{"id":405765,"date":"2022-02-15T07:43:21","date_gmt":"2022-02-15T04:43:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/the-emergencies-act-whats-seriously-endangered\/"},"modified":"2022-02-15T07:43:21","modified_gmt":"2022-02-15T04:43:21","slug":"the-emergencies-act-whats-seriously-endangered","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/the-emergencies-act-whats-seriously-endangered\/","title":{"rendered":"#The Emergencies Act: What’s ‘seriously endangered’?"},"content":{"rendered":"

“#The Emergencies Act: What’s ‘seriously endangered’?<\/strong>”<\/p>\n

\n Paul Wells: Five PMs have had the Emergencies Act and declined to use it. The question now is whether Trudeau has met the ‘stringent test’ laid out 34 years ago.\n <\/div>\n
\n \u201cThe War Measures Act is too broad and too sweeping,\u201d Perrin Beatty told the House of Commons when he launched debate at second reading on Bill C-77, a proposed new Emergencies Act, in November of 1987.<\/p>\n

Beatty was the Minister of National Defence in Brian Mulroney\u2019s government in those days. He said the War Measures Act, used in sweeping ways to keep some kind of makeshift lid on the country\u2019s civil peace during two world wars and then again, awkwardly, to quell a Quebec separatist fringe in 1970, \u201cmakes no provision for dealing either moderately with peacetime disasters or for a measured and prudent response to international tension.\u201d Beatty quoted John Turner, who\u2019d been the Justice Minister in 1970, calling the old act \u201ctoo blunt an instrument.\u201d One of Beatty\u2019s colleagues, Jean Charest, quoted an earthier assessment from Jean Chr\u00e9tien: the War Measures Act was a moving van, and in 1970 all the feds needed to move was a bicycle.<\/p>\n

The new law would be less sweeping in its effect\u2014in particular it would not suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And it would app<\/a>ly only in four carefully-defined circumstances. First, basically natural or man-made disasters like \u201cfloods\u201d or a \u201cmassive chemical spill.\u201d Second, \u201cpublic order disturbances that threaten the security of Canada.\u201d Third, international emergencies that require Canada act effectively in a multinational alliance. Fourth, \u201cwar itself.\u201d<\/p>\n

I take you through this history because, first of all, you knew I was the only one who\u2019d bother. And second, because Justin Trudeau\u2019s first-ever invocation of Beatty\u2019s bill will probably be tested in a court somewhere. So it\u2019s interesting to read what Beatty had to say about the tests his bill set out for just such a challenge.<\/p>\n

\u201cProbably the most contentious clause in this Bill,\u201d he said, was the one setting out the second circumstance, so-called \u201cpublic-order emergencies,\u201d which as it turned out, was indeed what Justin Trudeau responded to on Monday. To understand whether a given emergency qualifies, Beatty said, you have to look at the definition the new law provided.<\/p>\n

The definition Beatty read on this November day in 1987 was, he said, \u201cvery stringent, indeed.\u201d But it\u2019s not the definition in the law as it stands today. Somewhere between introduction and passage, the proposed law was amended to make it more<\/em> stringent. The final version of the Emergencies Act calls a national emergency \u201can urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature\u201d that \u201cseriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians,\u201d or one that \u201cseriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n

So the question before us today is whether the blockades at Ottawa and, if they return, Windsor and Coutts seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians, or seriously threaten Canada\u2019s sovereignty or territorial integrity. Do lives depend on using this law? Does Canada\u2019s independence and survival?<\/p>\n

You might say: Well, sure they do. This is an anti-vaxx protest, after all, at least in part, and every unvaccinated person is a potential disease vector. As for sovereignty and territorial integrity, well\u2026 I mean, maybe<\/em> you could stretch that one to fit? But in deciding whether this law is needed today, it\u2019s worth looking at all the other times previous governments decided it wasn\u2019t needed.<\/p>\n

Five prime ministers have had the Emergencies Act and declined to use it. Brian Mulroney didn\u2019t use it during the two-month Oka standoff outside Montreal in 1990. Jean Chr\u00e9tien didn\u2019t need it after 9\/11, Stephen Harper didn\u2019t need it during the 2008 banking crisis. And Justin Trudeau didn\u2019t use it during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw 35,000 deaths and the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s different about today? Look, the endless clot of metal and hot tubs around Parliament Hill is a serious problem. The astonishing surrender of the Ottawa Police is too, and that one\u2019s going to be paying dividends in drastically reduced police legitimacy for years to come in this city, so thanks for that, everyone. And the weapons cache at Coutts\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0is deeply disturbing, though it would not be the first time since 1988 that large amounts of weapons were found together in Canada. And again, we\u2019re looking for the justification in a once-in-34-years invocation of a novel law.<\/p>\n

But I think the real explanation for today\u2019s announcement came from Chrystia Freeland, who said it\u2019s basically about the blocked Ambassador Bridge at Windsor. Inconveniently no longer blocked, but I digress. \u201cWe fought tooth and nail to protect Canada\u2019s privileged relationship with the United States during the NAFTA negotiations,\u201d the deputy prime minister said, \u201cand we stood up to the 232 tariffs that were illegal and unjustified. We won\u2019t let these hard-won victories be tarnished. The world is watching us. Our jobs, prosperity and livelihoods are at stake. That\u2019s why the government is acting.\u201d<\/p>\n

So one way to understand the \u201cstringent test\u201d a young minister laid out 34 years ago for invoking special measures is: does the border impediment at Windsor and Coutts \u201cseriously endanger\u201d Canadians\u2019 lives or \u201cseriously threaten\u201d Canada\u2019s independence and survival? And again, the you-must-be-this-tall-to-ride test to apply is: was the current crisis worse than the crises of 2020, 2008 or 2001?<\/p>\n

Parliament will get a chance to debate all of this in the next several days.
\n<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n