After a victory that it describes as “historic”, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) says it is ready to “fight tooth and nail” in the Court of Appeal to defend the decision on the use of the Protection Act. emergency measures from the Federal Court.
“The Government of Canada announced yesterday that it would appeal the decision. I want to be perfectly clear: we will fight them tooth and nail in the Federal Court of Appeal. We will defend our historic victory for rights and freedom,” CCLA Executive Director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv said Wednesday.
The day before, Federal Court Judge Richard Mosley ruled in favor of the association, ruling that it was illegal and “unreasonable” for the Liberal government to invoke the Emergency Measures Act to try to put an end to the Freedom convoy, in February 2022. Downtown Ottawa had been paralyzed by several hundred trucks for several weeks.
In his decision rendered Tuesday, Justice Mosley found that the reasons given to justify the decision to declare a state of emergency did not meet the requirements of the Emergencies Act. Some of the temporary measures adopted to deal with the protests also “contravened the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he wrote.
At a press briefing in Toronto, the director of the CCLA indicated that she would set up a “dream team to challenge the federal government’s call.” She says she is confident of being able to win the case before the Federal Court of Appeal.
“Without attentive and reasonable democracy, all our rights and freedoms are threatened. This is why we fought in this case. This is a historic victory for all of us,” she added.
On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland admitted that the decision to invoke the law was made “reluctantly”, but that she remained convinced it was the “right decision”, as the national security and economic stability of the country was threatened.
A strong message
Questioned by The duty on the sidelines of the Bloc Québécois caucus retreat in Saguenay, MP Rhéal Fortin says he is not surprised by the Federal Court’s decision.
“I could have written it almost two years ago,” comments the man who sat on the special parliamentary committee on emergency measures. “There was nothing, anywhere, that required the proclamation of the law on emergency measures,” he says.
This was the first time that this law, which replaces the War Measures Act, had been used since its adoption in 1988.
For the Quebec MP, also a lawyer by profession, there is no doubt that the matter will eventually go to the Supreme Court — an avenue that could even be “desirable” to get the facts right. “The important thing is that the population knows what to expect and that we avoid reliving the same scenario over and over again. »
Whatever the outcome, the Federal Court’s decision already sends a strong message to future governments, he says.
“Even if the government appeals and ends up being right, I think we will still have sown doubt. “It’s not true that you’re going to proclaim the Emergency Measures Act every time there’s something that doesn’t suit you on the Hill in Ottawa.”
Recall the special committee
In the wake of the Federal Court’s decision, the Conservatives demanded the immediate return of the special joint committee on the crisis declaration.
The committee was set up to examine the measures taken by the government during the ten days during which it remained in force.
“Given the court’s decision today, Canadians legitimately want to know the reasons why the Trudeau government decided to use the Emergency Measures Act,” reads the letter sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said Mr. Trudeau “must now answer for his reckless abandonment of the law and the most fundamental freedoms of all Canadians.”
The leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), Jagmeet Singh, also pointed the finger at the Prime Minister, saying that the crisis was “the result [de son] lack of leadership.” “It was a difficult decision to support the emergency measures. We made this decision for the [bien] of the country,” Mr. Singh defended Tuesday, in the middle of his party’s three-day caucus retreat in Edmonton.
The NDP supported the government in proclaiming this law, while the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois opposed it.
With Boris Proulx