Here in Victoria, Australia, we had similar emergency powers which were only valid for a couple of months.
In practice, the government simply kept voting to extend its emergency powers until it passed a piece of legistlation that allowed it to keep the relevant powers from the emergencies act indefinitely.
This. Invoking the Act in Canada was a blatantly political move, and they will not easily give up such powers once they get a taste of them. As is always the case with government.
While I'm definitely wary of government overreach and not really a fan of the Pandemic management bill the Vic government passed to replace the use of state of emergency powers, at least this bill did say that its provisions could only be used if the state premier and health minister declared a "state of pandemic", and also the bill was heavily modified from its original reading after criticism from the legal profession and negotiation with the state opposition.
So in actual reality those state of emergency powers to compel lockdowns, quarantine people and compel business to shut were NOT extended indefinitely, the government wrote them into legislation designed to cope with the current situation, and specified that they could only be used in a pandemic situation and NOT indefinitely.
Yes before you say it the government could amend the bill again before the state of pandemic is declared over, or pass more draconian legislation or try and do anything it feels like. In the end it comes down to if you think the government is acting in good faith to do what is best for the population or not, and I can't think of much evidence they are actually acting in bad faith or otherwise misusing their powers.
The situation in Canada is not the same, I very much do not like the idea of freezing people's bank accounts without oversight or recourse.
In practice, the government simply kept voting to extend its emergency powers until it passed a piece of legistlation that allowed it to keep the relevant powers from the emergencies act indefinitely.