Here is a quote from Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland:

“The government is issuing an order with immediate effect under the Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations,” she said. “This order covers both personal and corporate accounts.”

—-

Under Canadian law, the Liberal government has to put this before both the House of Commons and Senate within 7 days.

Just to clarify, under Canadian law the government has to put the use of the Emergencies Act before the House and Senate withing 7 days. It doesn't matter what colour the government is. The law itself was passed by a Progressive Conservative government to whom it would have applied exactly the same way.

> Progressive Conservative government

Say what? Those two are literally polar opposites. I guess they can be progressive on the social scale and conservative on the economic one, but there's got to be a better name for that.

So Canada used to have a party called the Conservative Party (they do now too again). They wanted a guy named John Bracken who was Premier of Manitoba under the Progressive party of Manitoba to be leader. He wouldn't agree until they put Progressive in their name. So they did and Conservative Party became the Progressive Conservative Party until they merged with the Reform Party and went back to being called the Conservative Party. Some provinces still have a PC party.

Here and now is a different place and time than when that political party was named during the merger of the Progressives and the Conservatives in an effort to defeat the incumbent Liberals. Being a "liberal" was a term for a supporter of the right-wing moneyed establishment at the time because of their demand for laissez-faire economics and reciprocity in international trade. A lot can change over a century.

But the orders are in affect now.

Yes, of course it is. I replied to someone who said they have no idea how Canadian law worked. Commons/Senate approval is part of the Emergency Act and the current government has to follow it.

Yes. Trudeau's father did the same thing (look up "Just watch me"). Anyway, there's no such thing as separation of powers in Canada. It's called Parliamentary Sovereignty.

I mean, Trudeau's father called in the military because a terrorist group kidnapped a government minister and set off multiple bombs. This is pretty small potatoes compared to the FLQ.

We don't have the concept of co-equal branches of government, but the judiciary can declare acts of parliament to violate the charter of rights and freedoms. The Emergencies Act explicitly says it does not supercede any constitutional rights.

The legislature in my home province is closed to the public due to threats: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/security-risk-clo...

Several MPs and MLAs have received suspicious packages: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mike-kelloway-sus...

"Protesters" tried to break into a federal MP's constituency office: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/covid-19-protests...

And that's just Nova Scotia. This isn't as bad as the October Crisis, but it's still quite serious. It's not small potatoes.

There was concern of over-reach when Pierre invoke the War Measures Act also. The War Measures Act included all of Canada, not just the geography the FLQ was operating in. I was fairly young at the time but I still have a recollection of the bombing, kidnapping and murder. I can't reconcile the current protest demands with say the FLQ manifesto[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLQ_Manifesto

Trudeau is the spitting image of his biological father both in appearance and approach to government. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Canada isn't britian. The constitution is supreme, and courts will enforce it.

We already have civil forfeiture in the US. The police can just claim the money is linked to criminal activity and seize it.

That's unfortunately true, however those cases are frequently reversed and returned by judges (though the burden is entirely on the asset owners to bring the case). We definitely need legislation to invert the process though, law enforcement should be going to a judge before they can seize the assets.