Emergencies Act invocation ruled unconstitutional: Trudeau’s government under fire

• The Freedom Convoy protests, initially against COVID-19 mandates, evolved into a significant civil liberties issue, leading to the Trudeau government invoking the Emergencies Act.
• Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino invoked the Act, granting law enforcement broad powers, including arresting demonstrators and freezing financial assets, despite criticism from opposition parties and legal experts.
• Mendicino faces formal accusations of contempt for falsely claiming the Act was based on law enforcement advice, with evidence contradicting his statements and raising concerns about government transparency.
• Senior police officials, including RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki and former Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly, testified that they did not request the Act’s invocation, further undermining Mendicino’s justification.
• The invocation of the Emergencies Act was ruled unconstitutional, sparking debates over government overreach and the need for accountability, with critics warning of a dangerous erosion of civil liberties and democratic principles.

The Freedom Convoy protests of 2022, which began as a grassroots movement against COVID-19 mandates, quickly escalated into a national crisis that saw civil liberties trampled under the weight of sweeping emergency powers. The invocation of the Emergencies Act by the Trudeau government, spearheaded by then-Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, has since come under intense scrutiny, with mounting evidence suggesting that the decision was not only unjustified but also based on misleading information.

Mendicino now finds himself at the center of a parliamentary debate over whether he should be censured for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act. Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic of the government’s actions, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted law enforcement unprecedented powers, including the ability to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supporting the protests. However, the legality of this move has been heavily criticized by opposition parties and legal experts, who argue that it was excessive and unwarranted.

The controversy reached a boiling point when Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against Mendicino. The former minister stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions, such as, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations. The discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis have only deepened as documents and testimony reveal a lack of transparency and a misuse of power.

Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation but cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency, with Green asking, “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

Abuse of power, erosion of civil rights

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Mendicino’s testimony before the Public Order Emergency Commission further underscored the government’s overreach. He described the scene in Ottawa as “utter and total mayhem,” but his claims about the necessity of the Emergencies Act were contradicted by police officials who testified that they had not exhausted all available tools to bring the protests to an end.

No police officer corroborated Mendicino’s story. All evidence filed with parliamentary committees and a judicial inquiry contradicted his testimony. RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, former Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly, and Ontario Provincial Police Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy all refuted Mendicino’s version of events, stating that they had not requested the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Mendicino’s refusal to name which police officer asked cabinet to invoke emergency powers further fueled suspicions that the government acted without proper justification. His repeated assertions that the decision was based on law enforcement advice were exposed as misleading, raising serious questions about the integrity of the government’s actions.

The Freedom Convoy protests were a stark reminder of the fragility of civil liberties in the face of government overreach. The invocation of the Emergencies Act, based on misleading information and a lack of transparency, set a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine the very principles of democracy and the rule of law. As the parliamentary debate over Mendicino’s censure continues, the need for accountability and a thorough examination of the government’s actions remains paramount.

Sources include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

CTVNews.ca

WesternStandard.news