That's a bit misleading, considering it was replacing the War measures act that was even worse. Mulroney's government didn't "create" the law, they just toned down the original (which is also why we don't call it "martial law" anymore but it's in the same vein). And IIRC, the only two PMs in Canada's history that actually enacted the war/emergency measures act outside of an actual war are... the two Trudeaus.

Actually it's funny since Mulroney never used it either even when it could have been justified. He was the PM during the Oka crisis [0], which was a full on armed conflict between the army and first nations nations that also lead to closed bridges & deaths. I can't imagine what we would call that nowadays if we call the truckers insurrectionists, terrorists, etc. I guess they understood the monumental consequences of enacting federal emergency measures liberally back then

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis

(It lasted 77 days, involved at least fully 100 armed militants, blocked 3-4 bridges around montreal for sometimes weeks, killed police officers, involved a literal 5km frontline between the 2 sides and yet Mulroney was very worried about involving the federal government and even more so playing with emergency measures. Even better: the government actually talked with the protestors and didn't treat them like untouchable non-citizen foreign agents. The crisis was solved with negotiations)

A "worse" law can be better because there would be less temptation to use it.

While this is technically true, it leaves out important contextual information and could lead people to get a very wrong picture of the situation. It almost feels like an attempted "gotcha".

It was legislated by the Conservative party to replace the War Measures Act (created in 1914 in response to WW1), which was deemed too easy to abuse if someone wished to suppress civil liberties.

Before the Emergencies Act, there was a broader Act. It was replaced with a stricter Act. It was not used by those replacing it. In combination, these two acts have now been used four times: - WW1 - WW2 - The October Crisis (also known as the FLQ Crisis) - The current convoy protest

Its use was also considered during the early stages of COVID-19, but was unanimously opposed.

I think this proves GP's point. Some people are finally starting to reject the "red vs. blue" false dichotomy.

While I agree with you that we shouldn't think in 'red vs. blue' terms, the Emergencies Act was actually written because Justin Trudeau's father had undertaken even more extreme measures in the 1970s, while leader of the same party that Trudeau currently leads. This is a situation where the Liberal party has consistently taken extreme anti-civil liberties positions.

Protesters blocked multiple international borders between Canada and the US, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per day ($300 million/day for the Windsor/Detroit crossing alone). There is no "civil liberty" that protects the right to blockade an international border, just as there is no civil liberty to park a convoy of trucks in someone's neighbourhood and then stay there indefinitely.

I have family who live in the Ottawa neighbourhood that went through this. They had tractor trailers parked outside their house that honked their horns all day and night for days on end. They literally had to leave and live elsewhere for almost three weeks.

I think we can agree that in a democratic society like Canada, we have civil liberties that allow us to protest, but those same liberties allow us to enjoy our homes in peace, not to mention cross international borders, subject to public health and whatever other restrictions have been put in place by our elected governments.

I'd agree that blocking traffic violates some laws and regulations. Freezing people's bank accounts with no trial or right to appeal still seems like a civil liberties violation to me.

Similarly, the FLQ had no right to kidnap or murder people, but Pierre Trudeau definitely infringed on civil liberties during the October crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

The correct solution to Illegal behavior in a healthy democracy is to arrest someone and try them in court. We shouldn't be denying that to to anybody no matter how wrong they are.

Banks were instructed to unfreeze accounts on Monday, Feb 21 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-instructs-banks-to-unfre...). The Emergencies Act that kicked off the account freezes was enacted a week earlier, on Monday, Feb 15. If you were involved in an illegal blockade/occupation, would you honestly choose being arrested and charged with one or more crimes and run the risk of a prison sentence/criminal record, over having your bank account frozen for a week?

Yes, I think the truckers should be charged for their crimes. No, I don't think their assets should be frozen without an court process.

This is because don't support extra judicial asset seizure as a valid policing tool.

You posed your question as an either/or, but I haven't seen any pardon claim that the truckers will never be charged (not that it would Change my position)

Using a legal system to enforce laws is the line that separates legitimate governments from racketeers. I believe that it should not be crossed outside of active warzones.

Separating people from their money is an extremely powerful tool. People capitulate quickly if you threaten to starve their family and children. It should never be used simply because you don't want to go to the effort of charging someone with a crime and arresting them.

Canada hasn't had a "red vs blue" system for ages. Even during Mulroney's heyday there were at least five parties holding seats federally.