The Ontario Provincial Police has told the Rouleau Commission investigating the Trudeau government's use of the Emergencies Act that "there was sufficient legal authority" without the Act "to deal with the protest activities".
Emergencies Act wasn’t needed to quell convoy protests, Ontario police force says | Globe and Mail - Marteke Walsh and Marsha McLeod:
October 13, 2022 - "The sweeping powers triggered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to quell February’s convoy protests were not needed, the Ontario Provincial Police said at the first day of hearings in a public inquiry to determine whether the federal government contravened the law in its use of the powers.
"The provincial police force’s brief opening statement on Thursday focused on the legal requirements the government had to meet before it could invoke the federal Emergencies Act. OPP lawyer Christopher Diana said Thursday in Ottawa that while the emergencies legislation provided useful tools, 'there was sufficient legal authority in their absence to deal with the protest activities that took place over this period of time.'
"The federal government, which initially said invoking the act was done on the advice of law enforcement, later clarified that they had asked for the powers in the act, not for the law directly. OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique told a parliamentary committee in March that the tools available through the act 'made our operation very effective, and in the absence of having those tools, we could have not have been as effective.'
"Mr. Diana’s comments followed introductory remarks from inquiry commissioner Justice Paul Rouleau, who said the focus of the Public Order Emergency Commission will be on the federal government’s decision-making. According to the Emergencies Act, a public order emergency can be declared only when threats to the security of Canada are so serious that they constitute a national crisis that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other existing law....
"Nearly 20 parties with standing in the commission also spoke briefly, outlining arguments they will advance as the commission determines whether the government’s use of the act – in response to the convoy protests in Ottawa over pandemic restrictions and blockades at border crossings – was legitimate.... On one side, a lawyer representing the federal government said invoking the act was a 'reasonable and necessary' decision, while lawyers on the other – including those representing convoy protesters – argued that it was ... unnecessary, lacked justification, and could pave the way for further inappropriate use of the act....
"Robert MacKinnon, one of the lawyers for the federal government, told the commission the act’s invocation was 'a reasonable and necessary decision given the escalating volatile and urgent circumstances across the country.' The government will present evidence that there were “countrywide threats to the security of Canada,” Mr. MacKinnon said. The federal approach was 'proportional, effective and time limited,' he said.
"However, Lakehead University law professor Ryan Alford, who has joint standing with The Canadian Constitution Foundation, challenged Mr. MacKinnon’s assessment. The government’s claim to a 'reasonable basis' for declaring the public order emergency does not mean it had a legal or constitutional basis for 'assuming unprecedented and destructive emergency powers,' he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment