Talk:Emergencies Act
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emergencies Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Emergencies Act. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Emergencies Act at the Reference desk. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
CASalt, you have added a lot of material sourced to primary sources such as statutes and regulations. Could you please find some secondary sources? Otherwise, there is a danger of original interpretation of these sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've now added secondary sources to corroborate references to the Canadian Gazette for the Emergency Measures Regulations, references to the measures under the Emergency Economic Measures Order were already well sourced, but I've added an additional source for the RCMP/CSIS reporting requirement. On a sidenote, caution should be exercised when referencing reports released prior to the regulations/order being published on the Gazette, as those could be outdated/incomplete. CASalt (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Analysis Section edit
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)
- 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)
Missing verb? edit
"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 edit
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)