By threateningly disrupting downtown Ottawa and publishing a petition suggesting they can force the government to resign, Freedom Convoy participants have exceeded their Charter-guaranteed right to freedom of expression, justified the federal Minister of Justice on Tuesday before a parliamentary committee.
“It went well beyond the limit of freedom of expression. No right is unlimited,” Minister David Lametti explained to the committee responsible for reviewing the invocation of the Emergencies Act to dislodge the Ottawa occupation from the Freedom Convoy in february.
The Special Joint Committee on Declaration of Crisis (DEDC) began hearing from its Prime Ministers of the Trudeau government on Tuesday evening, after its members ensured that its work could take place in a public manner. In parallel, a separate public inquiry, led by a judge, was announced Monday with a mandate to examine the circumstances that led to the emergency measures.
Following a question from Conservative MP Larry Brock, Minister Lametti revealed on Tuesday that a petition posted on the Convoy organizers’ website was “one of the factors that forced [le gouvernement fédéral] to take action”.
The manifesto without legal value, of which The duty obtained a copy, was removed from the Canada Unity group’s website during the occupation of the streets of Ottawa in February. He falsely claimed that the Senate and the Governor General could force the Trudeau government to resign if it refused to end the sanitary measures. Questioned on this subject, a Quebec organizer of the Convoy then told the To have to having “never said that we [le Convoi] would overthrow the government. »
In conformity with the constitution
Minister Lametti assured on several occasions that the use of emergency measures was “in accordance with the constitution, including the charter of rights and freedoms”. These measures were “targeted, measured”, he argued, to provide authorities with “additional tools” that “deterred further illegal activity”.
Several examples of disturbances to the tranquility of Ottawa were mentioned, such as the incessant sound of car horns or the decision of demonstrators to urinate on the National War Memorial.
“We were not attacking legal demonstrations,” insisted the Quebec elected official following a question in English. “Anyone who said this protest in Ottawa was legal didn’t see it up close. »
The Emergencies Act was invoked on February 14, the first time since its creation more than 30 years ago, to put an end to the Freedom Convoy, a motorized gathering of opponents of health measures that parked heavy vehicles on Federal Parliament Hill for three weeks.
The emergency measures ended nine days later. They were mainly used to force the collaboration of towing companies and to freeze the bank accounts of demonstrators.
Opposing Provinces
Several members of the parliamentary committee had initially tried unsuccessfully to have the federal Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, say that neither Ontario nor any other province had asked him to invoke the Measures to Measures Act. ’emergency. Quebec publicly opposed it.
This Minister presented the Freedom Convoy as a serious threat to public safety, in particular by presenting the examples of major slippages that occurred at the Coutts border crossing, in Alberta, in a demonstration related and simultaneous to that of Ottawa. Vehicles clashed with police cordons at this location, and weapons were eventually seized.
In a tense exchange, Conservative Senator Claude Carignan argued that no blocking of history required the invocation of such emergency measures. Mr. Mendicino mentioned the unavailability of the tow trucks which refused to come and move the trucks in the convoy without emergency measures.
“I saw some on Auto Hebdo for sale! You could have bought them and towed them yourself!, suggested Senator Carignan. Take the army tow trucks, no need for emergency measures. »
The Bloc Québécois MP, Rhéal Fortin, insisted with the two witnesses to find out whether written opinions had been produced so that the government could make its decision. He was not satisfied with the vague answers given. Minister David Lametti delivered a plea for maintaining the confidentiality of cabinet documents, an essential principle, he said, so that members of the government can freely express their opinion in meetings.