Declaration of Emergency committee  I think we need greater ministerial oversight of both CSIS and the RCMP to see whether they are devoting enough resources and have the adequate training to address these. So it would be ministerial oversight, as well as executive oversight review and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Yes. That's something where my views may have changed with some of the evidence that's come forth since February 14, Valentine's Day, when I should have been doing something other than writing a piece. In any event, I think best practices emerging out of Ipperwash, emerging out of the G20, are that the police should have a plan to talk to the protesters, to provide the protesters with an opportunity to self-police, while recognizing that if they fail to do so and fail to obey the law, then the police have to come in.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Yes. I tend to agree. In response also to your colleague's question, I would say that even at Coutts, after those arrests, the blockade self-policed and took itself down. That's something that I think is quite important to bear in mind, because I agree with Professor West that we shouldn't go around branding people and whole groups as terrorists.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Well, yes, to a certain extent. We also know, however, that, whether it was through operation Hendon or the ITAC reports, Ottawa knew this was coming. Therefore, I don't think it's simply “they had the benefit”. I think they had the benefit of being criticized for what they did in G20 and actually got their house in order.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Absolutely, but we also need to think about the Solicitor General in Ontario taking some sort of responsibility when it comes to those capacity issues.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Sure. I agree with Professor West that you need to have paragraph 2(c), plus section 3, but then subsection 17(1) says, “When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures”.

Declaration of Emergency committee  No, I don't. I would decouple the definition of “emergency” from “threats to the security of Canada”. I think it's apples and oranges, because—

Declaration of Emergency committee  I would propose getting rid of paragraph 2(c) and going with a different definition of “public order emergency”, keeping section 3. I would propose ensuring that the inquiry—and I know you believe that it's within your powers—would have access to solicitor-client privilege.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Absolutely, I would agree. I would also look at reforming the riot act provision in the Criminal Code, which is archaic.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Absolutely, and—

Declaration of Emergency committee  I'm sorry.

Declaration of Emergency committee  I agree that it did deprive them of their rights. I also think it is jarring that CSIS didn't think the threshold in paragraph (c) under the definition in section 2 was met. Nevertheless, its director and subsequently the cabinet recommended the proclamation of an emergency. I really think that—and again, this may lead to the legal opinion—much of it really depends on subsection 17(1)—

Declaration of Emergency committee  I think, generally, it wouldn't be a good thing, but you also have to remember subsection 17(1) of the Emergencies Act, which says, “When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds”. To me, that may build in a margin of appreciation, but my basic point was that CSIS interprets paragraph (c) under section 2 rather strictly because it does infringe on people's rights.

Declaration of Emergency committee  As I suggested in my opening statement, thought should be given to giving the RCMP primacy with respect to both the broader parliamentary precinct and border crossings. On the issue of far-right violent extremism and whether CSIS's response was adequate, I think that is something NSIRA or the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians should examine.

Declaration of Emergency committee  Yes. It is technically true that the charter only binds the state, but there are section 8 decisions under the charter where the fact that the nurse got the blood sample as opposed to the police officer does not immunize something from the charter. Of course, in the area of financial sanctioning, the use of financial institutions at the direction of the state, I think, could very well be subject to charter scrutiny.