Like in the SNC Lavalin affair, the PM was clearly surrounded by many people who knew perfectly well that the two main relevant EA criteria, specifically threats or acts of serious violence (EA s. 16 referencing CSIS s. 2), and an inability to handle the "emergency" under existing law, were nowhere near being met, and that, therefore, invoking the EA was simply and plainly illegal. But the PM wanted it, and he has never in his life cared about what's legal - only what he can get away with.
In the SNC Lavalin affair, Jody Wilson Raybould, AG and Justice Minister, was the woman on the spot: she told the PM his behaviour was not ok, and paid the price.
In the Freedom Convoy crisis, Jody Thomas, the National Security Advisor, was the woman on the spot: she told the PM what he wanted to hear, and Canadians paid the price.
The other shoe that I am waiting to drop is about the emergency measures in the banking section. This is a topic Freeland already stonewalled a parliamentary inquiry by essentially running out the clock on the NDP critic’s questions. Absent definite information, I am left with the strong impression that the Emergencies Act was invoked not because of a need to coordinate or take over or grant enhanced powers to police physically removing protesters, but because someone was itching to test the theory that extrajudicial financial sanctions can be a substitute or supplement to policing. The Mark Carney Globe and Mail editorial seemed to be inspired by that kind of myopic bankster thinking that everything in the world can be controlled by moving money from point A to point B or preventing the movement of such. And that kind of thinking in turn inspired me to diversity my financial holdings slightly by opening a small checking account at the Bank of Mattress.
Worst case outcome is that we will get a lot of drama about police forces not talking / talking to one another and not needing / needing emergency powers to the extent of filling up the remaining time and not giving enough follow-up of what the banking side of the Emergency was about. To me this was the truly-novel-not-seen-in-the-Western-World aspect of the affair; the police stuff was just about whether the police here could be made to do the same type of things police in Australia have been doing on a regular basis.
It is if you’re Amish and don’t use electricity. For everyone else, the threat of extrajudicial financial intervention seems likely to inspire rapid behavioural change, albeit not necessarily in a direction the Mark Carney types will be happy with.
The idea that Trudeau wanted any part of this debacle or that he was just itching to be the first PM to invoke the EA is a laughably bad take. It reflects the commonly-held narratives that Trudeau is (a) a naive, bumbling political dilettante and (b) a power-mad dictator bent on world (or Ottawa, at least) domination. That these narratives are completely contradictory should be your first clue that they are false. I have never voted Liberal and have no plans to, but I have to accept that a PM who looks set to govern for at least 8 years and who has seen off three Conservative leaders (and could very well go for a fourth) knows a little bit about politics. He would know the political capital that would be spent by invoking the EA, including the highly unfavourable political risks of the resulting public inquiry. So why take a decision that has no real political upside? Trudeau's initial judgement--correct in my view--was that the convoy was a ragtag bunch of cranks and weirdos and no good could come from meeting with them or hearing their views (which consisted mostly of "Fuck Trudeau"). After that, he probably thought that this was no longer his issue. He no doubt assumed that the Ottawa Police Service, with whatever assistance was required from the OPP and RCMP, would enforce existing laws and the thing would be wound down after the first weekend. This turned out to be incorrect, but I can't really blame Trudeau for that because I made the exact same assumption. What neither Trudeau nor I nor anyone could foresee was the complete and utter incompetence and disfunction of the senior management of the OPS. What followed was three weeks of buck passing and inaction between the municipal, provincial and federal governments, while all the time the cranks and weirdos were getting further entrenched in Ottawa and things seemed to be spreading to border crossings and elsewhere. All of this against a backdrop of real or perceived threats of political violence (Jan. 6, the Coutts seizure, Peterborough truck full o' guns, etc.). Finally, after constant protestations by OPS and the provincial government that they did not have the legal or policing powers to handle the situation, the PM obviously felt forced to do something to break the impasse, and that something was the EA. With hindsight, I believe that the EA was not actually necessary, but it's worth noting that things did move pretty quickly after that and shit got done.
Invoking the EA is ultimately a political decision, responsibility for which is conferred by the legislation on the federal Cabinet (aka the Governor in Council). Yes, there are legal bounds to this decision, but they're couched in such terms ("serious", "critical situation", "reasonable grounds to believe", "of such proportion or nature") that any two lawyers worth their hourly rates could argue for eternity over whether these conditions were met (and the public inquiry, btw, will not definitively answer this question). The real judgement will be made by voters at the next general election.
Sure. Of course, the government has established a precedent of declaring an emergency and depriving anyone it feels like of due process protection whenever it feels like it, but you don't notice you've lost anything until they do it to you personally.
lol it’s a nice example to show how the convoy people are overly dramatic. Most Canadians were and still supporting the operation that leads to the convoy removal, especially after the convoy were told to leave maybe 200 th before the enforcement actions started. I personably don’t think the emergency act was justified but I guess it established a precedent that the occupation of streets is tolerated in Canada up to 3 weeks 😂
So you read "Rob Stewart, MBA, career Finance official" and you think you know where this is going... But Buddy, out of his element and during a period where a bunch of colleagues are losing their heads, goes and builds relationships, gathers information, and comes forward with actionable advice.
Sure, his Minister didn't like it but, i dunno, seems more useful than being snarky on Teams
Another great bit of reporting on the POEC . I really like the last bit of the Blair / McIver exchange. As described in another Sub Stack (The Line), it went something like this:
------- Always looking to cover his ass, Blair responded: "To be clear. Is your point that we should have invoked the [Emergencies] Act earlier.”
------- "No," McIver responded. "You were too late and did the wrong thing. My point is saying nothing now would have been better than not telling the truth."
------- In addition to undermining the legal rationale for calling the Emergencies Act in the first place — at least in the Coutts situation — we at The Line think it rather perfectly encapsulates the relationship between Ottawa and the provinces.
The entire exchange between these two should be scripted into a movie!
This Commission Hearing is, thankfully, a necessary obligation. It displays the ‘fog of war’ during decision making in any crisis! I can easily picture such chaos in any of the wars throughout history. The only difference is that all the various players would never get to air their own opinions after the fact in such a public manner.
Hopefully the Commissioner’s report will have concrete recommendations to establish clear protocols between F-P-T-M officials to tackle such a crisis in the future.
Coming to politicians, so far I have read/seen nothing that points a finger at PMJT. IMO, his actions and comportment has been reasonable and above-board (notwithstanding the criticisms by some in the media and the conservative politicians), unlike those of Pierre Poilievre. PP and Doug Ford are getting off too easy so far. Hopefully the media will hold them accountable.
What stands out in all this, apart from the inter-jurisdictional chaos, is the political machinations and strategies of the ‘back-room boys and girls’ on all sides.
To the extent that there was a central disagreement illuminated by Paul Wells' useful coverage of the inquiry, it appears to be over whether to follow the standard protest playbook (e.g. seen with the 2020 Coastal GasLink blockades) of talking to the protesters, listening to their grievances, and accommodating them where reasonable; or whether this was a new and different phenomenon, an Internet-organized, crypto-funded community entirely detached from reality (due to their sincere conviction that the mainstream media is lying to them, often seen in the comments), and too large for the Ottawa police to handle safely, especially given the presence of children.
Having spent a lot of time on the Internet, this seems to me more like the latter - a real-world example of Internet craziness.
When I was in Ottawa on the second weekend, I saw a CTV crew doing some man in the street quick interviews. They kept moving the camera around in a funny way, and I was quite puzzled as to why. Eventually I realized that they were positioning it to avoid having hockey games or bouncy castles in the shot.
Since the protest raised, three times, from individual small donations, more money faster than any other cause in Canadian history, and thousands of people lined roads and bridges across the country in freezing cold weather to wish them well (I have photos of over 1000 people at the Keele 401 overpass), I think they had some evidence that their cause was popular.
There was no war, thus no need to defer to a fog. They had 3 weeks to consider all options and in the end did not choose diplomacy as option 1, or 2) using the basis of all politics that of coming up with a compromise or 3) using military tow trucks (plenty at Petawawa). Justin Trudeau was anything but reasonable nor above board on this. You should consider critical thinking over your partisan politics.
No fingers pointing at Trudeau? There never is but he had the final say on whether to invoke the EA. If it was not justified it is Trudeau who was wrong. No one else.
Good "fog of war" comment, though as the TOP official and person RESPONSIBLE for the decision, then EVERYTHING points to "PMJT", as there is strong evidence that the criteria to invoke the Act were not present. But if we need just ONE reason: PMJT helped create and fuel this crisis by refusing to acknowledge or engage with the protestors.
Is there anyone anywhere who still thinks that EA was justified at this stage of the proceedings? There has been not a even the hint of justification for it. Save the pleasure of watching various government members and officials squirm, there is surely no more to be got from this, and that is beginning to pall on me. The idea of Mendicino, Blair, Lametti and Trudeau giving evidence makes me feel nauseous.
Rouleau should call this now: " It is as we supposed: it was a combination of incompetence, deceit and cowardice. This is our/your government. May God have mercy on us all."
I feel for Rob Stewart, a smart public servant trying to provide reasonable and well thought out advise to his political bosses. God, he must get frustrated at times.
Well, this is an amazing and thrilling rundown--if Wells sees it this way, it's probably this way. Some real chills up the spine stuff when you get a sense of the PMO actually creating this "Emergency" that would need the Act invoked. Trudeau wanted his "just watch me" moment, and the Trucker Convoy was his opportunity. Makes sense since his goal is to reproduce PT's playbook right down the line.
It seems plausible that the Emergencies Act would not have been invoked except for the 'interference' of the PM, who himself was moved more by anger and a desire for revenge than his perception of any real objective danger. It was a conscious abuse of the law, calculated to provoke a response that would benefit him politically. Instead, it has turned our the exact opposite.
I tend to be an outlier on this comment board in terms of my views on the prime minister (pro) and the convoy (anti), and even I am nowhere near convinced that the invocation of the EA was necessary or that it accomplished anything.
Thank you. While I believe that the mandates were heinous, the EA is a whole different beast. Illegal invocation of the EA, if the government gets away with it, is something that can be used against anyone - not just protests we don't like. Better to nip it in the bud.
One thing I see quite a lot is that people's opinions of the EA track with their opinions of the convoy, the mandates, the PM, etc. - similar to Paul's "slopes" column. It's basic political tribalism. But whether the EA was needed is very narrow question, and so far, I haven't heard anyone make a case for it that makes any sense to me at all. I'm always open to hearing more and learning more (I'm not a policing expert), but right now, I'm absolutely not sold. Even if you accept all of the PM's premises about the convoy, I haven't heard anyone explain what made the EA necessary in those circumstances.
Interesting comment on tribalism. We here in comment land tend to be that way, but when it comes to a crisis or a serious matter, we ought to expect that our leaders would trade tribalism for doing the right thing. There is no evidence of that in this case and plenty of evidence it was done for political gain.
I'd certainly love to have more of a sense of why it was done, and hope that develops through the rest of the inquiry. Certainly, if political gain was the intent, that did not pan out.
Let's pretend for a moment that you, Paul Wells, are someone who actually has to give advice and make decisions that have real-world consequences. With whom, exactly, would you have advised Trudeau to engage to make this mess magically go away? With which convoy leaders, specifically? White supremacist troll Pat King and his merry band of pranksters? The Canada Unity folks, opening calling for a coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Government of Canada? The Diagolons and their arsenals of assault rifles? Arch-grifter Tamara Lich, who as Jim Watson found to his chagrin had no mandate to negotiate anything on behalf of anybody? Romana Didulo, Queen of Canada? Any random group of assholes you could find pissing in a snowbank on Wellington with "Fuck Trudeau" flags on their truck? The bros in the hot-tub? Clock is ticking Deputy Minister Wells, give us your best advice ...
Nobody on the police side was advocating that the PM himself meet anyone. As for who a representative could meet, the OPP guy had a list. So did the city of Ottawa, whose officials conducted meetings and made progress even though you find the various participants colourful. Pretending was fun, thanks.
Do you really think a meeting with some ADM or DM they've never heard of with no political mandate to say or do anything was going to make the freedom fighters fold up their flags and bouncy castles and return home to their boring jobs and annoyed spouses (or spouses, at least)? Your very entertaining piece clearly refers to the possibility of federal ministers meeting with ... somebody. I genuinely appreciate your skill at evading the question (maybe you do have a career in the public service ahead of you), but if not the PM then which convoy leaders from those excellent lists are we advising Mendicino (or whoever) to meet with (and thereby instantly bestow political legitimacy on)?
When you refer to city of Ottawa officials "conducting meetings and making progress" are you referring to the Treaty of Versailles reached between Watson and Lich, or something actually useful?
With respect to me finding the participants "colourful", I know this is intended as a little dig at us Laurentian elites and our snooty inability to emphasize with anybody who drives an F-150 and actually likes Tim Hortons coffee, so touché (and we won't talk about how the working class of downtown Ottawa or our BIPOC and LGBT friends and neighbours might characterize the convoy leaders and participants). But it actually points to something much more important, which is the continuing slowness of our political and pundit classes to wake up to the real threat posed to this country and its institutions by far-right extremists (with some notable exceptions, like Rachel Gilmore and Global News). The current CPC leader has decided he wants to play the game of pussyfooting with these types for electoral advantage, but he should ask his friends down south in the Republican party how that strategy went for them and their country.
You're right, pretending is so much fun ... look at me pretending to be an opinion journalist :)
I think it's just funny at this point to see some people keep pretending that engaging with the convoy leadership would have lead to something, given the convoy leaders said themselves they weren't controlling anyone except themselves and the collapse of the supposed ''deal'' with the city of Ottawa.
Good take, comme d'habitude. Makes me wonder if the "generalist" philosophy of moving our public-service mandarins around the whole of government is not suited for certain departments in an increasingly technically complex and convoluted world ... Health, Justice, Defence, Public Safety, Environment?
It's cute that some people still believe that engaging with the convoy people would have lead to something when 1) it didn't work to Windsor; 2) All convoy leaders said in front of the commission they weren't controlling anyone except themselves
"Lucki was Teams-chatting with her RCMP colleagues while she phone-texted with Carrique, in the middle of the virtual meeting with the cabinet ministers" ... could this explain her poor recall of meetings? She was doing 5 things at once! When non-Managers get into Management this can happen.
Thanks, this material helps me feel and understand some of the frustration in both directions. That is between those who wanted to avoid using emergency powers and those who pushed ahead. As an average citizen I don't know the legal answer but I've generally felt that people needed some reassurance. The strong action may have been necessary to maintain public confidence in government.
Ah yes.... meetings. As someone who attended my fair share in my lifetime all I can say is that they are designed primarily to waste time till coffee break, and then till lunch.... etc. Along the way it will be agreed that we must meet again. If luck has it there will be something that's agreed upon by all and we'll leave happy that it's over.
Like in the SNC Lavalin affair, the PM was clearly surrounded by many people who knew perfectly well that the two main relevant EA criteria, specifically threats or acts of serious violence (EA s. 16 referencing CSIS s. 2), and an inability to handle the "emergency" under existing law, were nowhere near being met, and that, therefore, invoking the EA was simply and plainly illegal. But the PM wanted it, and he has never in his life cared about what's legal - only what he can get away with.
In the SNC Lavalin affair, Jody Wilson Raybould, AG and Justice Minister, was the woman on the spot: she told the PM his behaviour was not ok, and paid the price.
In the Freedom Convoy crisis, Jody Thomas, the National Security Advisor, was the woman on the spot: she told the PM what he wanted to hear, and Canadians paid the price.
The other shoe that I am waiting to drop is about the emergency measures in the banking section. This is a topic Freeland already stonewalled a parliamentary inquiry by essentially running out the clock on the NDP critic’s questions. Absent definite information, I am left with the strong impression that the Emergencies Act was invoked not because of a need to coordinate or take over or grant enhanced powers to police physically removing protesters, but because someone was itching to test the theory that extrajudicial financial sanctions can be a substitute or supplement to policing. The Mark Carney Globe and Mail editorial seemed to be inspired by that kind of myopic bankster thinking that everything in the world can be controlled by moving money from point A to point B or preventing the movement of such. And that kind of thinking in turn inspired me to diversity my financial holdings slightly by opening a small checking account at the Bank of Mattress.
Worst case outcome is that we will get a lot of drama about police forces not talking / talking to one another and not needing / needing emergency powers to the extent of filling up the remaining time and not giving enough follow-up of what the banking side of the Emergency was about. To me this was the truly-novel-not-seen-in-the-Western-World aspect of the affair; the police stuff was just about whether the police here could be made to do the same type of things police in Australia have been doing on a regular basis.
Correct. And is it even possible to pay mortgages or electricity bills or taxes with cash? How many employers will pay people in cash?
It is if you’re Amish and don’t use electricity. For everyone else, the threat of extrajudicial financial intervention seems likely to inspire rapid behavioural change, albeit not necessarily in a direction the Mark Carney types will be happy with.
The idea that Trudeau wanted any part of this debacle or that he was just itching to be the first PM to invoke the EA is a laughably bad take. It reflects the commonly-held narratives that Trudeau is (a) a naive, bumbling political dilettante and (b) a power-mad dictator bent on world (or Ottawa, at least) domination. That these narratives are completely contradictory should be your first clue that they are false. I have never voted Liberal and have no plans to, but I have to accept that a PM who looks set to govern for at least 8 years and who has seen off three Conservative leaders (and could very well go for a fourth) knows a little bit about politics. He would know the political capital that would be spent by invoking the EA, including the highly unfavourable political risks of the resulting public inquiry. So why take a decision that has no real political upside? Trudeau's initial judgement--correct in my view--was that the convoy was a ragtag bunch of cranks and weirdos and no good could come from meeting with them or hearing their views (which consisted mostly of "Fuck Trudeau"). After that, he probably thought that this was no longer his issue. He no doubt assumed that the Ottawa Police Service, with whatever assistance was required from the OPP and RCMP, would enforce existing laws and the thing would be wound down after the first weekend. This turned out to be incorrect, but I can't really blame Trudeau for that because I made the exact same assumption. What neither Trudeau nor I nor anyone could foresee was the complete and utter incompetence and disfunction of the senior management of the OPS. What followed was three weeks of buck passing and inaction between the municipal, provincial and federal governments, while all the time the cranks and weirdos were getting further entrenched in Ottawa and things seemed to be spreading to border crossings and elsewhere. All of this against a backdrop of real or perceived threats of political violence (Jan. 6, the Coutts seizure, Peterborough truck full o' guns, etc.). Finally, after constant protestations by OPS and the provincial government that they did not have the legal or policing powers to handle the situation, the PM obviously felt forced to do something to break the impasse, and that something was the EA. With hindsight, I believe that the EA was not actually necessary, but it's worth noting that things did move pretty quickly after that and shit got done.
Invoking the EA is ultimately a political decision, responsibility for which is conferred by the legislation on the federal Cabinet (aka the Governor in Council). Yes, there are legal bounds to this decision, but they're couched in such terms ("serious", "critical situation", "reasonable grounds to believe", "of such proportion or nature") that any two lawyers worth their hourly rates could argue for eternity over whether these conditions were met (and the public inquiry, btw, will not definitively answer this question). The real judgement will be made by voters at the next general election.
lol an extreme majority of Canadians didn't have to pay any price and were and still support the PM decision but sure nice drama.
Sure. Of course, the government has established a precedent of declaring an emergency and depriving anyone it feels like of due process protection whenever it feels like it, but you don't notice you've lost anything until they do it to you personally.
lol it’s a nice example to show how the convoy people are overly dramatic. Most Canadians were and still supporting the operation that leads to the convoy removal, especially after the convoy were told to leave maybe 200 th before the enforcement actions started. I personably don’t think the emergency act was justified but I guess it established a precedent that the occupation of streets is tolerated in Canada up to 3 weeks 😂
So you read "Rob Stewart, MBA, career Finance official" and you think you know where this is going... But Buddy, out of his element and during a period where a bunch of colleagues are losing their heads, goes and builds relationships, gathers information, and comes forward with actionable advice.
Sure, his Minister didn't like it but, i dunno, seems more useful than being snarky on Teams
Another great bit of reporting on the POEC . I really like the last bit of the Blair / McIver exchange. As described in another Sub Stack (The Line), it went something like this:
------- Always looking to cover his ass, Blair responded: "To be clear. Is your point that we should have invoked the [Emergencies] Act earlier.”
------- "No," McIver responded. "You were too late and did the wrong thing. My point is saying nothing now would have been better than not telling the truth."
------- In addition to undermining the legal rationale for calling the Emergencies Act in the first place — at least in the Coutts situation — we at The Line think it rather perfectly encapsulates the relationship between Ottawa and the provinces.
The entire exchange between these two should be scripted into a movie!
Thanks Paul.
This Commission Hearing is, thankfully, a necessary obligation. It displays the ‘fog of war’ during decision making in any crisis! I can easily picture such chaos in any of the wars throughout history. The only difference is that all the various players would never get to air their own opinions after the fact in such a public manner.
Hopefully the Commissioner’s report will have concrete recommendations to establish clear protocols between F-P-T-M officials to tackle such a crisis in the future.
Coming to politicians, so far I have read/seen nothing that points a finger at PMJT. IMO, his actions and comportment has been reasonable and above-board (notwithstanding the criticisms by some in the media and the conservative politicians), unlike those of Pierre Poilievre. PP and Doug Ford are getting off too easy so far. Hopefully the media will hold them accountable.
What stands out in all this, apart from the inter-jurisdictional chaos, is the political machinations and strategies of the ‘back-room boys and girls’ on all sides.
The "fog of war" is a good way of putting it.
To the extent that there was a central disagreement illuminated by Paul Wells' useful coverage of the inquiry, it appears to be over whether to follow the standard protest playbook (e.g. seen with the 2020 Coastal GasLink blockades) of talking to the protesters, listening to their grievances, and accommodating them where reasonable; or whether this was a new and different phenomenon, an Internet-organized, crypto-funded community entirely detached from reality (due to their sincere conviction that the mainstream media is lying to them, often seen in the comments), and too large for the Ottawa police to handle safely, especially given the presence of children.
Having spent a lot of time on the Internet, this seems to me more like the latter - a real-world example of Internet craziness.
Pat King https://twitter.com/charlesadler/status/1490740071355625476
Hostility to press https://twitter.com/glen_mcgregor/status/1495146891646013443 https://twitter.com/ConsumerSOS/status/1490323620740141057
Trust in the community https://twitter.com/KiavashNajafi/status/1495572242994016264
Disbelief in legitimacy of police warnings and actions https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1494032428427530240 https://twitter.com/judyatrinh/status/1494093598727540740
Covid as a conspiracy https://twitter.com/EvanLSolomon/status/1491563171785629705
Political support reinforcing protesters' belief that their cause is popular https://twitter.com/jmbryden/status/1491510032747401217
When I was in Ottawa on the second weekend, I saw a CTV crew doing some man in the street quick interviews. They kept moving the camera around in a funny way, and I was quite puzzled as to why. Eventually I realized that they were positioning it to avoid having hockey games or bouncy castles in the shot.
Since the protest raised, three times, from individual small donations, more money faster than any other cause in Canadian history, and thousands of people lined roads and bridges across the country in freezing cold weather to wish them well (I have photos of over 1000 people at the Keele 401 overpass), I think they had some evidence that their cause was popular.
You lost me at "having spent a lot of time on the internet".... ( :
Nope.
Clearly, you are not looking at what I am looking at.
Of course!!! To each his own!
There was no war, thus no need to defer to a fog. They had 3 weeks to consider all options and in the end did not choose diplomacy as option 1, or 2) using the basis of all politics that of coming up with a compromise or 3) using military tow trucks (plenty at Petawawa). Justin Trudeau was anything but reasonable nor above board on this. You should consider critical thinking over your partisan politics.
No fingers pointing at Trudeau? There never is but he had the final say on whether to invoke the EA. If it was not justified it is Trudeau who was wrong. No one else.
I suspect you may be wearing rose coloured glasses.
Good "fog of war" comment, though as the TOP official and person RESPONSIBLE for the decision, then EVERYTHING points to "PMJT", as there is strong evidence that the criteria to invoke the Act were not present. But if we need just ONE reason: PMJT helped create and fuel this crisis by refusing to acknowledge or engage with the protestors.
It seems to me that there is strong evidence that the criteria to invoke the EA were not present. Otherwise we agree.
that was a typo on my part! Now corrected.
Is there anyone anywhere who still thinks that EA was justified at this stage of the proceedings? There has been not a even the hint of justification for it. Save the pleasure of watching various government members and officials squirm, there is surely no more to be got from this, and that is beginning to pall on me. The idea of Mendicino, Blair, Lametti and Trudeau giving evidence makes me feel nauseous.
Rouleau should call this now: " It is as we supposed: it was a combination of incompetence, deceit and cowardice. This is our/your government. May God have mercy on us all."
I feel for Rob Stewart, a smart public servant trying to provide reasonable and well thought out advise to his political bosses. God, he must get frustrated at times.
Well, this is an amazing and thrilling rundown--if Wells sees it this way, it's probably this way. Some real chills up the spine stuff when you get a sense of the PMO actually creating this "Emergency" that would need the Act invoked. Trudeau wanted his "just watch me" moment, and the Trucker Convoy was his opportunity. Makes sense since his goal is to reproduce PT's playbook right down the line.
It seems plausible that the Emergencies Act would not have been invoked except for the 'interference' of the PM, who himself was moved more by anger and a desire for revenge than his perception of any real objective danger. It was a conscious abuse of the law, calculated to provoke a response that would benefit him politically. Instead, it has turned our the exact opposite.
Let's hope you're right! I'd say the jury is still out on how much this hurts the PM
I tend to be an outlier on this comment board in terms of my views on the prime minister (pro) and the convoy (anti), and even I am nowhere near convinced that the invocation of the EA was necessary or that it accomplished anything.
Thank you. While I believe that the mandates were heinous, the EA is a whole different beast. Illegal invocation of the EA, if the government gets away with it, is something that can be used against anyone - not just protests we don't like. Better to nip it in the bud.
One thing I see quite a lot is that people's opinions of the EA track with their opinions of the convoy, the mandates, the PM, etc. - similar to Paul's "slopes" column. It's basic political tribalism. But whether the EA was needed is very narrow question, and so far, I haven't heard anyone make a case for it that makes any sense to me at all. I'm always open to hearing more and learning more (I'm not a policing expert), but right now, I'm absolutely not sold. Even if you accept all of the PM's premises about the convoy, I haven't heard anyone explain what made the EA necessary in those circumstances.
I agree with you, and this is why I think the rule of law is dead in Canada. Few think that the other guys deserve any procedural protection at all.
If "my guys" ever achieve power, feel free to call me out if I support their abuses.
Interesting comment on tribalism. We here in comment land tend to be that way, but when it comes to a crisis or a serious matter, we ought to expect that our leaders would trade tribalism for doing the right thing. There is no evidence of that in this case and plenty of evidence it was done for political gain.
I'd certainly love to have more of a sense of why it was done, and hope that develops through the rest of the inquiry. Certainly, if political gain was the intent, that did not pan out.
Let's pretend for a moment that you, Paul Wells, are someone who actually has to give advice and make decisions that have real-world consequences. With whom, exactly, would you have advised Trudeau to engage to make this mess magically go away? With which convoy leaders, specifically? White supremacist troll Pat King and his merry band of pranksters? The Canada Unity folks, opening calling for a coup to overthrow the democratically-elected Government of Canada? The Diagolons and their arsenals of assault rifles? Arch-grifter Tamara Lich, who as Jim Watson found to his chagrin had no mandate to negotiate anything on behalf of anybody? Romana Didulo, Queen of Canada? Any random group of assholes you could find pissing in a snowbank on Wellington with "Fuck Trudeau" flags on their truck? The bros in the hot-tub? Clock is ticking Deputy Minister Wells, give us your best advice ...
Nobody on the police side was advocating that the PM himself meet anyone. As for who a representative could meet, the OPP guy had a list. So did the city of Ottawa, whose officials conducted meetings and made progress even though you find the various participants colourful. Pretending was fun, thanks.
Do you really think a meeting with some ADM or DM they've never heard of with no political mandate to say or do anything was going to make the freedom fighters fold up their flags and bouncy castles and return home to their boring jobs and annoyed spouses (or spouses, at least)? Your very entertaining piece clearly refers to the possibility of federal ministers meeting with ... somebody. I genuinely appreciate your skill at evading the question (maybe you do have a career in the public service ahead of you), but if not the PM then which convoy leaders from those excellent lists are we advising Mendicino (or whoever) to meet with (and thereby instantly bestow political legitimacy on)?
When you refer to city of Ottawa officials "conducting meetings and making progress" are you referring to the Treaty of Versailles reached between Watson and Lich, or something actually useful?
With respect to me finding the participants "colourful", I know this is intended as a little dig at us Laurentian elites and our snooty inability to emphasize with anybody who drives an F-150 and actually likes Tim Hortons coffee, so touché (and we won't talk about how the working class of downtown Ottawa or our BIPOC and LGBT friends and neighbours might characterize the convoy leaders and participants). But it actually points to something much more important, which is the continuing slowness of our political and pundit classes to wake up to the real threat posed to this country and its institutions by far-right extremists (with some notable exceptions, like Rachel Gilmore and Global News). The current CPC leader has decided he wants to play the game of pussyfooting with these types for electoral advantage, but he should ask his friends down south in the Republican party how that strategy went for them and their country.
You're right, pretending is so much fun ... look at me pretending to be an opinion journalist :)
I think it's just funny at this point to see some people keep pretending that engaging with the convoy leadership would have lead to something, given the convoy leaders said themselves they weren't controlling anyone except themselves and the collapse of the supposed ''deal'' with the city of Ottawa.
Good read, Paul Thanks.
What comes to mind is the Cool Hand Luke quote, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Good take, comme d'habitude. Makes me wonder if the "generalist" philosophy of moving our public-service mandarins around the whole of government is not suited for certain departments in an increasingly technically complex and convoluted world ... Health, Justice, Defence, Public Safety, Environment?
It's cute that some people still believe that engaging with the convoy people would have lead to something when 1) it didn't work to Windsor; 2) All convoy leaders said in front of the commission they weren't controlling anyone except themselves
"Lucki was Teams-chatting with her RCMP colleagues while she phone-texted with Carrique, in the middle of the virtual meeting with the cabinet ministers" ... could this explain her poor recall of meetings? She was doing 5 things at once! When non-Managers get into Management this can happen.
Thanks, this material helps me feel and understand some of the frustration in both directions. That is between those who wanted to avoid using emergency powers and those who pushed ahead. As an average citizen I don't know the legal answer but I've generally felt that people needed some reassurance. The strong action may have been necessary to maintain public confidence in government.
Ah yes.... meetings. As someone who attended my fair share in my lifetime all I can say is that they are designed primarily to waste time till coffee break, and then till lunch.... etc. Along the way it will be agreed that we must meet again. If luck has it there will be something that's agreed upon by all and we'll leave happy that it's over.