A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that the Canadian government's use of the Emergencies Act to terminate the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests was unreasonable and violated Charter rights.
January 16, 2026 - 'The Liberal government unreasonably invoked the Emergencies Act to clear the convoy protests that gridlocked the capital city and border points nearly four years ago,' the Federal Court of Appeal ruled on Friday.
"The court dismissed the government's appeal of a 2024 ruling which deemed former prime minister Justin Trudeau's decision to use the legislation [was] unlawful and infringed on protesters' Charter rights.... The Federal Court was initially asked to review the government's deeply divisive proclamation of a public order emergency by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the Canadian Constitution Foundation and other groups. In that 2024 decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, since retired, said the government's decision lacked justification, transparency and intelligibility.
"The government appealed. During a hearing last February, its lawyers argued the court downplayed violence with 'hindsight bias on full display.' The government has long argued the protests posed a security threat and the measures it took under the Emergencies Act were targeted, proportional and temporary.
"But the appeal court's decision agreed with Mosley's finding that cabinet did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a threat to national security existed and fell short of the legal threshold needed to invoke the act."
Two lawsuits were launched this week by victims of Justin Trudeau's invocation of the Emergencies Act, which a Federal Court recently found to be unconstitutional.
February 15, 2024 - "The main organizers of the Freedom Convoy have launched a new $2 million lawsuit against the federal government on the two-year anniversary of the Emergencies Act being invoked, claiming that Ottawa violated their Charter rights when invoking the act to end the demonstrations.... According to lawyer Keith Wilson, organizers [Tmara] Lich, Chris Barber, Tom Marazzo, Danny Bulford, and 'other protestors who were targeted by Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland' submitted lawsuits on Feb. 13. The lawsuits are being done in a mass tort form, meaning each claim is being brought forth individually and settlements will be given out on a case-by-case basis.
"The Freedom Convoy protest was started as a response to a mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccination for truck drivers crossing the Canada–U.S. border, and resulted in vehicles converging in the nation’s capital. The protest evolved into a larger movement against pandemic mandates and restrictions, with similar protests being held at several Canada–U.S. border crossings. To end the protests, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, which gave law enforcement expanded powers to arrest demonstrators, freeze the bank accounts of some protestors, and require towing companies to remove protesters’ vehicles from Ottawa’s downtown core.
"In a Statement of Claim for Mr. Marazzo filed in the Ontario Superior Court Justice, which was obtained by The Epoch Times, he says his bank accounts and credit cards were frozen on Feb. 15, 2022.... The Statement of Claim accuses the Canadian government of interfering with the plaintiff’s Section 8 Charter Rights, which deal with unreasonable search and seizure. It claims Ottawa did not have lawful authority to issue the EO and freeze Mr. Marazzo’s bank account. The document also accuses the federal government of Interference with an Economic Interest of the Plaintiff by compelling third-party financial services to deny banking and credit card services to Mr. Marazzo; committing Abuse of Process by barring him from financial services; committing the Tort of Intimidation by forcing him to comply with demands; and committing the tort of Misfeasance of Public Office by exceeding their powers as public officials.
"The lawsuits come weeks after a Jan. 23 ruling by Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, who wrote that the Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act did 'not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility—and was not justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into consideration. Justice Mosley ruled that invocation of the act infringed the Charter’s Section 2(b), which deals with “freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression,” and Section 8, which deals with the 'right to be secure against unreasonable search seizure.' He also ruled that the freezing of protestors’ bank accounts was 'not minimally impairing,' as the measure applied everywhere in Canada—including in areas where no protests were occurring—and because there were “less impairing alternatives available” to Ottawa."
February 15, 2024 - "Numerous Freedom Convoy protesters who had their bank accounts frozen after the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act have filed a tort lawsuit against federal ministers and financial institutions behind the decision.... 'It’s what we had to do. The people that are in it, are not in it for the money. It’s the principle. They have to be held to account, every last one of them,\ said Eddie Cornell, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
"Loberg Ector LLP commenced the proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of 20 plaintiffs on Feb. 14, which is exactly two years after Ottawa invoked the Emergencies Act to deal with the trucker protest.... A Feb. 14 press release claims the plaintiffs are seeking relief from the “unjustified and unconstitutional actions” of the federal government, financial institutions that followed the federal directive to freeze bank accounts, and police agencies that helped bring the protest to an end.
"Mr. Cornell, who co-founded the group Veterans 4 Freedom, told The Epoch Times that Canadians who had their accounts frozen were chosen as plaintiffs because their cases are easier to prove in court. 'With other people, for example, that were ... shot with tear gas and that sort of thing, it’s a much bigger litigation, it takes much longer, and much more evidence has to be gathered. So we had to go with something that is provable beyond a doubt, he said. Mr. Cornell was one of five plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the federal government that resulted in Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley’s ruling in their favour on Jan. 23....
"According to the Statement of Claim, all plaintiffs are individuals or businesses who had their financial accounts and private property frozen, including banking, credit cards, and cryptocurrency. It adds that not all plaintiffs participated in the Freedom Convoy, and some had joint accounts frozen despite never having been in Ottawa. The lawsuit also lists the Canadian Anti-Hate Network as a defendant, arguing that the organization provided 'false information to several other defendants and media organizations designed to harm the plaintiffs' and that its statements led to the Emergencies Act being invoked. The lawsuit seeks general and special damages of up to $1.16 million for each plaintiff for various charges such as injurious falsehoods, defamation, harassment, intimidation, Charter breaches, and 'high-handed misconduct.'”
February 8, 2024 - "Belleville, ON, Mayor Neil Ellis has declared a state of emergency because of the city’s growing addictions, mental health and homelessness crises and the resulting impact on emergency services.
"'The past two days have exemplified just how critical the addiction, mental health and homelessness crisis has become in our community,' said Ellis in a Thursday press release. 'We, as a City, know that we are at the point where doing our best doesn’t cut it anymore.' Ellis admitted Belleville’s emergency services, healthcare system and municipal resources 'are being stretched to the very limits and we are close to a breaking point'....'
"[T]he City of Belleville said emergency services continue to respond to perceived and actual drug overdoses and are finding multiple patients at one time. On Tuesday afternoon, it acknowledged the largest was nine overdoses at one time during one call for service.
"An emergency declaration acts as a request for support from the Ontario and Canadian governments and falls under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act (EMCPA). The EMCPA defines an emergency as a situation or an impending one constituting a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to people or property.
"Ellis concluded by calling on the Ontario and Canadian governments for support. 'I urge our local municipal partners facing the same issues to do the same,' he said."
"The Belleville Police Service (BPS) issued a notice to residents on Tuesday to avoid the downtown area after first responders dealt with 14 drug overdoses."
January 23, 2024 - "The Canadian Constitution Foundation (the 'CCF') is thrilled that Justice Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada has accepted the CCF’s arguments that the invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protests was unreasonable and violated the Charter rights to expression and security against unreasonable searches and seizures. In a judicial review decision released Tuesday, Justice Mosley agreed with the CCF that Cabinet’s invocation of the Act in February 2022 was not reasonable for two reasons.
"First, Cabinet did not properly account for the requirement under section 3 of the Act that emergencies only be declared where a situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. 'Due to its nature and to the broad powers it grants the Federal Executive, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort,' Justice Mosley wrote. 'The GIC cannot invoke the Emergencies Act because it is convenient, or because it may work better than other tools at their disposal or available to the provinces.'
"Second, the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe that Canada faced 'threats to the security of Canada' had not been met. Section 17 of the Act states that 'threats to the security of Canada' has the same meaning as it has under section 2(c) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (the 'CSIS Act'), which includes threats like terrorism, espionage and attempts to overthrow the government. Justice Mosley said that this does not include the 'economic disruption that resulted from the border crossing blockades, troubling as they were.'
"When cross-examined by CCF Counsel Sujit Choudhry, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Cabinet made the decision that the definition of threats to the security of Canada existed based on a novel legal opinion. The prime minister refused to make that legal opinion public.
"'My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly those of the CCLA and CCF,' Justice Mosley wrote. Justice Mosley found violations of Charter sections 2(b) and 8, and said that those violations were not minimally impairing and therefore not justified under section 1 of the Charter, the reasonable limits clause.
"CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron said the decision is good news for all Canadians. 'The invocation of the Emergencies Act is one of the worst examples of government overreach during the pandemic and we are very pleased to see Justice Mosley recognize that Charter rights were breached and that Cabinet must follow the law and only use the Act as a tool of last resort.'
"CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said she was thrilled with the decision. 'These were very detailed reasons and a complete vindication of the position of civil liberties organizations who viewed the invocation of the Emergencies Act as illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional,' she added. 'We know the government has said that they plan to appeal, and with these reasons they now have a mountain to climb. We look forward to the fight.'"
"The CCF would like to thank its excellent counsel, Sujit Choudhry of Hāki Chambers and Janani Shanmuganathan of Goddard & Shanmuganathan, for their excellent advocacy on this file."
Last Friday New Mexico's governor, Lujan Grisham, issued a public health emergency order banning concealed and open gun carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo county. The order applies for only 30 days, but can (and according to the Governor probably will) be renewed.
September 10, 2023 - "New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday issued a 'public health emergency order' that purportedly suspends the right to bear arms in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. The order, which lasts for 30 days but can be renewed, applies to concealed or open carry of firearms on public property, with exceptions for police officers and security guards. Grisham said "citizens with permits to carry firearms are free to possess their weapons on private property (such as at a gun range or gun store), provided they transport the firearm in a locked box, use a trigger lock, or [use] some other mechanism that renders the gun incapable of being fired.'
"The order covers 'cities or counties averaging 1,000 or more violent crimes per 100,000 residents per year since 2021,' a criterion currently met only by Bernalillo County. Grisham, a Democrat, says the carry ban is a necessary response to 'recent shooting deaths of a thirteen-year-old girl on July 28, a five-year-old girl on August 14, and an eleven-year-old boy on September 6, as well as two mass shootings this year.' At a press conference on Friday, she conceded that the order was apt to be challenged in court as a violation of the Second Amendment....
"Yesterday the National Association for Gun Rights, together with a member who lives in Albuquerque, sued Grisham in federal court, arguing that her order flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision overturned New York's sweeping limits on public possession of firearms and established a constitutional test for gun restrictions, which the Court said must be 'consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Gun Owners of America, along with another Bernalillo County resident, filed a similar federal lawsuit against Grisham on Saturday. Both groups argue that Grisham's order plainly fails the Bruen test....
"The New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, a chapter of the National Rifle Association, said it planned to join the two other groups in challenging Grisham's order. Grisham said state police would be charged with enforcing the order, which prescribes a fine of up to $5,000 per violation. The Associated Press reports that Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina 'said he won't enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he's uneasy about it because it raises too many questions about constitutional rights.' In a statement issued on Friday, Allen said 'the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold.'
"Grisham seems unfazed by those concerns. 'The purpose is to try to create a cooling off period while we figure out how we can better address public safety and gun violence,' she said at Friday's press conference. 'There are gonna be a lot of questions about whether or not we think we have the legal rights to do that. I am sure … there will be a legal challenge, and I can't tell you that we [will] win it, given all of the different challenges to gun violence laws and restrictions on individual firearm access and control…. I think it's time to talk about the absoluteness of the discussion and the current court actions that suggest that the Second Amendment is an absolute right'....
"'I have emergency powers,' Grisham told The New York Times. 'Gun violence is an epidemic. Therefore, it's an emergency.' During the press conference, she also indicated that she probably would extend the order, which she said would be lifted only if 'the epidemic' of gun violence ended after 30 days, adding, 'I bet it's not over in 30 days'....
"State Reps. Stefani Lord (R–Sandia Park) and John Block (R–Alamogordo) on Saturday said Grisham's order was grounds for impeachment. 'This emergency order violates the Governor's oath to protect and defend the rights of New Mexicans,' they said in a press release. 'The legislature has a duty to intervene when the government is overstepping its boundaries, and Governor Grisham's order and comments disqualify her from continuing her tenure as Governor.' Lord called the order 'an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace'....
"When a reporter asked if Grisham 'really think[s] that criminals are gonna hear this message and not carry a gun in Albuquerque on the streets for 30 days,' Grisham said, 'No.' So 'even Grisham,' Lord says, 'believes this emergency order won't [stop] criminals from carrying or using weapons,' which suggests the order 'will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won't be able to defend themselves against violent crime.'"
U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch has criticized the use of emergency powers during the Covid pandemic, stating: "Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country."
May 18, 2023 - "Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch on Thursday slammed the use of emergency power during the pandemic as a mass intrusion on civil liberties. The high court on Thursday dismissed as moot a case seeking to preserve Title 42 after the pandemic emergency expired last week. The public health authority had allowed for the swift expulsion of migrants without allowing them to seek asylum.
"Gorsuch, in an attached statement to the court’s unsigned order, more broadly railed against the use of emergency powers since COVID-19 shut down normal life, referencing among other things, lockdown orders, a federal ban on evictions and vaccine mandates. 'Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale,' Gorsuch wrote.
"The conservative justice throughout the pandemic has been a skeptic of how officials leveraged laws that grant additional executive authority during emergencies, often lamenting that COVID-19 was being used as merely a pretext. 'And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted,' Gorsuch wrote of those laws.
“'It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level,' he continued. 'At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another'....
"After a federal district judge struck down the policy, a group of GOP-led states appealed to the justices in their bid to intervene in the case to defend Title 42. The Supreme Court late last year issued an order allowing Title 42 to stay in effect as they considered the Republican states’ bid. Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in dissent, writing that 'the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis.'"
In a Monday press release, Canada's Democray Fund accused the Rouleau Commission of using a "standard [which] was flexed in favour of a government that used unprecedented emergency powers against its ideological opponents."
February 27, 2023 - "The Democracy Fund says it understands why some Canadians are “puzzled” that the Public Order Emergency Commission justified Ottawa’s use of the Emergency [War Measures] Act against freedom convoy protesters.... 'If anything, it seemed like the Freedom Convoy was remarkable for its lack of violence, especially for a protest of its size. Any violence that did occur was minor and atypical of the protest dynamic,' the TDF legal team wrote in a Monday press release....
"TDF suggested Roleau could reach this conclusion not because it was the one most likely, but because it was reasonably possible. 'The federal government did not need conclusive proof that there were acts or threats of serious violence for ideological purposes. They only needed to show there were "reasonable grounds" to believe that there were,' the release said.... The organization suggested the use of this standard had a dubious history of uses against minorities.
It is the standard that police use when deciding to arrest a person without a warrant, which they have historically done to the detriment of certain minorities in our country.
That’s not because the standard is inherently bad. Rather, it’s because the standard is inherently flexible…it generally flexes in the direction of our beliefs and prejudices or in the direction of what is popular or expedient. It can also flex in accordance with external pressures....
"Canada received international criticism for its use of Emergencies Act. One month later, while [he was] visiting the European Parliament, some members criticized the Prime Minister. Mislav Kolakusic, a Croatian lawyer and MEP, said Canada had become a 'symbol of civil rights violation'.... 'We watched how you trample women with horses, how you block bank accounts of single parents so they can’t even pay their children’s education and medicine, that they can’t pay utilities, mortgages for their homes,' said Kolakusic....
"German MEP Christine Anderson, who recently toured Canada, also condemned Trudeau as a 'disgrace for any democracy' last March. 'A prime minister who openly admires the Chinese basic dictatorship, who tramples on fundamental rights by persecuting and criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dared to stand up to his perverted concept of democracy should not be allowed to speak in this house at all,' she said....
"The TDF believes the commission had comments of this sort in mind when rendering its decision. 'How would it look if Canada exercised emergency powers against its own citizens when there were no grounds to do so? It might look like Canada is not immune from the authoritarianism we criticize in other countries,' said TDF. ''The Emergencies Act was also on trial, in a way, as it had never been invoked'….
What we do know is that the standard was flexed in favour of a government that used unprecedented emergency powers against its ideological opponents. The use of these powers against Canadians has set a new and dangerous precedent for what constitutes an emergency in a free and democratic society and what actions the government is justified in taking against its own people in the future. The protestors were Canadians who were ignored, mocked, and suppressed by a government that refused to engage with them....
The future will tell whether the feelings of division and mistrust driving this protest will be exacerbated by the report and whether the commissioner should have used the flexibility of the reasonable grounds standard to send a different message to this government.
"Founded in 2021, The Democracy Fund is a Canadian charity dedicated to constitutional rights, advancing education and relieving poverty."
February 21, 2023 - "Commissioner Paul Rouleau’s report on the federal government’s invocation of a public order emergency ... was produced on an exceptionally tight timeline following six weeks of sittings and clocks in at over 2,000 pages, including exhibits. The nub of the report sees the judge concluding that Cabinet was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022: 'There was credible and compelling evidence supporting both a subjective and objective reasonable belief in the existence of a public order emergency. The decision to invoke the Act was appropriate.' Its tone is cautious and measured. It is an exercise in pointed diplomacy and balancing, but perhaps wanting for clarity.
"First: for Rouleau to have arrived at his conclusion, given the posture of federal Cabinet witnesses at the hearings, implies an extraordinary amount of deference to assiduously shielded government decision-making. The entire basis of Cabinet’s concern that the protests had evolved into an unmanageable situation remained opaque to the Commission. Attorney-General Lametti claimed that Cabinet, in invoking the Act, was acting on the basis of a legal opinion that held that 'threats […] to the security of Canada', were met within the meaning of the Act. It was necessary to refer to this legal opinion because the overwhelming evidence from actors who were receiving on-the-ground intel from Ottawa was the contrary.
"During the hearings, we heard that the director of CSIS had concluded the Act’s threshold of 'threats to the security of Canada' was not met. We also heard leadership of the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the RCMP, state that existing criminal law tools were sufficient. No other threat assessment or assessment of the inadequacy of existing legal authorities was performed independently of the country’s law enforcement. There was virtually no substantive basis upon which Cabinet could have concluded that the circumstances in Ottawa met the threshold for invoking the Act....
"A requirement for invoking the Act is that it is a measure of last resort, specifying that 'The emergency could not be effectively dealt with by any other federal law.' (Emphasis added.) The report emphasizes the word 'effectively', calling it an “important modifier”, and seems to confuse this requirement that all other avenues of action be exhausted with a sort of argument of convenience....
"Evidence of law enforcement was that, at best, the boost provided by the Emergencies Act was helpful but did not substantively alter a plan to clear the protests that already was in place.... Laws under the Criminal Code gave law enforcement the tools it needed — and ultimately used — to clear disruptive protests, compel tow truck operators to remove illegally parked trucks, and call in reinforcement police forces from across the country.... Not a single law enforcement witness testified that they requested the invocation of the Act, nor that they needed more tools than those already at their disposal....
"Finally, the report wholly accepts the federal government’s coup de grâce legal argument — that ... 'two different decision-makers, each interpreting the same words in the context of different statutes, can reasonably come to different conclusions as to whether the threshold is met.' This argument is dangerously misguided..... The report accords Cabinet a wide ambit of reasonableness in invoking the Act that is thoroughly unsupported by the statute’s strict definition. The justice doesn’t quite find that an actual situation presenting threats to national security had crystallized: in his conclusion, he writes that 'the situation [Cabinet] was facing was worsening and at risk of becoming dangerous and unmanageable' ... — and, fearful of that whiff of danger, Cabinet was reasonable in invoking emergency powers.
"This scope of latitude and deference is the appropriate standard for assessing on-the-ground, contingent actions of police — who, indeed, we rightly accord wide operating bandwidth. However, the same standard is wholly inappropriate for a sitting, properly briefed Cabinet’s sober deliberations in the face of a well-established and rightfully high legal threshold for invoking extraordinary powers to detain peaceful protestors, freeze bank accounts without due process, and suspend insurance throughout all of Canada.
"A federal court judicial review, brought independently (unlike the Commission, which was convened and appointed by government), of the invocation of the Act remains pending. That decision will carry the binding force of law, unlike the Commission report. The matter is not yet finished, and there may yet be consequences for the government’s actions."
Joanna Baron is Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal charity that protects constitutional freedoms in courts of law and public opinion.
November 24, 2022 - "Justice Minister David Lametti admitted Wednesday that the Trudeau government didn’t use the legal definition to decide to invoke the Emergencies Act — they used their own reasons, but you can’t see them. This is the opposite of what the legislation calls for and flies in the face of what the inquiry is really all about.
"Yet, time and again on Wednesday, Lametti cited solicitor-client privilege and refused to answer questions on the guiding legal or intelligence reasons for invoking the act. As justice minister, Lametti is the government’s lawyer and he’s saying he can’t reveal his advice unless the government allows it to be released.
"Justice Paul Rouleau tried to gently press Lametti on this issue, asking how he could understand and pass judgment on the legal basis of invoking the Emergencies Act when the government was not forthcoming on the legal rationale. 'I guess the answer is we just assume they acted in good faith in application of whatever they were told,' Rouleau said. 'I think that’s fair,' Lametti replied.
"Fair for the government, not fair to Rouleau or to the Canadian public. The main question for the Emergencies Act inquiry in Ottawa is supposed to be whether the Trudeau government was justified in using the emergency legislation. The text of the Emergencies Act legislation is clear, and strict, on what constitutes a public order emergency, which is the kind the Liberals invoked.
"Section 3 of the act states that a national emergency is one that 'cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada'... [S]ection 16 says that a public order emergency is one 'that arises from threats to the security of Canada.' The act [defines] what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada as a threat that 'has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act'....
"This legislation, and section 2 of the CSIS Act, are written in very plain language that is simple for any Canadian to understand. The [CSIS] act lays out four key areas that meet this definition of threats to Canada’s national security: Espionage or sabotage, foreign influenced activities detrimental to the interests of Canada, the threat or use of acts of serious violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective, and attempts to overthrow the government.
"We know that [none of] the RCMP , the OPP nor the Ottawa Police thought invoking the Emergencies Act was necessary. We also know that the official report by CSIS said that the convoy protests did not meet the legal threshold set out by law on any of the four points. When CSIS director David Vigneault was asked why his agency said that the legal threshold wasn’t met but he still advised invoking the act, he said the justice department lawyers briefed him. When asked what they said, solicitor-client privilege was [again] invoked....
"When Parliament passed the Emergencies Act in 1988, the goal was to ensure there were limits on the use of extraordinary powers by any future government. They wrote in clear instructions and clear definitions as a public assurance that the act would not be a political tool. By using a legal basis and definitions not found in the act, the Trudeau government is making a mockery of Parliament’s intentions and the efforts of the inquiry they called to pass judgment on their actions."
Canda's Emergencies Act explicitly defers to the country's intelligence agancy, CSIS, in determining a 'public order emergency,' and CSIS determined that the Freedom Convoy was not such an emergency. However, the Privy Council used its own definition instead in order to recommend that the Act be invoked.
November 18, 2022 - "The memorandum to the prime minister suggesting the government invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history acknowledged its interpretation of a national security threat could be challenged, the inquiry reviewing that decision heard Friday. The Privy Council Office document — entered into evidence at the Public Order Emergency Commission Friday — was sent on the afternoon of Feb. 14.... The government announced its decision to invoke the act just after 4:30 p.m. ET that same day.
"'PCO notes that the disturbance and the public unrest is being felt across the country and beyond the Canadian borders, which may provide further momentum to the movement and lead to irremediable harms — including to social coercion, national unity and Canada's international reputation,' it reads. '"In PCO's view, this fits with the statutory parameters defining threats to the security of Canada, though this conclusion may be vulnerable to challenge'.... Eight months later, the memorandum's author, Clerk of the Privy Council Janice Charette, defended her advice....
"The question of whether the federal government met the legal threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act is one of the most important ones on the commission's plate.... Under the law, cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe a public order emergency exists — which the Act defines as one that 'arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.' [Clerk of the PCO] Janice Charette told the Emergencies Act inquiry that there is a broader definition of a threat of violence than the one identified by CSIS, and it was this broader definition that led to her recommending the PM invoke the Emergencies Act.
"The act defers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) definition of such an emergency — which includes serious violence against people or property, espionage, foreign interference or an intent to overthrow the government by violence. The commission has seen evidence showing the director of CSIS didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy constituted a threat to national security according to the definition in CSIS's enabling law. Charette said she weighed CSIS's assessment but said it was the combination of the economic and public safety impacts of the protests that, in her view, constituted a public order emergency.
"Deputy Clerk Nathalie Drouin — who, before coming to PCO, was the deputy minister at the Department of Justice — told the commission she believed the situation met the threshold. 'The threat had grown beyond the ability to end the blockades in a sustainable and durable way; extraordinary resources were required to clear Windsor, which diverted the blockade to Bluewater, raising concerns about the number of resources available,' said a document summarizing Drouin's interview with the commission in September....
"The document also showed PCO was becoming increasingly frustrated with the police response. Drouin 'recalled losing hope that local police forces in Ottawa and Windsor were capable of executing their operational plans as time went on and no concrete police actions materialized,' said the interview summary.
"The commission has [also] seen an email RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki sent to Public Safety Marco Mendicino the night before the government invoked the Emergencies Act last February. Lucki wrote that she didn't think police had exhausted all available tools to end the ongoing occupation of downtown Ottawa by protesters who had been demanding an end to COVID-19 restrictions. Charette testified Friday that if the head of the RCMP felt the Emergencies Act should not have been invoked, she could have told her."
November 16, 2022 - "On Tuesday night, the Senate voted in a bipartisan fashion of 62-36 to end President Joe Biden's pandemic emergency, with Sens. Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) not voting.
"The Biden administration's Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) had extended the emergency last month, which will last at least until January 11. That extension came less than a month after the president himself said during a '60 Minutes' interview that 'the pandemic is over."
"Not only did every Republican senator vote to get rid of the emergency -- other than Sasse, who did not vote -- so did 12 Democrats, as well as Sen. Angus King (I-ME), who caucuses with the Democrats.
"The resolution was brought forward by Sen. Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS), who on the Senate floor referenced the president's remarks. It's not merely the hypocrisy that is an issue though, as the senator highlighted in his speech.
"'It was this government-imposed state of emergency that justified their continued lockdowns of small businesses and schools; that justified their mask and vaccine mandates, including a military vaccine mandate that has resulted in the removal of more than 8,000 active-duty troops; that justified President Biden and Congressional Democrats spending binge, increasing the total amount of government spending by more than $9 trillion since February 2021 and lighting the fire for record inflation; that the president has used as justification to extend the payment pause and cancel up to $10,000 in outstanding federally held student loan balances, and even a more generous $20,000 for [a] Pell Grant recipient,' Marshall highlighted. 'Congress must take the responsible action of reigning in this massive expansion of government and restore Americans fundamental rights by terminating the COVID-19 national emergency declaration,' he continued to note.
"Negative reactions came from beyond just the White House.... State Sen. Nina Turner (D-OH), who ran multiple times for Congress in which she couldn't even make it past the primary, tweeted at the senators in question. It wasn't made clear what she plans to do, other than tweet at them "we see you'.... MSNBC's Mehdi Hasan ... reacted with an angry face emoji to news that Marshall brought forth the resolution. The senator responded with an emoji of his own."
November 10, 2022 -"Senior civil servants from Alberta and Ontario left the impression at a public inquiry Thursday that Ottawa was not keen to come to their aid to deal with protest blockades last winter.... Neither of the bureaucrats from those provinces felt the use of the [Emergencies Act] was necessary, and in Alberta, the inquiry heard, the legislation wasn't useful at all.... The public inquiry is tasked with determining whether the federal government was justified in triggering the legislation for the first time since it became law in 1988.
"A convoy of 1,000 vehicles of all types drove to Coutts, Alta., on Jan. 29 to protest provincial and federal COVID-19 health restrictions, blocking the highway in both directions and halting the movement of trade. The Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, the same day RCMP in Alberta moved in to arrest protesters in Coutts. The prime minister ... Justin Trudeau held a consultation with premiers before invoking the act, and notes taken by political staffers and submitted to the public inquiry detail their comments and concerns. Handwritten notes taken by aides in the Prime Minister's Office and Saskatchewan government say former Alberta premier Jason Kenney worried that triggering the emergency legislation would be a 'very serious provocation' and a 'net negative'....
"Marlin Degrand, the assistant deputy minister in the Alberta solicitor general's office, told the commission earlier Thursday that RCMP had the power to clear the convoy from the border, but it didn't have the co-operation it needed to get the job done.... Alberta looked all over the province, in British Columbia and Saskatchewan and even the United States, but tow companies refused to help.... The province opted against declaring a state of emergency to try and force tow operators to help, and instead asked for federal help in a formal letter on Feb. 5.
"The Liberal government never officially responded to that request, but did draft a letter to turn Alberta down on Feb. 12, the commission learned. The undelivered letter said the province had all the legal authority it needed to deal with the protest. Degrand said he would agree that Alberta didn't need any more legal authority; what it lacked were the tow trucks....
"On Feb. 21, [federal Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill] Blair texted [Alberta Municipal Affairs Minister Rick] McIver to tell him that the Emergencies Act was effective at addressing the tow truck issue. 'You were too late and did the wrong thing,' McIver responded, telling the minister that by the time the state of emergency was invoked the Coutts blockade was already over."
October 26, 2022 - "Ottawa Police Services superintendent [Robert Bernier] led the mission that finally cleared the Freedom Convoy in February, and on Wednesday was being grilled by the counsel for the Public Order Emergency Commission, Frank Au, on the impact the government’s proclamation of an emergency had on his plans. Bernier said the invocation of the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14 for the first time in Canadian history did not significantly impact the planning process for the operation that cleared the streets of protesters around Parliament Hill four days later. 'The plan I was developing was based on existing authorities,' he told the commission. 'I was satisfied we were going to have all the authorities we needed to take action.'
"Was it helpful to have the additional measures in the Emergencies Act? Au asked. 'Anything that contributes to mission success is a benefit,' Bernier replied. Was the invocation of the act necessary? Au persisted.... Bernier answered the question by opting for an evasion worthy of the House of Commons. 'It’s hard for me to say since I did not get to do the operation without it,' he said.
"Yet, it is clear from much of the testimony we have heard so far that, while useful, the events in Ottawa in February did not constitute a national emergency that required the use of legislation designed to address the most urgent and critical of situations. We have heard virtually nothing that bolsters the government’s case that the circumstances met the legal and constitutional bar. The closest thing to support for the government’s actions came from acting Ottawa police chief Steve Bell, who said it provided 'a very stable platform' for the execution of the police plan. But even he reiterated Bernier’s point — that there was a plan ready to go, regardless of the Emergencies Act.
"Police have said that the new powers were helpful in streamlining the swearing-in of police members from across the country and compelling some tow truck companies to remove vehicles from streets. But Bernier said there were already 34 tow trucks available for use before the act was invoked.
"It will be up to the government to convince Commissioner Paul Rouleau that there was a clear and present danger to national security. Lawyers for the convoy organizers have already said that will be difficult when there is no evidence protesters engaged in sabotage or serious violence, were manipulated by foreign agents or attempted to overthrow the government.
"Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino justified the use of the act by saying a small, organized group 'driven by ideology' was trying to subvert the government. Yet, the inquiry so far has heard only the opposite. Supt. Pat Morris of the Ontario Provincial Police operations intelligence bureau said that at no point during the protest did he receive reliable intelligence that led him to believe there was a risk that would rise to the level of a potential threat to national security. In documents submitted to the inquiry, Morris wrote that the RCMP’s integrated national security enforcement team (INSET) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) concurred that there were no national security concerns.
"In another document, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki said she did not believe police had employed 'all the available tools' to break up the protest prior to the invocation of the act. In an email to Mendicino’s chief of staff just after midnight on Feb. 14, Lucki said that those other tools had already been factored into a plan to end the protest. All of this testimony suggests the government overreached.....
"When we do hear from government ministers, they will lean heavily on section 6(1) of the Emergencies Act — that invocation is justified if the government believes 'on reasonable grounds' that a public welfare emergency exists. The government must hope that the commissioner takes a similarly flexible view of what constitutes an emergency because what is becoming clear is that the Freedom Convoy was not a serious threat to sovereignty, security or the territorial integrity of Canada, and it could have been dealt with effectively by existing laws."
October 23, 2022 - "I’ve talked to a number of senior people in emergency management, disaster risk reduction and business continuity who do high-level consulting on strategies to safeguard the public, about the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14 to disband the so-called Freedom Convoy. Not one of them thinks it was necessary or a good idea.
"From a professional emergency management perspective, here is what happened in Ottawa. An extended mass gathering of three weeks occurred, which resulted in a large number of mostly bylaw infractions, which is the responsibility of the local city government to enforce. The relevant public safety response should have come from the Ottawa police, but that exposed some serious problems.
"First, the Ottawa police did not have the resources to manage the hazard. Keep in mind that any large group of people is a potential hazard, irrespective of their motivations. Simply put, the more people there are to manage, the more resources are required to manage them. Second, the protesters included people who had worked in safety operations, with military and police training. This meant protesters could be internally advised on what behaviour was acceptable and what wasn’t. If the protesters didn’t give police genuine reasons for clearing them out then except for the bylaw infractions, they basically weren’t doing anything wrong. That is, before the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act.
"Toronto handled the situation differently, by using prevention and mitigation strategies, such as blocking protest vehicles from getting to their preferred locations.... Toronto police pre-emptively limited the ability of the protest to grow. Compare that to Ottawa, where there appeared to have been little advance planning with regard to an influx of trucks and other vehicles rolling into the city’s downtown. Once those vehicles were parked and the bouncy castle and hot tub set up, ending the protest became much more difficult.
"Police can forcibly remove demonstrators from an area to protect critical infrastructure for reasons of public safety. That happened with the blockade at the Windsor-Detroit Ambassador Bridge, using Ontario’s state of emergency legislation and an injunction to end the trucker blockade the evening before the Trudeau government invoked the federal Emergencies Act.
"While this may sound counterintuitive, critical infrastructure was not being disrupted in Ottawa. Measures were taken to keep Parliament operating, and many politicians and civil servants were working from home due to COVID-19. Finally, the reduced number of people entering Parliament were able to do so safely.
"From the perspective of national security today, if a government cannot operate while there is a loud but for the most part peaceful protest outside, then either the national security agencies or the government, or both, are incompetent. In these circumstances, invoking the Emergencies Act to end a largely peaceful protest should be an international embarrassment and risks legitimizing protestors’ claims about government overreach. Claiming the Ottawa protest was violent is ridiculous.... In Ottawa, a few people ... waving confederate and swastika flags yelling 'we took over the country,' does not mean they actually took over the country, nor does it mean they spoke for all the protesters.
"Using the Emergency Act in this way to break up a loud and noisy but essentially peaceful demonstration against the government that could have been handled by competent policing and bylaw enforcement, sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the entire concept of emergency planning and what qualifies as an actual emergency in Canada."
Vezina is the CEO of Prepared Canada Corp. and teaches Disaster and Emergency Management at York University. He can be reached at info@prepared.ca.
The head of the Ontario Provincial Police intelligence unit has testified to the Rouleau Commission on the Emergencies Act that the OPP, CSIS, and the RCMP all found no evidence that the Freedom Convoy posed any threat to national security.
October 19, 2022 - "The Ontario Provincial Police intelligence unit never found evidence demonstrating that the Freedom Convoy posed a direct threat to national security before the unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act was invoked by the federal government. The head of the OPP’s Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB) Superintendent Pat Morris testified in front of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) that at no point during the protests did he receive reliable intelligence that led to believe there was a risk that would rise to the level of a potential threat to national security.
"During cross-examinations by different parties’ lawyers, he also agreed with the assertion that intelligence he saw never pointed to extremism. 'Everybody was asking about extremism. We weren’t seeing much evidence of it,' Morris said. As the convoy settled in to Ottawa, so-called 'Project Hendon' reports, shared with other police forces (named after an ongoing surveillance operation) started warning that the protest posed a real potential 'public safety and officer safety threat.' But those concerns were always about a spontaneous event or actions from a 'lone wolf.' Midway through the protests, POIB noted that they had 'not identified any concrete, specific, or credible threat with regard to the Freedom Convoy protest' or similar events. 'However, the situation remains potentially volatile. The possibility that a lone actor or group of individuals could enact a threat with little or no warning cannot be excluded.'
"The Emergencies Act, which was invoked on Feb. 14, can only be used in a national emergency when a situation 'seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada' and cannot be dealt with [by] any other law in the country....
"Morris said during his testimony on Wednesday that OPP 'found no credible intelligence of threats' in terms of producing intelligence and even said that 'the lack of violent crime was shocking' in Ottawa with only a few charges laid for violent crimes, most of them against police officers. Morris also said he found it 'problematic' to hear certain unidentified politicians and members of the media claim the protests were being influenced by Russian or American sources or even former President Donald Trump when he never saw proof of that." Read more: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/opp-sent-ottawa-police-intelligence-warning-freedom-convoy-would-stay-long-term
October 20, 2022 - "Whereas the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) intelligence arm assessed at one point that the Freedom Convoy of last winter had the potential to become a 'national security threat,' the OPP Intelligence chief Supt. Pat Morris says CSIS and the RCMP did not see it meeting that threshold. 'I spoke about that with colleagues from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and with the [RCMP] Integrated National Security Enforcement Team [INSET], and they did not see things that reached their threshold in terms of what would be deemed a threat to the security of Canada,' Morris told the Public Order Emergency Commission on Oct. 19.
"Morris addressed the topic while being questioned by a commission counsel about a Feb. 7 situation report produced by his outfit, the OPP’s Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB). 'The situation in Ottawa remains volatile and represents a public safety threat; an officer safety threat; and, potentially, a national security threat,' says the report.... Morris said they had raised it as a potential national security threat due to actions such as border blockades, including the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, and the capacity of protesters to remain in Ottawa for a long time. Pointing to CSIS and the RCMP-INSET not deeming it a national security threat, Morris said 'we were an anomaly in that regard. But we’ve raised that as a potential.'
"The day after the POIB published that assessment, Morris wrote to his team members and shared that he was uncomfortable with the wording surrounding national security, according to an email of his entered as evidence before the commission. 'In terms of national security, the wording in HENDON assessment concerned me slightly,' wrote Morris. 'I agree with the potential for officer safety and public safety but INSET and CSIS concur that there are no national security concerns. Confirmed today. If we have access to something they don’t, we can meet them to discuss, but I am not aware of it.'
"RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki is expected to testify before the commission at a later date, and so is CSIS Director David Vigneault. A briefing given by Vigneault to government officials from different levels on Feb. 6 during a teleconference was entered as evidence earlier this week. Vigneault said there was no foreign component or support to the protests, calling them 'primarily a domestic issue.'" Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/csis-and-rcmp-didnt-see-freedom-convoy-as-national-security-threat-says-opp-intelligence-chief_4809648.html
The Ontario Provincial Police has told the Rouleau Commission investigating the Trudeau government's use of the Emergencies Act that "there was sufficient legal authority" without the Act "to deal with the protest activities".
October 13, 2022 - "The sweeping powers triggered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to quell February’s convoy protests were not needed, the Ontario Provincial Police said at the first day of hearings in a public inquiry to determine whether the federal government contravened the law in its use of the powers.
"The provincial police force’s brief opening statement on Thursday focused on the legal requirements the government had to meet before it could invoke the federal Emergencies Act. OPP lawyer Christopher Diana said Thursday in Ottawa that while the emergencies legislation provided useful tools, 'there was sufficient legal authority in their absence to deal with the protest activities that took place over this period of time.'
"The federal government, which initially said invoking the act was done on the advice of law enforcement, later clarified that they had asked for the powers in the act, not for the law directly. OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique told a parliamentary committee in March that the tools available through the act 'made our operation very effective, and in the absence of having those tools, we could have not have been as effective.'
"Mr. Diana’s comments followed introductory remarks from inquiry commissioner Justice Paul Rouleau, who said the focus of the Public Order Emergency Commission will be on the federal government’s decision-making. According to the Emergencies Act, a public order emergency can be declared only when threats to the security of Canada are so serious that they constitute a national crisis that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other existing law....
"Nearly 20 parties with standing in the commission also spoke briefly, outlining arguments they will advance as the commission determines whether the government’s use of the act – in response to the convoy protests in Ottawa over pandemic restrictions and blockades at border crossings – was legitimate.... On one side, a lawyer representing the federal government said invoking the act was a 'reasonable and necessary' decision, while lawyers on the other – including those representing convoy protesters – argued that it was ... unnecessary, lacked justification, and could pave the way for further inappropriate use of the act....
"Robert MacKinnon, one of the lawyers for the federal government, told the commission the act’s invocation was 'a reasonable and necessary decision given the escalating volatile and urgent circumstances across the country.' The government will present evidence that there were “countrywide threats to the security of Canada,” Mr. MacKinnon said. The federal approach was 'proportional, effective and time limited,' he said.
"However, Lakehead University law professor Ryan Alford, who has joint standing with The Canadian Constitution Foundation, challenged Mr. MacKinnon’s assessment. The government’s claim to a 'reasonable basis' for declaring the public order emergency does not mean it had a legal or constitutional basis for 'assuming unprecedented and destructive emergency powers,' he said.
October 4, 2022 - "The Public Order Emergency Commission has renewed its call for Canadians to make a submission to help the work of the Commission. The Commission's public hearings, on matters related to the federal government's decision to declare a public order emergency in February 2022, are scheduled to begin on October 13, 2022.
"Canadians are encouraged to tell the Commission about their experiences, views, observations and ideas about the protests and the Emergencies Act. The Commission is also seeking input on the appropriateness or effectiveness of the measures taken to respond to the declared emergency, any changes that the Commission should recommend to the Act, and any further areas for study or review.
"'The Commission welcomes contributions from all members of the public in order to fully appreciate how these matters affected Canadians,' said Commissioner Paul Rouleau. 'We hope to receive submissions from individuals across the country, whether they participated in the protests, were affected by them, or have views about the protests or use of the Emergencies Act.'
"The Commission has recently added an on-line questionnaire to the dedicated e-mail address launched in August to receive submissions. Guidelines for preparing submissions, along with a link to the questionnaire and instructions for those who wish to share their views are available on the Commission's website (www.PublicOrderEmergencyCommission.ca).
"Submissions from members of the public can be made in English or in French. Attachments to submissions, including photographs and videos, can be sent by e-mail. Submissions will be accepted until the end of October.
"All submissions will be read and considered by the Commission. Some submissions may be referred to or quoted by the Commission either in a report summarizing public input, or at the public hearings. No identifying information will be used without the express permission of the author of the submission.
"'It is important for the Commission to receive meaningful public input from a wide range of Canadians, not just those individuals and entities who have been granted standing,' said Commissioner Rouleau. 'This is in keeping with my commitment to conduct an open and transparent public inquiry that provides an opportunity for involvement by all Canadians,' he said.
"Commission counsel and staff have conducted an extensive investigation of the facts related to the Commission's mandate in advance of the public hearings, which will continue until November 25 in Ottawa. With the cooperation of all parties, Commission staff have reviewed thousands of documents and conducted numerous interviews of those with potential knowledge of relevant facts. The public hearings will be streamed live on the Commission's website to allow Canadians to follow the work of the Commission.
"The Public Order Emergency Commission was established by the Governor in Council on April 25, 2022, to conduct an independent public inquiry as required by the Emergencies Act following the declaration of a public order emergency by the Government of Canada on February 14, 2022. The Inquiry must submit its final report to the Government, with findings and recommendations, by February 6, 2023."
Follow us on Twitter: @POECommission (English) @CommissionEDU (Français)
For further information: Michael Tansey, Sr. Communications Advisor, michael.tansey @poec-cedu.gc.ca, (613) 487-3765 home office, (343) 549-1086 mobile
October 14, 2022 - "The long anticipated public inquiry into the federal government’s first ever invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy protests [is] finally underway in Ottawa. The Public Order Emergency Commission, also known as the Rouleau Commission, commenced hearings Thursday in Ottawa with opening statements from parties and the introduction of overview reports from commission counsel.
"By law, the commission’s final report examining and assessing the basis for the government’s decision to declare an emergency must be laid before Parliament by February 20, 2023. This deadline is set by the Emergencies Act, and cannot be changed or extended. This is a herculean task.... For context, no other public inquiries have had their deadline set by statute. They’ve also had far more time to do their job. Justice Rouleau pointed out that the Air India inquiry took four years to issue a report. The Commission on the Decline of Sockeye Salmon took three years to issue a report, and the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls took more than three years to issue a report. This commission has [130 days - gd] to complete its work.
"Sharp disagreements were immediately apparent in the commission’s opening statements. Counsel for the federal government underscored its view that Canada faced an 'unprecedented and critical situation in the face of ongoing protests and blockades, including threats of ideologically motivated violence and impact on Canada’s trade, international relationships, and reputation. Paul Champ, a lawyer representing the residents of Ottawa underscored the highly disruptive, even 'traumatizing” experience of the protests, with continual honking throughout the night, loose jerry cans on the streets, and general disorder.
"The dismay of the provinces both at the manner and merits of invoking the act was also clear. Counsel for Saskatchewan and Alberta both expressed disapproval for their lack of consultation prior to the invocation of the act.... Saskatchewan also opposed the financial measures, which required banks and other institutions to take significant steps with little guidance from the government. Counsel for Alberta noted that the province was able to deal with the Coutts border blockades under existing ordinary laws, and that none of the powers under the Emergencies Act were necessary, or indeed invoked, in Alberta itself.
"Civil liberties groups, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, noted the sweeping rights implications of the act. The invocation of the act severely restricted the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. The Emergency Economic Measures Order chilled freedom of expression, by mandating banks to freeze bank accounts of those connected to the protests without a warrant.
"From the CCF’s perspective, the fundamental question is whether the condition in the final clause of Section 3 of the Emergencies Act was met — that the Ottawa protests and border blockades could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada, federal, provincial or municipal. This clause codifies the requirement that the Emergencies Act is a last resort, which can only be triggered when all other legal tools fall short. And in the CCF’s view, that condition was clearly not met: as in Coutts and Windsor, the Ottawa protests were cleared using existing police powers. Evidence of former Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly recently disclosed confirms that the plan to clear protestors — including bringing 1,800 additional officers from across Canada to Ottawa — was in place without the declaration of the Emergencies Act.
"Counsel for the commission also introduced a number of overview reports.... The reports are not about the merits of the invocation of the Emergencies Act or conclusive, but they are meant to summarize important facts. The report topics included a chronology of the protests, an overview of key events leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, as well as an overview of how the Emergencies Act works and a summary of the statutorily required explanation for its innovation by the government. There was also a report on the COVID-19 backdrop to the protests. However, the Commission’s mandate is not to examine the federal government’s response to COVID-19, but rather, to report on the circumstances which lead to the declaration of the public order emergency, and more importantly, whether the federal government had legal justification to invoke this historic law.
"The act is a successor to the discredited War Measures Act, which was abused during the FLQ Crisis in Quebec. The Emergencies Act — especially the last resort clause — was drafted to ensure that the act could never again be used by a federal government against its political opponents. It’s important for future instances of social disruption — which seem to be increasing, both in Canada and globally — now that the glass has been broken on the extraordinary instrument that is the Emergencies Act, that the commission look soberly at the evidence and circumstances that led up to its invocation."
Joanna Baron is the executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The CCF has standing as a party before the Public Order Emergency Commission.
Lawyers for the Saskatchewan and Alberta government told the Rouleau Commission, on its first day of hearings into the Trudeau government's use of the Emergencies Act, that their governments were not consulted about using the Act.
October 13, 2022 - "Provincial officials in Saskatchewan and Alberta got a Valentine's Day surprise from the prime minister this year when he called to say he was considering invoking the Emergencies Act, a public inquiry heard Thursday. Lawyers representing the two provinces were before the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is looking into the federal government's use of emergency powers to end to weeks of protests at border crossings and in downtown Ottawa.
"'The call (on Feb. 14) was not so much about consulting, it was about telling,' said Saskatchewan government lawyer Mike Morris. 'That phone call was the first time the federal government told the government of Saskatchewan that it was considering invoking the Emergencies Act and declaring a public order emergency.'
"The Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, the first time the law had been used since it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988. The move temporarily granted police extraordinary powers and allowed banks to freeze accounts. Saskatchewan and Alberta say they objected to its use and believe the law did not need to be applied across the country.
"Alberta's lawyer, Mandy England, described in her opening statement before the commission how existing laws and police resources successfully ended a protest at the border in Coutts, Alta., where several people were arrested and charged with conspiring to commit murder after a cache of guns, body armour and ammunition was found in nearby trailers. 'None of the powers that were created under the federal Emergencies Act were necessary, nor were any of them used in Alberta to resolve the Coutts blockade,' she said.
"The federal government is planning to argue the opposite. Robert MacKinnon, representing Justice Canada, said the Emergencies Act was 'reasonable and necessary' given the circumstances across the country. The evidence of the government witnesses will detail the facts and events leading to the decision to declare a public order emergency,' he said. That decision came after weeks of what Trudeau called an 'illegal occupation' of downtown Ottawa, and tales of frustration from people living in the area, many of whom were critical of the police response.....
"The Public Order Emergency Commission was established on April 25, and has been collecting documents and interviewing dozens of people. Six weeks of public hearings in Ottawa are planned....
"The City of Ottawa's auditor general has also launched a review of the local response to the convoy, and several groups have initiated proceedings in Federal Court to challenge the government's use of the Emergencies Act. The inquiry is also distinct from the all-party parliamentary committee struck in March to review the Emergencies Act's use. Both the public inquiry and the parliamentary committee, which continues its work, are required under the Emergencies Act."
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be asked to testify at the Rouleau Commission investigating his use of the Emergencies Act, as per a leaked list of witnesses. The PMO says that Trudeau "welcomes" the chance to testify.
October 3, 2022 - "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will be called to testify at hearings into the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end anti-mandate protests earlier this year. The Public Order Emergency Commission, led by former Ontario Superior Court justice Paul Rouleau, is scheduled to begin hearings next week, with the mandate to assess the government’s use of the Act for the first time since it became law in 1988. .
"Although the preliminary list of approximately 60 witnesses prepared by commission counsel has yet to be made public, CTV News has learned that it includes eight cabinet ministers, including Trudeau. Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino and Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland are among those also expected to be called to testify.
"Trudeau invoked the Act on Feb. 14 to end protests against COVID-19 measures that occupied Ottawa and jammed border crossings in Alberta and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ont. It was revoked nine days later, after police dismantled the protests. The government argued police needed the additional tools, including the ability to freeze bank accounts of convoy supporters, to end the protests. But critics, including the Conservative Opposition, said the decision was unnecessary and an unwarranted intrusion on Canadians’ Charter rights.
"The commission has the power of subpoena to compel witnesses, but the government officials are expected to appear voluntarily. The Prime Minister’s Office told CTV News that Trudeau anticipated being asked to give evidence and 'welcomes' the opportunity.
"The proposed witness list also includes several leaders of the so-called Freedom Convoy ... as well as law-enforcement officials from the RCMP, the Ottawa Police Service, and the Ontario Provincial Police. Keith Wilson, one of the lawyers who has represented convoy leader Tamara Lich, says his clients are in the process of gathering documents to present to the commission. Wilson says he has texts and phone records which show that organizers had 'ratified a deal' to move trucks out of Ottawa’s downtown core before the Emergencies Act was invoked. Wilson says his clients have not yet been scheduled to testify but have been told to be ready to take the stand as early as next Tuesday. The hearings are scheduled for Oct. 13 to Nov. 24, but could be extended.
"There are 39 individuals and organizations with standing at the inquiry, but it is up to the commission’s lawyers to choose whom they call to testify. Those with standing could be given a chance to cross-examine witnesses. The Commission said it would not provide the full list of witnesses until next week. 'The Commission has provided a preliminary list of witnesses to Parties that have standing,' spokesman Michael Tansey said in an email. 'The list is not final and was provided to Parties on a confidential basis.'
"It is unusual, though not unprecedented for prime ministers, to testify at public inquiries."
.jpg){kind=link}