Photo: The Canadian Press
Perrin Beatty spoke at a press conference in Ottawa on Monday, October 5, 2015.
In the late 1980s, when then-Defense Secretary Perrin Beatty was drafting new legislation to replace the controversial Military Measures Act, one man’s words were in his head.
The man was Robert Stanfield, a former leader of the Beatty Progressive Conservative Party and leader of the official opposition during the October 1970 crisis. put an end to a series of kidnappings carried out by a Quebec independence militant group.
Although Stanfield made many mistakes in his 27 years in politics, he later said the only regret in his career had given the government the benefit of doubting its use of the Military Measures Act. He wished he didn’t agree.
“This was one of the problems during the Military Measures Act, where the government said in essence, ‘If you only knew what we know, you would support calling for the act,’ Beatty said in a recent post. interview.
“It simply came to my notice then when we introduced the new act. To ensure public confidence, you had to have the highest possible level of transparency. “
Beatty’s efforts are now being tested as the government launches an investigation into the initial use of the Emergency Act – without committing to disclosing details of the closed-door discussions that led to the lifting of the act.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cited the hitherto unused Emergency Law on February 14 in a bid to lift blockades that have taken over the capital’s streets and major border crossings in protest of COVID-19 restrictions and the liberal government.
In drafting the Emergency Situations Act, Beatty said the government has set a goal of creating a new law with more checks and balances to curb potential abuses of power.
One of these inspections was the mandatory investigation, which must begin within 60 days of the lifting of the state of emergency.
On April 25, the government appointed Ontario Court of Appeals Judge Paul Roulo to lead the investigation and report on lessons learned on how to avoid future law enforcement.
The announcement in the lobby of the Western bloc of parliament marked the beginning of a series of talks between government ministers, members of the opposition and the media on the purpose of the investigation and what information Roulo will have access to.
Public Security Minister Marco Mendicino did not say whether the investigation would consider whether the government was justified in referring to the act in the first place, but Beatty said that was the purpose of including a mandatory investigation as part of the law.
“Was the reference to the act the right thing to do in the first place?” Did you meet the high threshold that was expected, which was required by law? “- Beatty said.
On Tuesday, Mendicino was greeted by a group of reporters before the question period, and was asked again if the government intends to relinquish confidence in the cabinet – secret discussions aimed only at ministers – in the name of investigating the Emergency Law.
“We gave Judge Roulo the power to force witnesses, information and documents and, frankly, we considered giving him access to classified information,” Mendicino said.
He added that the government is looking forward to cooperating with the judge “so we can be transparent”, but as Roulo has not yet requested any classified information, nothing has been decided on what to release.
Beatty, who swore by party comments after leaving politics, would not offer specific words to the government on how to make sure the country gets an honest and open view of the cabinet’s actions.
He said he could only talk about what was envisaged when the law was passed.
“The only thing I can say as the author of the act is that wherever you have extraordinary powers, there must be exclusive responsibility,” he said.
Before the new legislation replaced it, the Military Measures Act was used three times in history: during the October crisis and the First and Second World Wars.
Old law allowed human rights abuses, such as the imprisonment of Japanese Canadians during World War II, Beatty said. The purpose of the Emergency Act was to understand how to protect the civil rights of Canadians even in the most difficult circumstances.
So it included defenses such as the expiration date of government powers, a requirement for parliamentary approval, the possibility of appeals in court and a mandatory investigation.
It is possible that the investigation will be able to draw conclusions without interfering with the confidence in the cabinet, but in the end it is up to the government to be transparent enough to convince Canadians that it has made the right choice, Beatty said.
“If you don’t have (transparency), then people will always have their suspicions that something has been seized,” he said.
“Trust us is not enough if you want public trust at the end of the day,” he said.
Add Comment