The government’s use of the Emergencies Act was found to be reasonable, but what are the implications?
On Feb. 17, the federal government’s inquiry released its . It concluded that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met the threshold for invoking the .
From January through February 2022, what started out as a trucker-based protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates , and the disruptive protest movement went well beyond complaints about public health measures. With the so-called Freedom Convoy, it became .
It was also a movement which was bound together by .
Blockading borders
The protest actions reached the boiling point with the blockading of United States-Canada border crossings and the . To quell the crisis, the federal government took the unprecedented action of invoking the Emergencies Act. It worked to enable action to end the siege of Ottawa and prevent expansion of the protests.
The act was put in place on Feb. 14 and revoked on Feb. 23 as .
The commission’s conclusion that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was an appropriate action exemplifies the workings of the act itself, which requires a report be submitted to Parliament and released to the public .
Reasonable grounds
The impacts of the Freedom Convoy’s protests were felt in many ways, given the occupation of downtown Ottawa’s streets lasted for more than three weeks. Ottawa incurred costs of . International border blockades .
At the time, extremists appeared to operate in a seemingly unchallenged manner across Canada. Ottawa’s for its residents. in the protests.
Protesters carried U.S. flags, associating the .
Given the impacts, federal officials claimed they has a solid rationale for the use of extraordinary powers to suppress a situation of lawlessness rising to the level of a national emergency. agreed there had been reasonable grounds for invoking the act.
Reasonable does not always mean right
The invocation of the Emergencies Act was deemed to be reasonable, .
The editorial board of the Globe and Mail . The Canadian Civil Liberties Association based on questions related to limits to freedom of peaceful assembly, intrusions into privacy and unconstitutionality.
Several groups are spearheading contending the crisis did not warrant the first ever use of the Emergencies Act.
The question of what is the right action to take with respect to use of extraordinary powers during crisis is a legal quagmire. Implications for democracy and accountability can be troubling. democratic deficits in the legislative process, the risk of extraordinary measures being normalized and limited accountability.
Political winners and losers
Politically, the . The commission’s findings have shown that a prime minister can invoke the Emergencies Act and emerge mostly politically unscathed — if protocol is followed to the letter of the law.
However, Ontario’s government was also dealt a political blow. In effect, the commission has put provincial governments on notice that they need to show up during emergencies. The Ottawa blockade was determined to be not just a policing failure, but a .
Unlike , Ontario Premier Doug Ford . Ontario’s senior leadership stonewalled the commission, leaving it at a .
Future implications
Now, the Emergencies Act is no longer an arcane and untested act — it is a policy with an implementation track record.
In future emergencies, will prime ministers feel more confident in using the extraordinary powers afforded by the Emergencies Act? Will future premiers think twice about their reluctance to manage emergencies in their jurisdiction or refuse to provide testimony to mandated public inquiries?
We now have an example for how the Emergencies Act can be reasonably used. The findings of the inquiry will inform the rationale for the next invocation of the act, but bigger questions remain unresolved. One remaining dilemma: will disasters of other origins — natural, technological or social — necessitate the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
This article is republished from .
