At the writing of this article, Canada was in the throes of the implementation of the so-called Emergencies Act. Readers will know the Act was introduced and voted into law by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his MPs, and the leader of the socialist New Democratic Party, Jagmeet Singh.

However one views the merits of the trucker convoy protesting the vaccine mandates, most national and international human rights groups condemned the use of wartime emergency powers to quell a non-violent and geographically tiny protest. This article will deal with the necessary social preconditions that were deeply ensconced in the public psyche, in such a manner that arguably the worst piece of human rights legislation in the history of Canada could have so easily survived a democratic vote in Canada’s parliament.

First, we must consider the macabre and toxic elements of the Act itself and the intellectually bankrupt rationale that was given by the Prime Minister and by most liberal commentators in media and academe.

Points to consider:

No threat to trade

All border blockades had already been safely removed by policing agencies before the Emergencies Act was even introduced. There was no threat to trade.

The Emergencies Act was an updated version of the War Measures Act

The Emergencies Act was an updated version of the War Measures Act, which had been put in place in the midst of World War One, World War Two, and again in 1970. In 1970, the War Measures Act was put in place (unnecessarily in the view of many) to deal with a separatist group in Quebec, who had alarmingly engaged in nefarious activities, including: a bombing, setting up fires, and a politically motivated kidnapping and brutal murder. Even given that level of violence, threat and insurrection, the leader of the Socialist Party of the time, the New Democratic Party, Tommy Douglas, realized that the imposition of the War Measures Act was a grotesque overreach. The nation was not even in the tiniest way facing anything approaching the imminent loss of territory or violent overthrow of national sovereignty that is incumbent with an invasion of foreign forces.

Twin Towers attack

I was leader of the opposition on that infamous day in September 2001, when the twin towers in the United States were obliterated in an international attack. In Ottawa, as with the rest of the world, we had no idea where the network of international terrorists might strike next. Extra security measures were of course implemented around the country immediately. I can tell you, even as we watched the multi-prong terrorist attack unfolding with horrific force, there was never a suggestion that we would implement the sweeping powers of the War Measures Act.

Imminent foreign attack in 2006

In the summer of 2006, I was in the Canadian Arctic as Minister of Public Safety for Canada. At 1:00 a.m., I received the highest level emergency call, reserved for times of imminent foreign attack. It was my US counterpart, the Secretary of Homeland Security, alerting me to the fact that several commercial jet airliners would be enroute from London’s Heathrow Airport with flight plans to several countries including Canada, USA and Australia. Terrorists would be on board with water bottles and other small containers containing clear liquids, which could be chemically ignited to become incendiary explosive devices. International intelligence operatives on that phone call then explained that the only hope of preventing people from boarding planes with this type of explosive cocktail would be to immediately agree on and implement security measures at all airport check-ins to prevent anyone who was on board with any type of liquid container. They further explained that these new guidelines, which must be agreed on and imposed right then and there, had to be communicated to all international airports and security check-in officials by 6:00 a.m… in just a few hours! So, if you’re still upset, after all these years, that you can’t take your water bottle on board a plane, please feel free to send me an angry tweet — I am partly to blame.

The reason I share this story with you is to point out a security reality. Even though we were facing an imminent widespread international terrorist threat, with possibly devastating consequences, there was no serious contemplation of anything being invoked as restrictive as the War Measures Act. We recognized that our existing layers of security infrastructure, if properly employed, would provide the layers of protection necessary to keep our citizens safe. The thought of freezing bank accounts of citizens without due process or holding people without charges or arbitrarily ordering businesses to perform tasks against their will was, quite rightly, deemed excessive by free and democratic nations.

Canada-wide violent and illegal acts of protest

Let’s consider another example. Only a few years before the trucker convoy, a large and identifiable group, (mainly indigenous Canadians) launched a series of protests across the country. Over a period of several weeks, a range of violent and illegal acts of protests spread from coast to coast. Bridges were blocked, along with portions of the transnational railway and other key points of infrastructure. Many such places were lit on fire. Highways were shut down, and cargo ships were forced to remain offshore, unable to unload imports. At no time during those actual real blockades was there even a hint from Prime Minister Trudeau that he would apply anything resembling the equivalent of the nuclear legal option of the War Measures Act.

Trucker convoy

And yet the trucker convoy, which from start to finish, was non-violent and did not stop the movement of people or goods into the Capital, was subjected to the most far reaching and crushing application of human rights legislation in Canada’s history. Indeed, bank accounts were frozen, businesses closed, and businesses ordered to take certain actions, which they had previously stated they would not do. For instance, towing companies, who had refused to arbitrarily begin towing trucks out of Ottawa, were forced under this law to drag the trucks of citizens out of the city. A number of those vehicles also were arbitrarily put up for sale. Following instructions by the municipal government of the City of Ottawa, and no promise of any return to its owners.

As this piece of legislation, and its implementation is now being challenged at a number of courts, it continues to be seen as one of the most undemocratic actions employed by any government in Canada’s history.