The Trudeau government considered sending tanks against demonstrators.
This was found, among other things, at the Rouleau Commission yesterday, citing the emergency law against the so-called “freedom convoy” in Ottawa in February.
I couldn’t help but think of Father Trudeau, a professor of law by profession and cantor of the Liberties, who shamelessly suspended her in October 1970. And who also used the army at the same time.
Fifty-two years later, the Trudeau son, along with his Attorney General David Lametti (professor of law), invoked the Emergency Act.
The law was certainly watered down in 1988 precisely to prevent a skid like that of 1970.
And if there is a commission investigating the a posteriori declaration of a state of emergency, it is precisely because the new version of the law, rewritten in the Mulroney era, mandates such an exercise. The goal: to ensure that this type of massive intervention is justified and remains the exception.
Minister Lametti’s testimony was overwhelming in several respects.
First, this charter worshiper advocated invoking an emergency law beginning Jan. 30 (the day after the truckers arrived in Ottawa).
Then – this is more fundamental – the minister claimed that according to his own “interpretation” of the law, all the criteria were met.
However, this requires the government to demonstrate the existence of a “national crisis”, i.e. a situation which ” seriously threatens the life, health or safety of Canadians and is beyond the ability or authority of any provincial intervention”. Section 3(b) adds that this situation “poses a serious threat to the Canadian Government’s ability to ensure the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the country”.
I have no sympathy for the truckers and their convoy in January and February, but did they really pose a “threat” of that magnitude?
- For an in-depth analysis of Quebec politics, we advise you Antoine Robitailledaily at 5:30 p.m., live or via podcast QUB radio :
The Emergency Act does not imply any express suspension of rights. But it still allowed the state to trample on certain rights. Example: freezing of bank accounts. Furthermore, Ottawa invoked the law without first trying other solutions.
And it’s the same government that howls when a provincial legislature makes use of the “disregard clause.” However, a legal instrument inscribed in the charters that is the result of a compromise. This allows legislators to refuse (for a limited time) the ‘interpretation’ of rights by the courts.
When it comes to “exceptions” in legal matters, Lametti, Trudeau and Co. pretend the rights are absolute, and they teach lessons.
But if a noisy demonstration in front of their parliament lasts a little too long, here they are ready for any contortions, interpretations to justify other kinds of gross deviations. And even think about using the army against the citizens!