Share this comment
You're quite right.
But the issue at hand is: If CSIS thinks that they would not have had reasonable grounds to cite a threat to national security to tap a convoy organizer's phone, why did cabinet think it had reasonable grounds to invoke the Act?
I'm not sure that the answer is Ottawa was wrong to invoke the act. But it's a tricky issue.
You're quite right.
But the issue at hand is: If CSIS thinks that they would not have had reasonable grounds to cite a threat to national security to tap a convoy organizer's phone, why did cabinet think it had reasonable grounds to invoke the Act?
I'm not sure that the answer is Ottawa was wrong to invoke the act. But it's a tricky issue.
I take no position on the point. But it is not at all unusual for a form of words in one one statute or legal context, to mean something different, or be used in a different way, in another legal context. To take a simple example, you can be an "employee" for some purposes and not for others. Words take their meaning from the context and purpose for which they are used, so it is not wrong to pay attention to the setting. And yes, it is tricky, particularly because, as I said, it requires a degree of speculation about what is likely to happen if you do nothing or if you do something. And because, as here, the government is empowering OTHERS to take action, or not, in accordance with THEIR judgement about whether the new tools are needed. Finally, there is the psychological impact of the declaration, which was obviously significant, in the way that a mere injunction from a Judge was not.