Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks inside the legislature, in Toronto on Sept. 14.Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press
When Ontario Premier Doug Ford fielded questions about why he wasn’t testifying before the public inquiry looking into the use of the Emergencies Act to break up truckers’ convoy protests in February, he had a simple explanation: “I have not been asked,” he told reporters.
But he had been asked. Repeatedly.
Mr. Ford and Deputy Premier Sylvia Jones refused several requests from the inquiry’s counsel for an interview. Then the lawyers asked them to testify voluntarily. They said no. The inquiry issued a summons. And the provincial government vowed to fight it in court.
At this point, we can safely conclude that the reason the Premier is not testifying is not because he wasn’t asked, but because he doesn’t want to – and he is trying to dodge it by hook or by crook.
Ontario opposition questions Doug Ford’s reluctance to testify at Emergencies Act inquiry
On one level, it is a little funny that Mr. Ford was so incompetent with his deceit that he was always going to get found out. You can almost imagine him donning a fake moustache and a jaunty hat to try to duck service of the summons.
Now, the Premier is hiding behind a claim of parliamentary privilege that is intended to ensure the important public business of parliamentarians doesn’t get derailed by lawsuits and court cases. He is twisting an important parliamentary principle to instead protect the secrecy of Ontario’s executive.
There is a line where unaccountable becomes unethical, and Mr. Ford has crossed it.
The goal of the Emergencies Act inquiry is obviously to hold the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accountable. Ottawa used emergency legislation to take on extraordinary powers, and it is a law that can only be used as a last resort – when no other law will do. The inquiry has to investigate whether that threshold was met.
But Mr. Ford has an awful lot of Ontario interests at stake. The lion’s share of the events took place in the province, notably blockade of downtown Ottawa and at Windsor’s Ambassador Bridge. The provincial government has constitutional jurisdiction over policing, and Mr. Ford himself told Mr. Trudeau he supported the use of the Emergencies Act. Now he is ducking.
The reasons given for skipping the inquiry by Andrew Kennedy, a spokesperson for Ontario Attorney-General Doug Downey, amount to the lame excuse that bureaucrats can answer the inquiry’s questions, rather than the Premier and the Deputy Premier.
“Over all, our view has always been that this was a policing matter,” Mr. Kennedy said in an e-mailed statement, arguing that police officers can testify instead.
But the reason Mr. Ford and Ms. Jones should testify is the very fact that it was a policing matter. Police forces in Ontario, such as the Ottawa Police Service, are creatures of the province, governed by its legislation.
It is clear now that Ottawa police failed in handling the convoy from the start. Then they called for massive reinforcements from other forces, such as the Ontario Provincial Police. But those forces wanted to see a plan for how the officers would be used, and that wasn’t really ready until Feb. 13, the day before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Policing was not co-ordinated well. Someone in government should be answering questions about that. Under Ontario’s policing law, passed by Mr. Ford’s government in 2019, one of the jobs of the solicitor-general is to “assist in the co-ordination of policing.” At the time of the convoy protests, that was Ms. Jones.
It’s also obvious that the provincial government didn’t think the whole thing should be left up to the police. Ontario proclaimed a provincial state of emergency on Feb. 11, which provided police with extraordinary powers. Mr. Ford evidently felt the police needed more capabilities, since he supported the federal invocation of the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14. Now the OPP say they could have done the job without either set of emergency powers.
The inquiry’s lawyers say their research leads them to believe Mr. Ford and Ms. Jones can provide useful testimony. But the Premier is pulling out all the stops to avoid it.
Now he is misusing parliamentary privilege. For this inquiry, you would expect the Premier and all his ministers to waive it. The privilege, after all, exists to protect important public business, not to undermine it.
All Mr. Ford and Ms. Jones would have to do is show up for a few hours and tell the truth. But they’re fighting that tooth and nail.