The second interview of a CBC piece answered some similar questions I had. This ruling provides precedence and can stop a future invocation of the Emergencies Act in its tracks through an injunction from the Federal Court of Appeal, if it’s granted.
The government is appealing the decision because they believe the invocation was reasonable and justified. The Liberals are currently behind in the polls, so politically it’s within the government’s interest to appeal this. The act itself is decades old and never invoked prior to this so both the civil liberty groups and the government are probably keen on getting clarification on the legal usage of the act from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Personally, I fully support the usage of the act. What I found unreasonable was the lack of accountability with the provincial police.
You believe that the possibility of economic harm to businesses is in itself justification for the invocation to Emergency act?
That was one of many factors that I think the invocation was necessary. Th residents, as well as affected businesses, in Ottawa were left to fend for themselves as leadership(including the police) could not end the occupation of the downtown core. There were multiple blockades of varying degrees that were also problematic. What came out of the Coutts blockade was worrisome to say the least. The one at the Ambassador Bridge was cleared but who knew if people would come back or setup elsewhere. No one knew how things would play out at the time but there was a lot of concern across Canada. Even by the judge’s admission, he may have advised the same conclusion the government decided on.
At the end of the day I agree with the public inquiry that didn’t find it unreasonable and perhaps revisions to the Emergencies Act is something to consider.
