Emergencies Act inquiry report will weigh a key question – Was Trudeau justified? – National | Globalnews.ca

Were last year’s convoy protests a national emergency that required unprecedented powers to address? Or did the Liberal government overreach with their decision to invoke sweeping authorities to end weeks of demonstrations?

Canadians can expect some clarity on those questions from the independent inquiry into the federal government’s decision to invoke the never-before-used Emergencies Act last February, as police and politicians struggled to respond to demonstrations in Ottawa and beyond.

Justice Paul Rouleau, who led the independent public inquiry into the so-called “Freedom Convoy” and the federal government’s emergency powers, is scheduled to release his final report Friday afternoon. The report is expected to be tabled in the House of Commons just after noon eastern standard time.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the unprecedented step to invoke the Emergencies Act – the successor to the controversial War Measures Act – on Feb. 14, 2022. By that time, the convoy protest in Ottawa was grinding into its third week, and like-minded protests had popped up at Canada-U.S. border crossings in Windsor, Ont., and Coutts, Alta.

Trudeau defended his decision during his testimony at the commission, suggesting the situation was “out of control” and had a “potential for violence.”

“What if the worst happened in those following days (after Feb. 14)? What if someone had gotten hurt?  What if a police officer had been put in the hospital?” Trudeau put to the commission.

“What if, when I had the opportunity to do something, I had waited and we had the unthinkable happen over the coming days, even though there was all this warning?”

3:22
Trudeau defends invoking Emergencies Act to end ‘Freedom Convoy’

Rouleau’s commission sought to answer three central questions: why the Liberal government invoked emergency powers, the circumstances leading up to that decision, and if the sweeping measures were both appropriate and effective in quelling last year’s convoy protests.

But the evidence presented between Oct. 13 and Dec. 2 last year included much more: from dysfunction at the top of the Ottawa Police Service, to the impact the convoy had on citizens in various communities, to debates over whether the situation presented a legitimate national security threat.

Rouleau heard from many of the political and policing figures involved in responding to the protests – although notably not Premier Doug Ford or members of his cabinet – including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, several senior federal cabinet ministers, municipal politicians and senior national security and law enforcement officials.

Several organizers of the convoy protests themselves offered colourful takes on the meaning of the demonstrations and perceived federal overreach in shutting them down.

In all, the commission heard from 76 witnesses over 36 meetings and considered thousands of documents that gave an unprecedented view into the political and policing posture toward the protests.

2:19
Emergencies Act: what we learned from the six-week-long inquiry

Those documents included unguarded text messages between senior cabinet officials – Justice Minister David Lametti calling former Ottawa Police Service Chief Peter Sloly “incompetent” in a message to a cabinet colleague, for instance. They also included minutes from closed-door meetings at Ottawa City Hall, a surreptitious recording of Watson discussing the OPS with then-police board chair Diane Deans, and intelligence reports from the Ontario Provincial Police documenting the convoy protests’ evolution.

Another central question expected to be addressed by Rouleau’s report is whether the convoy protests – while undoubtedly disruptive – rose to the level of a national security threat.

Convoy organizers and the lawyers representing them repeatedly characterized the demonstrations as “peaceful” and “non-violent” – a characterization that was disputed by several witnesses representing Ottawa community groups.

2:43
Emergencies Act inquiry: Mendicino testifies, convoy lawyer ejected from hearings

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland testified that the blockades of Canada-U.S. border crossings presented a threat to Canadian economic interests with the country’s largest trading partner.

But the Emergencies Act has a clear definition of security threats that would warrant the use of emergency powers, tied to the language used in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Those threats include espionage or sabotage of Canadian interests, serious violence motivated by ideological or religious beliefs, or an attempted overthrow of the Canadian government. Lawful protest and dissent are excluded from the definition.

CSIS Director David Vigneault told the commission that he did not believe the convoy protests constituted a national security threat under the CSIS Act, but that he nevertheless advised Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act – suggesting he understood the Emergencies Act to have a “broader” definition of security threats than those CSIS operates under.

That opinion is not universally shared.

Carleton Prof. Leah West – a former Department of Justice lawyer who worked on national security files – pointed out that “unlawful and even violent protests” are not necessarily national security threats under the law.

“Did we label the G8 and G20 protests in Toronto a national security or terrorist threat? … Similarly, we have never labelled blockades and other non-violent but illegal means of obstructing critical infrastructure as terrorism,” West testified.

With files from Rachel Gilmore and the Canadian Press.

&copy 2023 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.