Thread by @NomiClaireLazar

1/8 🧵Folks are asking 'Why don't we use the Emergencies Act?" This Act came into effect in '88 after the abolition of the War Measures Act, & it's never been used in Canada. That's because we haven't needed it, & that's good. Prov. & municipal powers have done the job. But now?

2/8 In this @IRPP piece, @WesleyWark argued we can't use the Emergencies Act because the Convoy situation doesn't meet the definition of a Public Order Emergency. That definition must be made broader, he claims. But I disagree for two reasons... policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/febr…

3/8 First, the Convoy meets the definition: a) acts of sabotage against Canada's vital interests, & b) there appears to be evidence the Convoy is threatening "serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political...objective".

4/8 Second, there is a reason the definition of emergency is tight. This piece of legislation came about in the first place because of abuses of power enabled by the War Measures Act. A broader definition would be dangerous, & history bears this out.

5/8 Yet, though the Convoy meets the def. of a Public Order Emergency, two further threshold issues mean it's still not time to use the Emergencies Act. First, we have not exhausted all alternatives, & second Ontario has not requested it. Both these thresholds must be met.

6/8 Even if, ultimately, the police need military assistance, it's not clear the Emergencies Act would be required.

7/8 Could it be that folks want Trudeau to use the Emergencies Act because they want to see him DO something? Often, emergency law is used as a signal, to restore performative legitimacy. That's not a good reason to throw these powers around.

8/8 This is the last resort legislation for a reason. It may be we have to use it. If that's the case, the situation meets the definition & we can. But if the Convoy crisis & Ottawa occupation can be resolved w/out a fed. emergency, that's better for our long run safety.

*FIN*