-2

Just wondering, in the plight of some recent news coming from Canada, and the Emergencies Act being evoked (protesters; thier right to protest in a certain area were vanquished and they were arrested); is there any justification for the current government to do so? At this moment as I write, Ottawa is ending the use of the Emergencies Act, the current prime minister says. And also to note, a State in the USA is trying to pass a bill for these oppressed Canadians to give them temporary asylum. Should Canadians be fleeing their country in light of what has happened in the past few days? I believe the CCLA stated, "Let's be clear: There is no legal justification for using the Emergencies Act." If there is no legal justification, could Canadians seek asylum in other countries on the evoking of the emergencies act and would other countries take in Canadians seeking asylum from this current situation?

0

1 Answer 1

8

Just wondering, in the plight of some recent news coming from Canada, and the Emergencies Act being evoked (protesters; thier right to protest in a certain area were vanquished and they were arrested); is there any justification for the current government to do so?

There is legal justification for the current government to do so. As explained in the link above:

In the weekend before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who also serves as the finance minister, met with the CEOs of the largest Canadian banks to discuss how they could help resolve the situation. On February 14, 2022, during the Canada convoy protest, the Emergencies Act was invoked for the first time in Canadian history by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government, declaring a public order emergency.

Under the Emergency Measures Regulations enacted after the declaration of emergency, participation in public assemblies that could result in a breach of peace by disrupting the movements of goods and people, interfering with the operation of critical infrastructure, or by supporting violence, was prohibited. Travel to and within places where these rallies were occurring was restricted, and foreign nationals were barred from coming to Canada to attend them. The regulations also specifically outlawed the bringing of children under the age of 18 to these assembles. Additionally the use, provision, collection, and solicitation of property and funds to support the prohibited assemblies or the people participating in them was banned.

The regulations further empowered the federal government to protect critical infrastructure, Parliament Hill and the parliamentary precinct, official government residences and buildings, war monuments, and any other places that may be designated by the minister of public safety. The federal government was also given the authority to compel the towing and removal of vehicles, structures, and other objects used in blockades. Violations of the regulations is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine up to $5000.

Under the Emergency Economic Measures Order, also enacted pursuant to the declaration of emergency, crowdfunding platforms and their payment processors were required to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), and report large and suspicious transactions. Cryptocurrencies are also included in the expanded financial regulations. Banks were ordered to freeze personal and corporate bank accounts suspected of being used by people violating the regulations, and are protected from civil liability in enforcing the order. Insurance coverage for trucks being used in blockades will be suspended. Furthermore financial institutions had to determine on a continuing basis whether any persons violating the regulations were using their services and were required to promptly report findings to the RCMP or CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service).

Background and links to other stories with background can be found in a recent article at the Washington Post which notes that:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Wednesday revoked the use of emergency powers that he invoked to quell weeks-long blockades in the Canadian capital that spread to several U.S.-Canada border crossings and inspired copycats abroad.

“Today, after careful consideration, we’re ready to confirm that the situation is no longer an emergency,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa. “Therefore, the federal government will be ending the use of the Emergencies Act. We are confident that existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient to keep people safe.”

The move was a shift for Trudeau, who on Monday said his government still needed the sweeping powers even after the blockades protesting public health restrictions and his government were cleared over the weekend because it had “real concerns” that new blockades could pop up and that protesters might be regrouping at satellite hubs outside Ottawa.

Trudeau last week became the first leader to invoke the 1988 Emergencies Act, and the House of Commons voted Monday to endorse the use of the law. But its unprecedented use also drew criticism from civil liberties groups, some opposition lawmakers and several provincial premiers, who cast it as government overreach.

The act was written to be a last resort, to use when there were no other laws on the books that might end an emergency. Several legal analysts said that it wasn’t clear that the blockades met the threshold or that authorities had exhausted existing tools. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is challenging it in court.

The Emergencies Act allowed police to designate no-go zones where people participating in prohibited public assemblies or bringing minors to them could face arrest. One such area was Parliament Hill in Ottawa and the surrounding precinct.

The fact that the House of Commons approved the use is pretty much the end of the line since the parliament in Canada has the authority of suspend individual rights in most cases under the Canadian constitution.

And also to note, a State in the USA is trying to pass a bill for these oppressed Canadians to give them temporary asylum.

This is clumsy and naked political posturing. States have no say in immigration matters including asylum and the people trying to pass that bill know perfectly well that such a bill is meaningless even if passed.

Should Canadians be fleeing their country in light of what has happened in the past few days?

No.

I believe the CCLA stated, "Let's be clear: There is no legal justification for using the Emergencies Act."

The CCLA's statement greatly overstates the situation.

If there is no legal justification, could Canadians seek asylum in other countries on the evoking of the emergencies act and would other countries take in Canadians seeking asylum from this current situation?

No.

Asylum requires an individualized threat of persecution which the vast majority of Canadians who didn't participate don't face. Moreover, they would have to show that it violated their human rights without lawful justification which they would be unable to do, and it has to be so severe that it puts your life and ability to live in the long run in your country in danger. Not being permitted to fully protest at a particular place for a week and having your bank accounts frozen for allegedly engaging in illegal activities doesn't meet that threshold.

7
  • I appreciate your reply to my question; I was happy to read what asylum requires. I am deeply concerned for Canadians, To me it appears that there are no rules, no guidelines, no laws to being PM. It is clear that with the SNC and WE scandals that politicians can get away with criminal behaviour... and the amout of debt that has been accumulated; it will be Canadians paying it off! Canadians must be scared to see this dictatorial behaviour of Justin Trudeau. (He admires China and their ruthless dictator Xi) Is thisTrudeau’s vision for Canadians?..Hoping Canadians leave before it's too late!
    – Ester
    Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 2:22
  • 1
    What is the meaning of "individualized" in the phrase "individualized threat of persecution"? The refugee conventions grew out of the history of generalized persecution and genocide, and "individualized" seems to exclude persecution based on one's membership in a particular group, so I find it confusing unless it doesn't actually exclude such persecution.
    – phoog
    Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 13:25
  • 2
    @phoog In this context by saying "individualized", I mean something that is actually and personally directly experienced by and impacting you. In this context, Canadians generally aren't being persecuted, so only those impacted by the action would even be at square one of multiple elements of an asylum claim. You aren't entitled to asylum because your country does shitty things to other people and that makes you not want to live there any more.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Feb 24, 2022 at 19:52
  • This answer is totally wrong and opinion based. For example you said "The fact that the House of Commons approved the use is pretty much the end of the line" which is false. There's a senate, which is less susceptible to party bias (every single person voted with their party in the House of Commons, except for the Green party, and some like Joel Lightbound said they didn't agree with their own vote: remember that you can lose your job if you vote against your party in the House) and the senate was pushing towards rejecting the proposal, which some say is why they cancelled use of the Act. Commented Mar 1, 2022 at 15:12
  • Alberta is also suing the government for use of the Act, so votes in the House of Commons are not "pretty much the end of the line". Commented Mar 1, 2022 at 15:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .