1/13🧵Does Canada’s convoy crisis meet the threshold for a Public Order Emergency under the #emergenciesact?
Everyone agrees this has to end, but experts & MPs reasonably disagree on whether this was the best or necessary way.
Is there one right answer? If not, how to decide?
2/ Sometimes emergencies are obvious: An earthquake renders roads impassable for ambulances; a flood threatens to overwhelm levees; a nuclear power plant melts down; there's an invasion.
But it's common for emergencies to be ambiguous & influenced by practical considerations.
3/ For example, declaring an emergency at municipal or provincial levels gives access to needed funds & resources. The threshold becomes: can we pay for this?This is true in other jurisdictions too, like the US, where FEMA money is unlocked by emergency declaration.
4/ We rarely subject provincial and municipal emergency declarations to much scrutiny but...
5/ ...appropriately, we're taking the #EmergenciesAct declaration extra seriously & focusing attention on the legal criteria defining thresholds for a Public Order Emergency. You will find them in S. 16 of the Act.
6/ Here’s the thing: We can only decide when to apply a rule with clarity if the situation is clear. And we rarely have full facts. Even so-called evidence-based policy in normal times confronts a range of data difficulties. In a crisis, this information deficit is much worse.
7/ We've some facts on the ground which suggest that orders under the #EmergenciesAct have been effective in clearing Ottawa streets, but that doesn’t mean there weren't other means to achieve the same end.
8/Then there are the border disruptions, but those have seemed easier to manage through political will & prov powers. What of concerns re foreign interference, threats to change system of government, assassinate our members of parliament & journalists, weapons caches, etc?
9/ This is especially concerning & especially 'national' in character, etc. But just because folks say they plan to overthrow the government & just because they have a few weapons doesn’t mean they actually pose a credible threat. Concerning, but not conclusive.
10/ So my best sense is: while perhaps Ford COULD have got Ottawa back to safety and normalcy w/out the #EmergenciesAct, the political situation became such that it was not actually GOING to happen w/out further damage. And, this urgently has to end, SO...
11...the police actions we're seeing were made possible by the declaration, but contingently so. It could have been otherwise. We must be on our guard here: effectiveness of emergency action may lead us to conflate success w/ necessity.
12/ To sum up, there may be no clear answer to the threshold question. It, like many moral decisions within law's indeterminate spaces, comes down to judgment. First, Trudeau's. Then, parliament's. And finally, our judgment in the next election & in the history books.
13/ An inquiry will inevitably follow & must ask: how did we get here? Not just whether some threshold was met, but how we could have avoided being force to pose the threshold question in the first place.
*FIN*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A🧵on emergency safeguards. No #stateofemergency is safe, & all safeguards ultimately depend on citizens holding leaders accountable, but the #EmergenciesAct has several excellent features that make it safer than most. It's well designed. What are these safeguards?
First, & most importantly, the #EmergenciesAct fits w/ & must conform to the Charter of Rights &Freedoms, & Canada must uphold its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. S.1 of the Charter, & ICCPRArt. 4 allow for emergency rights limitations.
Second, after an emergency is declared, both the House and the Senate must debate and vote on the declaration within 7 days. That is, legislative power can check executive power. If they vote it down, the emergency is over.
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".