There are a lot of not so great legal takes circulating on the possible deployment of the CAF in response to the various #convoy protests. Before clearing up the law, let me just say that my intent is in no way to support the deployment of the CAF, I'm just here to educate.
First- there are two applicable provisions under National Defence Act for dom ops. 1) s. 275, in the wake of anticipated riot or disturbance of the peace that is beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress, prevent, or deal with the prov AG can request CAF assistance.
Once request made, the CDS, subject to any directions from MND and in consultation with the affected provinces, shall call out those parts of the CF necessary to suppress or prevent any riot or disturbance.
2) s. 273.6, Governor in Council (cabinet) or MND may authorize the CAF to perform any duty involving “public service.” Duties may include assistance to law enforcement if requested by fed minister & both in the nat. interest & matter cannot be dealt
w effectively without CAF.
Second, there are also two federal orders in council issued under the crown prerogative (think executive common law power) that the feds could rely on (but I don't see it happening).
1) CFAPPFD- when Prov police unable to deal effectively with a disturbance of the peace that
is occurring or may occur, and the Min PS & MND agree disturbance affects/ likely to affect the national interest and cannot be effectively prevented, suppressed or resolved wout CAF.
2) CFAAD- basically the same as above but when RCMP cant handle it and RCMP commissioner makes request.
Very unlikely to apply here.
Finally, many are asking about the Emergencies Act.
We are certainly no where near the threshold for calling out the military under this act (which replaced the War Measures Act in *1985*!)
The threshold for declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act is a situation that:
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
AND in either case cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada (which we just established is not the case.)
To date, the Emergencies Act has NEVER been invoked.
Think about that...
We have been in a pandemic for over two years and this government has not declared a national emergency, even though we've lost more than 34,000 Cdns to Covid. Unlikely that Poop, honking, and fumes is going to be the straw that breaks this camel's back.
If you want to read more, feel free to pick up or check out my book with @cforcese that covers all of this (we even have a handy chart): irwinlaw.com/product/nation…
*1988
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NSIRA Review of GAC GSRP program out and it is a doozy. I'm not someone who believes GSRP requires domestic legislation; its authorities and constraints are sufficient under existing Canadian and International law for what the GSRP is designed to do.
The problem highlighted by the Review is that GSRP officers haven't been provided with solid legal or policy guidance on how to comply with the existing privileges and immunities they rely on. Consequently, there actions have, in a few cases been arguably outside those bounds.
Moreover, NSIRA finds that there is a risk that GSRP officer actions could be perceived by the host nation as falling outside the confines of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations putting them, their contacts, and Canada's reputation in jeopardy.
Since no one seemed to notice this when it came out, just gonna repost it now: canada.ca/en/security-in….
From the introduction:
“CSIS continues to observe steady, and in some cases increasing, foreign interference by state actors against Canada... One of the key sectors targeted by this activity is Canada’s democratic institutions and processes.
The purpose of this report is to sensitize Canadians to the nature of foreign interference in this sector and its impact on our democracy. Although Canada’s electoral system is strong, foreign interference is a significant threat to the integrity of our democratic institutions…
The Court of Appeal rejects Cory Hurran’s appeal of his 6 year sentence. You may remember his attempt to “communicate with the PM” with several loaded guns after ramming his truck into the grounds of Rideau hall.
The sentencing judge found he committed “a politically motivated armed assault intended to intimidate Canada’s elected government” and that he did so “for the purpose of bringing attention to his political views.” Which is the precise definition of terrorist activity.
This is in fact the definition of terrorist activity in the criminal code, yet, he was never charged with terrorism.
The court of appeal affirmed this finding & his sentence, noting twice that his actions amount to “armed aggression against the government.” Aka terrorism.
How can one person write the Emergencies Act doesn’t apply because it doesn’t cover the actions we are seeing one day and then go on television the next day and support it’s invocation?
If the legal thresholds are not met Cabinet does not have the legal authority to declare a national emergency. Invoking Canada’s biggest hammer to quash dissent when the legal thresholds are not met is a dangerous precedent to set: one I believe informed Cdns should question.
quote from the author re the Act in this piece from the weekend:
In light of CBC reporting let me reiterate the law. For the #emergenciesact to be invoked the Federa Government must consult with provinces and Cabinet must believe the protests rise to the level of a national emergency. What does that mean…
3 For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
AND
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
Section 430(4.11)- Mischief relating to war memorials:
Everyone who commits mischief in relation to property that is a building, structure or part thereof that primarily serves as a monument to honour persons who were killed or died as a consequence of a war,
including a war memorial or cenotaph, or an object associated with honouring or remembering those persons that is located in or on the grounds of such a building or structure, or a cemetery is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction.
430 (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or