‘Economic Harm’ No Ground for National Emergency, Says Civil Liberties Group After Freeland’s Testimony

Police officers stand guard on a street as truckers and supporters block access to the Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit and Windsor, in protest against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions, in Windsor, Ont., on Feb. 12, 2022. Carlos Osorio/Reuters

A civil liberties advocacy group says that “economic harm” is not grounds to declare a national emergency, in reaction to Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s testimony at the Emergencies Act inquiry on Nov. 24.

“The Emergencies Act and the CSIS act do not contemplate economic harm as a national emergency,” said Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) in a statement.

“With just one day of testimony left, the Government is running out of time to prove it met the high burden of invoking the Emergencies Act.”

The public inquiry has been hearing a variety of interpretations from federal officials in recent days on how the threshold was met to declare a public order emergency last winter to deal with cross-country protests and blockades.

Some have said the threat of serious violence for ideological motives as defined by section 2c of the CSIS Act was met, whereas others said the definition was too narrow and other threats not captured in the legislation needed to be considered.

For example, Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director David Vigneault told the commission on Nov. 21 the protests did not meet the threshold of a threat to national security according to his agency’s mandate, but he nevertheless advised the prime minister to invoke the act based on unspecified criteria.

The definition of threats to the security of Canada for declaring a public order emergency through the Emergencies Act is drawn from section 2 of the CSIS Act.

Economic Harm

Freeland centred most of her testimony around the issue of economic harm caused by the blockades and the impacts on Canada’s international reputation and trade relationship with the United States.

Canada Constitution Foundation (CCF) counsel Janani Shanmuganathan tried to explore that area with Freeland to see how she understood economic harm to fit within the Emergencies Act.

“In terms of the economic harm that you’ve described today, the reputational damage to Canada ... you'll agree that it doesn’t fall within C, right, the activities relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence. Would you agree with that?” asked Shanmuganathan in reference to section 2c of the CSIS Act.

“Not precisely. You know, if the direction of these questions is to ask me, ‘Did I believe we were acting within legal authorities granted by the Emergencies Act?’ If that’s where this question is leading, then my answer is, yes. I believed we had the authority to do what we did,” Freeland said.

“As a person who was here in Ottawa, I did see a real danger of violence. And then finally, what I described in my testimony this morning was the way in which the economic security of our country, I really believe, is a part of our national security.”

Freeland said she had received assurances from qualified people that her government had met the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act.