I think there is one clear quote from Trudeau that shows that the act was not yet required
Quote:
|
"That was part of the problem, that not all tools were being used," Trudeau said.
|
In reference to a question of it all existing tools were used. The emergencies act is for when the government doesn’t have the tools not for when they poorly applied them previously.
The other section around Trudeau’s questioning that is interesting for what it doesn’t say is
Quote:
During her examination, commission lawyer Shantona Chaudhury suggested to Trudeau that the protests did "not constitute a threat to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act."
"As defined for the CSIS Act," Trudeau responded.
"Those words in the CSIS Act are used for the purpose of CSIS determining that they have authority to act against an individual a group or a specific plot ... for example."
Trudeau said that cabinet — not CSIS — decides whether to invoke the Emergencies Act.
|
Note he does not say that the cabinet found that they met the requirements under Section 2 of the CSIS act. Essentially he is saying the legislation in the emergencies act is worded poorly so we ignored it and used our own definition and made the decision it was an emergency
The government is also using privilege to not disclose the legal advice they used to determine if they met the standard in the act.
Trudeau also stated that he did not fully review the Ottawa police plan to clear the blockade and the Ottawa Feb 13 plan is redacted so the public is unable to see what changed in the plan as a result of the emergencies act.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6663167
I think the two questions the government needed to answer are still inserted.
1) did they meet the requirements of the act. - Unclear and no one has stated they definitively that they did or believed they did
2) were existing laws exhausted in dealing with the protest. - The answer appears to be no based on Trudeau’s testimony.