OTTAWA –
Speaking candidly at the federal inquiry into the invocation of the Emergency Act, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the rostrum that a central factor in his decision to introduce unprecedented powers to stop the Freedom Convoy protests was his fear of what might happen if you don’t.
After reviewing how he weighed all the advice he was given to invoke the law — from the head of CSIS, his national security adviser, senior government officials and his cabinet — he said he also paused to consider the consequences. , if he said, “Let’s give him a few days.”
“First, what if the worst happened in the next few days? What if someone gets hurt? What if a police officer is hospitalized? What if, when I had the opportunity to do something, I had waited and we had the unthinkable happen … I would have carried this in a way that we would certainly be talking about in a forum like this,” Trudeau told the Public Emergencies Committee row on Friday.
The prime minister is the latest witness to testify as part of a weeks-long public hearing process sparked by his decision on Feb. 14 to invoke previously unused federal powers out of fear for Canada’s economic and national security. In doing so, the federal government introduced a wide range of measures to support provinces, municipalities and police forces to end the demonstrations.
“Furthermore, it’s a prime minister’s responsibility to make the tough calls and keep people safe.” And it was a moment where the collective counsel of the cabinet, of the public service and my own inclination was that this is a moment to do something…to keep Canadians safe. And knowing full well that that was an inevitable consequence of me signing ‘I agree’ to that memo, I was very comfortable that we were at a point where that was the right thing to do, and we did it,” Trudeau said.
That moment in his testimony came just before the morning break and just after Trudeau painted a vivid picture of his consultations and conversations with prime ministers, senior officials, members of his Liberal caucus and opposition party leaders in the hours leading up to his decision.
He revealed to the committee that there had been consensus around the federal “incident response group” table the night before about invoking the law, and that while it was helpful, he wasn’t necessarily looking for unanimity.
Trudeau also told the committee that he ultimately did not make a decision until approximately 3:40 p.m. on Feb. 14, when he received a “call note” from the secretary of the Privy Council notifying him that the threshold had been reached. Until then, he said, it was still possible that he would not be here to testify today, given that the order was a product of his subpoena.
“It was a big thing, not a small thing, to get the head of the public service to formally recommend the activation of the Emergency Act and the declaration of a public order emergency. It’s not something that’s ever been done in Canada before,” Trudeau said.
The prime minister was also asked about some earlier testimony that showed officials were worried the subpoena might make matters worse or inflame tensions, and that there was no threat to Canadian security under the CSIS Act in the eyes of CSIS .
Trudeau began his own explanation, as others tried, to explain that he believed the threshold for the Governor in Council to find reasonable grounds for threats to the security of Canada under the Emergencies Act was “very different” than that CSIS must to meet a “deliberately narrow” threshold for opening an investigation, as the definition was originally provided for in this law, drafted just a few years before the Emergency Law.
“It’s not the words that are different. The words are exactly the same in both cases, the question is who does the interpretation? What data goes in? And what is their purpose?” Trudeau said.
Earlier in his testimony, Trudeau said it was clear before it even started that the incoming convoy of trucks would be a “different brand” of demonstration, and as pressure mounted for him to intervene.
The prime minister also confirmed to the committee, something recently confirmed by ministerial testimony, that “as an idea” the Emergency Act was mooted very early on in the protests. Trudeau said it was an option “in the back of our minds” — given the debate over whether the emergency public welfare option was needed during the worst of COVID-19 — as they watched the situation in Ottawa and at key border crossings is getting worse.
Witnessing the international pressure on Canada at a time when border blockades began to hamper Canadian-US trade, Prime Minister Trudeau was asked by the commission’s counsel Shantona Chaudhury if he thought US President Joe Biden was as concerned about the impact of the protests as him too. Trudeau said no.
“I think he was very concerned, but I don’t think anyone was more concerned than I was,” Trudeau told the committee.
“A DIFFERENT BRAND OF EVENT”
Trudeau began his appearance before the committee by reviewing the chronology of the protests, testifying that as preparations were being made, there was already “a little bit of concern that this might be a different event than what Canadians are used to seeing.”
The prime minister testified that he thought the anger seen among people planning to protest reminded him of the anger seen during the 2021 federal election campaign. After protesters rolled into the nation’s capital, it wasn’t long before he heard directly from local MPs and then-Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson about the federal government’s intervention, because by the end of the first weekend, the police’s ability to keep it under control “wasn’t quite there.”
“I daresay the citizens of Ottawa are used to political activity and protests on the Hill for a number of things. But it was present in their daily lives and disrupted their weekend in a way that was not a normal political protest,” Trudeau said. “From the intimidation and harassment of people for wearing masks, to the very disturbing story of people breaking into a nearby homeless shelter and soup kitchen, there were indications that there was a level of disregard for others that, unfortunately, we saw examples of election campaign time.”
DEMANDS FOR POLICY CHANGE ‘WORRIED’
As the protests have continued, Trudeau has faced calls from the official opposition and others to meet with or otherwise hear from the protesters in some way, and the committee has heard a lot about the various proposals and considerations for how that might happen.
Trudeau told the committee on Friday that while he was willing to talk, some of the Freedom Convoy leaders’ demands were non-starters, including voiding the results of the 2021 election or rolling back federal health mandates. Trudeau also said he was concerned about setting a precedent or legitimizing the demands.
“I worry about setting a precedent that the Wellington Street blockade could lead to a change in public policy,” Trudeau said. “We have a robust functioning democracy and protests, public protests, are an important part of making sure that Canadians get messages out and highlight how they feel about different issues.” But I think the use of protests to demand changes in public policy is something that is troubling.”
Thinking more about this broad response, Trudeau tried to clarify:
“There’s a difference between professions and, you know, saying, ‘We’re not going until this changes,’ in a way that’s massively disruptive and potentially dangerous.”
TROUBLE ON CALL WITH GG, “CRAZY” MOU
Recalling a phone call with Governor General Mary Simon on the first Saturday of the protests, Trudeau told the committee they discussed Canada Unity’s controversial and ultimately abandoned “memorandum of understanding” (MOU). It was the document that suggested protesters could get the Senate and Governor General Mary Simon to join them in forming a committee to order the lifting of the COVID-19 restrictions and vaccine mandates.
As the committee has already heard, the organizers of the main convoy tried to distance themselves from the proposal – which later turned into a suggestion that the protesters could form a coalition with opposition parties and Simon’s involvement to topple the government.
Trudeau said the MOU showed a lack of understanding of how Canadian democracy and institutions actually work, and that he had spoken to Simon about leaving the “crazy things” being proposed and the hate mail that came as a result to “get off our backs.”
PM THINKS FORD TRIED TO MAKE HIM ‘WEAR IT’
Trudeau was also asked Friday about what the committee has heard is significant federal frustration with what appears to be the Ontario government’s reluctance to engage.
In his own words, Trudeau believed Ontario Premier Doug Ford was “hiding from his responsibility for this for political reasons.”
Trudeau told the committee he believes the Ontario government is happy to allow the public perception that the convoy is a problem for the city of Ottawa and the federal government, but not the responsibility of the province.
“It was an unpleasant situation, there were bad headlines … I can understand that the provincial politicians, who were ignored in the complaints that everyone had about why this was not allowed, would say, ‘You know what, let’s not stick our noses in this.. And people will continue to criticize these people who are helping,” Trudeau said.
He added that while he believes there was provincial police involvement, “at a political level there was probably a decision to continue to back off a little bit and let us carry it a little bit.”
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Over the past six weeks in investigating what led to the recall,…
Add Comment