Talk:Emergencies Act

Analysis Section

In my view this information should be moved into another section, either about the history, background or use of the Act. I don't think "Analysis" is a proper section. Of course that assumes it should be in the article at all.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is it not proper? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Like a WP:CSECTION it seems like an invitation to add POV. Just saying if this is about the history or background of the Act, the content should probably be mixed with the analysis in that section. If it is analysis about the specific provisions, in the appropriate subsection under that heading. If it is about the uses of this specific Act then it should be there. There just doesn't seem to be any good reason to separate this analysis from other content and analysis in the article already.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I started the section because the material in it seemed important but didn't clearly fit into other sections. For example, the extent to which decisions under the act are susceptible to judicial review is worth discussing but doesn't fit into the general sections about the act's provisions (because the issue is not what those provisions mean, but whether and how government action under them can be reviewed) or about the act's use (because it is far too early to say when or how judicial review will be used).

Not opposed to integrating the material elsewhere if it can be done but I don't see how. Perhaps a section on (legal) background, where we could introduce peace, order and good government and such and how the act fits into this legal framework, would be a way to do this. It would require some good research to do well, but might be worthwhile. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing verb?

"Furthermore financial institutions must on a continuing basis to determine whether any persons..."

This sentence feels weird. I feel like there should be a verb after "must" but I'm not sure what.Earl wilmore (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Section on use during the Trucker Protests, investigations

This section seems to be getting a little long. Perhaps it would be best to spin it off into an separate article (or at least the parts about the reviews into the use of the Emergencies Act in 2022). There are essentially three ongoing reviews: the court challenge(s), the government inquiry, and the Parliamentary committee. I am not sure it will be appropriate for us to continue to expand details about these processes, and the response to them here. It will take over the article. It also seems too much to be dealt with at Canada convoy protest. Anyone have any thoughts on this?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Section 8 breaches

Concerning the recent edits about the freezing of bank accounts and collecting of financial information from banks. It seems that the court found both breached section 8, see the court's summary which states The Economic Order infringed s. 8 of the Charter by permitting unreasonable search and seizure of the financial information of designated persons and the freezing of their bank and credit card accounts. There is also note of this in the judgment though it seems more ambiguous (but see paragraphs 349-358). Also these paragraphs note that these breaches concerning the freezing of the accounts did not apply only to two defendants, but also to a spouse who held a joint account. The collection of financial information applied to many others. Anyway, hope this provides some clarity. Some of the documents are certainly a bit confusing.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)