House voted for Federal Emergency Act

[shack]

Bs! Justin was so sure of being right, he made it a confidence vote.

Once again, he got it right.

Is that a problem for you?

 

[shack]

Actually, all sides lost. Not now or in the near future, but the precedent has been set. One day, PM Poilievre or somebody else, will reach for the Act to crash the civil service strikes or Native occupations or any other protest it will deem illegal. And he will make it a confidence vote and the sheep will line up just like they did this time. To be honest, I wouldn't mind living long enough just to see it because I love a good laugh.

Right now, you're crying in your beer.

All speculatory sour grapes. Did anybody enact the War Measures Act after PET to quell a public service strike.

 

[Valcazar]

The results probably wouldn't have been different if it was a free vote.

I think a couple of people said they explicitly voted for it because it was a confidence vote and otherwise would not have.
I don't think it would have been enough people to flip the result, though.

Remember that it takes very few people to force a new vote on this. The government is also going to have to submit each new set of actions for a review.

 

[Valcazar]

We can see this happening in the US with impeachment proceedings. Now that Trump was impeached, twice, every majority congress will now impeach every sitting president from the opposing party. I fully expect Biden will be impeached if the Republicans win back the house in November. Impeachment is just a political partisan tool now, and the Emergency Act in Canada could very well become the same thing.

This is wrong, though.
It became a political partisan tool earlier, with the Clinton impeachment.
And even with that, it wasn't used as a "merits of the case don't matter, just use it to attack" since then.
That the GOP announced - before Trump - that they intended to use it on Hillary Clinton the moment she won is relevant here.
There is one side that intends to use it as a purely partisan tool and isn't the side that actually used it.

So yes, it can become pure partisan fuckery, norms are always possible to violate.
But that will be a choice by the parties if they go there.
The Libs using it doesn't force the Cons to go down that route.

 

[blueray]

So yes, it can become pure partisan fuckery, norms are always possible to violate.
But that will be a choice by the parties if they go there.
The Libs using it doesn't force the Cons to go down that route.

You are correct, and both parties will now choose to go that route if they hold the house and can win the vote against a sitting president.

 

[Valcazar]

You are correct, and both parties will now choose to go that route if they hold the house and can win the vote against a sitting president.

The evidence doesn't support that, though.
There is very little appetite on the Dem side for making up a frivolous charge to try and get someone out.
Some of that is the political culture and some of it is just that the Trump situation showed that it just isn't a functional redress.
They had the most bipartisan impeachment and most bipartisan conviction vote in US history and it wasn't enough.
The odds of either party being even *close* to the 67-vote threshold needed to convict is very slim and impeaching without conviction doesn't do much for you.

 

[medalllione]

It's needed, a few days ago, police blocked a convoy in Manitoba on its way to Ottawa, and today a man with a gun is at the Rideau Centre in Ottawa, everyone told to go home. The act will stay for a long time as acts of domestic terrorism starts to rise.

Sorry Bud. That is not an emergency. Its normal acts of crime that can be dealt with under our criminal codes and ample resources of various levels LE. We don't need the EA for that. What we just saw was failure of LE to enforce existing civil laws. Let's not normalize the EA. If we do, we'll be no different from thuggish dictator regimes Canada is so happy to criticize from their moral high horse.