(Ottawa) Even as it pondered what to do to end the “freedom convoy” in Ottawa and blockades of border crossings elsewhere in the country, the government lacked a clear definition of what constitutes a threat to national security and the illegality of a demonstration. He nevertheless chose to resort to the Emergency Measures Act.
This question is at the heart of the Commission on the state of emergency which must determine whether the historic recourse to this legislation was justified in the circumstances. The decree adopted on February 14 by the Cabinet granted extraordinary and temporary powers which notably allowed financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of participants without judicial supervision and the police to requisition tow trucks.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national security adviser admitted in testimony Thursday that she had recommended the government use the law. Jody Thomas did not explain why, but she said she no longer believed at that point that negotiation with the protest organizers was possible.
An email circulating among Privy Council employees presented in evidence Thursday indicates that the government had never formally defined the concept of national security. From a political point of view, the email indicates that it includes the protection of Canadian territory, government, economy, citizens and national interests.
However, the definition of security threats is narrower in Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. These must include espionage and sabotage, foreign interference, use of serious violence, and activities aimed at overthrowing the government. This definition is repeated in the Emergency Measures Act.
In a tough cross-examination, the lawyer for the organizers of the “freedom convoy”, Brendan Miller, argued that the government had gone beyond its own legislation. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) did not consider this demonstration and the other convoys of trucks blocking border crossings as a threat to national security. “You are distorting the words of CSIS,” replied Mr.me Tit for tat Thomas. “The act allows the Governor in Council to have a broader definition,” she added.
In his testimony, Mr.me Thomas also indicated that the definition of a legal or illegal demonstration was constantly discussed within the government. They had in mind the invasion of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
“Can you be illegal and peaceful, which means you’re not 6-January?” she said, adding that work to try to come up with a definition was continuing. “We have seen these uprisings in democracies all over the world,” she recalled.