Why Justin Trudeau can survive the inquiry


MONTREAL—A decade and a half ago, the publication of the findings of the inquiry into what was known as the federal sponsorship scandal signalled the beginning of the end of a dozen-year Liberal tenure.

Justice John Gomery’s final report — and the blame it apportioned to Jean Chrétien’s government — led to the defeat of his successor’s minority government and set the stage for a Conservative decade in power.

But the political parallels between that exercise and the ongoing inquiry into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to use the Emergencies Act to deal with the blockades and anti-vax convoy that crippled the federal capital and the Canada/U.S. border last winter stop there.

Should Justice Paul Rouleau conclude in his final report that Trudeau failed to meet the legal threshold required to invoke the Emergencies Act, the prime minister’s minority government is unlikely to take a decisive hit over the issue.

For all intents and purposes, the case, it seems, is already closed in the minds of many Canadians and the popular verdict, notwithstanding Rouleau’s future conclusions, favours the ruling Liberals.

An Abacus poll published at the end of October showed majority support for the government’s decision in all provinces. The testimony heard since then was not, on its face, earth-shattering enough to reverse the trend.

From the start, there has been a significant gap between the attention devoted to the commission’s hearings inside the parliamentary bubble and the public’s engagement in the process.

The fact that the inquiry has had little or no resonance in the House of Commons goes some way to account for that gap.

Back at the time of the Gomery commission, there was not a day when testimony at the inquiry did not result in a barrage of opposition questions designed to amplify damage to the government.

But in this instance, the New Democrats — who joined with the Liberals in voting for the invocation of the act last winter — have already stated that Rouleau’s conclusions, whatever they may be, will not lead them to rethink their support for the minority government.

For their part, the Conservatives have been uncharacteristically discreet. That silence speaks for itself. Almost half of the Abacus respondents who self-identify as Conservative do not share the sympathies of the party’s latest leader, Pierre Poilievre, for the convoy and its members.

The last time the CPC was as uninterested in relitigating a major policy difference with a Liberal government goes back to the debate over Canada’s participation in the American-led Iraq War.

But that does not mean a future Conservative government would not have an interest in some of the arguments the government has been advancing in front of the commission.

Over the past week, Trudeau’s government has been making a case for broadening the scope of what constitutes a national security threat. “A very serious threat to Canada’s economic security can constitute a threat to national security,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland argued in testimony to the inquiry.

A broadened definition could put the extraordinary powers conferred by the act closer to the reach of a federal government looking for ways, for instance, to counter Indigenous rail blockades of the kind Canada experienced just prior to the pandemic or stand-offs of the sort that have often attended pipeline developments.

Here are a few more take-aways:

Whatever its conclusions, the Rouleau inquiry has furthered the public’s understanding of the rationale and process that led to Trudeau’s decision in a way no parliamentary committee could have. It is rare that voters are privy to the step-by-step evolution of a government’s thinking on any given issue.

As an aside, it was the right call for the commission to give standing to the convoy’s legal team. What the latter failed to make of the opportunity should not detract from the basic notion that its presence added to the legitimacy of the inquiry.

Transparency was forced on many of those who testified, starting with the prime minister and seven of his ministers. It is rare that any of them is called to account for private communications with staff or provincial and municipal vis-à-vis.

They may want to ponder whether those disclosures and that transparency made them look worse than their constant parroting of sometimes inane rehearsed lines.

Finally, Justice Rouleau and his staff probably wish they had more time to complete their work. The tempo of the past six weeks has been gruelling. The Emergencies Act prescribes that the commission’s final report be produced in mid-February. They are unlikely to get much of a holiday break.

But forcing inquiries to proceed in as timely a fashion and against a hard deadline should become the rule rather than the exception. Too many past public inquiries have diluted the impact of their conclusions — as often as not to the benefit of the governments that appointed them — by securing extension after extension.

Chantal Hébert is an Montreal-based freelance contributing columnist covering politics for the Star. Reach her via email: [email protected] or follow her on Twitter: @ChantalHbert

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Conversations are opinions of our readers and are subject to the Code of Conduct. The Star does not endorse these opinions.



Source link

Denial of responsibility! galaxyconcerns is an automatic aggregator around the global media. All the content are available free on Internet. We have just arranged it in one platform for educational purpose only. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials on our website, please contact us by email – [email protected]. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.