is the same as what it was last time we discussed this topic. What the police actually did in dispersing the convoy in Ottawa and elsewhere was necessary and appropriate. Sending in the military would have been inappropriate, for a number of reasons, including the reasons set out in the Rouleau report that I quoted above. As far as I can see, there’s no legal reason why the feds (or Ontario) would have been required to implement this inappropriate response, rather than the appropriate response that was actually implemented.

    If what was actually done could have been accomplished without invoking the EA, then invoking the EA was, at least with the benefit of hindsight, unnecessary. However, at the end of the day, Rouleau seems to be saying that the government did have a reasonable belief at the time that invoking the EA was necessary to accomplish what needed to be accomplished, such that invoking the Act was appropriate. He cites a fair amount of evidence in support of that conclusion and I’m not in a position to have a more intelligent opinion on that particular issue than Rouleau does. Anyway, it’s a very helpful document I think even if you’re doubtful about whether he actually landed in the right place.



  • I got it from the paper in Part 5, the position papers commissioned by Rouleau, specifically Paper 10, Police Piwers & Public Order Disturbances.

    To put my final thoughts on this, the Emergencies Acr IS NOT a way to access more police powers. It is a way for the Federal Government to take over areas of governmemt normally reserved to the provinces without their consent or, in hindsight, their responsibility.

    Second, if the Ottawa Police Service was not up to the job, that is Ontario's responsibility, not Canada's. We don't have a federal district in Canada. This is straight BNA division-of-powers analysis.

    Third, there is a clear esclatory path in law with tools and strategies at each step. What we did see was not only was the OPS inept, they were not attempting to use their legal powers to the fullest. The salient question in a reasonability of escalation question is whether existing tools have been used and exhausted. They weren't. Which is why this invocation was inappropriate. This reasoning was put forth in the 1987 White Paper when the Emergencies Act was passed. It is the classic analysis. What Justice Rouleau submitted is new law and that should not pass unchallenged.

    This is why the policy papers in Section 5 are important, they show what policy framework the commissioner was using. That framework downplayed to the point of belittling classic legal tools which is a biased and self-serving analysis. No wonder he came to the conclusion he did.

    As Augustine observed, the Feds were faced with a recalcitrant Ontario who appeared to abandon its duties. That is rhe actual issue. Had Ontario done its job, the EA would not be necessary.

    This isn't about 'calling in the army', it's about following an established system which determines what is reasonable.
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    I don’t actually know offhand whether invoking the EA at Oka could have been justified. I doubt it, because (unlike the Convoy) it was a specific crisis at a specific place, and that specific place wasn’t the national capital and Parliamentary precinct thereby affecting Parliament’s ability to govern the country.



    Parliament was working remotely at the time, so there was no effect on the ability of the government to govern.
  • The paragraph of the Rouleau report (volume 1, pages 204-205) that I had in mind in writing that was the following:
    There was information before Cabinet indicating a threat of serious violence for a political or ideological purpose. Ideologically motivated extremists, several of whom CSIS had identified as subjects of investigation, were present at and encouraging the protests. There were numerous threats made against public officials by individuals opposed to public health measures. Targets included the prime minister and several Cabinet ministers, the premier of Ontario, the mayors of Ottawa, Windsor, and Coutts, multiple Ottawa City councillors, and the chief of the Ottawa Police Service. Certain federal elected officials and staff had been advised to stay away from downtown Ottawa for their own safety. CSIS and the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC) had repeatedly advised that, although no tangible plot had been identified, the protests presented an opportunity for IMVE [ideologically motivated violent extremism] supporters to engage in threat activities. CSIS and ITAC had also advised of the risk that a lone wolf actor, inspired by the IMVE elements at the protests, might conduct an attack against soft targets such as opposition groups or members of the public, and that lone wolf actors are very difficult to detect and predict.

    I leave that with you for your consideration.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    Not taking sides in the Marsupial vs. SPK debate over legal specifications, but this caught my eye...
    CSIS and the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre (ITAC) had repeatedly advised that, although no tangible plot had been identified, the protests presented an opportunity for IMVE [ideologically motivated violent extremism] supporters to engage in threat activities. CSIS and ITAC had also advised of the risk that a lone wolf actor, inspired by the IMVE elements at the protests, might conduct an attack against soft targets such as opposition groups or members of the public, and that lone wolf actors are very difficult to detect and predict.

    So, basically, they were just making predictions based on a sociological model of how conflicts escalate. And believed or are now purporting to have believed that that model justified the use of the EA.
  • edited February 2023
    First, CSIS isn't a law enforcement agency. This opinion is clearly aimed at potential actions, which are by definition speculative. I would also submit that one can see what one wishes to see.

    Second, nothing in the EA proclamation was directed against single-person actions. There was a prohibition on assembly of groups but that would not affect a single person action. A single person on the side walk was unaffected. There was no use preventative extention in the EA proclamation.

    Rouleau's excerpt lacks logical consistency and once that is recognized, it looks mire like scaremongering.

    What Rouleau engaged in was the Politician's Fallacy: Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. The thing done has no effect on the actual problem.

    If the EA proclamations had actions directed against lone wolves that would be different.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2023
    For the sake of clarity, since there seems to have been a cross-post, I assume @Sober Preacher's Kid above is addressing @Marsupial, rather than my post above SPK.
Sign In or Register to comment.