When Emergency Powers Become Normal

Why Canadians Are Losing Trust By Kellie Auld Canadians are often told that extraordinary government powers are temporary, exceptional, and necessary to address urgent threats. Yet recent experience suggests a troubling pattern: once granted, such powers are rarely surrendered, even when courts later question their use. This pattern should concern anyone who values democratic accountability, regardless of political affiliation. Over the past several years, Parliament has repeatedly authorized broad discretionary authority in the name of crisis management. The results have included uneven enforcement of public-order measures, inconsistent policing thresholds, selective application of regulatory and speech-related frameworks, and even severe financial restrictions imposed without prior judicial determination. In multiple instances, Charter violations were acknowledged only after harm had already occurred, with little meaningful remedy. These are not isolated mistakes. They are predictable outcomes of legislation that relies on open-ended language, delegated authority, and post-hoc justification. When laws grant wide discretion without clear limits, enforcement inevitably becomes inconsistent. Equality before the law gives way to judgment calls, and accountability becomes diffuse. What is especially troubling is what happens after such powers are found wanting. Even when courts determine that emergency measures were applied inappropriately, there is often no legislative rollback, no tightening of statutory language, and no meaningful correction. Extraordinary authority remains on the books, ready to be used again. Over time, the exceptional becomes routine. This matters because precedent is the real engine of governance. Laws outlive governments. Powers normalized today are inherited tomorrow by institutions and officials with very different priorities. When Parliament remains silent or procedurally acquiescent in the face of overreach, that silence functions as normalization. It is within this context that proposals for new governance infrastructure—particularly systems capable of rapid, identity-linked or financial enforcement—generate public anxiety. This concern is often dismissed as fear-mongering. But fear is not the issue; trust is. Public trust does not hinge on assurances that future powers will be used wisely. It depends on demonstrated restraint in the present. When past emergency authorities remain intact even after judicial criticism, citizens reasonably question whether new tools will be constrained, proportionate, or reversible in practice. This is not an argument against public safety, nor against governments acting in times of genuine emergency. It is an argument for limits that are real, not rhetorical. Clear statutory thresholds, meaningful parliamentary oversight, automatic review, and sunset provisions are not obstacles to good governance—they are its foundation. Democracy does not usually erode in dramatic fashion. It hollows out incrementally, through normalization of exceptional authority and quiet transfers of decision-making away from Parliament and the public. By the time citizens notice, they are often told that the system has already moved on. Canadians should be asking a simple question before granting any new emergency or administrative power: What happened the last time we did this? Until governments show a willingness to correct course and relinquish authority when it is misused, skepticism is not cynicism—it is civic responsibility. Kellie Auld is a retired communications specialist who spent nearly 20 years with the RCMP before becoming an HR consultant and later running a licensed investigations firm. Her legal and investigative background led her to question whether Canada is shifting from a democratic system toward an administrative state.