Emergencies Act Use by PM Trudeau Appropriate, but Missteps by Officials Could Have Avoided It

An investigation concluded that the use of the Emergencies Act by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to put an end to the protests over the convoys that took place during the winter of 2017-2018 was appropriate but could have been avoided if both the police and officials from the government hadn't made mistakes.

The inquiry's commissioner, Justice Paul Rouleau, presented the findings to the House of Commons on Friday. The investigation came to the conclusion that a variety of actors, including the Ottawa Police Service, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and Mr. Trudeau himself, were culpable for these blunders. The report details the behaviors of the protesters and their reasons for participating, as well as the confused responses and failures of police leaders and politicians, as well as the breakdowns in communication that occurred at all levels, which made it possible for the demonstrations to get out of hand.

A five-volume, 2,092-page report was produced by the Public Order Emergency Commission after the inquiry lasted for ten months and was tasked with investigating the circumstances leading to the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022. The report includes 56 recommendations to be implemented by both the government and various police agencies. In addition, the COVID-19 epidemic, misinformation and disinformation, as well as the political and social instability that contributed to the riots, are discussed in the paper.

Protests against the government and the obligation to vaccinate children kept the nation's capital and numerous border crossings completely blocked for around three weeks in January and February of last year. That was the first time the Emergency Act was ever put into effect, and it provided the government with exceptional temporary powers. Before the law is put into effect, there must first be an investigation that is open to the public. The report from Justice Rouleau was submitted just a few days before the deadline that was legally binding on February 20.

The question of whether or not the demonstrations reached the legal level that is necessary for the government to declare a public order emergency was one of the most controversial issues with which Judge Rouleau had to contend. According to the legislation, the situation has to be severe enough to qualify as a national emergency, which is defined as a threat to the safety of Canada. In addition to this, it states that the definition of such a risk may be found in the Act respecting the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), David Vigneault, stated during the inquiry that he had advised the Canadian government that the demonstrations did not pose a threat to Canada's national security. This led civil liberties groups to argue that the demonstrations against the convoy did not meet the threshold. In spite of this, he stated that he continued to recommend to authorities that they activate the Emergency Act.

When determining whether anything posed a risk to the nation's security, the government considered that it could take into account a greater number of considerations than the CSIS could due to the fact that it and the CSIS are separate decision-makers serving distinct goals. This was Justice Rouleau's opinion as well.

In conclusion, the research concludes that although while the use of the Emergencies Act was required, improved communication and cooperation among authorities may have prevented the necessity of using the law. The research also gives insight into the legal threshold necessary for the government to declare a public order emergency. This is an issue that civil liberties groups continue to discuss, and the report sheds light on this sensitive subject.

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. We need your support to survive.