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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 182 days |
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. |
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 |
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)
"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)
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)
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)