Was Using the Emergencies Act Justified? One Way to Find Out

Another day, another fatuous statement from the Alberta United Conservative Party attacking the Trudeau government.

This time the news hook for the UCP’s fatuity was the ruling by a Federal Court of Canada justice that the Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act on Feb. 14, 2022 to clear the streets of Ottawa infringed on the Charter rights of the so-called Freedom Convoy protesters who occupied the nation’s capital for nearly a month and blockaded several border crossings, causing billions of dollars of economic harm.

Well, from the UCP’s perspective that’s better than talking about the issues that bedevil our province on their watch. Among them the UCP’s inability to reverse the steep decline of our public health-care system, the embarrassing “Tylenot” scandal, the deadly drug crisis, homelessness, outrage over the scheme to seize the Canada Pension Plan, and untrustworthy oil price estimates that may yet sink the last provincial budget, to name just a few.

“Since Day 1, Alberta has been clear that the federal government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act during the COVID-19 pandemic violated the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Albertans,” began the homily attributed to Premier Danielle Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery that was published Tuesday on the Alberta government’s website.

This fails to mention then-municipal affairs minister Ric McIver’s Feb. 5, 2022 letter to the feds pleading for Ottawa’s help to clear the blockade at Coutts, which the federal government did with the help of the Emergencies Act.

In fairness, it is true, as McIver insisted later when he was called on it, that his letter never actually mentioned the Emergencies Act. But even so, you really can’t have it both ways.

“This is another example of the Federal Court ruling against the federal government’s unconstitutional practices,” the joint statement huffed, giving the UCP’s expert communications specialists yet another opportunity to complain about those plastic straws.

Getting to its key point, the statement went on: “We are disappointed that the federal government has indicated it will be appealing the decision.”

Explaining the federal decision to appeal, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said Tuesday, “The safety of individual Canadians was under real threat…. Our national security was under real threat — our national security, including our economic security.”

This is indisputable. But it is also important to remember that Canadians were deeply divided at the time, and continue to be today, about the appropriateness of the federal government’s response to the real threats presented by the occupiers and blockaders.

Both sides have taken the matter to the courts, as is appropriate in a society that respects the rule of law, to settle the matter.

Given the persistence of this division in our society, surely the most appropriate course is to take the matter to the highest court in the land and let a panel of Supreme Court justices have the final word.

Otherwise, whether you love or hate the Federal Court decision, the matter remains essentially unresolved.

Never mind the irony of a provincial government addicted to the use of unconstitutional measures issuing such a statement. If the use of the Emergencies Act was really unnecessary and “a dark and dangerous precedent,” as Smith and Amery insist, isn’t the best way to settle the matter once and for all in the country’s highest court?