In arguing for emergency powers, Jagmeet Singh threw workers and the rule of law under the bus

National Post, 24 February 2022

Singh’s responsibility invites careful examination

Canadians were subject to the Emergencies Act even longer than needed because of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh.

The prime minister invoked it, and bears principal responsibility for it, but the New Democratic Party’s vote to support it on Monday night kept it in force until the government finally relented late Wednesday. Had the NDP voted with the other opposition parties, the emergency powers would have immediately been revoked. Singh’s responsibility thus invites careful examination.

He laid out his case in the House of Commons debate, knowing that he was labouring under the burden of history. In 1970, NDP Leader Tommy Douglas courageously opposed Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s declaration of martial law. The NDP distinguished itself then by defending civil liberties and arguing against the use of extraordinary state powers. And Douglas did so in the face of public opinion favouring martial law.

In 2022, a minority Parliament grants Singh real power to defend liberty or enable state overreach. “No one wants to see a situation like the one in 1970 happen again,” he said, even as he decided to enable a similar situation. “Many people are worried that such a situation will happen again and I understand them.”

The understanding Singh appears to have drawn from 1970 is one of a peculiar Quebec exceptionalism. “The NDP believes that there is no justification at this time for using emergency measures in Quebec,” he said. “We are asking for guarantees from the prime minister that emergency measures will only be used where they are really needed.”

Why mention Quebec and not Nova Scotia? Did Singh believe that the law ought only be used in one part of the country but not another? If the Emergencies Act was needed at the time because truckers were gathering down the highway in Arnprior, Ont., was Singh prepared to vote against the act if they were instead gathering across the river in Quebec?

Should a grandmother who contributed $100 to buy fuel and food for her trucker grandson in the convoy be liable to having her bank account frozen, but a Quebec business that contributed $10,000 be left unmolested because of its address? Is it the position of the NDP that the law should be administered according to arbitrary political judgments?

Singh, in turns out, is altogether shaky on the rule of law.

“I have been at many protests and strikes,” Singh said. “I have witnessed the full and brutal power of the police used against peaceful protesters. Indigenous land defenders, climate change activists, workers fighting for fairness and any Canadian using their voice to peacefully demand justice should never be subject to the Emergencies Act — New Democrats will never support that.”

Heretofore, no Canadian had ever been subject to the Emergencies Act for any reason. Singh could have kept it that way. Yet he argued that, in principle, emergency powers ought to be differently applied according to the cause being advanced. Truckers illegally blockading streets: yes. Anti-pipeline activists blocking roads and cutting off food supplies to workers: no.

Continue reading at the National Post.