I want to give you an important update about the Emergencies Act inquiry and some information about how you can personally contribute to the inquiry and hold the government to account.
The use of the Emergencies Act was illegal, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation is fighting it in court. We are also participating in an independent inquiry – the Rouleau Commission – that is looking into the government’s use of this law.
The Rouleau Commission is now accepting comments from the public – that means YOU can send the inquiry a public comment about your experience and reaction with the 2022 Freedom Convoy and the government’s illegal and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act.
Your comment may be quoted in the hearings, or in the Commission’s final report. It is imperative that the Commission hear from members of the public and understand the full impact on citizens of the federal government’s illegal and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act.
This is an important way for your voice to matter. There are many untold stories related to the Freedom Convoy. Much of the reporting of the protests was disconnected to the experience of participants and observers who were on the ground at these protests in early 2022. These public comments are now an opportunity for those stories to be told as a part of the Inquiry.
Before you send in a public comment, I want to give you style suggestions, the background facts you need to know, some key messages and questions you may want to consider answering, and of course, the technical details of how and when to send in your submission. I can’t wait to tell you all about it.
I want to start by saying this inquiry is NOT the government. It is an independent and non-partisan commission chaired by a very respected court of appeal judge and staffed by experienced lawyers. This inquiry was not called out of the kindness of the Prime Minister’s heart – it is required by law. I think if it was not required by law, it almost certainly would not be taking place. So my first piece of style advice is to remember that your comments are NOT being sent to the government. They are NOT being sent to the prime minister, or to any politician. It is being sent to a judge.
So don’t use bad language. Don’t use partisan language. It won’t help. In fact, it will only undermine the credibility of your message. I want your submissions to matter. It’s too easy to dismiss a public comment that is full of angry and profane language, or that comes across as a partisan attack.
I get that a lot of you are angry – I’m angry too. But let’s channel our anger into something useful by sending in public comments that use our words to communicate the damage that the government has done by illegally using the Emergencies Act.
Remember that your submission may be referred to or quoted by the Commission either in the report or in the public hearings. Use language you would be proud to have attributed to you, even though no identifying information will be used without your express permission.
My second piece of style advice is to start by addressing your letter “To The Public Order Emergency Commission”.
Then begin your submission with your main message. Your main message could be an answer to a question. I have a list of questions you might consider answering listed in the description below. Or instead of answering a question, your main message could be your experience as a participant in the protests or an observer of the protests.
You should keep your submission between 1 and 2 pages. If your submission is really long, it may not be read as carefully. You should focus your letter on the most important things you want the commission to know.
You can also include pictures, photographs and other supporting documents, if you think that will help.
Submissions can be made anonymously. If you want to submit anonymously, it makes sense to explain why you are making that choice. For example, some professionals who participated in the protests faced consequences from their employers. There was a hack of the information about donors to the freedom convoy, and their information, including names and addresses, posted online. I do understand why someone may want to make an anonymous submission, but it is a good idea to explain why you made that choice so the Commission understands too. If you are submitting anonymously, please note your country of residence. We all remember how some media outlets accused the Freedom Convoy of being “foreign funded” – something that turned out not to be true. So make sure you say where you live to prevent those kinds of false allegations about the people sending in public comments.
Lastly, you may submit by handwritten letter by mailing to the address I’ve linked to in the description below. Just please ensure your handwriting is legible.
That’s my style advice.
But I also have advice to give you on the substance of the submissions.
To make your public comment more impactful, focus on a main message. Your main message could be your experience as a participant in the protests or an observer of the protests.
Or you could answer one, or more of these questions:
Did the Emergencies Act make you afraid to attend other protests in the future? Including protests on topics unrelated to the Freedom Convoy?
Were you afraid to donate to any charities unrelated to the Freedom Convoy after the government invoked the Emergencies Act? Were you concerned that your financial information could be shared with the government if you donated to other charities?
Were you personally involved in the Freedom Convoy protests, and if so, what was your experience like? How was your experience impacted by the use of the Emergencies Act? How do you feel about the protests and about the use of the Emergencies Act.
If you were not involved in the protests, what were your views as an observer or person who was affected by the protests? What were your views of the police and government response? How did the police and government response make you feel?
Are there any changes you would recommend in terms of the Emergencies Act to ensure it is not abused again in the future?
What is your view on whether the strict threshold set out in the Emergencies Act was met? Has the government provided a sufficient explanation about why existing law enforcement tools were insufficient?
It is also important to remember some important facts about the Emergencies Act and its invocation when sending in a public comment.
First, emergency powers have a dark and troubled history in Canada. The Emergencies Act was enacted to replace the War Measures Act, which was abused by previous federal governments. In response to the abuse of the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted to set out a demanding set of legally binding conditions that must be satisfied before it can be invoked. Those conditions were not met in this case.
The Emergencies Act is exceptional. It gives the federal cabinet authority to create new criminal offences and police powers, without recourse to Parliament, without advance notice, and without public debate. The law poses the risk of executive overreach which could have profound effects on Canadian democracy. Because the Emergencies Act vests enormous power in the federal cabinet, it should be interpreted strictly.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when there are no other legal tools available to deal with an ongoing situation that is urgent, temporary and national in scope. The February 2022 Freedom Convoy protests were cleared using ordinary police powers. In the view of many civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the invocation of the Emergencies Act was not absolutely necessary, as the Act requires.
After invoking the Emergencies Act, the federal government brought in Economic Measures and Emergency Measures. The Economic Measures enacted under the Emergencies Act required banks to disclose private banking information to police. This amounted to a warrantless and unreasonable search of private banking information. The Emergency Measures prohibited a very broad range of conduct, including generally acceptable and legal protest behaviour, breach of which was punishable by fines and imprisonment.
The federal government has not provided an explanation for its invocation of the Emergencies Act beyond a simple declaratory statement that a public order emergency existed. The federal government is fighting the disclosure of documents that provide a record of why this law was invoked. The federal government is not acting transparently, or explaining why this law was necessary. If the federal government refuses to provide an explanation, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that no good explanation exists.
The Rouleau Commission hearings begin on September 19, so it is best to send a public comment before that date, although they will be accepted up until October 31.
Good luck. And I hope you take part in this inquiry.
Yours truly,
Christine Van Geyn
PS – We are fighting this battle against the illegal use of the Emergencies Act as part of the inquiry, but also in court. We’ve hired one of the best lawyers in the country, but that means the fight is expensive. Please consider making a tax-deductible gift to help us pay our legal fees at theccf.ca/donate/
I don't entirely agree with Gary. Sure, of course the jabs reduce fertility. Sure, the planet is fintie and there are Limits to Growth.
I disagree that a competent would try to tell the truth about this issue. Instead, THEY ALREADY DID. That's why we know about Limits to Growth. Thing is, Limits to Growth was REJECTED! People DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
What's happening now is the logical outgrowth (pun intended) of ignoring that. It became obvious that society would NEVER voluntarily limit itself. Doing so goes counter to our species' instincts. Some few can understand this and act against their instincts but most can not.
When truth telling fails the next logical step is to choose a policy (say, depolulation via genocide) and then enforce it. How else could it be?
I have a pretty good idea: it will be survival of the fittest, in the broadest sense. As it has always been. I want to see Klaus putting his body where his mouth is, and bills of the world too. They may get an unpleasant surprise. Let the games begin!
Let me throw a little wrench into the gears. Your theory conveniently omits the pronounced satanic overtones of the otherwise benevolent good-doer cabal. And that spites the picture you have painted. Therefore, a better theory is required to incorporate all relevant facts. And grabbing the power and control over all the resources is the simplest theory that, IMHO, explains what is going on. I.e., these are not good, albeit misunderstood, geniuses but rather a bunch of ultimate a$$holes on a power trip to hell.
The problem with volunteering to sterilization is simply the accelerated self-elimination of the Western Civilization, long in motion, if we are to believe Oswald Spengler, being pretty depressed by the results, for Germany, of the Great War. The places like Afghanistan or Iran and such with fill the void. The struggle for resources is inevitable no matter what, unless the depop is done real fast (FF, as Rowan Atkinson puts it) also in places like India and China, and Equatorial Africa, and South America.
But whatever the cabal does, it increases its clout, robs nations blind, subverts and corrupts. No crime is a crime to them. Their concentration of power is the only real goal.
On the plus side, their power is skin-deep, fed by the dependency on credit of the (purportedly) bankrupt countries. But, it's all smoke and mirrors, as Iceland has demonstrated after 2009 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35485876): "We just had to accept the losses, accept a world with much lower real wages, much lower living standards. I think in many ways this is something other Western countries will have to face. In European banking, there is an unwillingness to accept losses. If you look at how the central banks in the UK and the US and in Europe responded, they printed money. We could not print money, so we had to face the reality. No-one really knows how all the money printing that has been taking place in the major economies of the West will end." I know - exactly like is Iceland - the fake investment accounts with disappear overnight, the pensions and such, etc.
But the real (physical) assets will be where they are today. Sovereigns must simply reassert themselves. And that includes each one of us, endowed with inalienable rights by God.
If we don't believe in ourselves to have such rights, then we deserve everything happening to us.
"No one knows why."
I do. Here were the causes:
1. Putin
2. Trump
3. Climate change
You forgot White Supremacists.
And vaccine hesitancy (you must have noticed that They are becoming capable of *any* absurdity ... )
The crash in birthrates is *obviously* caused by pregnant men being overwhelmed by student debt due to white supremacy, exacerbated by climate change.
50/50 odds this actually comes out on Twitter as an actual excuse.
“Dear m
I want to give you an important update about the Emergencies Act inquiry and some information about how you can personally contribute to the inquiry and hold the government to account.
The use of the Emergencies Act was illegal, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation is fighting it in court. We are also participating in an independent inquiry – the Rouleau Commission – that is looking into the government’s use of this law.
The Rouleau Commission is now accepting comments from the public – that means YOU can send the inquiry a public comment about your experience and reaction with the 2022 Freedom Convoy and the government’s illegal and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act.
Your comment may be quoted in the hearings, or in the Commission’s final report. It is imperative that the Commission hear from members of the public and understand the full impact on citizens of the federal government’s illegal and unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act.
This is an important way for your voice to matter. There are many untold stories related to the Freedom Convoy. Much of the reporting of the protests was disconnected to the experience of participants and observers who were on the ground at these protests in early 2022. These public comments are now an opportunity for those stories to be told as a part of the Inquiry.
Your comment can be submitted by email to perspectives@poec-cedu.gc.ca.
It can also be submitted by mail to:
Public Order Emergency Commission
c/o Main Floor Security Desk
90 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A3
Before you send in a public comment, I want to give you style suggestions, the background facts you need to know, some key messages and questions you may want to consider answering, and of course, the technical details of how and when to send in your submission. I can’t wait to tell you all about it.
I want to start by saying this inquiry is NOT the government. It is an independent and non-partisan commission chaired by a very respected court of appeal judge and staffed by experienced lawyers. This inquiry was not called out of the kindness of the Prime Minister’s heart – it is required by law. I think if it was not required by law, it almost certainly would not be taking place. So my first piece of style advice is to remember that your comments are NOT being sent to the government. They are NOT being sent to the prime minister, or to any politician. It is being sent to a judge.
So don’t use bad language. Don’t use partisan language. It won’t help. In fact, it will only undermine the credibility of your message. I want your submissions to matter. It’s too easy to dismiss a public comment that is full of angry and profane language, or that comes across as a partisan attack.
I get that a lot of you are angry – I’m angry too. But let’s channel our anger into something useful by sending in public comments that use our words to communicate the damage that the government has done by illegally using the Emergencies Act.
Remember that your submission may be referred to or quoted by the Commission either in the report or in the public hearings. Use language you would be proud to have attributed to you, even though no identifying information will be used without your express permission.
My second piece of style advice is to start by addressing your letter “To The Public Order Emergency Commission”.
Then begin your submission with your main message. Your main message could be an answer to a question. I have a list of questions you might consider answering listed in the description below. Or instead of answering a question, your main message could be your experience as a participant in the protests or an observer of the protests.
You should keep your submission between 1 and 2 pages. If your submission is really long, it may not be read as carefully. You should focus your letter on the most important things you want the commission to know.
You can also include pictures, photographs and other supporting documents, if you think that will help.
Submissions can be made anonymously. If you want to submit anonymously, it makes sense to explain why you are making that choice. For example, some professionals who participated in the protests faced consequences from their employers. There was a hack of the information about donors to the freedom convoy, and their information, including names and addresses, posted online. I do understand why someone may want to make an anonymous submission, but it is a good idea to explain why you made that choice so the Commission understands too. If you are submitting anonymously, please note your country of residence. We all remember how some media outlets accused the Freedom Convoy of being “foreign funded” – something that turned out not to be true. So make sure you say where you live to prevent those kinds of false allegations about the people sending in public comments.
Lastly, you may submit by handwritten letter by mailing to the address I’ve linked to in the description below. Just please ensure your handwriting is legible.
That’s my style advice.
But I also have advice to give you on the substance of the submissions.
To make your public comment more impactful, focus on a main message. Your main message could be your experience as a participant in the protests or an observer of the protests.
Or you could answer one, or more of these questions:
Did the Emergencies Act make you afraid to attend other protests in the future? Including protests on topics unrelated to the Freedom Convoy?
Were you afraid to donate to any charities unrelated to the Freedom Convoy after the government invoked the Emergencies Act? Were you concerned that your financial information could be shared with the government if you donated to other charities?
Were you personally involved in the Freedom Convoy protests, and if so, what was your experience like? How was your experience impacted by the use of the Emergencies Act? How do you feel about the protests and about the use of the Emergencies Act.
If you were not involved in the protests, what were your views as an observer or person who was affected by the protests? What were your views of the police and government response? How did the police and government response make you feel?
Are there any changes you would recommend in terms of the Emergencies Act to ensure it is not abused again in the future?
What is your view on whether the strict threshold set out in the Emergencies Act was met? Has the government provided a sufficient explanation about why existing law enforcement tools were insufficient?
It is also important to remember some important facts about the Emergencies Act and its invocation when sending in a public comment.
First, emergency powers have a dark and troubled history in Canada. The Emergencies Act was enacted to replace the War Measures Act, which was abused by previous federal governments. In response to the abuse of the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted to set out a demanding set of legally binding conditions that must be satisfied before it can be invoked. Those conditions were not met in this case.
The Emergencies Act is exceptional. It gives the federal cabinet authority to create new criminal offences and police powers, without recourse to Parliament, without advance notice, and without public debate. The law poses the risk of executive overreach which could have profound effects on Canadian democracy. Because the Emergencies Act vests enormous power in the federal cabinet, it should be interpreted strictly.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when there are no other legal tools available to deal with an ongoing situation that is urgent, temporary and national in scope. The February 2022 Freedom Convoy protests were cleared using ordinary police powers. In the view of many civil liberties organizations, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the invocation of the Emergencies Act was not absolutely necessary, as the Act requires.
After invoking the Emergencies Act, the federal government brought in Economic Measures and Emergency Measures. The Economic Measures enacted under the Emergencies Act required banks to disclose private banking information to police. This amounted to a warrantless and unreasonable search of private banking information. The Emergency Measures prohibited a very broad range of conduct, including generally acceptable and legal protest behaviour, breach of which was punishable by fines and imprisonment.
The federal government has not provided an explanation for its invocation of the Emergencies Act beyond a simple declaratory statement that a public order emergency existed. The federal government is fighting the disclosure of documents that provide a record of why this law was invoked. The federal government is not acting transparently, or explaining why this law was necessary. If the federal government refuses to provide an explanation, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that no good explanation exists.
The Rouleau Commission hearings begin on September 19, so it is best to send a public comment before that date, although they will be accepted up until October 31.
If you want additional information and style guidance on how to send in a public comment, visit theccf.ca/emergencies-act-inquiry/
Good luck. And I hope you take part in this inquiry.
Yours truly,
Christine Van Geyn
PS – We are fighting this battle against the illegal use of the Emergencies Act as part of the inquiry, but also in court. We’ve hired one of the best lawyers in the country, but that means the fight is expensive. Please consider making a tax-deductible gift to help us pay our legal fees at theccf.ca/donate/
im sure its to do with the lack of eating bugs and too much meat.
or men wearing the wrong gender underwear instead of lacy knickers and a bra
or cos they didnt wear a mask during sex
or asymptomatic monkeypox
I’d like to know what’s happening in China.
Me too
"No one knows why."
Sure they don't.
Ssssure.
I keep an eye on the lady below, as she seems to be a cheerleader for whatever the narrative is.
https://jessicawildfire.substack.com/p/nobody-wants-to-have-kids-anymore?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
They just need more Muslims.
I don't entirely agree with Gary. Sure, of course the jabs reduce fertility. Sure, the planet is fintie and there are Limits to Growth.
I disagree that a competent would try to tell the truth about this issue. Instead, THEY ALREADY DID. That's why we know about Limits to Growth. Thing is, Limits to Growth was REJECTED! People DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
In other words, Gary, the elites ALREADY tried being truthful about this issue (see https://openlibrary.org/books/OL20308308M/Limits_to_growth). That was 50 years ago. IGNORED.
What's happening now is the logical outgrowth (pun intended) of ignoring that. It became obvious that society would NEVER voluntarily limit itself. Doing so goes counter to our species' instincts. Some few can understand this and act against their instincts but most can not.
When truth telling fails the next logical step is to choose a policy (say, depolulation via genocide) and then enforce it. How else could it be?
I have a pretty good idea: it will be survival of the fittest, in the broadest sense. As it has always been. I want to see Klaus putting his body where his mouth is, and bills of the world too. They may get an unpleasant surprise. Let the games begin!
Let me throw a little wrench into the gears. Your theory conveniently omits the pronounced satanic overtones of the otherwise benevolent good-doer cabal. And that spites the picture you have painted. Therefore, a better theory is required to incorporate all relevant facts. And grabbing the power and control over all the resources is the simplest theory that, IMHO, explains what is going on. I.e., these are not good, albeit misunderstood, geniuses but rather a bunch of ultimate a$$holes on a power trip to hell.
The problem with volunteering to sterilization is simply the accelerated self-elimination of the Western Civilization, long in motion, if we are to believe Oswald Spengler, being pretty depressed by the results, for Germany, of the Great War. The places like Afghanistan or Iran and such with fill the void. The struggle for resources is inevitable no matter what, unless the depop is done real fast (FF, as Rowan Atkinson puts it) also in places like India and China, and Equatorial Africa, and South America.
But whatever the cabal does, it increases its clout, robs nations blind, subverts and corrupts. No crime is a crime to them. Their concentration of power is the only real goal.
On the plus side, their power is skin-deep, fed by the dependency on credit of the (purportedly) bankrupt countries. But, it's all smoke and mirrors, as Iceland has demonstrated after 2009 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35485876): "We just had to accept the losses, accept a world with much lower real wages, much lower living standards. I think in many ways this is something other Western countries will have to face. In European banking, there is an unwillingness to accept losses. If you look at how the central banks in the UK and the US and in Europe responded, they printed money. We could not print money, so we had to face the reality. No-one really knows how all the money printing that has been taking place in the major economies of the West will end." I know - exactly like is Iceland - the fake investment accounts with disappear overnight, the pensions and such, etc.
But the real (physical) assets will be where they are today. Sovereigns must simply reassert themselves. And that includes each one of us, endowed with inalienable rights by God.
If we don't believe in ourselves to have such rights, then we deserve everything happening to us.
Just my 2 cents.