The solution problem

Justin Trudeau hasn’t had a bad week at the investigation into the use of Emergency Measures Act.


It is already a lot.

It is rare for a prime minister to testify at a public inquiry. The interrogations are long and there is a constant risk of slippage.

Like the seven ministers who have preceded him since Monday, Mr. Trudeau has avoided the worst. He explained himself in a sober, clear and thoughtful way, without tape.

Was he convincing? It depends on the analytical framework.

He was more adept politically than legally.

According to an Abacus Data poll released in late October, 60% of Canadians supported the use of Emergency Measures Actand the hearings this week must not have changed their minds.

As to whether Mr. Trudeau complied with the law, the answer is less clear.

To invoke a state of emergency, national security must be threatened. Four cases justify it: espionage and sabotage; foreign interference; “serious violence” for a political, religious or ideological purpose; and finally, “hidden and illicit actions” aimed at “undermining” our government.

The federal government must consult the provinces and demonstrate that all available means have been used without success.

The head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) admitted this week that the disruptions in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country did not meet these criteria.

The Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) also indicated that the day before the invocation of this law, a new intervention plan was being prepared.

The Windsor (Ontario) and Coutts (Alberta) border crossings were reopened or in the process of being reopened. And an agreement was in preparation with some of those responsible for the occupation of downtown Ottawa – there is no guarantee, however, that the demonstrators would have respected it.

Despite everything, Judy Thomas, Mr. Trudeau’s national security adviser, recommended that he invoke this exceptional measure.

The CSIS boss told him the same thing. We are thus faced with an agency that believes that a measure is both unjustified and necessary.

In their view, our legal definition of national security is too restrictive.

You have to put it in context.

The White House wondered if Canada was still a reliable trading partner. The integration of supply chains was under threat. Even if the borders were cleared again, it was plausible that the blockades would resume.

In Coutts, police had just seized weapons that appeared to be designed for an insurrection. According to the RCMP, these people seemed ready “to die for the cause”.

The Trudeau government feared these insurgents, but it seems to have broadened the notion of national security to include the economy. And he invoked it to intervene in part in a preventive way, after having simply informed the provinces. It was not a proper consultation.

The Trudeau government responds that it was acting on the recommendation of CSIS and its national security adviser. And he adds that it is he, and not CSIS, who is ultimately responsible for assessing whether the threat meets the criteria provided for in the law.

It’s true. But the problem is that he refuses to reveal his legal arguments. This opinion is confidential, explained the Minister of Justice, David Lametti.

Canadian federalism looks bad in this crisis. The division of powers is rigid and confused.

Primary responsibility for the occupation of Ottawa rests with its municipal police. She anticipated that the occupants would leave after a few days, and she had no plans to evict them.

Ontario didn’t shine either. Its prime minister, Doug Ford, feared being accused of interfering in police operations. He therefore offered the minimum service.

The province and the federal government passed the buck to find out who was responsible for the Ambassador Bridge at the Windsor border crossing. When the Trudeau government asked the Justice Minister at Queen’s Park for a plan, he texted back: “I don’t take orders from you, you’re not my f*cking boss “…

You have to be consistent. The federal government cannot be solely responsible for what is also the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities.

What would have happened if Mr. Trudeau had given the RCMP time to implement his new plan? We’ll never know.

About the occupiers of Ottawa, the Prime Minister said this Friday: “they did not want to be listened to, they wanted to be obeyed”. This sentence alone explains why Mr. Trudeau’s decision is still supported by a majority of Canadians.

However, Mr. Trudeau’s reasoning is risky. Because he opened a breach. If he uses the Emergency Measures Act without further detailing his legal argument, what would prevent a future government from imitating him in another case?


source site-61

Latest