Trudeau’s invocation of Emergencies Act could have long-term consequences for Canadians: legal experts
By Isaac Teo, The Epoch Times, February 18, 2022
A group of legal experts say the invocation of the Emergencies Act by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could have serious consequences for Canadians, not just presently but for generations to come.
“If this invocation of the Emergencies Act is valid, then governments have the power to declare emergencies and crush any peaceful protest, any dissent, that threatens their political fortunes and ideology, and that’s not the kind of country we want to live in,” Bruce Pardy, law professor and executive director of Rights Probe, said at a press conference on Feb. 17.
Freedom Convoy Feb.17, 2022 Press Conference | IrnieracingNews – YouTube. Bruce Pardy speaks at the 10:27 mark.
On Feb. 14, Trudeau became the first prime minister to invoke the Emergencies Act, using it as a means to quash the protests against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions by truckers and their supporters.
On Feb. 14, Trudeau became the first prime minister to invoke the Emergencies Act, using it as a means to quash the protests against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions by truckers and their supporters.
While the act came into effect as soon as the government presented it, the motion must be approved by both the House of Commons and Senate within seven days. If the motion receives majority votes, the act will be in effect for 30 days. If the motion is defeated, the act will be rescinded immediately. Voting on the motion will happen on Feb. 21.
During the House of Commons debates on Feb. 17, the Trudeau government framed its defence of invoking the Act mainly on the need to clear border blockades that were already over, as the opposition pressed for evidence to justify the measure as a last resort.
“The blockades and occupations are illegal. They’re a threat to our economy and relationship with trading partners,” said Trudeau, while acknowledging that the border blockades had already cleared.
“It is high time that these illegal and dangerous activities stop, including here in Ottawa.”
Pardy questioned the validity of the invocation of the act. He cited the example of Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, who was asked by a reporter during a press conference on Feb. 17 whether the government received intelligence that weapons were going to arrive in Ottawa, which the minister had been “insinuating for days.”
“I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa,” Mendicino said. “There are public reports showing that there are indications that there [are] extremist ideological positions and there is a link between the blockades.”
“And there is a similarity in the rhetoric emerging in social media and elsewhere,” he added.
Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino rises during question period in Ottawa on Dec. 9, 2021. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press).
Pardy argued what Mendicino meant was that the basis for the government’s actions was “rhetoric.”
“Rhetoric—it was speech, it was the expression of an ideological position. Now, just for a moment, consider the implications. This is a government that has invoked an emergency statute on its own admission on the basis of something that somebody has said,” Pardy said.
“They have no actual violence occurring. They have no intelligence about threats of violence occurring. I’m sure you can work out what the consequences are if this is to be considered a proper use of the Emergencies Act.”
Pardy said the Emergencies Act does provide a framework for the government to invoke it, but only if the requirements stated in the statute are met. Otherwise, “nothing else is valid.”
“In other words, the government cannot act in this way unless it has statutory authority,” he said.
He said the act listed four kinds of emergencies: public welfare, public order, international emergency, and war. Of these, the Trudeau government invoked a Public Order Emergency based on the proclamation they issued on Feb. 15.
A Public Order Emergency is defined by the act as an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency.
A national emergency, in turn, is defined as “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.”
“And the final bit of the definition is, ‘and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada,’” Pardy quoted from the Act.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rises during Question Period in Ottawa on Feb. 15, 2022. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press).
“Keep this in mind. There has not been any violence in Ottawa from the convoy,” he said.
The law professor cautioned on how the political realm in Canada is changing, particularly with how language has been redefined by ideological proponents to suit their political needs.
“Freedom now means, apparently, safety. The rule of law means governments taking control of things for ‘proper outcomes,’” he said.
“Violence can now mean words. Honking has been called violence, and they now are taking that literally.”
Pardy said it is the motivation to protect the new definitions from opposing voices that an “emergency” arises.
“They have said they’re proceeding against violence, and what do they have? They have words, they have rhetoric, they have an expression of a political position. And it is that rhetoric, it is that political position that they are afraid of, and that constitutes the emergency,” he said.
“In a way it does. It does constitute an emergency for them—not within the meaning of the Emergencies Act. That does not meet that threshold. But in political terms, you can kind of see how this might be seen by them as an emergency.”
Cecil Lyon, a dispute resolution legal expert from Ontario, said the federal government’s “sledgehammer” approach is an “egregious example of the government losing its way and not looking at how you should resolve a dispute.”
“Canadians are, by and large, law-abiding citizens. So where you have a government that so overreaches that it brings in the most extraordinary piece of legislation in its arsenal, it has no other weapons in its quiver, no other arrows. This is it,” Lyon said during the press conference.
While Lyon acknowledged that Ottawa residents have been inconvenienced by the trucks’ honking, it is part of living in a society like Canada.
“Unfortunately, one of the prices you have to pay to live in a free and democratic society is putting up with things that you don’t agree with,” he said.
Lyon added that there are better ways to resolve the situation, but the government has failed in its obligation to engage with the truckers.
“I commend the truckers. I don’t agree with everything that they say, but I don’t have to. I can certainly stand here and defend the right to say it and to protest, and when my government overreacts, to say ‘government, you’re wrong and you need to back down.’”
David Anber, a criminal lawyer from Ottawa, noted there isn’t much scrutiny by legacy media on Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act.
“Many people in the media are saying nothing about it,” he said.
“It used to be that the media’s role was to hold the government to account for the benefit of the people. But what we’ve been seeing in the last few days is [that] many in the legacy media [are] trying to hold people to account for the benefit of the government.”
“That’s just not acceptable.”
Noé Chartier contributed to this report.
