Constitutional Dimensions of the Consultation and Accountability Systems within Canada’s Emergencies Act

Abstract

This article assesses the consultation and accountability mechanisms within Canada's Emergencies Act, focusing on their alignment with federalism and other elements of Canadian constitutionalism. Using the Rouleau Commission's Final Report as a backdrop, the article identifies gaps in these consultation and accountability mechanisms. The article argues that these gaps are of constitutional significance because the Emergencies Act’s effect of departing from standard constitutional norms makes it necessary for legality and legitimacy reasons to have sufficiently robust consultation and accountability mechanisms. The article proposes recommendations, including developing provincial consultation guidelines, implementing a non-whipped parliamentary confirmation vote, enhancing information accessibility for Parliamentarians, refining the inquiry process, and addressing the Emergencies Act's non-compliance with case law on the duty to consult. The analysis thus contributes to ongoing discussions on harmonizing Canada’s Emergencies Act with constitutional principles.