Beware ‘weasel words’

Re: Lametti doesn’t want you to know, Carson Jerema, Nov. 25

Many conclusions can be drawn from the six weeks of testimony to the Public Order Emergency Commission — even if the government prefers that none be drawn with any certainty. Here are two suggestions as to how the Emergencies Act could be improved.

One, the claim of privilege. While it is understandable that a government should be able to rely on privilege generally, why should that be the case when the very question is, why did the government invoke the act? By claiming that the reason was founded on a legal opinion which it will not reveal, the entire purpose of the mandated review is stymied. This is a situation where the government is given extraordinary powers which would normally be prohibited under the Constitution; if we citizens are to lose our constitutional protections, surely we should be allowed to know why. It is, after all, our government — not the cabinet’s.

Two, the use of “weasel words.” In the past 30 years or so, it has become increasingly common for Parliament and legislatures to use language in statutes that grant very wide discretion to judges to determine cases not on rules of law, but on their individual assessment of facts and impressions. As any lawyer can relate, we now have situations where five judges could hear an identical case, render five entirely different and conflicting rulings — and all be upheld on appeal because of that discretion. Or overturned. The use of the word “reasonable” when determining the governments decision does exactly that. A judge would have to be extremely certain before ruling that a person, based on certain facts or a legal opinion, did not act “reasonably.” Wrongly? That can be determined if the legislation is written so. But reasonably? That’s totally different. One can act both wrongly, and reasonably.

In this case, the inquiry will likely conclude that since it was not provided with the legal opinion relied upon, it could not determine that the government acted unreasonably. Surely the purpose of an inquiry should be to determine whether the government acted properly in curtailing our basic democratic rights — not whether it acted “reasonably” because of a secret legal opinion.

Tom Curran, Prince Edward County, Ont.