Was the Trudeau government justified in declaring a state of emergency in order to put an end to the “freedom convoys” last February?
This is the thorny — and how important — question that the Emergency Commission must answer. The Rouleau Commission’s public hearings concluded on Friday, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifying for nearly five hours.
We can never write enough how this public inquiry (a counter-power provided for in the law) is essential, crucial, imperative for our rule of law.
Declaring a state of emergency is one of the most serious decisions the federal government can make. It was the first time he invoked the Emergency Measures Actadopted in 1988 to replace the infamous War Measures Act.
We fervently hope that this will be the first and the last time. But you can never be too careful. This is why the Rouleau commission must absolutely clarify the reasons that justify declaring a state of emergency. And the reasons that do not justify it.
First, the Rouleau Commission made us watch a car accident in slow motion: the management of the crisis by the Ottawa police, who were grossly incompetent in this case (and we are weighing our words). She let the protesters and hundreds of heavy trucks take over downtown Ottawa, naively believed they would leave, and soon found herself overwhelmed by events.
Nor did we see the Ontario government in its best light. Doug Ford obviously did not want to upset some of his sympathetic supporters in the convoy a few months before the Ontario election. As an example of leadership, we will come back.
If the Ottawa police and / or Doug Ford had taken their responsibilities, Justin Trudeau would probably not have thought of declaring a state of emergency.
But for two weeks, the Trudeau government watched, relatively helplessly, as protesters took control of downtown Ottawa, the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario (crucial to Canada-US relations) and the Coutts border in Alberta.
This was no ordinary peaceful protest. Among the protesters were far-right groups. The group “Canada Unity”, one of the organizers, wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government. It should not be forgotten.
You have to be particularly unpleasant to make life impossible for residents by honking all day and evening, as some truck drivers have done. But honking your horn late at night in an illegally parked truck is not in itself a reason for declaring a state of emergency.
The Emergency Measures Act rather requires “threats to the security of Canada”, that is to say, among other things, “threats of violence against persons or property in order to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective”.
Were the “freedom convoys” a “security threat”?
Prime Minister Trudeau and seven of his ministers made their case this week.
We have already seen more solid proof and more concrete arguments.
To justify itself, the federal government gave five main reasons:
- He had lost faith in the Ottawa police to end the crisis;
- Police found weapons in some protesters in Coutts on February 13 (a state of emergency was declared the next day and lasted nine days);
- The director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service recommended it;
- The Federal feared new convoys;
- He feared the negative economic impacts of the convoys.
The federal government’s best arguments? The presence of far-right groups who wanted to overthrow the government, the fact that the police found weapons in Coutts, and the poor results of the Ottawa police until February 14.
Other federal arguments hang on rather thin threads.
The police would have been unable to restore order without extraordinary powers? She did, however, at the Ambassador Bridge on the morning of February 14, about ten hours before the decision to resort to a state of emergency was decided.
The most surprising argument? adverse economic consequences. It’s not written anywhere in the law. The Trudeau government here considerably stretches the definition of a “security threat” by including economic factors. Whether an American investor thinks Canada looks like a “banana republic,” as Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland put it, is irrelevant.
Could the federal government then declare a state of emergency if environmentalist groups or Aboriginal communities blockade the railway causing significant economic consequences? This is what this far too elastic definition suggests. It is to be hoped that Judge Paul Rouleau rejects this criterion which could lead to abuses in the future.
In the end, if Judge Rouleau concludes that the state of emergency was justified, we should not be surprised that it just passes the required threshold.
No doubt, the emergency measures were helpful. After several weeks, it was necessary to put an end to this type of demonstrations, and the emergency measures worked. They facilitated the eviction of protests (it was forbidden to be in downtown Ottawa and within strategic infrastructures), forced towing companies to do their job, and froze certain funds (eight million dollars) of 280 demonstrators.
But the question is not whether these exceptional measures were useful.
It is whether they were justified and really necessary.
We cannot change the past. Judge Rouleau’s decision will have moral weight (it will have no legal consequence), and the Trudeau government would not pay a great political cost if it were disavowed by the Rouleau commission.
But it is important that we are fixed for the future. Let the tags be clear.
Here’s hoping the next federal state of emergency never happens.