In a decision on Tuesday January 23, Judge Richard Mosley said the NDP-Liberals invoking the War Measures (Emergencies) Act violated Canada's rights charter.The Federal Court of Canada ruled the decision to use the act to respond to the Freedom Convoy was unreasonable and excessive, validating the claims made in a lawsuit brought by various civil liberties groups. “The situation did not rise to the level of a serious threat to the security of Canada,” said the Court. The Cabinet and RCMP “have the necessary powers to deal with protests under existing laws.” Therefore, they did not need to invoke the War Measures (Emergencies) Act.Last year, a federal inquiry into the use of the act found that Canada's government had met the "high threshold" for its use. Justice Paul Rouleau called the decision a "drastic move" but not a "dictatorial one". The Trudeau government announced that it would appeal its loss at the Federal Court and doubled down in defence of their past actions. The next level from the Federal Court is the Federal Court of Appeal. After that, the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the Supreme Court decides what cases it will hear. If it declines to hear a case, the matter is deemed decided by the lower-level ruling. The Government of Canada has a separate privilege of making a direct reference to the Supreme Court. There may be political voices urging such a procedure to respond to the Federal Court loss. The reference procedure is the ability to ask for a direct ruling from the Supreme Court, especially on questions of a constitutional nature.The sensational Federal Court ruling has been extensively mentioned in the Western Standard. But, what comes next?The Liberals said they would appeal. The Liberals will delay filing the papers of their appeal as long as they can. (Ragging the puck, in other words.) We don’t know if the government will fight it out in the Federal Appeal Court or seek reference directly to the Supreme Court. Be sure the federal government will do what it can to drag out the proceedings with various dilatory motions for the Courts to consider. Once the drawn-out proceedings are ended, if the Supreme Court is involved, it could take forever and a day to render a decision. The Supreme Court could overturn the lower court using a host of rationalizations of legal speak. Perhaps the Supreme Court could opt for a “half-guilty decision” by creating a structure of words that technically lets the government off the hook, but still allows the government appear guilty in the public's mind with a scolding against the government. If the lower Court’s “excessive” decision is confirmed against the government however, then every legal voice in Canada will chime in for “what is next.” The range of opinion will vary from as little as the government saying it accepts the decision, with Trudeau’s usual "sorry" with sympathetic qualifiers and a promise to clarify the Act for the future, all designed for the ears of voters. Or the opinion will go as far as the government asking for an election, or even the Governor General dismissing the Government for its many legal violations and thus forcing an election.If it is finally confirmed that the government did not need to invoke the War Measures (Emergencies) Act, then in my view we have a government that has gone rogue and illegal. In our Constitution, we have a safety provision for that circumstance. The Governor General is duty-bound to dismiss the government and cause an election when the Executive Branch has grossly violated the Constitution as deemed by the Court. That is our system. In our situation, there are many legal and political turns available. However, voters will have to understand the larger background, that everything the NDP-Liberals will say and do about this legal confrontation will be calculated to “save face” in the eyes of the voter and will not be related to right or wrong, respect for the Court, the Constitution, or citizens. It will be an awful dance to watch.We must be mindful, that the Governor-General’s reserve powers are generally agreed to include the power to:Appoint a prime minister if an election has not resulted in a clear outcomeDismiss a prime minister if they have lost the support of the majority of members of the House of Commons (by losing a budget bill or by a specific Non-Confidence Motion.)Refuse a request from a prime minister to call an election.Dismiss a prime minister or minister if they break the law. (That is, if they seriously violate the Constitution.)Governments are only replaced when the prime minister opts for an election or is dismissed by the Governor General. The Governor General's discretion to dismiss the prime minister is extremely narrow and limited by constitutional convention. Not all powers or possible actions are written down.In response to a social media blitz during the Ottawa street protest, the office of Governor-General Mary Simon had to announce that they couldn't dissolve the federal government simply by contacting her office. Thousands had done that and had swamped the system. In response, Rideau Hall issued what it called an "important message" saying they were closing the email site due to the overwhelming response of misguided directions given to the public."The Office of the Secretary of the Governor General is aware that misinformation encouraging citizens to contact the Governor General or our office to register votes of no confidence is circulating on social media. This information is not correct. No such registry or process exists”, the statement said.Regular readers of the Western Standard must pay close attention to this unfolding legal saga. It goes to the core of the character of this government. At some point, the yelling may have to start. We know from past statements and actions by the government, that the NDP-Liberals will act for their self-interest rather than the public interest. At some point, citizens may have to collectively yell very loudly in a political way to make our laws work.
In a decision on Tuesday January 23, Judge Richard Mosley said the NDP-Liberals invoking the War Measures (Emergencies) Act violated Canada's rights charter.The Federal Court of Canada ruled the decision to use the act to respond to the Freedom Convoy was unreasonable and excessive, validating the claims made in a lawsuit brought by various civil liberties groups. “The situation did not rise to the level of a serious threat to the security of Canada,” said the Court. The Cabinet and RCMP “have the necessary powers to deal with protests under existing laws.” Therefore, they did not need to invoke the War Measures (Emergencies) Act.Last year, a federal inquiry into the use of the act found that Canada's government had met the "high threshold" for its use. Justice Paul Rouleau called the decision a "drastic move" but not a "dictatorial one". The Trudeau government announced that it would appeal its loss at the Federal Court and doubled down in defence of their past actions. The next level from the Federal Court is the Federal Court of Appeal. After that, the Supreme Court of Canada. However, the Supreme Court decides what cases it will hear. If it declines to hear a case, the matter is deemed decided by the lower-level ruling. The Government of Canada has a separate privilege of making a direct reference to the Supreme Court. There may be political voices urging such a procedure to respond to the Federal Court loss. The reference procedure is the ability to ask for a direct ruling from the Supreme Court, especially on questions of a constitutional nature.The sensational Federal Court ruling has been extensively mentioned in the Western Standard. But, what comes next?The Liberals said they would appeal. The Liberals will delay filing the papers of their appeal as long as they can. (Ragging the puck, in other words.) We don’t know if the government will fight it out in the Federal Appeal Court or seek reference directly to the Supreme Court. Be sure the federal government will do what it can to drag out the proceedings with various dilatory motions for the Courts to consider. Once the drawn-out proceedings are ended, if the Supreme Court is involved, it could take forever and a day to render a decision. The Supreme Court could overturn the lower court using a host of rationalizations of legal speak. Perhaps the Supreme Court could opt for a “half-guilty decision” by creating a structure of words that technically lets the government off the hook, but still allows the government appear guilty in the public's mind with a scolding against the government. If the lower Court’s “excessive” decision is confirmed against the government however, then every legal voice in Canada will chime in for “what is next.” The range of opinion will vary from as little as the government saying it accepts the decision, with Trudeau’s usual "sorry" with sympathetic qualifiers and a promise to clarify the Act for the future, all designed for the ears of voters. Or the opinion will go as far as the government asking for an election, or even the Governor General dismissing the Government for its many legal violations and thus forcing an election.If it is finally confirmed that the government did not need to invoke the War Measures (Emergencies) Act, then in my view we have a government that has gone rogue and illegal. In our Constitution, we have a safety provision for that circumstance. The Governor General is duty-bound to dismiss the government and cause an election when the Executive Branch has grossly violated the Constitution as deemed by the Court. That is our system. In our situation, there are many legal and political turns available. However, voters will have to understand the larger background, that everything the NDP-Liberals will say and do about this legal confrontation will be calculated to “save face” in the eyes of the voter and will not be related to right or wrong, respect for the Court, the Constitution, or citizens. It will be an awful dance to watch.We must be mindful, that the Governor-General’s reserve powers are generally agreed to include the power to:Appoint a prime minister if an election has not resulted in a clear outcomeDismiss a prime minister if they have lost the support of the majority of members of the House of Commons (by losing a budget bill or by a specific Non-Confidence Motion.)Refuse a request from a prime minister to call an election.Dismiss a prime minister or minister if they break the law. (That is, if they seriously violate the Constitution.)Governments are only replaced when the prime minister opts for an election or is dismissed by the Governor General. The Governor General's discretion to dismiss the prime minister is extremely narrow and limited by constitutional convention. Not all powers or possible actions are written down.In response to a social media blitz during the Ottawa street protest, the office of Governor-General Mary Simon had to announce that they couldn't dissolve the federal government simply by contacting her office. Thousands had done that and had swamped the system. In response, Rideau Hall issued what it called an "important message" saying they were closing the email site due to the overwhelming response of misguided directions given to the public."The Office of the Secretary of the Governor General is aware that misinformation encouraging citizens to contact the Governor General or our office to register votes of no confidence is circulating on social media. This information is not correct. No such registry or process exists”, the statement said.Regular readers of the Western Standard must pay close attention to this unfolding legal saga. It goes to the core of the character of this government. At some point, the yelling may have to start. We know from past statements and actions by the government, that the NDP-Liberals will act for their self-interest rather than the public interest. At some point, citizens may have to collectively yell very loudly in a political way to make our laws work.
