New Books

Rule by Emergency Decree is Not the Rule of Law

Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn
October 18, 2023
The term “rule of law” gets used a lot but, judging by how it is used, many people seem to misunderstand its meaning – including politicians at the highest levels. Appearances to the contrary, it does not refer to political governance by the courts, a country ruled entirely by lawyers, every disagreement triggering litigation or governments addressing every issue with more and more laws. Fundamentally, it means a system in which all – including the highest rulemakers – are bound equally by the law, no person or organization is above the law and governance never occurs outside the law. In this pre-publication excerpt from their new book launching at month-end, Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn chart Canada’s worrisome deterioration into a country no longer entirely under the rule of law, the resulting encouragement of lawlessness and the grave damage being done to the lives and liberties of Canadian citizens.
New Books

Rule by Emergency Decree is Not the Rule of Law

Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn
October 18, 2023
The term “rule of law” gets used a lot but, judging by how it is used, many people seem to misunderstand its meaning – including politicians at the highest levels. Appearances to the contrary, it does not refer to political governance by the courts, a country ruled entirely by lawyers, every disagreement triggering litigation or governments addressing every issue with more and more laws. Fundamentally, it means a system in which all – including the highest rulemakers – are bound equally by the law, no person or organization is above the law and governance never occurs outside the law. In this pre-publication excerpt from their new book launching at month-end, Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn chart Canada’s worrisome deterioration into a country no longer entirely under the rule of law, the resulting encouragement of lawlessness and the grave damage being done to the lives and liberties of Canadian citizens.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Pandemic Panic: How Canadian Government Responses to Covid-19 Changed Civil Liberties Forever

Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn, with forward by Preston Manning

Optimum Publishing International; 264 Pages

In March 2020, during the haze of the early and surreal weeks of COVID-19 lockdowns, the federal Liberals were preparing to go to parliament and table a bill that would grant themselves virtually unprecedented, sweeping powers to allocate billions of funds and raise taxes without consulting parliament – up to December 2021. Taxation is enumerated as a parliamentary power under the Constitution Act (1867), and even the Emergencies Act does not permit this to be modified.

The proposed bill meant many of the measures carried out under those new powers could be swept in without parliamentary debate and without the elected representatives of Canadians getting a chance to vote for or against the measures. The proposed bill was roundly rejected by all opposition parties. Andrew Scheer, then Conservative Party leader, commented “we will not give the government unlimited power to raise taxes without a parliamentary vote. We will authorize whatever spending measures are justified to respond to the situation but we will not sign a blank cheque.”

“We will not sign a blank cheque”: As the Covid-19 pandemic set in during spring 2020, then-Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer took a strong stand against the Liberal government’s demand for the power to raise taxes without a Parliamentary vote. While the Liberals backed down, they followed up with many similar measures that have badly eroded Canada’s rule of law. (Sources: (top) CBC; (bottom) Toronto CityNews)

In the face of widespread opprobrium, the Liberals backed down and withdrew the blank-cheque provision from the bill. However, this early attempt at a power grab in the name of flexibility and public safety was, in retrospect, a foreshadowing of the numerous similar actions to come that undermined democracy and the rule of law in Canada.

The rule of law is the bedrock principle of liberal democracy that says no one in society – neither governments nor citizens – is above the law but all are governed under the law, and under the same rules, regardless of personal characteristics like wealth, connections, political power, race, or religious creed. It means that the rules that govern everyone are stable and predictable. From the perspective of the rule of law, citizens ought to know in advance the legal rules they could be held responsible for following. Legal rules should not be changed on an arbitrary whim or applied retroactively, and certain constitutional obligations are binding upon everyone. 

Unfortunately, the requirements of wide-scale emergencies like pandemics have an observable tendency to hollow out the adherence to the rule of law, on the basis that flexibility, responsiveness, and swift action are more important in the moment than the higher-level importance of the rule of law. This sentiment is sometimes expressed by the maxims “necessity knows no law,” or, in Cicero’s words, salus populisuprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law). However, these sentiments do not form part of our constitutional tradition and would seem to severely undermine the authority of our claim to be a constitutional polity at all.

During the pandemic we saw that departures from the basic requirements of the rule of law and democratic accountability in the name of public safety were sadly the rule and not the exception. Consider Ontario’s third-wave lockdown measures, likely enacted with the knowledge that they were unconstitutional.

For many Ontarians, Friday, April 26, 2021, stands out as a grim highwater mark of pandemic misery. While our friends and family south of the border were regaling us with stories of joyfully returning to normal life owing to widespread vaccine availability, most of Canada was being pummelled by a brutal third wave driven by the Delta variant. Due to a failure of Canadian government officials to either secure timely deliveries of vaccines or to scale-up domestic vaccine manufacturing, the vaccines were not estimated to become available at least until well into the summer.

Nadir of pandemic tyranny: In spring 2021 Ontario Premier Doug Ford (top left, middle), Health Minister Christine Elliott (top left, right) and Solicitor General Sylvia Jones (top left, left) announced measures packaged as “reopening” the province but that, in fact, extended emergency rule with even less oversight than under the province’s actual emergencies legislation, including authorizing random stops and interrogations by police. (Sources of photos (clockwise starting top-left): The Canadian Press/Cole Burston; The Canadian Press/Rachel Verbin; Zou Zheng/Xinhua via ZUMA Press; The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld)

On the afternoon of April 26th, in a press conference that was delayed by hours due to last-minute cabinet deliberations, Premier [Doug] Ford, flanked by Health Minister Christine Elliott and Solicitor General Sylvia Jones, announced a set of draconian measures aimed at curbing the spread of the virus. The measures included instituting a mandatory stay-at-home order and closing outdoor playgrounds. From a legal point of view the gravest worry was that the provincial police were now given extraordinary powers to randomly stop vehicles and inquire about an individual’s reasons for leaving their home. Police, along with bylaw officers, now had the power to demand that citizens provide their home address and explain why they were outside during the stay-at-home order.

The measures immediately struck alarm bells among civil rights activists: in a province of 15 million people, it would appear to be a foregone conclusion that police would by necessity engage in some sort of triaging behaviour in questioning individuals outside of their homes. And given what we know about police behaviour, that risked profiling of racialized communities, which already attract a heavier police presence. This issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.

This is concerning enough from a civil rights perspective, but reporting at the time also provided strong evidence that the government was thumbing its nose at the rule of law by ignoring strong signals that there were serious constitutional issues with the regulations. New legislation and regulations go through a legal risk assessment as standard practice, and the cabinet would almost certainly have required a legal risk assessment before approving the enhanced police powers. At the time, CBC reporting confirmed that Attorney General Doug Downey flagged potential constitutional problems during a cabinet meeting, only to be shut down.

We will never know what that risk assessment contained. However, it almost certainly raised some of the same concerns laid out by the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which immediately put out statements that they would challenge these new police powers. Police departments across the province also put out their own statements that they would not use these new controversial (and likely illegal) powers. 

But relying solely on police not to enforce an illegal regulation is completely unacceptable from the perspective of the rule of law, since the government should not be enacting unconstitutional laws in the first place, and knowingly so.

Unconstitutional? No problem! Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey (left) reportedly pointed out the illegality of his premier’s plan to hand police unprecedented powers, but was ignored. While many police departments then refused to enforce portions of the new orders, this itself was lawless and was not a proper substitute for the government following the rule of law to begin with. (Sources of photo: (left) Raymond Bowe/Barrie Today, retrieved from orilliamatters.com; (right) Kingston Police)

Indeed, the catch-22 of the police measures was that they were short-term regulations. The new police powers would likely have expired before a full legal challenge could be heard by the courts. So, it is likely that if the regulations had not been repealed, the government would have argued that any ultimate legal challenge would have been moot. The Ford government’s negligence was likely driven in part because it assumed that the courts would not hear such challenges in time, a deeply cynical perspective. Politicians who knowingly enact illegal laws deserve condemnation and have lost moral authority to govern.

The notorious Ontario “carding” measures were, sadly, just one colourful episode in an array of pandemic measures that flouted the ordinary operation of the rule of law. Another example was legislatures granting themselves infinitely expanded states of emergency.

At the beginning of the pandemic, Ontario entered a state of emergency under its Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. Under section 7.0.1 of the EMCPA, the premier or the Lieutenant Governor in Council can declare a state of emergency in the province. However, the state of emergency expires after 14 days. But after a few months of the state of emergency under the EMCPA in the summer of 2020, the Ford government decided to replace the function of the EMCPA with a new act called the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act. Under the new Reopening Ontario Act, the government defined the COVID-19 state of emergency to be over in Ontario. At the same time, however, it also transformed the emergency orders made under the EMCPA into orders under the Reopening Ontario Act and extended many of the powers of the EMCPA while eliminating the need for continued legislative approval and without any sunset clauses.

Repackaged power: By moving from its existing Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act to its new Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, the Ford government was “able to eliminate even the vestiges of legislative democracy in order to benefit from the processes of executive authority,” maintains Patricia Hughes, executive director of the Law Commission of Ontario.

In other words, the Reopening Ontario Act allowed the government to extend and retain the bulk of its extraordinary powers obtained through the declaration of an emergency under the EMCPA. The Reopening Ontario Act allowed the government to sidestep ordinary legislative procedures in enacting extraordinary orders that restrict civil liberties. The new law also empowered the government to override certain key provisions of various collective union agreements, including especially for nurses and health care professionals, and to regulate businesses. As the founding executive director of the Law Commission of Ontario and former dean of law at the University of Calgary, Patricia Hughes noted, “By shifting from the EMCPA to the more positive and optimistic Reopening of Ontario Act, [the Ford government] is able to eliminate even the vestiges of legislative democracy in order to benefit from the processes of executive authority.”

In effect, the Ford government cleverly extended its own ability to make COVID-19 health orders without the need for the review processes originally set out by the EMCPA and repackaged this extension of executive authority in Ontario as an end to the COVID-19 emergency and a plan to reopen the province.

The politics surrounding the Reopening Ontario Act illustrate the general trend of federal and provincial governments’ concentration of discretionary power to the executive branch – both the executive cabinets and the bureaucrats – to the detriment of legislative bodies and the electorate. Any opposition to the government’s concentration of power was swiftly swept under the rug, and COVID-19 orders continued to be made without crucial legislative oversight before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Another example of provincial governments widening the scope of the executive authority was Alberta’s Bill 10, Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act. Bill 10 was introduced, passed, and came into force at the lightning-fast speed of only forty-eight hours in April 2020. Only 21 out of 87, members of Alberta’s legislative assembly were present to vote on the bill, just enough to pass quorum. Bill 10’s emergency powers included two key amendments to the Public Health Act – sections 52.1(2)(b) and 52.21(2)(b) – both of which authorized government cabinet ministers to unilaterally create new laws and sidestep the legislature when doing so.

Forty-eight hours, barely a quorum: The supposedly freedom-promoting UCP government of Jason Kenney (top) in Alberta granted vast power to the provincial Cabinet (second from top) with scarcely any deliberation in the province’s Legislature. Bill 10 also sanctioned retroactive punishment of citizens’ behaviour that was not even illegal at the time it occurred. Shown second from bottom, an empty Calgary Stampede Park with events cancelled in 2020, and at bottom, an End the Lockdown protest at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton, April 2020, only a few weeks after Alberta’s measures were first implemented. (Sources of photos: (top) Calgary CityNews; (middle) The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh; (bottom) CTV News Edmonton)

The amendments made under Bill 10 in Alberta did not just grant amazing powers to the minister to make new law unilaterally, it also granted the power to make law retroactively: it punished citizens’ past behaviours for failing to comply with the new law, even though they were not illegal at the time. This flies in the face of rule-of-law principles that attempt to make the law stable, predictable, and prospective rather than retroactive. The Government of Alberta would eventually walk these changes back in the following year with Bill 66, also amending the Public Health Act.

It became apparent early on that governments would be zig-zagging away from ordinary procedures for devising laws in response to the pandemic. Indeed, to some extent we should be sympathetic to this impulse: fast-moving emergencies require nimble responses. It was appropriate for the government to swiftly ensure that the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) would be available to Canadians to make sure nobody went without food or shelter in exchange for the government requiring them to stay home and, in many cases, not work.

However, this principle of prioritizing expediency above due process went completely haywire during the pandemic, with almost no scrutiny of due proportionality between the gravity of the emergency and its impact on individual rights. We should be vigilant to ensure that in future public health emergencies governments may not cut corners without consequences.

Joanna Baron has been executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation since 2019, and prior to that practised criminal law with the late Edward L. Greenspan. Christine Van Geyn is litigation director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is their first book together.

Source of main image: Shutterstock.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Fists of Ham: Why the Liberals Keep Trying (and Failing) to Control the Internet

Folk wisdom holds that bad things come in threes. Now we have conclusive proof. The federal Liberals’ trio of ham-fisted bills aimed at bringing the internet to heel – the Online Streaming Act, Online News Act and Online Harms Act – are obvious and spectacular failures that are doing or will do great damage to Canadians. Peter Menzies takes a close look at the flaws of this calamitous trio, paying special attention to the threat posed to free expression in Canada by the recently unveiled Online Harms Act. For an administration that prides itself on its modernity, how has the Justin Trudeau government gone so wrong nearly three decades into the digital era?

Why India Could Become the Next Global Superpower: Part II

With America in decline at home and its influence waning abroad, the question of which nation might be the next global superpower has gained urgency. While the world arguably needs a dominant power to protect global order and prevent regional conflicts from spiralling, this can’t just be any country with sufficient arms and ambition. America’s replacement should be a moral superpower, one that safeguards freedom and enables prosperity for every nation, as the U.S. has done for the last 80 years. In the first installment of this two-part series, Lynne Cohen proposed that India could fulfill that role. She put forth 10 characteristics that together make a moral superpower, and dug into the first five, examining India’s economic and demographic strengths. In this second part, Cohen focusses on politics and power, assessing India’s performance on the final five criteria, starting with perhaps the most important – military might.

More from this author

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.