Thoughts on The Federal Court of Canada Ruling Trudeau's Invocation of Emergencies Act Against Trucker Convoy Was "Unreasonable"

Last week, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Trudeau government's invocation of the Emergencies Act during the trucker convoy protest two years ago was "unreasonable" as it was not an emergency. The ruling arrives at the opposite conclusion of the Rouleau Commission which in February 2023 concluded the Trudeau government was justified in invoking the order. 

The Trudeau government naturally intends to appeal the decision all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is my hope the Supreme Court of Canada will overturn this ruling.

Let us remember that the so-called "freedom convoy" shut down several Canada-U.S. border crossings for weeks on end including the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. Several members of the convoy were armed and intended to murder RCMP officers. Convoy members also wreaked havoc during its occupation of Ottawa up to and including rendering its 911 system inoperable. 

As one might expect, the ruling was praised by Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre. After all, Poilievre became leader of the Conservative Party as a result of his support for the convoy pushing out his predecessor Erin O'Toole. Poilievre went all in with the convoy despite its use of Nazi and Confederate symbols. 

However, let's suppose the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the Federal Court's ruling. Let us also suppose that Canadians elect the Conservative Party to a majority government next year. Now let us further suppose that, say, pro-Hamas demonstrators see fit to emulate the convoy's tactics of blockading Canada-U.S. border crossings, disrupt essential services (i.e. 911) and conspire to kill members of law enforcement. Poilievre invoke the Emergencies Act faster than you could say notwithstanding clause. Even if the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Federal Court's decision on the trucker convoy, this would not deter Poilievre. He would find a reason to justify his decision even if the Federal Court and the Supreme Court were to subsequently rule against him. 

Mind you, if such a scenario came to pass, I would be inclined to agree with the Poilievre government's decision against pro-Hamas protesters as I do with the Trudeau government's decision against the trucker convoy. I think anyone who shuts down a border crossing for an indefinite period of time, disrupts essential services and conspires to commit murder warrants the use of the Emergencies Act regardless of who happens to be in power. From where I sit, it is a reasonable use of the law.

In Poilievre's case, however, I don't think he opposes the Emergencies Act, but rather he opposes its use against organizations which support his political agenda.