Why Trudeau revoked Emergencies Act two days after House vote - Analysis

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced at a press conference yesterday that he was revoking the Emergencies Act that had just been approved by the House of Commons two days earlier.  The Act, which the prime minister invoked on February 14 to quash the peaceful protests in Ottawa and around the country, gave him unprecedented powers including the power to freeze bank accounts without a court order as well as the ability to compel towing companies to tow away trucks parked in downtown Ottawa since January 28.

By the time the Act came up for a vote in the House of Commons on February 21, the protests were over.  During the previous week, law enforcement disbanded protests at border crossings arresting people at Windsor, Canada, the busiest border crossing with the United States and at other border crossings as well.  Over the weekend, police cleared the protesters from downtown Ottawa throwing up barriers to prevent additional protests around Parliament Hill.  

Still, at the debate before the vote Trudeau claimed that “the Emergencies Act is enabling critical measures to end these illegal blockades and to prevent further occupation.”  

Canada’s mainstream press did not take kindly to an extension of the state of emergency when no emergency existed.

“A week ago, when the Trudeau government activated the never-before-used law, there were compelling arguments for and against its use,” wrote the editors of Globe and Mail. “But for MPs and senators, the question of what was justified, seven long days ago, is now moot.”  The Globe and Mail is hardly a Freedom Convoy sympathizer.

CTV contributor Don Martin wrote, “This is clearly an Emergencies Act in search of an emergency…”

It is no wonder that the Act was passed by the House of Commons solely along party lines.

The question on everyone’s mind is what had changed between Monday when the Act was passed and Wednesday when Trudeau announced its revocation.

“This morning we concluded in consultation with the various police services and security experts that the tools that our various police forces had in normal times were sufficient to continue to maintain law and order in the country once it had been restored,” Trudeau said at the press conference.

Would that he had consulted the various police services and security experts two days earlier.

I think we can do better than Trudeau’s non-answer.  

Canada has a two-house parliamentary system.  The lower house known as the House of Commons is elected by the citizenry.  The upper house, modeled after the House of Lords in the UK is called the Senate.  Its members are appointed by the governor general on advice from the prime minister.  Once appointed, senators hold their posts until the mandatory retirement age of 75.

Because of this set up, the Senate is generally a rubber stamp for bills passed in the House of Commons.  Between 1867 and 1987, the Senate rejected fewer than two bills per year, but this has increased in more recent years

It therefore came as quite a surprise when a Trudeau picked senator voiced opposition to the bill.

Senator Pierre Dalphond said in the statement: “I have decided to vote against the motion to authorize the continuation of the state of emergency, out of concern about the lack of judicial oversight in the freezing of assets.”

Senator Dennis Glen Patterson, not a Freedom Convoy supporter, was nevertheless very hesitant.  He said, “… there is a certain amount of ‘trust us’ in the government’s justification of these extreme measures.”  

Senator Patterson was referring to redacted security information to which the joint parliamentary review committee would not have access to determine if enactment of the Act was absolutely necessary.

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne as well, worried about the precedent this situation could create given that MPs and senators were being asked to make decisions on the basis of “secret information” for a crisis “that is not visible".

“Could this exceptional law be invoked again solely on the basis of secret information, which would of course be difficult to accept in a democracy?” she asked.

Is it possible that the prime minister’s announcement, which came while the Senate was in session discussing the bill, was completely unrelated to the protests but was due to a lack of support in the Senate?  It sure seems like it.