LILLEY: Trudeau testifies he’s ‘serene, confident that I made the right choice’ as inquiry wraps up
Trudeau #Trudeau
Breadcrumb Trail Links
In fact, Trudeau seemed more concerned with what may have happened had he not used the act.
Publishing date:
Nov 25, 2022 • 5 hours ago • 3 minute read 71 Comments 
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau testifies at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, November 25, 2022. Photo by Blair Gable /Reuters Article content
Justin Trudeau took the stand to testify at the Emergencies Act inquiry Friday with the full confidence that he had done the right thing last February.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
His delivery was calm, smooth and unruffled, matching his words claiming that his choice was the right one.
By clicking on the sign up button you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. You may unsubscribe any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link at the bottom of our emails. Postmedia Network Inc. | 365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4 | 416-383-2300 Thanks for signing up!
Article content
“I am absolutely, absolutely serene, confident that I made the right choice,” Trudeau said.
In fact, Trudeau seemed more concerned with what may have happened had he not used the act.
“What if someone had gotten hurt?” he said. “What if a police officer had been put in a hospital? What if, when I had an opportunity to do something, I had waited?”
The prime minister was far less defensive than many of the officials and ministers who had come before the inquiry over the last two weeks. He answered questions and explained his view that while the Emergencies Act uses the same definition of what constitutes a threat to national security, the context is different.
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The Trudeau government has made several arguments to the inquiry, most forcefully that they took a broader view of threats to national security than are found in the legislation. They have even admitted to having a legal opinion from the justice department to that effect but have refused to share it.
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
Trudeau’s reliance on context was a different take than his justice minister and some top security officials. Under cross examination from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association though, Trudeau did agree that the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act over threats to national security should not be lower than invoking it for CSIS to launch an investigation.
That’s an important admission because at times, Trudeau and his ministers appear to have tried to make that argument.
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
After a month of testimony, I’d argue the government has not made the case that the use of the act was justified based on the legal definitions and parameters in the current legislation. They have made a solid argument for amending the Emergencies Act to include economic harm – such as shutting down a key trading port – but currently that’s not in the law.
For many Canadians, these distinctions won’t matter. To those who truly care about the inquiry, their minds are made up. Those who supported the convoy will never accept any claim that it was justified and to those who opposed the convoy, any action, legal or not, was justified to end the protests.
The remainder of Canadians in the middle, just want to move on from those days.
Advertisement 5
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
These distinctions do matter greatly though. They determine whether we live under the rule of law or the rule of man. Granting governments and police extraordinary powers should only be done with extreme caution.
That’s why, when the Emergencies Act was passed, Parliament included strict guidelines on when the act could be invoked, and what legal thresholds were required. The streets of Ottawa needed to be cleared – they should have been cleared much sooner – and the problems with border crossings were real.
That doesn’t mean using the Emergencies Act, as it was written, was justified. There were other tools, as every police force testified. The CSIS threat assessment said the threshold was not met, which must mean something even if the CSIS director later endorsed using the act under the secret legal opinion.
When the government has put forward official arguments for using the act, they have mostly been economic arguments, often related to trade. I’d suggest that they table changes to the Emergencies Act in Parliament to add such grounds in the future while also tightening definitions.
Friday’s testimony wrapped a long if imperfect public examination of the government’s actions, now we await Justice Rouleau’s report in February.
blilley@postmedia.com
Share this article in your social network Related Stories
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Advertisement 1
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Comments
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.