Attorney General Arif Virani is still convinced the Freedom Convoy in 2022 posed a “risk of serious violence” and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was right to invoke the War Measures (Emergencies) Act, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. Trudeau’s invocation of the Act to clear the Ottawa downtown core of peaceful protestors was declared unlawful by the Federal Court January 23. Justice Richard Mosley ruled the federal government’s overreaction “criminalized the attendance of every single person at those protests regardless of their actions.” Internal records showed there was no evidence political protesters were violent. No police recommended use of the Act.Yet, Virani testified at the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency Wednesday that “there was a risk of serious violence that was a crucial consideration supporting the decision to declare a public order emergency.”“The sole purpose of the temporary measures that were made was to bring about a swift, orderly and peaceful end to the circumstances,” said Virani, failing to mention the court ruled invocation was illegal. “Reasonable people can have disagreements about matters of law,” he said. The Trudeau Liberals, however, are appealing the decision. Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi perpetuated the narrative the Freedom Convoy was violent. “I think some of you may have forgotten there was violence,” said Naqvi. He provided no examples.“I get more and more frustrated as somebody who represents downtown Ottawa by the collective amnesia of committee members,” said Naqvi. “They have forgotten what members of my community in downtown Ottawa went through.”Trudeau’s administration insisted it invoked the War Measures (Emergencies) Act on the recommendation of a confidential legal opinion. The opinion has never been made public and the Liberals ignored a 2022 committee order that it release the document.“Solicitor-client privilege is foundational,” testified Virani. “It is a sacrosanct privilege that has existed for centuries in British common law and it is one this government firmly believes in.”NDP MP Matthew Green ridiculed the claim. “Many people come before this committee talking about solicitor-client privilege,” he said.“You identify the Government of Canada as the client; who is the solicitor?” asked Green. “I am the solicitor,” replied Virani“And you’re also part of government?” confirmed Green. “That is correct,” replied Virano. “You are in cabinet?” confirmed Green. “That is correct,” replied Virani. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” confirmed Green. “I wear different hats at different times,” replied Virani. “It is important for Canadians to understand the minister of justice constantly provides, as chief law officer of the Crown, advice to cabinet.”“We don’t need a history lesson,” replied MP Green.Conservative MP Glen Motz told the committee he suspected Cabinet made up its claim to having a secret “broader interpretation” of the law.“I don’t believe for a second the broader interpretation even existed,” said Motz. “I still believe more strongly today than I did in 2022 that the circumstances to invoke the Emergencies Act were not met.”“The threshold was not met. I agree with Justice Mosley in his decision that it was in fact illegal and unconstitutional,” said Motz. Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin, who voted against the invocation of the Act, said the Trudeau Liberals had no plausible explanation for declaring a national emergency. “There were trucks downtown,” said Fortin. “I don’t understand what the justification was. It seems to me that invoking the Act was excessive. The only thing I wonder is, all ministers who appeared here said, ‘Look, I understand, but we based our decision on a legal opinion we were given.’”“I don’t want to insult your intelligence,” said Fortin. “I am sure you were convinced it was the right thing to do at the time, but I am asking you to explain it to us. Nobody is willing to explain it.”
Attorney General Arif Virani is still convinced the Freedom Convoy in 2022 posed a “risk of serious violence” and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was right to invoke the War Measures (Emergencies) Act, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. Trudeau’s invocation of the Act to clear the Ottawa downtown core of peaceful protestors was declared unlawful by the Federal Court January 23. Justice Richard Mosley ruled the federal government’s overreaction “criminalized the attendance of every single person at those protests regardless of their actions.” Internal records showed there was no evidence political protesters were violent. No police recommended use of the Act.Yet, Virani testified at the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency Wednesday that “there was a risk of serious violence that was a crucial consideration supporting the decision to declare a public order emergency.”“The sole purpose of the temporary measures that were made was to bring about a swift, orderly and peaceful end to the circumstances,” said Virani, failing to mention the court ruled invocation was illegal. “Reasonable people can have disagreements about matters of law,” he said. The Trudeau Liberals, however, are appealing the decision. Liberal MP Yasir Naqvi perpetuated the narrative the Freedom Convoy was violent. “I think some of you may have forgotten there was violence,” said Naqvi. He provided no examples.“I get more and more frustrated as somebody who represents downtown Ottawa by the collective amnesia of committee members,” said Naqvi. “They have forgotten what members of my community in downtown Ottawa went through.”Trudeau’s administration insisted it invoked the War Measures (Emergencies) Act on the recommendation of a confidential legal opinion. The opinion has never been made public and the Liberals ignored a 2022 committee order that it release the document.“Solicitor-client privilege is foundational,” testified Virani. “It is a sacrosanct privilege that has existed for centuries in British common law and it is one this government firmly believes in.”NDP MP Matthew Green ridiculed the claim. “Many people come before this committee talking about solicitor-client privilege,” he said.“You identify the Government of Canada as the client; who is the solicitor?” asked Green. “I am the solicitor,” replied Virani“And you’re also part of government?” confirmed Green. “That is correct,” replied Virano. “You are in cabinet?” confirmed Green. “That is correct,” replied Virani. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” confirmed Green. “I wear different hats at different times,” replied Virani. “It is important for Canadians to understand the minister of justice constantly provides, as chief law officer of the Crown, advice to cabinet.”“We don’t need a history lesson,” replied MP Green.Conservative MP Glen Motz told the committee he suspected Cabinet made up its claim to having a secret “broader interpretation” of the law.“I don’t believe for a second the broader interpretation even existed,” said Motz. “I still believe more strongly today than I did in 2022 that the circumstances to invoke the Emergencies Act were not met.”“The threshold was not met. I agree with Justice Mosley in his decision that it was in fact illegal and unconstitutional,” said Motz. Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin, who voted against the invocation of the Act, said the Trudeau Liberals had no plausible explanation for declaring a national emergency. “There were trucks downtown,” said Fortin. “I don’t understand what the justification was. It seems to me that invoking the Act was excessive. The only thing I wonder is, all ministers who appeared here said, ‘Look, I understand, but we based our decision on a legal opinion we were given.’”“I don’t want to insult your intelligence,” said Fortin. “I am sure you were convinced it was the right thing to do at the time, but I am asking you to explain it to us. Nobody is willing to explain it.”
