Attorney General Won’t Reveal Government’s Reason for Using Emergencies Act, Citing Solicitor-Client Privilege
The attorney general and public safety minister repeatedly declined to reveal the federal government’s specific legal rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy, citing solicitor-client privilege when questioned by various MPs and senators.
“You would understand that our aim is not to protect the contents. Preserving solicitor-client privilege involves a relationship that has been in existence for centuries,” Attorney General Arif Virani stated on Feb. 27 before the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of the Emergency.
Following three weeks of demonstrations in Ottawa and elsewhere, the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history, granting law enforcement expanded powers to arrest protestors, freeze the bank accounts of some participants, and compel towing companies to remove demonstrators’ vehicles from Ottawa.
Nearly two years after the protest began, Federal Judge Richard Mosley deemed the government’s use of the Act in response to the trucker protest as “unreasonable” and infringing on Canadians’ Section 8 and Section 2(b) Charter Rights.
Mr. Virani and Mr. LeBlanc, neither of whom were in their positions when the Emergencies Act was enacted on Feb. 14, 2022, both asserted in their opening statements that the measure was an appropriate reaction to the trucker convoy.
Related Stories
“I’d like to remind the committee that the decision to invoke the Emergency Measures Act was not made lightly,” stated Mr. Virani, emphasizing that the measures were temporary and custom-tailored to the circumstances based on available information at the time.
‘What Is the Government Hiding?’
Conservative MP Larry Brock expressed little surprise that Mr. Virani and Mr. LeBlanc reiterated the same points as the Liberal government regarding the Emergencies Act. He pressed Mr. Virani to share the legal opinion used to invoke the Act, a request the Committee required the government to fulfill by May 30, 2022.
“The opinions and advice are privileged matters, as you well know as a fellow counsel, Mr. Brock,” Mr. Virani replied. “I don’t agree with that, Minister Virani. What is being concealed by the government?” Mr. Brock retorted, noting precedents of governments waiving solicitor-client privilege.
“Solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to developing legal advice in a candid and frank manner,” elaborated the attorney general.
Under interrogation by NDP MP Matthew Green, Mr. Virani admitted that because the federal government served as the “solicitor” and he and his team as the “client,” he occupied both roles. “I wear different hats at different times,” he explained.
Mr. Green raised the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, where former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould also utilized solicitor-client privilege to justify not commenting on allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office had attempted to influence her to assist SNC-Lavalin in avoiding criminal prosecution.
Mr. Green pointed out the federal government’s history of waiving cabinet confidence and argued that it was in the public’s interest for the government to offer the “highest level of transparency” regarding the decision to employ the Emergencies Act. “As both the client and the solicitor, please explain to me and the public how you justify withholding basic information crucial for public interest,” he demanded.
“I can name very few instances where cabinet confidence has been waived,” responded Mr. Virani. Mr. Green countered that the “average person watching” who had heard Mr. Virani’s remarks on the sacred relationship with himself would likely find his answers unsatisfactory.
“I believe that Canadians watching right now, in response to Mr. Green, would appreciate that the Chief Law Officer of the Crown takes the administration of justice very seriously in this country,” concluded Mr. Virani.
