Every Canadian and every level of government must adhere to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadians have the freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Unfortunately, because of the pandemic several of these Charter of Rights had been temporarily taken away, unjustifiably.
Canadians have a right to the freedom of peaceful assembly. For the most part, the protests in Ottawa and many cities across Canada had been and have been peaceful. These protests should be allowed to continue — even the one in Ottawa that had been dismantled. However, the blocking of important trade routes is a violation of the law; therefore, these trade route blockades should have ended. Likewise, if during the protests any streets were being illegally blocked then fines should have been administered, and illegally parked vehicles removed.
But the protest in Ottawa around Parliament should have been allowed to continue, as the protest was a peaceful assembly. Likewise, protests around legislatures and other public buildings across the country should be allowed to continue. The Federal Government had refused to meet with the organizers of the protests. Instead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau referred to the protestors as a fringe group, misogynists, and racists. These incendiary remarks were unbecoming of a Prime Minister and created unnecessary divisiveness. Instead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Cabinet sought to invoke the Emergencies Act, which had never been used in Canada. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was a mistake.
Leah West, an assistant professor of international affairs at Carleton University and national security expert, said on Twitter that for the Emergencies Act to be invoked, the federal government must consult with the provinces and cabinet must believe the protests “rise to the level of a national emergency,” (Globe and Mail, February 14, 2022).
Professor West said for the purpose of this act, a national emergency is “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada,” (Globe and Mail).
Professor West wrote that she has “serious doubts” that this definition has been met. “Can it truly be said the security of Canada is threatened by largely non-violent protests? Certainly, our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not at risk,” (Globe and Mail).
The criteria for invoking the Emergencies Act had not been met. The protests are not and were not a national emergency. There was no threat preventing the Government of Canada from preserving the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada that could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. The invoking of the Emergencies Act was an abuse of power. Although some provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia, supported the Federal Government’s oppressive, hammer decision, provincial governments should not have bolstered the Federal Government of Canada’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act because the protests — largely peaceful — did not meet the criteria: a rise to the level of a national emergency where the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity were at risk.