National Post article with more background on who gave advice on initiating the EM --- used economic, reputational and security threats as justification --- all tossed out.
Interesting statement on use of the act to deliberately increase anti-government views ---- so in essence deliberate provocation to be used for further justification
Alternate text Welcome to NP Platformed, a daily newsletter from NP Comment. Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to have National Post deliver it to your inbox.
Spencer Colby/THE CANADIAN PRESS
SOMETIMES IT’S BETTER NOT TO HAVE THE LAST WORD
They say journalism is the first draft of history, but this is surely doubly true of CTV’s Question Period, which remains a flagship among Sunday current-affairs shows. This weekend, Jody Thomas appeared on the show on her very last day as the federal national security and intelligence advisor (NSIA). Thomas had received a metaphorical black eye on Tuesday when a Federal Court judge ruled that Ottawa’s 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act to battle Freedom Convoy protesters had been unlawful and unconstitutional.
Justice Richard Mosley’s decision singles out Thomas for particular scrutiny, noting that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet received conflicting advice about the legality of the Emergencies Act’s use and that Thomas was more hawkish than the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or the Privy Council Office (PCO). (The clerk of the PCO did sign a memorandum supporting the invocation of the act, but also warned that the decision would be “vulnerable to challenge” — a challenge that has now been successful, perhaps tentatively.)
Mosley writes that minutes from a key cabinet meeting show that the national security intelligence advisor was concerned about blockades of Canadian border crossings and was troubled by “the active role of social media in promoting the protests.” Remarkably, she added that the use of emergency legislation itself would be likely to “galvanize broader anti-government narratives” and “could increase the number of Canadians holding extreme anti-government views.” (Mission accomplished?) Mosley confesses himself puzzled: were the bad political consequences of suspending the rule of Parliament supposed to be part of the reason for doing so?
Thomas, faced with the accusation that she supported an outrage against the constitution on dubious and even nonsensical grounds, was perhaps naturally eager to go on television and retort. You can watch her interview with CTV’s Vassy Kapelos and ask yourself how she did. To me, the valedictory appearance suggests that Thomas may not even have read Mosley’s ruling.
She certainly hasn’t absorbed its core logic. The use of the Emergencies Act requires a “threat to the security of Canada”; the Emergencies Act explicitly defines this by referring to the CSIS Act; the CSIS Act requires a reasonable prospect of “the threat or use of acts of serious violence” for political purposes. A cabinet’s self-grant of exceptional emergency powers requires some kind of clear danger to the state itself, as it ought. So was there ever any such danger?
Thomas, in recollecting her role in the Emergencies Act decision, tells Kapelos right out of the gate that “the huge, huge occupation in Ottawa” “was increasingly violent,” something not terribly apparent then or now. She says vaguely that, “We were starting to hear language about weapons being in the trucks.” It’s true that police and housetrained journalists were speculating about that possibility, and it’s equally true that this “language” turned out to be a fart in the wind. At a minimum, one would think this ought to be acknowledged.
Thomas goes on to add, “We were seeing daily pop-ups. We’re gonna occupy this. We’re going to occupy that. Bridges. Rail lines. More people moving across the country east and west, converge on Ottawa and Toronto.” Later, she says that “the connectedness or the inspiration that the pop-ups were getting from what was going on in Ottawa left us very concerned for the national stability.” I think the talk of “pop-ups” refers to mutterings of anti-vaccine nutbars and camo-wearing goons on social media, but I leave open the possibility that the NSIA was frightened by reruns of the classic MTV series Pop Up Video.
Whatever the reason for the very serious 2022 fears of the very serious NSIA, she blows away this part of her televised apologia within seconds by admitting that the Ottawa convoy protesters weren’t a serious threat.
“We knew a lot about what the plans were,” she recalls. “That these people were going to stay. There was the whole group of people who thought they were gonna overthrow the government. That wasn’t going to happen, but they were using intimidation and violence and threat to ensure that the occupation persisted.”
Her canned summary of the pretext for the Emergencies Act comes a little earlier in the interview: echoing the cabinet discussions that Mosley reviewed, she pleads, “There was an economic threat to Canada. There was a security threat to Canada. There was a reputational threat to Canada.”
But Mosley, sounding positively miserable that he is bound by the text of the Emergencies Act, had no choice but to toss out “economic threat” and “reputational threat” arguments. The latter seems particularly farcical: no doubt the obstruction of Canada’s borders with the United States was an awkward moment for Canada-U.S. relations, but do we really want to suspend Parliamentary rule whenever there are “reputational” pretexts?
Just a heads up, Parliament resumes today, I'm guessing it is going to be a shyte storm in the house today. Pretty sure the smell of blood will bring questions about the EA and the latest vacation the Turd took which cost a minimum 84,000 LOL
CPAC....Question period......I will PVR it because I like watching the Turd get run right out of the house.
673; Good afternoon, I hope the day is nice and mild up there too and you're all well.
Just in from doing some work in the shop and this showed up on my feed.
Spoiler alert, it's spicy and no questions are answered.
It seems he was given the vacation alright, but you and I paid for the two private jets, which all things considered is rather magnanimous of us, you know all things considered....
I find it disturbing the extent that the "justice" system is going after people involved in the convoy protest yet they gave a pass on the people that vandalized the work camp in BC or the groups that blocked the railways in the east. Sure seems like the system is skewed to manage non embarssement of the current government and prime minister.
Where are the arrests of the Palistinian protestors that are blocking bridges or causing issues in cities? Is what is happening now with this group not worse than the truck convoy? ---- or ---- is this group representing special votes in the east and it was known that trucker protestors would not vote for Liberal red anyway so there is nothing lost in continued dragging them through the legal system.
I find it disturbing the extent that the "justice" system is going after people involved in the convoy protest yet they gave a pass on the people that vandalized the work camp in BC or the groups that blocked the railways in the east. Sure seems like the system is skewed to manage non embarssement of the current government and prime minister.
Where are the arrests of the Palistinian protestors that are blocking bridges or causing issues in cities? Is what is happening now with this group not worse than the truck convoy? ---- or ---- is this group representing special votes in the east and it was known that trucker protestors would not vote for Liberal red anyway so there is nothing lost in continued dragging them through the legal system.
Rant over for now
The ones who visited the work camp and blocked railways are a protected species, nobody was able to follow the trails the Snow machines made to and from the work site, I mean...who could?....but if someone could, it would lead them to a group similar to antifa,,,,,we have an NDP government here in BC and it doesn't pass the stink test.
On the Muslim protestors.......it seems like that is their way of honoring the Charter rights of these people so long as they dont question or harm the government in any way, which is what the freedom convoy did.....question the government and its authority. They try to project an illusion of so called "democracy" but is really quite quick to morph into something else.
The mask is coming off all over the World and soon everyone will see, that is when they will pursue the "plan" regardless of what we think.
