Jump to content

Emergency Measures

Recommended Posts

So Trudeau has a hissy fit after being unwilling to deal with the truckers, oh the embarrassment …so he invokes a draconian act to suppress civil liberties with Mendocino being the fall guy to take the heat…..And now the liberals resort to their standard fall back when caught up in a lie….weasel words!


Mendicino was ‘misunderstood’ saying cops asked for Emergencies Act: deputy minister

A senior official in the department of public safety says the minister has been “misunderstood” in saying police asked the federal government to use the Emergencies Act in February.

Deputy minister Rob Stewart appeared before the special joint committee that’s examining the Liberals’ decision to invoke the act on Tuesday evening.

In April, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino told the same committee that after weeks of blockades in downtown Ottawa and at several border crossings, the government was in regular consultation with law enforcement including the RCMP.

“The advice we received was to invoke the Emergencies Act,” Mendicino said at the time.

But Stewart said Mendicino didn’t mean police directly asked for the law to be used.

“I believe that the intention that he was trying to express was that law enforcement asked for the tools that were contained in the Emergencies Act,” Stewart said.

MPs and senators on the committee have been trying to get answers about who, if anyone, asked for police to be granted those extraordinary powers.

RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki and Ottawa interim police chief Steve Bell both said they did not ask for the Emergencies Act to be used.

Lucki told the committee there were discussions with the government about the potential of using the Emergencies Act. But she said the RCMP didn’t ask that the act be invoked, the federal police agency was merely consulted.

On April 27, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the House of Commons that “police were clear that they needed tools not held by any federal, provincial or territorial law.”





  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Following up on yesterday’s NP Platformed essay, now that we have gotten the sarcasm out of our system … one of the esoteric teachings of the BBC’s classic Yes Minister series is that the show’s amoral, contemptuous and deceptive civil servant, Sir Humphrey Appleby, always has a case. When he’s doing something that strikes the naive viewer as impossibly repellent or undemocratic, he can usually advance legitimate reasons of state for doing it. Sir Humphrey represents the undemocratic part of our democracy; we need a protected, even socially superior, class of capable, shrewd civil servants to make sure federal employees get their cheques on time, airports run smoothly, military service is decent and fair for women … you know, the kind of thing we all take for granted every day in a wonderful country like Canada. 


Maybe we haven’t gotten all the sarcasm out of our system, at that. The point is that our government is run according to soft, flexibleprinciples that must sometimes bow to cynical reality. Transparency is important to Canadian government, but so, sometimes, is secrecy in decision-making. Ministers must never mislead Parliament, and ought to resign if they are caught doing it, but you can’t push this principle to the level of jihad: sometimes we elect imperfectly articulate people who stumble in discussing tricky topics, and in a bilingual country this goes double, or mathematically squared. 


It was certainly awkward to hear of senior civil servants telling the special Emergencies Act committee that the public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, didn’t mean precisely what he had said to the committee (over and over and over) about cabinet having acted on law enforcement advice in invoking the act on Valentine’s Day. There is no evidence of any cop asking for parliamentary government to be mothballed so that some inconvenient trucks and unlicensed street parties could be swept from the streets of Ottawa. 


Sir Humphrey would probably tell us that of course no such evidence exists: it’s not the placeof the police to demand the use of emergency law. If you left it up to the cops, they would prefer a year-round perpetual state of exception. Suspending parliamentary activity is an inherently political choice for which politicians are ultimately responsible. All the police can do is describe whatever crisis they’re facing and provide a factual basis for the political decision. 


Having civil servants revise the words of a floundering minister is, in the Sir Humphrey account, merely a practical recognition of the subtlety here. The distinction between “police asking for the Emergencies Act” and “police asking for ‘the tools contained in’ the Emergencies Act” is, in a Humphreyan sense, quite genuine. It just sounds a bit like a swindle, which is why people who do not face re-election were more comfortable articulating it than Mendicino was. 


This still, of course, leaves us with a bunch of problems. The Emergencies Act was invoked in an atmosphere of panic that led politicians to hysterically attribute garden-variety urban crimeto the right-wing truck terrorists occupying the city. The ministers, when they’re not invoking cabinet confidence to shut down questions, say they don’t foresee further use of the act but won’t admit that this year’s first-ever use might have been a mistake. Why cling lovingly to such a precedent if you don’t really see any value in it? 

Clearing up the protests was very costly, but did it really, in retrospect, demand the smashing of a panel marked “Break Glass in Case of War or Insurrection”? We can only wish that other “protests” with permanent legacies of actual destruction received so much attention. Did the world-famous “siege of Ottawa” have a death toll? Did absolutely anything have to be rebuilt when it was over? Did anyone even make off with a manhole cover? 


And if we are to accept the Sir Humphrey account of the situation, we will redirect your attention to the words “Suspending parliamentary activity is an inherently political choice.” Why did Mendicino spend so much time talking about the desperate pleas of police for “the tools contained in” emergency law in the first place? If you still think it was an appropriate political decision, and that it hasn’t created an unfortunate precedent to be abused by post-Justinian governments, defend it like a grown-up instead of a goose. Or find an actual person to take the rap instead of playing three-way ping-pong between cops, deputy ministers and ministers. 


The entire purpose of the Emergencies Act inquiry is to create a permanent record of decision-making and accompanying circumstances so that the threshold for future uses of the law can be calibrated. Setting this threshold is a fundamentally liberal purpose; if it is to be “immediate rule by fiat when civil servant bedtimes are interrupted,” we have a serious problem. (Wait, let’s check real quick with the actual people who call themselves “civil libertarians.” Yep, they’re furious!) 


When the truckers drove into Ottawa, and some of them started babbling about forming a junta with the Governor General and the Senate, we wondered occasionally whether our country had misplaced its renowned expertise in the use of .50-calibre firearms. Now the Liberal cabinet is exhausting the benefit of the doubt we were willing to extend. Are we to be faced with a Coke/Pepsi choice between ignorant proletarians who have nutty ideas about the Constitution and Liberal ministers who wipe their feet on it? 


— Colby Cosh

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Rex Murphy: For the sake of his integrity, Marco Mendicino should resign

Rex Murphy  4 hrs ago


I have today a grim and possibly, in the current moment, arcane subject: the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in the parliamentary system. It is possible, I suppose, to have chosen another topic even more leaden and esoteric, one guaranteed to drive readers away and usher them to the much superior enlightenments of Lord Black. Such as, for example, the CBC’s concept of comedy.

© Provided by National Post Public Safety Marco Mendicino is seen on Feb. 15, 2022, the day after it was announced the government was invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa. A parliamentary committee is now holding an inquiry into the use of the act.

But we all have our limits.

Here goes and be patient. Once upon a time there was a doctrine that when a government department “screwed up,” the minister, even if he or she was not the direct agent of the particular foul, would resign. Obviously, the doctrine no longer applies, as recent events in Canada have so splendidly illustrated. But it is still worth a visit, just as history, to the concept, if for nothing else but to remind people of when politics had some elements of honour.

I begin with a reference to the British House of Commons, still, if ever fading as such, the source and nursery of parliamentary tradition. And an episode which explains what the phrase — so unfamiliar today — “ministerial responsibility” used to mean. A key moment some 40 years ago, during the tenure as prime minister of the lioness, the Hon. Margaret Thatcher, illustrates it perfectly.


Bluntly stated, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. The Brits were caught totally off guard. They had not so much as a whisper of anticipation of the event. Their fabled MI6 had been dumb on the point. And the foreign office in particular was caught, most spectacularly, with its pants down and the whole world gaping at its ineptitude.

It was a great diplomatic failure. The foreign secretary at the time was Lord Peter Carrington.

Do you, dear Reader, know what he did? Within three days, this minister stood in that House of Commons and … resigned.

Here was his reasoning. He took full responsibility for the failure of his department to foresee the invasion and, being minister of that department, saw that failure as his. He, personally, was not at fault. His department had messed up. And that was, on a point of honour and tradition sufficient reason, as he saw it, for his resignation. A man of conscience and dignity, obeying the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

There is another side to this. Here is what he did not do.

Rex Murphy: What the minister meant to say about suspending Canadians' rights

Rex Murphy: Please prove me wrong about this farce of an inquiry into the Emergencies Act

He did not have his deputy minister go before a Parliamentary committee and (try to) explain to it that he, as minister, had really meant to keep an eye on Argentina and the Falklands, but relaxed his vigilance.

He did not slide into slippery talk about why he couldn’t possibly have guessed Argentinian intentions.


He did not claim he had “misspoken,” tried to wriggle off the hook, or send his deputy minister out to excuse “explain” the failure.

Not at all.

He said as minister it was his mess. And as it was his mess, his honour, and his respect for the principle of “ministerial responsibility” demanded he resign. He let go of his status, his perks, even some of his reputation. It was a matter of dignity and, most of all, respect for the system of parliamentary democracy.

Now, let us change the scene.

Truckers convoy. Emergencies Act. Marco Mendicino.

Mendicino, the minister of public safety, testified many times that the police forces had requested him to bring in the Emergencies Act.

They did not.

By their own testimony.

Civil liberties and the Charter were nullified, the rights of citizens to protest suffocated, financial and personal privacy invaded, and the police (and possible spy) forces of the country were given unseen powers by the invocation of that act.

And the minister who put the act into motion, who halted the operations of Canadian democracy, has been proven — by his own words and those of his deputy — to have given a false account of why the government of Canada did what it did.

And rather than explain matters himself, he has hidden behind the skirts of his underling.

The dignified and immensely more honourable Lord Carrington did not pluck someone from further down the chain to take the heat and bear the blame. Lord Carrington had honour. He effectively said: “I am the minister. If my department fails, it is because I have failed.”

This is what is, or was, called “ministerial responsibility.” Where, oh where has it gone?

In the Canadian case, it is the minister himself who has failed, who misrepresented the reason we had this deplorable overreach of the Emergencies Act, and instead of standing up to take the blame, he has tried to pass it all off as a slip of his too ambiguous tongue.

Ministerial responsibility is a dream in the Trudeau government. Or nightmare — pick your terms.

Mr. Mendicino should, for the sake of his own integrity, resign.

National Post



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More clear and transparent government, which was promised from the first election of the Liberals, and was also promised in the days following the Emergency Act. Pay attention to the first statement of Freeland in French….it was because of the foreign funding enabling the blockade.

Now if only Larry Brock could have played back the news conference to jog her mind….




Sunny ways, my friends, Sunny ways.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...


It’s a good thing the police nabbed Tamara Lich and got her off the streets.

After all….We can’t have dangerous people like her taking photographs with other dangerous people and posting them online. :021:




  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least some people are paying attention:

QuoteSee new Tweets
The fact that Lich has to wait another 3 nights in jail for a decision is another abomination Bail decisions re rapists, carjackers, abusers often take mere minutes An abominable day in an Ottawa Court today The Crown's application should have been laughed out of the room
There are two men, and only two men responsible for this debacle and abomination in an Ottawa courtroom today with Tamara Lich. And neither of those two men will face even a modicum of a repercussion for what is one of the most gross abuses of state power I’ve ever seen

Mr Oldkind is a prominent criminal lawyer an political commentator in Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

she shouldn't have violated her original conditions.  She is now a rist.

There are several countries that would have hanged her already


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boestar said:


There are several countries that would have hanged her already


Give it a few years and Trudeau will have Canada there. It’s the overall direction we are headed.

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to reading, writing, and math?? Is this the best use of tax dollars and since when do teachers dictate curriculum?



Ontario’s largest teachers union has created a series of lesson plans for the fall term that are intended to help students identify “white privilege” and how it’s used to oppress people of colour.

The 83,000-member Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) has geared this curriculum plan to Grades 7 and 8 students.

Named “Who’s Got the Power,” the curriculum plan equates “male and white privilege” – describing privilege as the “values of society that Whites receive…by virtue of their skin colour in a racist society.”




Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, st27 said:

What happened to reading, writing, and math?? Is this the best use of tax dollars and since when do teachers dictate curriculum?



I'm so glad my kids are out of school and I don't have to deal with this.  Spoiler; my wife is not white and we still wouldn't want their minds poisoned with this tainted worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jaydee said:

the censorship order and fines against him were illegal.

Thanks, good to hear.

But in reality, they always were... and any right thinking Canadian knows it. This came up in a conversation at the gym a few days ago, it appears it's not just me... other veterans seem to be just as appalled with (what I call) 70 percenters as I am. They just have other names for them.

We gave up way (WAY) too much and got....  NOTHING.

Invoking the Emergencies Act and that ARR CAN App thing (look into that puppy if you want to get annoyed) could never have happened without the mass hysteria surrounding Covid and the willing (even eager) rush to trample on the rights of others.

I say wear your mask, get as many inoculations as you like and then mind your own damn business. If anyone wants to go the "my tax dollars" option then I'm all in... bring it on, but be careful what you wish for.

I say we apply the concept across the board and include obesity, type two diabetes, and other lifestyle related diseases. I would never have considered that 3 years ago, now I'd vote for it. That's a big change for me and it was the direct result of seeing my fellow citizens cheering as their neighbours got fired. Across the board, I think there was a lot of long term damage done here.

It's like hitting those Paris Accord targets, people should be very careful what they wish for and consider the unintended consequences that always accompany wishes fulfilled. Especially when those wishes put collective hysteria above individual rights. If your rights and freedoms aren't up to surviving Covid, they were never of any value in the first place... and certainly not worth fighting for. In fact you deserve to lose them, and you will.

Keep watching. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...




I thought the Charter would protect our rights during the pandemic. I was wrong

By Joanna Baron


When the New York Times ran a feature encouraging its writers to admit things they got wrong, we were equally intrigued and annoyed. What a great idea — why didn’t we think of that?! That’s exactly the spirit we want to encourage at The Hub. We know we won’t be right about everything, but we want to admit it when we get something wrong and we want to figure out why we were off base. So, this week, we’ll be borrowing the Times’ idea and running essays from our writers and staff about the things we got wrong. Please, enjoy our blunders.


I entered the legal profession during what was a sort of zenith of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the years of the so-called Bedford trilogy (from 2013-2016), s. 7 of the Charter—which protects the right to life, liberty, and security of the person—expanded to encompass rights to safe injection sites, medically assisted death, and brothels. The Court told us pointedly: if a single Canadian’s rights were harmed by an impugned law, that was sufficient to strike the law down as unconstitutional.


So as the contours of government response to the pandemic—vaccine passports, extended lockdowns, mandates, mandatory quarantines—came into focus in late 2020 and early 2021, I was cautiously bullish on the viability of the most serious claims under the Charter.


Of course, some restrictions on rights for valid public health objectives were understandable. But the sorts of laws that vividly and severely impacted the core liberties, even dignity, of individuals could not simply be swept under the rug of s. 1 indefinitely and justified in light of the government’s self-professed exigent circumstances. In particular, cases where the government failed to provide compassionate exemptions for its most draconian measures should be accommodated or the law struck down under the Charter.


I was wrong. In summer 2021, the Canadian Constitution Foundation along with several individuals brought an application against the government in relation to its quarantine hotel measures which required all returning travellers to isolate in an approved hotel for three days at a cost of about $2,000. The applicants, all of modest means, each needed to travel outside of Canada either to care for parents suffering from terminal conditions or, in one case, care for an injured spouse.


The expense itself was crushing for these individuals. But also, the public health justification for the hotels was flimsy. In spring 2021, the federal government’s own expert advisory panel recommended discontinuing the hotel program, as it was unlikely to have any effect on the spread of the virus. Striking down the program seemed to clearly follow from the Charter’s guarantees if they were to have any teeth. Instead, in his decision the judge summarily dismissed the claim, deriding the matters raised as concerning “decidedly first world, economic problems.” He did not find any breach of any of the Charter rights asserted (including the right to mobility and the right to life, liberty, and security of the person).


This posture of extreme deference was the norm throughout the pandemic (even bans on a church holding drive-in services were upheld). It was predictable that governments, responding to public pressure, would overshoot the mark and act according to the precautionary principle in setting policies. Throughout the pandemic, nearly all health measures polled well. It fell to judges to hold up the principle that, as Robert Nozick says, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may make them do.”


A constitution is meant to demarcate acceptable from unacceptable state conduct, not act as a sort of grab bag of contingent interests. If a right is little more than one norm or interest to be weighed against others, and the government’s reasoning for its actions is deferred to across the board, the Charter is nothing but a lame duck showpiece. I thought the Charter would be a sturdy bulwark against rights intrusions throughout the pandemic. I was wrong.






  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

That lying *&^I*^*( wouldn’t let a peaceful solution be looked at. 

Trudeau government invoked Emergencies Act despite ‘potential for a breakthrough’ with convoy protesters, documents show

On the night before the federal government imposed the federal Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history, the Prime Minister’s national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, told Justin Trudeau and the rest of the federal cabinet that there was a potential for a breakthrough with the protesters in Ottawa.

The surprising revelation is contained in a package of cabinet-level documents, previously marked secret, describing the discussions that took place in February as the cabinet weighed how to address a flurry of highly disruptive protests across the country that were primarily focused on opposing COVID vaccine mandates.

The documents are heavily redacted and there is no detailed explanation in the non-redacted sections related to the reference of a potential breakthrough.

Liberal government to release cabinet documents to Emergencies Act inquiry

The records were released as part of two cases challenging the use of the Emergencies Act. The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal non-profit, filed an application in late February for judicial review of the government’s decision to invoke the act.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has also brought an application for judicial review over the act’s invocation.

On Monday, Feb. 14, the day the act was invoked, Mr. Trudeau told a news conference that “It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the law.”

The cabinet documents include minutes of a late Sunday evening meeting of the full federal cabinet, which took place from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m.

The Feb. 13 meeting was chaired by Mr. Trudeau. RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, Canadian Security Intelligence Service Director David Vigneault and other senior public servants and political aides were also in attendance.

The minutes describe a “situation update” delivered to the cabinet by Ms. Thomas.

The national security adviser noted that there were multiple border crossings that continued to experience blockages, “despite the success of law enforcement in Windsor as they disbursed the blockade from the Ambassador Bridge.”

Ms. Thomas told the group that social media continues to play an active role in the communication and organization of protesters across the country. She also said CSIS “continues to watch persons of interest.”

The minutes then reference the situation in Ottawa, where protestors and their parked vehicles – including numerous large transport trucks – had effectively shut down the city core for weeks by blocking streets in the area near Parliament Hill.

“With respect to recent actions, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor indicated that law enforcement gains have been important and that there was potential for a breakthrough in Ottawa, Ontario and that the RCMP was taking enforcement action in Coutts, Alberta,” the document states.

Virtually all of the remaining minutes describing the meeting are redacted.

The Globe and Mail asked the Prime Minister’s Office to comment on the release of the documents and the reference to a potential breakthrough. The government responded with a statement from Alexander Cohen, a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino.

“The potential for a breakthrough referred to negotiations led principally by the City of Ottawa with illegal blockaders in the days before the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The government closely monitored the status of negotiations, which were disavowed by many associated with the so-called freedom convoy and were ultimately unsuccessful,” he said.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...