The outcome of those deliberations will be to some extent obscure and subject to yet further interpretation and arguments.
That doesn't in, and of itself, make democracy stronger.
I would argue that the use of this Act has already weakened democracy in Canada because it shows that the only response the political systems has to a very minor disruption is to use acts that everyone understood to be for much more extreme situations.
This has already deepened many people's cynicism about the idea of this form of government.
Certainly the act was used in response to weaknesses in the system - eg the Ottawa Police Service were unwilling to fine/ticket/otherwise deal with the illegal activity for weeks; crowdfunding sites weren't subject to FINTRAC; etc. Ideally this will lead to proper legislation regarding these weaknesses, removing the necessity of using the Emergencies Act to deal with a similar situation again.
I would argue that laws only mean what they are interpreted to mean by a particular governmental body at a particular time.
And you can in addition have a coherent, clear and easily interpretable body of laws and measures which result in a society which lacks many of the features of what people like to imagine is a "democracy".
