You know, I have been watching the idiocy that is currently going on as a distraction in Ottawa, it is called the "Public Order Emergency Commission"........ Why am I critical about this commission?..
Well, the reason for me being critical of the hearings is because I have watched a fair amount of the proceedings, and what I have witnessed has had little if nothing to do with what the actual Emergencies Act requires.
According to the Emergencies Act (formally known as a War Measures Act), there are only four situations under which the Emergencies Act can be invoked:
Public Welfare Emergency
Public Order Emergency
International Emergency
War Emergency
The Emergencies Act, also requires that:
Inquiry
Marginal note:Inquiry
63 (1) The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency.
Marginal note:Report to Parliament (2) A report of an inquiry held pursuant to this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within three hundred and sixty days after the expiration or revocation of the declaration of emergency.
So the Commission should only be dealing with the examination of the circumstances that led to the declaration of the Emergencies Act, and whether the declaration met the legal requirements, and it should only be focused on the four situations under which an Emergency can be declared, according to the ACT.
It should not be dealing with smug politicians and other individuals who believe they were inconvenienced or believe they were personally threatened. Those issues are to be dealt with by normal police services and civil and criminal laws, not by the Emergency Act.
The Preamble to the Emergencies Act states the following:
Preamble
WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;
AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;
AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
Now with that in mind let us look at the four situations where the Emergencies Act can be invoked in Canada, according to the Act.
Here is what the Act states:
The First Test as set out in the Emergencies Act follows:
PART I Public Welfare Emergency
Interpretation
Definitions
5 In this Part,
declaration of a public welfare emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 6(1); (déclaration de sinistre)
public welfare emergency means an emergency that is caused by a real or imminent
(a) fire, flood, drought, storm, earthquake or other natural phenomenon,
(b) disease in human beings, animals or plants, or
(c) accident or pollution
and that results or may result in a danger to life or property, social disruption or a breakdown in the flow of essential goods, services or resources, so serious as to be a national emergency. (sinistre)
So let's take a look at each item and see if they apply to the Trucker Convoy in Ottawa.
Item a) was there a fire, flood, drought, storm, earthquake or other natural phenomenon.......NOPE
Item b) discusses a disease, was the Trucker convoy a disease....NOPE
Item c) talks about an accident or pollution, was the trucker convoy an accident or pollution....NOPE
And the last paragraph further limits items a, b, and c, in that if any of the three occur they have to be of a scope as defined in that last paragraph. So although none of the requirements as set out in a, b, and c are met, they further did not rise to the level of a national emergency.
Also I point out, if the test requires the threat rise to the level of a "National Emergency" so...why is the commission interviewing individual Ottawa residents about whether they felt their lives were disrupted in some way. Although this is certainly regrettable, how does their individual or collective inconvenience rise to the level of a "National Emergency".
The Second Test as set out in the Emergencies Act follows:
PART II Public Order Emergency
Interpretation
Definitions
16 In this Part,
declaration of a public order emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 17(1); (déclaration d’état d’urgence)
public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; (état d’urgence)
threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (menaces envers la sécurité du Canada)
So, a Public Order Emergency means an emergency that arise from threats to the security of Canada and is so serious as to be a national emergency, the specific definition of what this means is contained in a separate Act called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
So in order of the Government to invoke the Emergency Act under this Test, the threat must be one of the four defined under the Security Intelligence Service Act, so what does that Act say:
threats to the security of Canada means
(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). (menaces envers la sécurité du Canada)
So....lets look at each of the four listed items:
a) Was there espionage or sabotage....NOPE
b) Was the Convoy influenced by foreign clandestine or deceptive activities....NOPE, remember how they tried to claim that the Go Fund Me money was coming from abroad? Now you know why they said this.
c) Were there serious acts of violence .... NOPE
d) Where there violent activities focused at the overthrow by violence the government of Canada....NOPE
So I guess this test has failed.....
The Third Test as set out in the Emergencies Act follows:
PART III International Emergency
Interpretation
Definitions
27 In this Part,
declaration of an international emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 28(1); (déclaration d’état de crise internationale)
international emergency means an emergency involving Canada and one or more other countries that arises from acts of intimidation or coercion or the real or imminent use of serious force or violence and that is so serious as to be a national emergency. (état de crise internationale)
So was there an international emergency involving Canada and one or more other Countries?
NOPE
The Fourth Test as set out in the Emergencies Act follows:
PART IV. War Emergency
Interpretation
Marginal note:Definitions
37 In this Part,
declaration of a war emergency means a proclamation issued pursuant to subsection 38(1); (déclaration d’état de guerre)
war emergency means war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies that is so serious as to be a national emergency. (état de guerre)
Did Canada declare war against an outside nation? NOPE
So why are we having individual witness after witness talking about their individual experiences when none of these rise to the level of the tests set out above.
Why has the chairman Paul Rouleau allowed these types of distracting and frankly sham speakers get up and ramble on and on, when what they have to say, although individually tragic, has nothing to do with the tests and conditions set out in the Emergencies Act.
Did you see the testimony of Matthew Fleury and Catherine McKenney on October 13, 2022?
On a hot mic Ms. McKenney can be heard whispering to Mr. Fleury to speak in French, and then she snickers and laughs on camera.....do not believe me.....see below:
The footage is contained at time marker: 32:10
Tell me what you think about that? BTW he is an Ottawa City Councillor and she is running for mayor of Ottawa.
Remind you of Grade Two??
These are the typical kind of smug politicians who we have in power in Canada.
The Commission is not intended to be an episode of the Jerry Springer show, it is intended to take a serious and detailed look into the greatest imposition on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that has ever taken place in Canada.
The Commission is spending millions and millions of your tax dollars on a sham that we have exposed in a few paragraphs, yet we have to listen to how someone's individual feelings were hurt, we have to listen to half truths, innuendoes and smug career politicians like Mr. Fluery and Ms. McKenney.
This is serious, they are further destroying the people's trust in our institutions.
MR. ROULEAU.....DO YOUR JOB!
We Have Faith, We Will Prevail!