At the closing of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC), civil rights advocates argued Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies Act sets a precedent for future leaders in confronting divisive protests. Trudeau defended his actions on the 43rd day of hearings..“The government exceeded the bounds of the law in taking the steps it did,” said Cara Zwibel, counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Zwibel said use of the Act “signals to future government about when parliamentary process can be bypassed to allow the government to rule by executive order.”.According to Blacklock's Reporter, Alan Honner, lawyer for the Democracy Fund, told the POEC on Friday that Canadians “must ensure the Emergencies Act is only used as a last resort in the direst of circumstances.” The Freedom Convoy was not a dire threat, he said..Honner said Canadians will continue to be divided over the Freedom Convoy protests. “Canadians will also be divided over future protests. Tomorrow’s protests could be about environmental issues or it could be about some other political cause.”.The prime minister was the last of 75 witnesses to testify at the judicial inquiry. Trudeau under questioning by Commission lawyers maintained the Freedom Convoy met the legal requirement to invoke the Act, a “threat or use of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada.”.“Can you elaborate on what those threats were?” asked Commission counsel Shantona Chaudhury. “We saw trucks used as potential weapons,” replied Trudeau..“The fact there was not yet any serious violence that had been noted was obviously a good thing, but we could not say there was no potential for threats of serious violence or serious violence to happen,” said Trudeau..“You were dealing with an Act that has never been invoked before and now it has been, and there’s a possibility this invocation of the Act will then open the floodgates in a sense to the Act being used again and again and again,” said Counsel Chaudhury. “I dare say future governments are likely to look to look at this experience and say, ‘Yeah, no, it’s really not something you want to go through lightly,’ but the law is on the books,” replied Trudeau..Seven of ten provinces — all but British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador — opposed use of the Emergencies Act. Counsel for Saskatchewan, Mitch McAdam, told the Commission the Act should never have been invoked..“The Emergencies Act should not be used simply as a way to fill in the gaps in the law,” said McAdam. “That was never its purpose.”.“The threshold is not whether the Emergencies Act was necessary or whether it was helpful,” said McAdam. “The test is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a public order emergency exists.”.Justice Paul Rouleau, head of the Commission, must submit a final report by a February 6 statutory deadline. “There is a very divisive issue at the root of this whole convoy,” he said..“I now have the evidence I need to make the factual findings and answer the questions I’ve been mandated to answer,” said Rouleau. “Namely, why did the federal government declare the emergency? How did it use its powers? And were those actions appropriate? These are questions the public wants answered.”.Rouleau in closing thanked Canadians who sent 9,500 emails, cards and letters recounting their personal views, in support of the convoy and against it. “It was important for the Commission to hear from the public and understand the views of Canadians,” he said. “I now have that understanding.”
