At the end of the Rouleau Commission hearings, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has won the battle for public opinion. The Liberals, however, failed to make a clear-sighted demonstration of the legality of using the Emergencies Act to dislodge the so-called Freedom Convoy from the nation’s capital last winter.
In terms of moral convictions and common sense, Mr. Trudeau stood out for the frankness and candor of his testimony before Judge Paul Rouleau. He was convinced that the demonstrators opposed to the sanitary measures posed a risk to the safety of the population. Ottawa police had no plan to lift the lockdown, he said aptly. Ontario Premier Doug Ford showed a flagrant lack of leadership. ” I asked myself […] : what if the worst happens? What if someone was hurt,” Mr. Trudeau testified.
Seen in this light, the use of emergency measures is the logical consequence of an occupation that was degenerating day by day, in addition to exasperating citizens worried about their safety and tarnishing Canada’s image abroad. . Apart from the angry opponents of health measures and the insipid politicians who comfort them in their whims, we will not find many citizens outraged by the Prime Minister’s decision.
The problem is that the ineptitude of police forces alone does not justify the use of emergency measures, any more than the safeguarding of Canada’s reputation. During her testimony before the Emergency Commission, Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland raised arguments that could set a dangerous precedent. Pressed by the leaders of the major Canadian banks during the crisis last February, Ms.me Freeland argued that economic considerations justified the use of the Emergencies Act.
The law passed in 1988 was not designed to reassure bankers or worried investors. Such a reckless interpretation of the law, if accepted by Justice Rouleau, will mark a serious setback to civil liberties.
Rather, the government had to demonstrate legally that the occupation of downtown Ottawa and the border crossings met the definition of a threat to national security as enshrined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. (CSIS). CSIS Director David Vigneault thought not, but changed his mind after discussions with the Department of Justice.
The Trudeau government relied on a more flexible and generous definition of threat to national security. The argument is supported by a legal opinion that the Minister of Justice, David Lametti, refused to make public in the name of professional secrecy.
These details may seem boring, but they constitute the heart of Judge Rouleau’s investigation. He deplored the lack of transparency of the government for its refusal to reveal its legal opinions. “How to assess whether it was reasonable for the Cabinet to invoke the Emergencies Act if we do not know on what basis it was relying to do so? he asked.
This nagging question is the only one that really matters. By refusing to answer it, Prime Minister Trudeau behaved as if he were seeking a certificate of good conduct from the Rouleau commission. It is a strategy of great irresponsibility. We cannot allow any government to decide to adjust the definition of a threat to national security according to the mood of the day, in total opacity. There must be objective, clear and publicly explained legal criteria to justify the very serious imposition of emergency measures.
Judge Rouleau thus bears a heavy responsibility, that of recalling that the negligence of the local police and the concerns of a Prime Minister and his entourage as well as secret legal opinions are not enough to impose the state of emergency in a democratic country.