Was using Emergencies Act justified?

Freezing the finances of individuals, seizing personal property and compelling certain businesses into service is no small thing in a democracy.

Beyond question, the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in February to take such steps to end the mayhem of the convoy crisis in Ottawa and at border crossings was an extreme measure.

It was the first time the act had been used since it was passed in 1988 to replace the more draconian War Measures Act.

It called for citizen compliance based on trust that authorities had correctly determined the threat arising from protests against pandemic health mandates was serious enough to warrant such extraordinary measures.

To justify that public trust, Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Paul Rouleau has been asked to carry out a comprehensive review of the tumult that took Canada to the top of global newscasts.

Rouleau was appointed Monday to head the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is to report by next Feb. 20 — just under 10 months from now.

It will investigate how protesters and their big rigs took over Ottawa for weeks, turning the capital’s downtown into a bedlam of noise, disruption and intimidation.

The Trudeau government argues that the powers in the Emergencies Act gave police forces the tools to eventually restore order, while financial measures enabled cutting off protesters’ funds.

This, however, is far from clear. The issue is not whether the protests and blockades created a crisis, or even an emergency. It is whether the government was correct in its judgment that other, less extreme laws, including the policing powers available to all levels of government, were inadequate to deal with it.

If that test is not met, then invoking the Emergencies Act was not justified. Ultimately, that’s the key question that Justice Rouleau must answer.

The commission is to look at the evolution of the convoy, the impact of disinformation and funding, the economic impact, and efforts of police before and after the declaration of emergency.

“I am committed to ensuring that the process is as open and transparent as possible, recognizing the tight timelines for reporting imposed by the Emergencies Act,” Rouleau said on Monday.

A full stop after the word “possible” would have been preferable, rather than the suggestion that extenuating circumstances might somehow diminish the commitment. But it’s a start.

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said the commission will have “broad access, including to classified” government documents.

At the same time, the government will require the commission to prevent release of documents that could be considered damaging to Canada’s international relations, national security or defence. In that, the skeptical might see enough wiggle room to host a hula hoop tournament.

Trudeau said he hopes Rouleau makes recommendations “to prevent these events from happening again.”

In response, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association warned the government against diverting attention from its own actions.

Jokes are often made about public inquiries being the first refuge of governments in trouble. But while not always acted on, such investigations are often useful deep dives into how systems work, or don’t, how individuals act, or fail to, and how policies to protect against abuse of power are adhered to, or not.

In this case, the subject under scrutiny is essentially the functioning and durability of democracy in Canada.

If it’s done right, Justice Rouleau’s review can go a long way toward shedding light on the convoy protests. Both what went on among the protesters and whether the government’s response was both effective and legal.

The subject under scrutiny is essentially the functioning and durability of democracy in Canada