Trudeau effectively declared war on Canadian citizens last week by invoking the Emergencies Act.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the federal government being able to invoke special powers in the case of an emergency. But let’s take a step back and look clearly at the situation.

The DNA of the Emergencies Act

The Emergencies Act has its roots in the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act gave the government sweeping powers - which it promptly abused – as governments do when they’re given carte blanche to steamroll over citizens’ rights.

After the adoption of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the War Measures Act was replaced by the friendlier-sounding, much more Canadian title of Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act limited the scope of potential power given to a government by requiring that the actions were subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sounds good so far.

What’s your emergency?

Trudeau claims that the ongoing blockades and protests against pandemic restrictions in Ottawa validate the use of the Emergencies Act.

In declaring a Public Order Emergency, the Emergencies Act requires that it be “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency” The Emergencies Act also requires that “threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.” 

Trudeau has specifically characterized the protests as a threat to bolster support for his use of the Emergencies Act. Let’s look at section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act’s definition of a threat:

“threats to the security of Canada means

• (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

• (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

• (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

• (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,

but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

I’m not sure I see any espionage, illegal foreign influence, or attempts to violently overthrow the government of Canada in people standing outside the palaces of government to have their voices heard – in a Canadian winter, no less.

What I do see is a massive overreach by a government attempting to silence its citizens.

Why it’s problematic

The protest in Ottawa is not a national emergency. It doesn’t warrant the use of the Emergencies Act. It’s problematic on so many levels that they’re hard to unpack in one blog post, but I’ll try.

The crisis has passed

The Emergencies Act was invoked the day after the Ambassador Bridge blockade was cleared. I might have agreed if it had been declared when international trade routes were blocked. But to call an emergency because you can’t park in your preferred parking spot? Most regular folk call that Monday.

Hypocrisy at its finest

The government is calling the protests a threat to the Canadian economy. After two years of draconian lockdown measures that have produced few results different from less-restrictive jurisdictions, to call the protest a threat to the economy is hypocritical, if not absurd.

Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut

Trudeau opted for the extreme in using the Emergencies Act. It was designed to be a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. In using the Emergencies Act, he’s effectively suspended all Canadians’ rights and liberties to handle a local protest.

Treating all citizens as criminals or terrorists without proof

Trudeau authorized financial services companies to suspend services to accounts they suspect have supported the protestors. The government justified it under the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act.

A federal emergency in a local area

Unlike Washington D.C, Ottawa and the National Capital Region are not a separate entity with its own laws. Ottawa is under the jurisdiction of the laws of Ontario. This crisis should be handled under Ontario provincial law, but Doug Ford punted this football, and Trudeau unwisely caught it.

It’s inflammatory and divisive

The language that Trudeau is using to justify the use of the Emergencies Act is demonizing part of the population. I’m from Quebec – we live in a constant us vs. them dynamic intended to maintain the status quo and ensure elections. Is Trudeau sacrificing national unity upon the altar of another snap election?

Trudeau’s itchy trigger finger

Trudeau had wanted to use the Emergencies Act in 2020 to deal with the Coronavirus pandemic. Could it be that he wants to emulate his daddy, who used the War Measures Act to deal with the October Crisis? Is he hoping he appears as a strong leader and shore up his polling numbers?

How do we move forward?

Nothing about Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act is Canadian. This isn’t the country we grew up in. This isn’t the country our grandparents fought for. This isn’t the national mythology that we espouse when representing Canada on the world stage.

While I’m an individual rights and liberties kind of guy, I generally fall on the side of law and order, so obviously, I’m not advocating insurrection or fomenting revolution. However, I think we’re still allowed to contact our MPs and ask them to vote against this lunacy.

Then, once this is over, we need to have a national conversation about who we, as Canadians, want to be moving forward. What values do we want to be held to, and how do we want those values to be present in our daily lives. The problem will not go away, and we can’t afford to pass it off to future generations.