Trudeau’s Big Gamble

|


Yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared he would be invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time ever in Canadian history. This decision was justified as addressing the need to quell protests by a far right-wing group of truckers demanding an end to all COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. The truckers’ “Freedom Convoy” has occupied the downtown core of the nation’s capital over the past few weeks, blocked border crossings into the United States, and even sparked similar protests in Europe.

How Canadians regard Justin Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act will be critical in determining his legacy as Prime Minister. It’s a big gamble on Trudeau’s part—but it’s one that might just pay off.

Pierre Trudeau & the War Measures Act

The much more scaled-down Emergencies Act is far from its predecessor legislation, the War Measures Act, in how much it empowers the federal government to take action. But this reality might not matter for how Canadians perceive the government’s response.

For many Canadians, Justin Trudeau’s announcement harkened back to his father Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s controversial use of the War Measures Act in peacetime during the October Crisis of 1970. Pierre Trudeau took this infamous step in response to the kidnapping (and subsequent murder) of high-profile government officials by an extremist Québec nationalist group, known as the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ). After weeks of growing tension and fear in early October 1970, including the concession of reading the FLQ’s manifesto over national radio, the mayor of Montréal and premier of Québec called upon Pierre Trudeau to implement the War Measures Act.

Asked by a reporter in the midst of the turmoil just how far he would go to maintain law and order, Pierre Trudeau famously responded, “just watch me.” Three days after this bold statement, Pierre Trudeau declared martial law, temporarily suspending civil liberties and allowing police to detain civilians without proof of evidence.

In the aftermath, Pierre Trudeau faced a barrage of criticism. New Democratic Party leader Tommy Douglas described the suspension of rights in response to the crisis as akin to “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.” As it was revealed that hundreds of innocent civilians had been detained (although later released without charges), civil rights advocates blasted Pierre Trudeau for the federal government’s actions. Nonetheless, polling at the time showed that about 90% of Canadians supported Pierre Trudeau’s use of the War Measures Act.

With these many objections in mind, the federal government repealed the War Measures Act in 1988 and replaced it with the Emergencies Act that is now in effect.

Like Father, Like Son?

With the truckers’ protests becoming more hostile and widespread over the past few weeks—becoming effectively an occupation of the capital—Justin Trudeau has found himself at a similar quandary to that of his father. And like the elder Trudeau, Canada’s current Prime Minister has decided to take a huge risk in order to re-establish control.

There are many fair criticisms to be made of Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act. These concerns include the absence of geographical limitations in the legislation, the lack of transparency over the Act’s implementation by government agencies on the ground, and whether the truckers’ protests have reached the point to which triggering the Emergencies Act is justifiable. On the latter concern, fears have been expressed from across the political spectrum over what precedent this could set for other blockade-style protests in the future. Regionally, assessments of Trudeau’s decision are also quite divided. The premiers of Québec and Alberta have condemned the decision, while Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford of Ontario has come out in support of Trudeau.

Nonetheless, many of the criticisms have so far been founded—or, in some cases, perhaps strategically framed—on the misconception that the Emergencies Act is simply a new iteration of the War Measures Act. It’s true that for many older Canadians the memories of the October Crisis remain and, thus, the conflation of the two is natural given the legislation’s history. Ambiguous reporting on Justin Trudeau’s decision has also misleadingly suggested that civil rights have been fully suspended, including notably in a now retracted tweet by the New York Times. Consequently, confusion over what the Emergencies Act entails has not discouraged this view of the unfolding situation.

Public Perception and Cementing Trudeau’s Legacy

Whether Trudeau was prepared for it, the truckers’ protests have presented him with an opportunity that will determine his legacy as prime minister. Here, Trudeau has decided to bet it all. He’s relying that the Canadian public is both sufficiently dissatisfied with the truckers’ protests and also willing to accept that this isn’t just another case of a Trudeau declaring martial law. It’s a risky move that could paint him either as a strong, decisive leader who calmly resolved a national crisis or a flagrantly reckless prime minister with little respect for the rights of Canadians.

In politics, perception matters most of all. And Trudeau knows this well. One of the most frequently recurring criticisms of Trudeau has been his ability to promise bold policies using the language Canadians want to hear and skillfully avoid significant blowback when failing to follow through. This strategy has worked well for him. Whether on lifting boil water advisories in Indigenous communities, implementing electoral reform, or passing pharmacare, most Canadians seem to not care enough to get past the rhetoric and actually assess whether his promises are being delivered.

However, this time, Trudeau may be taken down by the same gap between rhetoric and reality that has propped up his time in government thus far. As one political commentator noted, Trudeau made a careful effort in his Emergencies Act address to detail the checks placed upon the government’s power, clearly attempting to differentiate his situation from his father’s in 1970. But whether Canadians will be persuaded—or even care to listen to these remarks—is to be seen.

There’s no doubt about it: Trudeau’s legacy is tied up in his risky move to invoke the Emergencies Act. How the next few weeks play out will show whether Trudeau’s bet was well-made or a mistake.