Jump to content

Emergency Act commission


myata

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

When the EMA was enacted, by law, a commission was required.

Okay??  But hey, you knew that legal requirement??

I agree with Eyeball here the commission is not about who is at fault, but there should be something done on this side of the equation.  although there was a lot of fingers pointing on who screwed up and who did not, including from the PM. 

The commission was about did the government meet all the requirements to use the EMA. And examine all the resons why it was needed. 

We all knew the outcome before day one of the commission, nobody is going to lose their jobs, or any punishment be dealt out, Liberal government will come out of this as always, smelling like shitty roses, we would have wasted countless millions on a commission we did not really need. What it will do is set precedence for the next government, the EMA will be much easier to use, knowing beforehand the consequences of using it in the first place. 

The government did not even meet the definition of what is required by the federal government's official definition and policy laid out already, instead they used CSIS definition as it was less descriptive, easier to manipulate, maybe those loopholes can be closed. One has to ask how many other examples are their out there with these loopholes.  

Edited by Army Guy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One has to ask how many other examples are their out there with these loopholes.  

The biggest loophole is incompetence - a loophole no amount of democracy appears capable of closing. 

I know I know, it's still better than the alternatives.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I agree with Eyeball here the commission is not about who is at fault, but there should be something done on this side of the equation.  although there was a lot of fingers pointing on who screwed up and who did not, including from the PM. 

The commission was about did the government meet all the requirements to use the EMA. And examine all the resons why it was needed. 

We all knew the outcome before day one of the commission, nobody is going to lose their jobs, or any punishment be dealt out, Liberal government will come out of this as always, smelling like shitty roses, we would have wasted countless millions on a commission we did not really need. What it will do is set precedence for the next government, the EMA will be much easier to use, knowing beforehand the consequences of using it in the first place. 

The government did not even meet the definition of what is required by the federal government's official definition and policy laid out already, instead they used CSIS definition as it was less descriptive, easier to manipulate, maybe those loopholes can be closed. One has to ask how many other examples are their out there with these loopholes.  

Correct.

It is not at who is at fault but if the government did the correct thing by enacting the EMA.

The outcome is not known. It is a report that will yet be written and I do not think that the government will be exonerated.

Whether the government met all the definitions will also be determined.

Not sure what "loopholes" you think there are or were regrading the enactment of the EMA.

As for "loopholes", there are many ways to twist words. This forum is a perfect example. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The biggest loophole is incompetence - a loophole no amount of democracy appears capable of closing. 

I know I know, it's still better than the alternatives.

Incompetence is not a "loophole", it is a trait.

It is also an accusation made by those that do not have a grasp of a total situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, myata said:

And then - what? Just wow. "D-i...m...a" what was it, again?

You do understand the difference between a royal commissions and commissions of inquiry a public inquiry and a commission? Seems like you do not.

Some have legal repercussions, some have procedural repercussions and some just present a report of investigative findings.

A commission in this case just presents findings. That is what the law requires of this commission.

And yes, so what?? No legal repercussions at all. Maybe political ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

And yes, so what??

It sounds like you aren't sure. And that is actually a definitive statement on the state of democracy in Canada: no. No you can't have a democracy if there's no real accountability for abuses of power. You can call it anything but it's missing the main defining attribute. Third world knows.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, myata said:

It sounds like you aren't sure. And that is actually a definitive statement on the state of democracy in Canada: no. No you can't have a democracy if there's no real accountability for abuses of power. You can call it anything but it's missing the main defining attribute. Third world knows.

So what? Was in response to your "And then - what? Just wow. "D-i...m...a" what was it, again? "

Point is, as I have told you but you disregard, a report carries no weight. It can and will provide political fodder for opposition parties but, that was not what the commission was about or for.

Oh and "no real accountability for abuses of power"  is an opinion from a person that does not agree with policy. You are entitled to that opinion.

And as for your statement "it's missing the main defining attribute.". What is "it's" and what is "the main defining attribute." of what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Incompetence is not a "loophole", it is a trait.

It is also an accusation made by those that do not have a grasp of a total situation.

Incompetence is a baked in expectation really. There are too many examples of government incompetence to count. Army Guy asked; One has to ask how many other examples are their out there with these loopholes Who's ultimately  accountable for that, us if the adage voters are responsible for the democracies means anything.  Future generations might have good reason to look back and say it was us that were incompetent - we're the one's who deserve the government we get but it'll be future generations that are liable for it.

You see a lot of that in the world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our hypocritical village ijjit just told the government of China: "Do the opposite of what I'd do in that situation!"

I feel like I need a shower for doing this, but I'm gonna drop a load of BS from CTV here, some of which is actually true for once: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-expresses-support-for-chinese-protesters-as-show-of-dissent-roils-beijing-1.6173296

Quote

"Canadians are watching very closely. Obviously everyone in China should be allowed to express themselves (and) should be allowed to share their perspectives, and indeed protest," he said.

"We're going to continue to ensure that China knows we'll stand up for human rights. [1] We'll stand with people who are expressing themselves. [2]We also need to make sure that China, and places around the world, are respecting journalists and their ability to do their job."

[3] His comments come just after weeks of testimony over Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act to clear out-of-hand protests in Canada last winter, which ranged from discontent over vaccine requirements to [4] rage fuelled by conspiracy theories.

1) No, our government absolutely does not stand with people who peacefully express themselves, as we saw in Ottawa, so that was a total lie from groper.

2) Our government has had at least two journalists assaulted by the RCMP, David Menzies and Alexa Lavoie, neither of whom was as bad as David Acosta on a good day (Trump never had him assaulted, but CNN acted like he was assaulted when a girl took a mic from him lol). There are probably several more Rebel News reporters who've been beaten by police here but I don't know. 

He also lavishes money on sycophant media which has the effect of starving out the competition. 

3) That's the pillow-fight version of calling out our PM's blatant hypocrisy,

4) but then they add their own lies to the story to mitigate the extent of Trudeau's d-baggery even further: "rage fuelled by conspiracy theories" lol. There wasn't an ounce of rage over anything conspiratorial ffs. The rage was about bogus gov't mandates, pure and simple. It was about forcing people to take a worthless shot with dangerous side-effects. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conceptually, it's the same epochs old problem of an absolute or near, unaccountable power we like to stumble upon every few generations. Yes you can have it all: the laws, virtually unlimited mandates, emergency powers courts looking the other way you can have levels and layers of (pet) "commissioners" "obmudsfolk" talking heads explaining that it's exactly as it should be. There's a problem though: in the absence of checks, real balance of power and accountability you are the only one to carry all responsibility for any hiccup or failure. Absence of transparency and accountability means at the same time, singular responsibility. Absolute monarchs of old, knew.

The elites in Canada have been able to avoid it for a while due to remote geography, quiet to the point of extreme boredom politics of the place and a clever trick of splitting it (responsibility) in two, swapping one figurehead for another in place of real change and meaningful reforms. But it's not going to work in the longer run either, once the problems caused by a stagnant, grossly outdated post colonial system of public management will accumulate, exacerbate and pile on each other causing a systemic crisis of public management. The first bells are ringing. Yes, we will face the music eventually, maybe a bit later but then, it can be louder.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, myata said:

So, nothing. None, nada. Zero accountability means not much of real, modern functional democracy. It can be adorned in all kinds of pretty words and postures but it's only the reality. And nothing to add.

Huh?? What does that blather mean??

So what??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Correct.

It is not at who is at fault but if the government did the correct thing by enacting the EMA.

The outcome is not known. It is a report that will yet be written and I do not think that the government will be exonerated.

Whether the government met all the definitions will also be determined.

Not sure what "loopholes" you think there are or were regrading the enactment of the EMA.

As for "loopholes", there are many ways to twist words. This forum is a perfect example. :)

Flyer, i said this month ago, even if the present government is proven they did not have grounds to enact the EMA, what do you think is going to happen worse case? Another apology, an OOPPSS we made an mistake, a light slap on the wrist and all will be forgotten by election time. We have seen this over and over from this government. At best the conservatives will use this as a talking point for a couple months and then we will be on to the next liberal screw up. 

The loophole is the in the definition of "the standards of which the EMA maybe be invoked." , CSIS, RCMP, Federal government do not share the same the same definitions, and the federal government used the CSIS version as it was vague.  These definitions should be standard across all federal governments departments,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Flyer, i said this month ago, even if the present government is proven they did not have grounds to enact the EMA, what do you think is going to happen worse case? Another apology, an OOPPSS we made an mistake, a light slap on the wrist and all will be forgotten by election time. We have seen this over and over from this government. At best the conservatives will use this as a talking point for a couple months and then we will be on to the next liberal screw up. 

The loophole is the in the definition of "the standards of which the EMA maybe be invoked." , CSIS, RCMP, Federal government do not share the same the same definitions, and the federal government used the CSIS version as it was vague.  These definitions should be standard across all federal governments departments,  

As I have said all along, This is a report. Not to lay blame or to chastise but to determine if the enactment of EMA was warranted?

What do I think will happen? Well a lot of things actually. Although, I think, none of them with legal recourse though.

For sure the public can be outraged either way and the press can make at least a weeks worth of headlines out of it.

A loophole is something a person or group or government can take advantage of. Did they? The report should determine that too.

Rarely do government departments agree with each other. My tour at NDHQ and then as a civil servant  I have many encounters and disagreements with different departments as each department has a mandate that may and often will not coincide with another department. The people working within those departments have internal procedures, rules and regulations to work within and they will often conflict with other departments.

Anyone that thinks governments or corporations or organizations have seamless internal interaction is living in an unrealistic world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As I have said all along, This is a report. Not to lay blame or to chastise but to determine if the enactment of EMA was warranted?

What do I think will happen? Well a lot of things actually. Although, I think, none of them with legal recourse though.

For sure the public can be outraged either way and the press can make at least a weeks worth of headlines out of it.

A loophole is something a person or group or government can take advantage of. Did they? The report should determine that too.

Rarely do government departments agree with each other. My tour at NDHQ and then as a civil servant  I have many encounters and disagreements with different departments as each department has a mandate that may and often will not coincide with another department. The people working within those departments have internal procedures, rules and regulations to work within and they will often conflict with other departments.

Anyone that thinks governments or corporations or organizations have seamless internal interaction is living in an unrealistic world.

 

One would hope that a topic such as the EMA would at least have the same policies and definitions across the board. kind of like shouting fire, it means the same thing in all buildings and departments. It would also be hoped that the federal government meaning the liberals would have used the policies and definitions laid out for them and not CSIS becasue they were not as ridge 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

It would also be hoped

It would be an illusory, absolutely ungrounded hope without any real substance. Governments will always do what they can and can get away with, unless they are checked and controlled. And if there's no checks or controls, were never in the plan, what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One would hope that a topic such as the EMA would at least have the same policies and definitions across the board. kind of like shouting fire, it means the same thing in all buildings and departments. It would also be hoped that the federal government meaning the liberals would have used the policies and definitions laid out for them and not CSIS becasue they were not as ridge 

The definition differences were amongst agencies (departments). Each having different mandates therefore having different definitions.

Fire can also mean losing your job or discharging a gun or weapon or yes, combustion. Context is important. A woid or phrase in one context can mean something in on context bit something else in another. Not defending but I hope you can understand. I am sure you have gotten orders that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted or interpreted differently buy other persons. I know I have.

Understand that the definitions and such were around for a long time, to all political parties in power.

Not defending but I can see lots of fingers in the EMA pie and since no one has ever enacted it, I can for sure see power plays and too many bakers in that kitchen.

I hope the report will not only determine if it was needed but put forth reason why there was confusion and assist in clarifying all the confusion it created.

I most of all hope it will identify who should be in charge (form the policing side) from he beginning of such situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, myata said:

It would be an illusory, absolutely ungrounded hope without any real substance. Governments will always do what they can and can get away with, unless they are checked and controlled. And if there's no checks or controls, were never in the plan, what?

This commission is the check and it is required by law if the EMA was enacted.

Like I have said, I do not know what the report will say, what the outcome or what the repercussions will be.

We all have to wait. Everything until then is speculation, rumour, innuendo or conspiracy theories.

All plans have faults. Post action analysis will (should) correct and/or change procedure.

That is the challenge of this commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

This commission is the check

You have to be using some other, foreign language here. "Check" in normal English means "detect and prevent" not useless chatting long after the fact for some months by some outrageously paid lapdog and out of bottomless taxpayer pocket with no consequences of any kind for the perpetrators, assured and guaranteed. The translation fails, clearly.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, myata said:

You have to be using some other, foreign language here. "Check" in normal English means "detect and prevent" not useless chatting long after the fact for some months by some outrageously paid lapdog and out of bottomless taxpayer pocket with no consequences of any kind for the perpetrators, assured and guaranteed. The translation fails, clearly.

Actually, according to Oxford dictionary "check" means "examine (something) in order to determine its accuracy, quality, or condition, or "to detect the presence of something." and "an examination to test or ascertain accuracy, quality, or satisfactory condition."

Play your conspiracy game all you want. The rest of your babble is babble.

As I said "We all have to wait. Everything until then is speculation, rumour, innuendo or conspiracy theories. "   You fall into the third category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end it was really the Senate that put an end to the EMA, but it took a while for this to get to their desk. 

I don't know if I'd want to preemptively kibosh the EMA before it ever got enacted, it might be important to get something dealt with expeditiously in the future, but maybe the Senate should come to some kind of vote on it more quickly, and then periodically on an ongoing basis or some such? That might already be the case, I don't follow up on local news, I can't even watch it. 

They might even want to create some kind of a bipartisan oversight committee, to rule on individual actions undertaken while the Act is in place, to prevent things like "the freezing of bank accounts" from ever occurring again. It was an embarrassment for our country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In the end it was really the Senate that put an end to the EMA, but it took a while for this to get to their desk. 

I don't know if I'd want to preemptively kibosh the EMA before it ever got enacted, it might be important to get something dealt with expeditiously in the future, but maybe the Senate should come to some kind of vote on it more quickly, and then periodically on an ongoing basis or some such? That might already be the case, I don't follow up on local news, I can't even watch it. 

They might even want to create some kind of a bipartisan oversight committee, to rule on individual actions undertaken while the Act is in place, to prevent things like "the freezing of bank accounts" from ever occurring again. It was an embarrassment for our country. 

Actually, it was revoked by Trudeau.

Giving bipartisan oversight would just stall everything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually, it was revoked by Trudeau.

Officially, yes, but the Senate was in the process of voting to revoke it themselves. He just stepped in to save face because he didn't want it to go down in the books as "squashed by the Senate".

Quote

Giving bipartisan oversight would just stall everything.

Some things needed to be stalled. It was a joke the way things went down. 

Our government's complete control over "whether or not we have access to our own money" is way beyond acceptable. 

Edited by WestCanMan
  • Like 2
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,753
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Matthew
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...