CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[dapaterson]

War Measures Act was repealed years ago.

 

[OceanBonfire]

Emergencies Act talks rejected by premiers, deemed a distraction


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-premiers-consensus-1.5529119

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/majority-of-premiers-against-using-emergencies-act-after-pm-consults-1.4891527

 

[Brad Sallows]

Domestic Operations : The Canadian Approach (Sean M Maloney, in Parameters, Autumn 1997).  Some info about the two Acts, and various operations.

 

[FJAG]

Here's a quick Emergencies Act in a nutshell:

3. ... a "national emergency" is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature
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 that cannot be dealt with effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.

There are four types of emergencies the relevant one being a "Public Welfare Emergency". (The other three are: Public Order Emergency; International Emergency; and War Emergency)

5. ... public welfare emergency means an emergency that is caused by a real or imminent
...
(b) disease in human beings, animals or plants, or
...
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. 

Upon the declaration of a public welfare emergency by the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council is authorized to make such orders and regulations on reasonable grounds that are necessary to deal with the emergency, including restricting traveling in certain areas, evacuation of persons and property, requisition, use or disposition of property and directing certain persons to perform essential services. Before the Governor in Council issues, continues or amends a declaration of a public welfare emergency, the lieutenant governor in council of each province in which the direct effects of the emergency occur shall be consulted with respect to the proposed action pursuant to s 14 of the Act.

Parliament has the power to review, extend or revoke the declaration of emergency.

It must be emphasized that nothing in a declaration of a public welfare emergency shall be construed or applied so as to derogate from, or to authorize the derogation from, the control or direction of the government of a province or a municipality over any police force over which it normally has control or direction.

See particularly Part I of the Act and s 8(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html#h-213825

:cheers:

 

[brihard]

Here's a quick Emergencies Act in a nutshell:

There are four types of emergencies the relevant one being a "Public Welfare Emergency". (The other three are: Public Order Emergency; International Emergency; and War Emergency)

Upon the declaration of a public welfare emergency by the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council is authorized to make such orders and regulations on reasonable grounds that are necessary to deal with the emergency, including restricting traveling in certain areas, evacuation of persons and property, requisition, use or disposition of property and directing certain persons to perform essential services. Before the Governor in Council issues, continues or amends a declaration of a public welfare emergency, the lieutenant governor in council of each province in which the direct effects of the emergency occur shall be consulted with respect to the proposed action pursuant to s 14 of the Act.

Parliament has the power to review, extend or revoke the declaration of emergency.

It must be emphasized that nothing in a declaration of a public welfare emergency shall be construed or applied so as to derogate from, or to authorize the derogation from, the control or direction of the government of a province or a municipality over any police force over which it normally has control or direction.

See particularly Part I of the Act and s 8(1) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-4.5/page-1.html#h-213825

:cheers:

Another key (contextual) difference between Emergencies Act and the War Measures Act is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn't exist when the latter was invoked. The Emergencies Act would remain subject to Charter scrutiny, meaning that any Charter breach arising out of an emergency declaration would have to satisfy the 'reasonable limitations' test under S.1 in order to be of force or effect. This would be a potentially significant constraint.

 

[FJAG]

Another key (contextual) difference between Emergencies Act and the War Measures Act is that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn't exist when the latter was invoked. The Emergencies Act would remain subject to Charter scrutiny, meaning that any Charter breach arising out of an emergency declaration would have to satisfy the 'reasonable limitations' test under S.1 in order to be of force or effect. This would be a potentially significant constraint.

We did have the Bill of Rights at the time which limited the Federal government but was certainly not as strong as the current Charter.

:cheers:

 

[brihard]

We did have the Bill of Rights at the time which limited the Federal government but was certainly not as strong as the current Charter.

:cheers:

Thanks, you caused me to go back and dig up one of my fourth year Poli Sci essays from a decade ago. While the BoR did, as written, seem intended to nullify laws that were not in compliance, the courts failed to act on this- they were afraid of trampling Parliamentary sovereignty. In Rosetanni, 1963, the SCC went 4-1 against striking down the Lord's Day Act as religious based discrimination. A plain reading of 5(2) of the BoR should have struck the law down, but they were unwilling to do so because the 'closed on Sundays' law affected everyone equally. In other cases, the SCC largely failed to implement judicial review on rights grounds. The SCC heard A.G. Can v Lavell and Isaac v Bedard, and ruled that the BoR guaranteed equality in administration and enforcement of a law, not application thereof. As long as everyone is treated poorly equally, they wouldn't strike down legislation. In R v Wray, 1971, the court had the chance to create an evidentiary exclusion akin to what we see now in 24(2), and they muffed it. Other that Drybones, 1970, where a provisinon of the Indian Act was struck down as criminalizing behaviour in a discriminatory manner based on Indian status, the courts basically shied away from implementing the BoR as Parliament intended.

BoR arguments came up a fair bit but were almost always knocked down. There were often split decisions with pretty loud dissents- a number, but not enough, justices wanted to take the BoR in the appropriate direction of nullifying laws But ultimately they didn't, and other than Drybones, the BoR was a pretty flaccid piece of legislation. I would contend that the War Measures Act would not have found itself meaningfully constrained by the Bill of Rights unless its provisions were to have been applied unequally to identifiably different demographics. The courts at the time were too deferential to Parliament for a non-constitutional statutory declaration of rights to be effective.

 

[kkwd]

But more people die from the flu, so nothing to see here.

“This is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States should be worried about right now,” Dr. Fauci told Newsmax’s Greg Kelly on January 21.

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1246156119938080776
https://saraacarter.com/jan-flashback-dr-fauci-said-coronavirus-is-not-a-major-threat-to-the-people-of-the-united-states/

 

[brihard]

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1246156119938080776
https://saraacarter.com/jan-flashback-dr-fauci-said-coronavirus-is-not-a-major-threat-to-the-people-of-the-united-states/

And when data changed, his conclusions changed based on new information. That's how science is supposed to work. Science-based policy is supposed to work the same way. He made that comment the day after America had literally its first identified case. The story also notes him saying in late Feb that Americans could go about life as normal. On the date of that interview, America was at 24 cases- that was days before the exponential growth really blew up.

I've noticed a sort of minor desperation by some on the right wing of American politics to discredit Dr. Fauci on political grounds. He does not nod sycophanticly when he is expected to. He corrects and contradicts the president when he speaks falsely,  and this has not endeared him to everyone. However as the situation has developed, as new data has been gleaned and as science has furthered our understanding of this virus, he has continually adapted to that. I'm not going to hold what he said in January against him, as 'when he knew better, he did better'.

 

[Jarnhamar]

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1246156119938080776
https://saraacarter.com/jan-flashback-dr-fauci-said-coronavirus-is-not-a-major-threat-to-the-people-of-the-united-states/

Is that where Trump's getting all his "facts" from?  I suppose Dr. Fauci can get a job at the WHO after this, at least.

 

[dapaterson]

The SCC has never met a decicis that it didn't want to stare.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is it a viable belief that a world expert like Dr. Fauci, or even our own Chief Public Health Officer should have known better about the dangerous of this virus? Should have seen this coming?

China tried to hide the previous SARS outbreak. Did we think they wouldn't behave the same way?

 

[daftandbarmy]

The SCC has never met a decicis that it didn't want to stare.

Uh oh... we've suddenly slipped into the 'Latin' zone...

Which is different from the 'Latino' zone, just in case you were wondering

 

[OceanBonfire]

https://army.ca/forums/threads/131800/post-1605062.html#msg1605062

Can you attribute those threats to any particular person or political persuasion? Or is it just, you know, "must be".

Right wingers are the easiest to be fooled by bullcrap. From MIT:

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610194/junk-news-on-social-media-is-shared-predominantly-by-the-right-wing/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610349/us-conservatives-spread-tweets-by-russian-trolls-over-30-times-more-often-than-liberals/

 

[Remius]

My guess is that the right and Trump are looking to find blame to cover their own failings. 

China, the W.H.O.  Problem with that is that Trump praised those same groups early on.

the Impeachment trial.  right.  Still does not explain inaction after or the time to golf when all of this started to explode.

Dr. Fauci.  Sure, let’s see if that sticks.  But it won’t.

Governors.  Right.  They should have known better.

So far it’s China, the WHO, Fauci, the governors and the impeachment trial. 

I expect we’ll see more blame scatter shots and hopefully hit something talk for a while.

Trump isn’t at fault for COVID 19.  His response to it though is. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Is it a viable belief that a world expert like Dr. Fauci, or even our own Chief Public Health Officer should have known better about the dangerous of this virus? Should have seen this coming?

China tried to hide the previous SARS outbreak. Did we think they wouldn't behave the same way?

Two good points.

On both sides of the border, the buck stops with a decision maker, not an advisor - do we know what advice was given at every step of the way?  And whether it was listened to or overruled?  I'm guessing there's folks posting to these forums who've given advice to bosses, get overruled, and have to back what the boss says - same same.  It'll be interesting to see what comes out of ATIP requests down the road ...

As for China's ... forthrightness with information, you're right - they have a track record of less than completely honest.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Right wingers are the easiest to be fooled by bullcrap. From MIT:

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/610194/junk-news-on-social-media-is-shared-predominantly-by-the-right-wing/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610349/us-conservatives-spread-tweets-by-russian-trolls-over-30-times-more-often-than-liberals/

You want to read some of the moonbat-shit crazy stuff my hybrid Marxist/Stalinist/Anarchist oldest offspring plasters all over the interwebs.

 

[FJAG]

The courts at the time were too deferential to Parliament for a non-constitutional statutory declaration of rights to be effective.

Hence I used the term "not as strong". I try to be polite.  ;D

There are some on this site who will argue - and very strongly - that the courts cannot be "too deferential to Parliament".  :stirpot:

:cheers:

 

[OldSolduer]

As for China's ... forthrightness with information, you're right - they have a track record of less than completely honest.

That's putting it mildly.

 

[Weinie]

My guess is that the right and Trump are looking to find blame to cover their own failings. 

China, the W.H.O.  Problem with that is that Trump praised those same groups early on.

the Impeachment trial.  right.  Still does not explain inaction after or the time to golf when all of this started to explode.

Dr. Fauci.  Sure, let%u2019s see if that sticks.  But it won%u2019t.

Governors.  Right.  They should have known better.

So far it%u2019s China, the WHO, Fauci, the governors and the impeachment trial. 

I expect we%u2019ll see more blame scatter shots and hopefully hit something talk for a while.

Trump isn%u2019t at fault for COVID 19.  His response to it though is.

There is only one entity at fault for covid19- the CCP of China. All the other aftermath discussion, political wrangling, finger pointing, and discourse on this forum is quite frankly, pointless. We have been crapped on by a burgeoning behemoth, who are manipulating our response to be one of collegiality and global unity, because that's the way the current PC global discourse works. They need to be held to account.

Quite frankly, I am tired of the slamming of western politicians and their responses. The source is undeniable, the cover up indisputable, the results inevitable. Why would you spend any time bitching at our system without raging at the source?