Court has ruled Emergencies Act during Trucker convoy was unconstitutional
- Thread starter Phil C. McNasty
- Start date
Sorry if this was brought up already, I just don't have the drive to read pages of posts today.
Wasn't there already an inquiry supporting the use of the emergencies act by Paul Rouleau in a 2000 page report investigating whether the federal goverment had met the threshold to invoke the act??
Wasn't there already an inquiry supporting the use of the emergencies act by Paul Rouleau in a 2000 page report investigating whether the federal goverment had met the threshold to invoke the act??
Rouleau who is a personal family friend of Trudeau and determined it was justified.
Nothing to see here
You mean his Uncle then don't you?Rouleau who is a personal family friend of Trudeau and determined it was justified.
Nothing to see here
Nope, he isn't.
Brother in law?
Nope he isn't.
Personal friend?
Investigated by an ethics commitee and shown no personal ties to the Trudeau family.
He supported and made donations to the Liberal party ?
Nope, no records of him making political donations, however his wife contibuted a $100.00 donation to federal Liberal leadership contender Gerard Kennedy in 2006.
He had ties to Jean Chretien?
Yes, Rouleau’s aunt Jacqueline married into the powerful Desmarais family, and her son Andre married France Chretien, daughter of the former Liberal prime minister.
Has Rouleau only ever been appointed by Liberal governments?
Nope, He was named a deputy judge on Yukon’s Supreme Court in 2014, under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
More here:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fac...ioner-not-related-to-justin-trudeau-1.6280633
You are basing your comment on a claim that was based on one sentence, from an opinion article in the Calgary Herald.
It was found to be untrue. Yet picked up by twitter ETC. as true.
The sentence that has now been removed from it stated" The judge was a friend of Pierre Trudeau's going back decades, so of course this inquiry was a foregone conclusion. Rigged? Of course.
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/c...aus-report-provides-roadmap-for-future-crises
Did you read any of the report, the actual report.
Here is a linK if you care to peruse it:https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/final-report/
The report singles out failures of leadership by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Ford and his Solicitor General, the then leader of the Conservative Party, Candice Bergen, and future leader, Pierre Poilievre.
It also contains some recommendations, a couple are that the CCIS definition of threat be removed from the Act, and replaced by one that better captures what is meant by a public emergency; greater co-ordination between police forces regarding the use of information and the sharing of resources; and changes to the conditions surrounding the freezing (and un-freezing) of protesters’ bank accounts.
He included this warning" that misinformation is “inherently destructive and divisive,” and that its role in the unfolding movement was “pervasive.”
Kind of what you just posted.
Found the answer to my question.
Under the Federal Courts Act, the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction (subject to certain exceptions) to judicially review decisions made by the Cabinet under federal laws.
His mandate, under the act, is limited to inquiring “into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency.”
Since the investigation was performed by a federally appointed commitee, Justice Rouleau’s findings would not be binding on the Federal Court, and so Canadians ended up with two contradictory answers to the question of whether the government followed the law. His determination of this question would also itself be subject to judicial review in the Federal Court.
The final say will be with the Supreme Court of Canada.
So anyone supporting Schmucks with Trucks, let us know your address. We will park in front of your homes, harrass you and your families when you go walk about and create a noise disturbance 24/7 and I assume you will say nothing because muh rights.
Same reaction when cunts were smashing shit up on some G20 protest and then claiming they were engaged in peaceful protest and political speech
These people should take a baseball bat to the face... I mean it's free speech right?
Same reaction when cunts were smashing shit up on some G20 protest and then claiming they were engaged in peaceful protest and political speech
These people should take a baseball bat to the face... I mean it's free speech right?
Yes.
Didn't find Trudeau "guilty" of anything, he found the act was not applied properly and that some measures infringed on the charter.
Not the same thing, since we are talking about legal specifics here.
Yes.He also said this
" The harm being caused to Canada’s economy, trade, and commerce was very real and concerning,” said Mosley. “But it did not constitute threats or the use of serious violence to persons or property.”
And a few other things
Invocation of Emergencies Act unreasonable, measures against Freedom Convoy unconstitutional: court
Federal Court found decision to declare emergency fell short of Emergencies Act requirementswww.canadianlawyermag.com
I’d say that’s a far cry better, far more substantial and far more serious than accusations. Would you agree?
It's just not finding Trudeau guilty of anything.
It's finding the law shouldn't have been applied.
This wasn't a criminal trial of Trudeau, or even specifically a ruling on his actions alone.
This is, of course MORE than good enough reason to call on Trudeau to resign.
But Canada has no equivalent of the 14th amendment disqualification requirement that Trump is facing.
Comparing Trudeau to Trump here is an odd comparison to make.
Trump was found in a court of law to be disqualified according to a specific provision of the US Constitution
The Canadian Constitution has no such provision saying that if the government was found to violate a charter right, the PM is disqualified from elected office.
Thinking a PM should step down under such circumstances is a long way from there being a legal requirement to do so, though.
People will, and should, argue that this is a reason a PM should step down, but it just isn't anything the Constitution actually requires.
Not "individuals" as if they have no role.
A state supreme court (after it went up through the court system of the state) found he engaged in insurrection or gave aid or comfort to the people involved in one.
Also a state secretary of state, but I assume you find the court finding more important.
I don't see massive hypocrisy.
But there is the massive difference of the US Constitution having a specific provision about qualification for election office that was in play and Canada having no such provision.
Also the difference between use of power in a way that violates constitutional rights and an attempt to overthrow an election.
Definitely a difference there.
And yes, I am aware you find the first far worse.
Yes, and that decision will be part of the appeal, I'm sure.
But the fact is we have two people who have looked at it and reached different conclusions.
But both also acknowledged that it isn't a cut and dry decision and (from what I gather from the new decision) they weren't looking at exactly the same evidence.
All in all, we don't have much more clarity about the law and its application than we did before. It's fuzzy.
That's going to make it hard to tighten it up and improve it.
I think the ability to freeze bank accounts will have stronger standards applied so that something so powerful can't be so ad hoc.
That being a problem seems to be a consensus view.
Changing away from the CCIS definition of threat also seems to be something people agree on.
Beyond that I think it is hard to say.
Do you understand the difference between between public inquiries and courts of law?
One is legally binding, the other only makes recommendations
Of coarse not Valcazar. Your posting history is hardly what we might call diverse. While you are far more thoughtful than the majority. I’ve never read anything that be deemed critical of the L, or crediting the R.
See above. Do you know the differences between public inquiries and courts of law?
And at the end of the day? What’s the point of constitutions and charters if you won’t defend them. It’s the highest law in the land. Why do we have them?
Last edited:
Do you have an issue with the ruling or the term "violated"?
Another question: if it was a conservative PM in this situation, how many cars would you set on fire in the streets?
So does that mean they should abide by the ruling and cancel the emergencies act usage for the convoy?
Our government can't freeze offshore bank accounts. You think these two keep their money hidden in Canada. They don't need to when the money they spend here isn't theirs.I wish they freeze Trudeau's and Freeland's bank accounts
and shoot squeezer in the dick with a rubber bullet
Yet the NDP rats want to drown with Jagmeet.Trudeau was going to throw Lametti under the bus, but ...
Former justice minister David Lametti resigning as Liberal MP to join law firm
His last day will Feb. 1, according to a government source.nationalpost.com
rats are jumping ship
or that masculineSqueezer is not nearly that handsome
Shouldn't everyone abide by a court ruling? Or only the people you don't like?
Of course I do.
My objection here was to you claiming that the Trump situation wasn't decided in a court of law.
It was.
The other issue is that if you are going to lean on it being a court of law, you need to look at what the court actually considered and decided.
To guide and structure government.
You appear to want to argue that this finding means Trudeau must step down for breach of the constitution.
Presumably, you have argued for every other Prime Minister whose government has ever been ruled to have violated someone's rights to also step down.
If that is not your position, please clarify, I'm happy to hear you elaborate.
But since you clearly are someone who thinks laws and constitutional order is very important, you also know there is no such provision in the Canadian Constitution.
No force of law requires Trudeau step down, even if you think morally it is the right thing for him to do.
I have an issue with the statement "Trudeau is guilty" given we are talking about a court proceeding and they have specific language they use.
None.
I don't do car burnings.
Not my preferred method of political expression.
