Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration waited until the day after invoking the War Measures Act (Emergencies Act) to consult Crown prosecutors, Access to Information records show. MPs for years have sought proof of cabinet’s claim it was told by lawyers beforehand that the use of emergency powers to quash the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest was lawful, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. A federal court ruled the action was unlawful on January 23, 2024. Conservative MP Arnold Viersen, who filed the Access to Information request, in a statement wrote he requested “the memorandum on the Emergencies Act sent to the Attorney General from the Public Prosecution Service.”“What did they advise the Attorney General? We will never know because Justin Trudeau censored it,” wrote Viersen. The censored documents depict a two-page memorandum for the Attorney General written by the deputy director of prosecutions on February 15, 2022. The prime minister invoked the War Measures Act the day before, on February 14. .The action to invoke the War Measures Act on peaceful protestors was unlawful, Justice Richard Mosley ruled in January. It “criminalized the attendance of every single person at those protests regardless of their actions,” wrote Mosley. The prime minister and other federal officials, including Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who froze the bank accounts of some participants and donors to the convoy, are currently appealing the judgment.The Trudeau Liberals for years have claimed it had obtained secret legal opinions justifying its use of the Emergencies Act. The legal document has never been found.“I don’t believe for a second the broader interpretation even existed,” Conservative MP Glen Motz told the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency at a February 28 hearing.“I still believe more strongly today than I did in 2022 that the circumstances to invoke the Emergencies Act were not met,” said Motz. “The threshold was not met. I agree with Justice Mosley in his decision that it was in fact illegal and unconstitutional.”.Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin, who voted against use of the Act, said cabinet had yet to come up with a plausible excuse for declaring a national emergency over a local protest on Wellington St. in Ottawa. “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. 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 testified February 28 there was a written legal opinion but that it must remain confidential. “Solicitor-client privilege is foundational,” said Virani.“Who is the solicitor?” asked NDP MP Matthew Green. “I am,” replied Virani.“You are in cabinet?” asked Green. “That is correct,” replied Virani.“So you are both the client and the solicitor?” asked Green.“I wear different hats,” replied Virani.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration waited until the day after invoking the War Measures Act (Emergencies Act) to consult Crown prosecutors, Access to Information records show. MPs for years have sought proof of cabinet’s claim it was told by lawyers beforehand that the use of emergency powers to quash the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest was lawful, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. A federal court ruled the action was unlawful on January 23, 2024. Conservative MP Arnold Viersen, who filed the Access to Information request, in a statement wrote he requested “the memorandum on the Emergencies Act sent to the Attorney General from the Public Prosecution Service.”“What did they advise the Attorney General? We will never know because Justin Trudeau censored it,” wrote Viersen. The censored documents depict a two-page memorandum for the Attorney General written by the deputy director of prosecutions on February 15, 2022. The prime minister invoked the War Measures Act the day before, on February 14. .The action to invoke the War Measures Act on peaceful protestors was unlawful, Justice Richard Mosley ruled in January. It “criminalized the attendance of every single person at those protests regardless of their actions,” wrote Mosley. The prime minister and other federal officials, including Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, who froze the bank accounts of some participants and donors to the convoy, are currently appealing the judgment.The Trudeau Liberals for years have claimed it had obtained secret legal opinions justifying its use of the Emergencies Act. The legal document has never been found.“I don’t believe for a second the broader interpretation even existed,” Conservative MP Glen Motz told the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency at a February 28 hearing.“I still believe more strongly today than I did in 2022 that the circumstances to invoke the Emergencies Act were not met,” said Motz. “The threshold was not met. I agree with Justice Mosley in his decision that it was in fact illegal and unconstitutional.”.Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin, who voted against use of the Act, said cabinet had yet to come up with a plausible excuse for declaring a national emergency over a local protest on Wellington St. in Ottawa. “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. 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 testified February 28 there was a written legal opinion but that it must remain confidential. “Solicitor-client privilege is foundational,” said Virani.“Who is the solicitor?” asked NDP MP Matthew Green. “I am,” replied Virani.“You are in cabinet?” asked Green. “That is correct,” replied Virani.“So you are both the client and the solicitor?” asked Green.“I wear different hats,” replied Virani.
