The ruling by Justice was based on a solid grasp of Canadian law, and, refreshingly, common sense. From the beginning, the matter was one for the Ottawa police to address as a public order problem. They didn't have a plan on how to deal with the Trucker Convoy, and it showed. A larger issue IMHO is the repeated examples from this government with respect to their inability to understand Canadian law, or perhaps it is their willingness to flout it. I welcome the ruling and feel it is high time that somebody in the Trudeau regime is held accountable.
Blaming the Liberal government for not understanding the unlawfulness that was advancing upon them might hold some water..........if the intent was to suggest the convoy should never have been allowed to bring those faux trucker trucks into the city. But of course, in a democracy that allows protest....that same government would have been pilloried by the right for shutting down lawful protest.
Once ensconced on the streets of Ottawa it became difficult to dislodge them. What's more, if you let Doug Ford and provincial jurisdiction off the hook.....ignore the incompetence of the city police force............you might be implying that the Liberal government should have violated jurisdiction from the get go. That would have given conservatives another kind of ammunition with which to bash them.
I think we'll be more secure as a country when political grandstanding is not allowed to stand in for good governance.....AT ALL LEVELS. We should expect our municipal, provincial and federal authorities to work together during national emergencies......and be asking why that didn't happen.
Why do you fail to do so........but jump on the Federal bashing game that was a primary motive of the so called 'freedom convoy'???
The issue with jurisdiction is germane to the fiasco. Firstly, the police service of jurisdiction and the municipal government are required to officially request assistance. I'm not sure when that request was made; in hindsight it should have been made prior to the Freedom Convoy arriving....on the other hand, maybe the powers that be in Ottawa assumed the protestors would leave after a few days. In any case, neither the RCMP or OPP were about to send police officers to Ottawa until their own respective services had an opportunity to assess the situation and determine how best to deploy their officers. It seemed apparent after the first few days the OPS were unable to cope, whether due to political infighting at the top including the PSB, or just because they were overwhelmed. Additionally, it was always going to take several days for the larger services to find the police resources that could be made available to be deployed to Ottawa. The OPP, for instance, had to be cognizant of the bridge blockades, and ensure they had the police resources to deal with them first. As I recall, certain members of the PM's cabinet wanted to unleash the armed forces on the Ottawa protestors, including the use of tanks. With all due respect to your position, this federal government has always shown a visceral dislike and condescension for individuals and groups that don't share their beliefs. There were (and are) large numbers of Canadians who were tired of their attitude, and decided to do something about it. My personal opinion was that the truckers should have left after a couple of days, having made their point. Since they refused to do so, they had to be moved, and yes, it should have been done sooner. I appreciate (and respect) your thoughtful and insightful comment.
Same to you. My main point is that the blame game doesn't serve Canadians and we'd be all better off if we held all levels of government accountable and stifled our tendencies to turn everything into a hockey game........or other form of team combat.
Respect for good government should supersede partisan politics.....especially in a national emergency.
Is it better for a government to act too swiftly than too slowly?
In my view, the government is (in the court of public opinion) in a no win situation.
You have provided a well written critique of Justice Mosley’s conclusions. Kudos!
The definition of threat to national security needs to be clarified by the Executive, communicated to, and understood by Canadians
There have been two incidents where our economic security has been threatened..the first to a major extent during the pandemic, the second and to a smaller extent
The border closures caused by protestors.
I fear the Opposition who want to form the next government, do not understand how to maintain national security or economic certainty, especially if faced with the two challenges we have experienced.
Worse still, I fear the Opposition care little about and will ignore completely the repairs needed to mechanisms like the EA to respond to threats to national security which impact economic security.
Yes. The opposition tends to play politics when what is badly needed during nation crises like covid or the convoy is governance. Not knowing the difference between politics and governance is a major threat to our democracy.
Let's keep saying that and saying it loudly. There is to darn much rage farming and too little judicious thinking for all of us just now. The climate emergency is real, but we're told to fight to end a carbon tax that puts more money in average Canadian pockets than it takes out. Our health care system is on life support, but we're told privatizing it (while tax dollars flow to pay for those private clinics) is the answer.
There's entirely too much blame game and not enough cooperation to bring Canadians the good governance we can easily afford. Defending the absolute rights of convoy folks who weren't even sure what country's laws applied is partisan politics at its purest.
Hindsight is easier than foresight. Nevertheless, I think a good case can be made for the Government of Canada overstepped. Just as compelling IMHO is the argument that the Gov of Ontario intentionally left Ottawa hanging so the Federal Government would be left to deal with the mess. I look forward to hearing more informed debate on that part of the issue.
What a balanced and thoughtful analysis of this complex issue from Prof Wark - as usual!
The CSIS Act was likely outdated the day it was promulgated and has always been challenging to apply due to its focus on reducing the “illegal” activities of the RCMP Security Service - at the expense of providing CSIS with the necessary flexibility to address modern terrorist, espionage and other security threats.
A thorough re-write of the Act could also address the nuanced issue of foreign intelligence collection through CSIS, a stand alone entity, or our bizarre current scenario of GAC sort of almost having its own intelligence service…
A very good piece, as usual. We will obviously have to see if an Appeal Court agrees with the trial Judge - assuming that there is an appeal and that it is actually argued.
Moreover, I put it that way, a bit tentatively, because I suspect that this will depend upon an assessment of the “votes in play”, (i.e. “politics”) regardless of what revisions to the Emergencies Act seem prudent, in light of what the Judges have said. And, in any event, just filing an appeal kicks it all down the road, for both legal and political purposes.
That said, anyone familiar with “judicial review”, will tell you that there is high degree of subjective judgement involved in judicial review of government action – which is why there is a mountain of law on the subject, and goes some way to explaining the lack of congruence between the opinions of the two judges who have dipped their oar into these waters.
It is also common for appeal judges to disagree with the trial judge (and with each other). That’s why an appeal will be illuminating.
This decision leaves unanswered important questions about how much protesters, of whatever kind, and for whatever cause, are able to interfere with the property and civil rights of their fellow citizens - perhaps, with little prospect of redress. For example: whether an obvious “legal balancing exercise”, like an “injunction”, issued by a Judge, to restrain ongoing unlawful activity, will be enforced, somehow; or whether police will enforce the laws that (typically statutes) in their own bailiwick.
And, of course, if that is the case, then, what disgruntled citizens might be disposed to do about it – individually or collectively. Because there is still a “rule of law” question on the table too, which are broader and maybe even more important than the “national security” questions
In this regard, may I also respectfully suggest your readers look at the priceless piece by Paul Wells a few days ago, illustrating how much can get done if the PM just whispers into the ear of a local Police Chief.
Finally, for those too young to remember the OKA protest, see this clip from the CBC, to remind ourselves of another step a federal government can take in respect of protests: calling in the army.
Well sure: We call in the army against native protestors trying to protect what in their estimation, were their rights and territory. Imagining we'll do that against a gaggle of right wing white protestors attempting to unseat a democratically elected government..........is for many Canadians, a bridge too far.
The double standard exists....and for many is still a potent, but largely invisible reality.
Yes indeed. Despite the cant - solemnly intoned at the Rouleau enquiry - that politicians are never ever supposed to tell cops what to do, because that would be "politicizing policing". This bit of ideology was invented by a Judge conducting an enquiry into a situation in which the evil Mike Harris told the cops to clear the aboriginal protesters out of a public park. And is a different perspective that whether cops should use force to make sure the law is enforced, or to give effect to the decisions of judges who have made that kind of order. In the world I once inhabited, clearing picketers out of places where they should not be, or curtailing behaviour that broke laws, was par for the course,. Which is why I sought to identify all kinds of settings in which the rights of ordinary citizens collide with those of protesters.
All the protests were resolved , except the Ottawa protest, before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
The inconvenience of a small part of downtown Ottawa should not be a reason to invoke the Act.
The possibility of something might happen otherwise is just speculation.
Removing people's liberties and freedoms should not be based upon speculation, otherwise we are in danger of another invocation of the Act because a government is afraid of or disagrees with a protest and wants to shut down legal dissent because something might happen.
Sorry GM...the Convoy had no problem removing other Canadians freedoms, and they might light with municipal laws.....and declared their intention to continue doing so until the duly elected government resigned and was replaced by....them???
In a pluralistic democracy, there is no absolute freedom for some of us.........and the endless inconvenience or worse, for the rest of us, as the privileged few indulge their definition of personal liberty.
"and declared their intention to continue doing so until the duly elected government resigned and was replaced by....them???"
Not true.
Someone who was not connected with the organizers made a statement like that but, of course, the media latched onto that statement even though no organizer made that type of statement nor agreed with it.
The fact remains, they showed no intention of leaving, and acted in ways that made a smaller police action feel dangerous....a lot of Canadians might still be curious concerning how long the blockade would have continued............had no level of government took the bull by the horns.
Since that 'better police action' didn't emerge...I'm glad our government cleared the streets....and I don't car how 'small a section" of a city is involved......all night horn honking, hot tubs, bouncy castles, etc. etc. aren't acceptable on the streets of our capital city....for three weeks and running.
I'm continuously shocked by how some Canadians downplay the disregard for other people's places of residence and business. Had provincial police, or city police been able to act....perhaps the Emergency Act wouldn't have been used....but I'm glad at how effective it was once employed. Law and Order you know??? PP's conservative common sense???
And interesting and informative look at Justice Mosley's ruling....but it does seem to hinge on a large number of other questions that are yet to be answered. I watched the Ottawa occupation with increasing frustration......as police forces seemed to aid and abet a rather rowdy bunch with big trucks, bouncy castles, hot tubs and barbeque set ups, take over the streets of our national capital.
There was nothing about them that resembled any protest I'd ever attended...expecting to replace a duly elected government, by camping out until said government capitulated....struck me as simultaneously ludicrous, and border line seditious.
City and Provincial police should have seen this coming and set space and time limits to the gong show that ensued. For a variety of reasons, most Canadians are not yet apprised of....they did no such thing. The encampment grew, the festivities went on, and money poured in from deep pockets inside and outside the country.
If the Emergency Act needs a refreshing to meet 21st C needs, I support that process. I do not agree with Justice Mosley's reading however. The world was still battling covid, and the connection between these big trucks and anti-vaccer hysteria was only too clear in the bullying that some convoy members chose to visit upon masked Ottawa citizens. From a health perspective there was an emergency; from the perspective of supply chains already fragile from the pandemic there was an emergency; from the stalemate in policing across the country, there was an emergency.
Nothing was cleared until it became CLEAR that the Emergency Act was about to be declared. The fastest move came at Coutts...just hours before or after the act was declared in Ottawa. Perhaps the biggest occlusion in Justice Moseley's ruling was any acknowledgement of where the threat was coming from.
The inaction of conservative provincial governments might offer a clue.
If we let MAGA look alikes prevail in Canada, we'll very quickly learn what an ungovernable emergency looks like...so for me, the Emergency Act did what it needed to do and was than repealed. I applaud our Federal Government for having the courage to act as decisively as it did. Might I add....with no loss of life.
The ruling by Justice was based on a solid grasp of Canadian law, and, refreshingly, common sense. From the beginning, the matter was one for the Ottawa police to address as a public order problem. They didn't have a plan on how to deal with the Trucker Convoy, and it showed. A larger issue IMHO is the repeated examples from this government with respect to their inability to understand Canadian law, or perhaps it is their willingness to flout it. I welcome the ruling and feel it is high time that somebody in the Trudeau regime is held accountable.
Blaming the Liberal government for not understanding the unlawfulness that was advancing upon them might hold some water..........if the intent was to suggest the convoy should never have been allowed to bring those faux trucker trucks into the city. But of course, in a democracy that allows protest....that same government would have been pilloried by the right for shutting down lawful protest.
Once ensconced on the streets of Ottawa it became difficult to dislodge them. What's more, if you let Doug Ford and provincial jurisdiction off the hook.....ignore the incompetence of the city police force............you might be implying that the Liberal government should have violated jurisdiction from the get go. That would have given conservatives another kind of ammunition with which to bash them.
I think we'll be more secure as a country when political grandstanding is not allowed to stand in for good governance.....AT ALL LEVELS. We should expect our municipal, provincial and federal authorities to work together during national emergencies......and be asking why that didn't happen.
Why do you fail to do so........but jump on the Federal bashing game that was a primary motive of the so called 'freedom convoy'???
The issue with jurisdiction is germane to the fiasco. Firstly, the police service of jurisdiction and the municipal government are required to officially request assistance. I'm not sure when that request was made; in hindsight it should have been made prior to the Freedom Convoy arriving....on the other hand, maybe the powers that be in Ottawa assumed the protestors would leave after a few days. In any case, neither the RCMP or OPP were about to send police officers to Ottawa until their own respective services had an opportunity to assess the situation and determine how best to deploy their officers. It seemed apparent after the first few days the OPS were unable to cope, whether due to political infighting at the top including the PSB, or just because they were overwhelmed. Additionally, it was always going to take several days for the larger services to find the police resources that could be made available to be deployed to Ottawa. The OPP, for instance, had to be cognizant of the bridge blockades, and ensure they had the police resources to deal with them first. As I recall, certain members of the PM's cabinet wanted to unleash the armed forces on the Ottawa protestors, including the use of tanks. With all due respect to your position, this federal government has always shown a visceral dislike and condescension for individuals and groups that don't share their beliefs. There were (and are) large numbers of Canadians who were tired of their attitude, and decided to do something about it. My personal opinion was that the truckers should have left after a couple of days, having made their point. Since they refused to do so, they had to be moved, and yes, it should have been done sooner. I appreciate (and respect) your thoughtful and insightful comment.
Same to you. My main point is that the blame game doesn't serve Canadians and we'd be all better off if we held all levels of government accountable and stifled our tendencies to turn everything into a hockey game........or other form of team combat.
Respect for good government should supersede partisan politics.....especially in a national emergency.
Is it better for a government to act too swiftly than too slowly?
In my view, the government is (in the court of public opinion) in a no win situation.
You have provided a well written critique of Justice Mosley’s conclusions. Kudos!
The definition of threat to national security needs to be clarified by the Executive, communicated to, and understood by Canadians
There have been two incidents where our economic security has been threatened..the first to a major extent during the pandemic, the second and to a smaller extent
The border closures caused by protestors.
I fear the Opposition who want to form the next government, do not understand how to maintain national security or economic certainty, especially if faced with the two challenges we have experienced.
Worse still, I fear the Opposition care little about and will ignore completely the repairs needed to mechanisms like the EA to respond to threats to national security which impact economic security.
Yes. The opposition tends to play politics when what is badly needed during nation crises like covid or the convoy is governance. Not knowing the difference between politics and governance is a major threat to our democracy.
Let's keep saying that and saying it loudly. There is to darn much rage farming and too little judicious thinking for all of us just now. The climate emergency is real, but we're told to fight to end a carbon tax that puts more money in average Canadian pockets than it takes out. Our health care system is on life support, but we're told privatizing it (while tax dollars flow to pay for those private clinics) is the answer.
There's entirely too much blame game and not enough cooperation to bring Canadians the good governance we can easily afford. Defending the absolute rights of convoy folks who weren't even sure what country's laws applied is partisan politics at its purest.
Hindsight is easier than foresight. Nevertheless, I think a good case can be made for the Government of Canada overstepped. Just as compelling IMHO is the argument that the Gov of Ontario intentionally left Ottawa hanging so the Federal Government would be left to deal with the mess. I look forward to hearing more informed debate on that part of the issue.
This is excellent , Wesley! Thank you!
What a balanced and thoughtful analysis of this complex issue from Prof Wark - as usual!
The CSIS Act was likely outdated the day it was promulgated and has always been challenging to apply due to its focus on reducing the “illegal” activities of the RCMP Security Service - at the expense of providing CSIS with the necessary flexibility to address modern terrorist, espionage and other security threats.
A thorough re-write of the Act could also address the nuanced issue of foreign intelligence collection through CSIS, a stand alone entity, or our bizarre current scenario of GAC sort of almost having its own intelligence service…
A very good piece, as usual. We will obviously have to see if an Appeal Court agrees with the trial Judge - assuming that there is an appeal and that it is actually argued.
Moreover, I put it that way, a bit tentatively, because I suspect that this will depend upon an assessment of the “votes in play”, (i.e. “politics”) regardless of what revisions to the Emergencies Act seem prudent, in light of what the Judges have said. And, in any event, just filing an appeal kicks it all down the road, for both legal and political purposes.
That said, anyone familiar with “judicial review”, will tell you that there is high degree of subjective judgement involved in judicial review of government action – which is why there is a mountain of law on the subject, and goes some way to explaining the lack of congruence between the opinions of the two judges who have dipped their oar into these waters.
It is also common for appeal judges to disagree with the trial judge (and with each other). That’s why an appeal will be illuminating.
This decision leaves unanswered important questions about how much protesters, of whatever kind, and for whatever cause, are able to interfere with the property and civil rights of their fellow citizens - perhaps, with little prospect of redress. For example: whether an obvious “legal balancing exercise”, like an “injunction”, issued by a Judge, to restrain ongoing unlawful activity, will be enforced, somehow; or whether police will enforce the laws that (typically statutes) in their own bailiwick.
And, of course, if that is the case, then, what disgruntled citizens might be disposed to do about it – individually or collectively. Because there is still a “rule of law” question on the table too, which are broader and maybe even more important than the “national security” questions
In this regard, may I also respectfully suggest your readers look at the priceless piece by Paul Wells a few days ago, illustrating how much can get done if the PM just whispers into the ear of a local Police Chief.
Finally, for those too young to remember the OKA protest, see this clip from the CBC, to remind ourselves of another step a federal government can take in respect of protests: calling in the army.
https://youtu.be/RbcwlbGRcCM?t=37
Which is not to say that the Ottawa events looked like that; and perhaps that is noteworthy as well.
Well sure: We call in the army against native protestors trying to protect what in their estimation, were their rights and territory. Imagining we'll do that against a gaggle of right wing white protestors attempting to unseat a democratically elected government..........is for many Canadians, a bridge too far.
The double standard exists....and for many is still a potent, but largely invisible reality.
It is unusual for a PM to meet with a police chief..but it did happen and with results..
Yes indeed. Despite the cant - solemnly intoned at the Rouleau enquiry - that politicians are never ever supposed to tell cops what to do, because that would be "politicizing policing". This bit of ideology was invented by a Judge conducting an enquiry into a situation in which the evil Mike Harris told the cops to clear the aboriginal protesters out of a public park. And is a different perspective that whether cops should use force to make sure the law is enforced, or to give effect to the decisions of judges who have made that kind of order. In the world I once inhabited, clearing picketers out of places where they should not be, or curtailing behaviour that broke laws, was par for the course,. Which is why I sought to identify all kinds of settings in which the rights of ordinary citizens collide with those of protesters.
All the protests were resolved , except the Ottawa protest, before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
The inconvenience of a small part of downtown Ottawa should not be a reason to invoke the Act.
The possibility of something might happen otherwise is just speculation.
Removing people's liberties and freedoms should not be based upon speculation, otherwise we are in danger of another invocation of the Act because a government is afraid of or disagrees with a protest and wants to shut down legal dissent because something might happen.
Sorry GM...the Convoy had no problem removing other Canadians freedoms, and they might light with municipal laws.....and declared their intention to continue doing so until the duly elected government resigned and was replaced by....them???
In a pluralistic democracy, there is no absolute freedom for some of us.........and the endless inconvenience or worse, for the rest of us, as the privileged few indulge their definition of personal liberty.
"and declared their intention to continue doing so until the duly elected government resigned and was replaced by....them???"
Not true.
Someone who was not connected with the organizers made a statement like that but, of course, the media latched onto that statement even though no organizer made that type of statement nor agreed with it.
The fact remains, they showed no intention of leaving, and acted in ways that made a smaller police action feel dangerous....a lot of Canadians might still be curious concerning how long the blockade would have continued............had no level of government took the bull by the horns.
The Emergencies Act was not needed.
Only a small section of downtown Ottawa as affected.
Better police action without the Emergencies Act was all that was needed.
Since that 'better police action' didn't emerge...I'm glad our government cleared the streets....and I don't car how 'small a section" of a city is involved......all night horn honking, hot tubs, bouncy castles, etc. etc. aren't acceptable on the streets of our capital city....for three weeks and running.
I'm continuously shocked by how some Canadians downplay the disregard for other people's places of residence and business. Had provincial police, or city police been able to act....perhaps the Emergency Act wouldn't have been used....but I'm glad at how effective it was once employed. Law and Order you know??? PP's conservative common sense???
Well spoken
And interesting and informative look at Justice Mosley's ruling....but it does seem to hinge on a large number of other questions that are yet to be answered. I watched the Ottawa occupation with increasing frustration......as police forces seemed to aid and abet a rather rowdy bunch with big trucks, bouncy castles, hot tubs and barbeque set ups, take over the streets of our national capital.
There was nothing about them that resembled any protest I'd ever attended...expecting to replace a duly elected government, by camping out until said government capitulated....struck me as simultaneously ludicrous, and border line seditious.
City and Provincial police should have seen this coming and set space and time limits to the gong show that ensued. For a variety of reasons, most Canadians are not yet apprised of....they did no such thing. The encampment grew, the festivities went on, and money poured in from deep pockets inside and outside the country.
If the Emergency Act needs a refreshing to meet 21st C needs, I support that process. I do not agree with Justice Mosley's reading however. The world was still battling covid, and the connection between these big trucks and anti-vaccer hysteria was only too clear in the bullying that some convoy members chose to visit upon masked Ottawa citizens. From a health perspective there was an emergency; from the perspective of supply chains already fragile from the pandemic there was an emergency; from the stalemate in policing across the country, there was an emergency.
Nothing was cleared until it became CLEAR that the Emergency Act was about to be declared. The fastest move came at Coutts...just hours before or after the act was declared in Ottawa. Perhaps the biggest occlusion in Justice Moseley's ruling was any acknowledgement of where the threat was coming from.
The inaction of conservative provincial governments might offer a clue.
If we let MAGA look alikes prevail in Canada, we'll very quickly learn what an ungovernable emergency looks like...so for me, the Emergency Act did what it needed to do and was than repealed. I applaud our Federal Government for having the courage to act as decisively as it did. Might I add....with no loss of life.