Skip to content

Liberal Ministers Bend Over Backwards To Call Convoy "Violent" To Justify Use Of EA

By Wyatt Claypool

It was predicted that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet ministers when testifying at the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) would be relying heavily on testimony from anti-convoy activists, other members of government, and the police, to justify the use of the Emergencies Act (EA). 

Put mildly, during the previous several weeks of commission testimony, the Liberals did not get what they needed. Anti–convoy activists who testified whined about Uber Eats and phantom honking, and every police representative said that there was no violence and that the EA was not required to manage the crowds. 

Cut no to Minister of Emergency Preparedness Bill Blair, and Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino, and they are now having to bend over backward in order to pretend as if the EA was still justified in order to clear out what was basically a large winter block party. 

Blair was the first minister to speak yesterday, trying to argue the Emergencies Act was necessary by saying that it was the last resort the government had to deal with the protest, despite having made no attempt to negotiate with convoy organizers or engage respectfully with the convoy protesters. 

Blair’s claims that the government moved with “caution” and that they viewed the EA as a last resort are contradicted by how his own text messages where he notes the Windsor police were able to clear the trucks on the Ambassador bridge without any violence.

Blair also tried to claim that because “critical infrastructure” was blocked in Ottawa that the EA was justified, which again is contradicted by the Liberal government never invoking the EA during the anti-oil protests in early 2020 that blocked highways, railroads, and busy downtown streets all across Canada.

On top of that, the few blocks where the truckers were parked around Ottawa cannot be described as “critical infrastructure”. It is a business district where most traffic is on foot, and drivers who would like to pass through the area can easily drive down a block or two, in order to avoid the protest.

The testimony got even more convoluted when today, Minister Marco Mendicino, tried to argue that the CSIS Act’s definition of “threats to the security of Canada” under section 2, which the Emergencies Act uses to inform its use, to pretend the Freedom Convoy protest needed to be violently cracked down on. 

It seems that during his testimony, Mendocino was making reference specifically to definition “C” in section 2 of the CISIS Act which defines a security threat as:

(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…

The problem with this definition Mendicino is leaning on is that it clearly is describing a situation where direct threats of violence are being made. Terrorists threatening to bomb several public buildings, or making death threats against Canadian civilians for some grandiose purpose would fall under this definition of a security threat. 

Marco Mendicino is being sneaky by basically interpreting the CISI Acts’ definition to mean that because in some hypothetical fantasy future the truckers could have started firing off guns or ramming trucks into government buildings then the EA’s use is justified.

 The Freedom Convoy posed no threat of violence, as the OPP Intelligence Superintendent had stated in his testimony, but Mendicino’s blatant misinterpretation of what constitutes a security threat makes almost any protest with more than two people in attendance a security threat unless they are patted down and chaperoned around by RCMP officers. 

There is a potential threat of violence all over Canada at all times based on how Mendicino sees the world, but thankfully the vast majority of Canadians see this way of looking at the use of the EA as ridiculous. 

What also does not make sense with either Blair or Mendicino’s testimony is that they invoked the EA due to a “public order emergency” as described within the Emergencies Act, which states when defining a public order emergency that:

(c) if the effects of the emergency do not extend to the whole of Canada, the area of Canada to which the effects of the emergency extend.

This seems to imply that if a public order emergency is occurring only in a specific geographical area, the powers of the EA only extend to dealing with the problem in that area. This would then mean that freezing people’s bank accounts for donating to the trucker convoy, especially those at home all the way on the other side of the country, is completely unlawful. 

Ministers Bill Blair and Marco Mendicino’s testimonies will not play well with the public, and they are not setting up their boss, Justin Trudeau, very well when he has to testify at the commission. 

Honestly, Trudeau’s best justification for the EA at this point may be that Blair and Mendicino are gibbering morons and they gave him terrible advice leading up to him invoking the EA. 

Permalink

Source: TNT.

Tags: