We'll suspend.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funds.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funds.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:50 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
We will resume.
This round is five minutes. We'll begin with Mr. Brock.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'll go back to you, Ms. Thomas. It will be the same style of questions. Maybe it will be the same answers. Who knows?
Would you agree that when it comes to determining whether the government was really acting as a last resort, because no other law would do, it's the Prime Minister's own explanation that matters?
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
No, it's broader than that.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Would you agree that the government's own legal interpretation of those things can only be evaluated according to the Prime Minister's testimony, because all the legal opinions have not been released?
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
You'll have to ask that again. I'm sorry.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Justice Rouleau, in his opening remarks at the inquiry, stated, “Uncovering the truth is [the most] important goal. When difficult events occur that impact the...lives of Canadians, the public has a right to know what has happened.”
Do you recall that?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
The Prime Minister, when first elected in 2015, promised Canadians that they would see the most open and transparent government ever seen, and yet this inquiry has seen hundreds upon hundreds of redacted pages from the government, with little explanation as to the legal basis for such exclusion.
Would you agree that the actions of the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers who have testified at the inquiry have frustrated numerous lawyers in their ability to drill down to the truth as to the legal basis for the invocation of the act?
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I think that the Prime Minister and ministers' being on the stand—
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
—was extraordinarily—
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
—transparent. I do not agree—
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, the witness should be allowed to answer the question.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Inquiry lawyer Gordon Campbell stated, “We have from the beginning of this proceeding through till now attempted to find a way to lift the veil that has made such a black box of what has turned out to be a central issue before the hearing.... We just regret that it ends up being an absence of transparency on the part of the government.”
Do you recall that statement?
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I do not specifically, no.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Do you agree that Justice Minister Lametti testified at the inquiry that the government didn't use the legal definition within the Emergencies Act but rather used their own reason but could not release it due to solicitor-client privilege? Are you aware of that?
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I did not see all of Minister Lametti's testimony.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Are you aware that all of the ministers and the Prime Minister are talking about solicitor-client privilege as a basis for not releasing those legal opinions? You're certainly aware of that.
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Solicitor-client privilege—
December 1st, 2022 / 7:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
Justice Rouleau pressed Minister Lametti on this issue, asking how we would understand and pass judgment on the legal basis for invoking the Emergencies Act, which is a central issue in the commission, when the government was not forthcoming on the legal rationale. He then said, “I guess the answer is we just assume they acted in good faith in application of whatever they were told.”
This is my last question. Do you agree with me that the government response that we should just trust them because they acted in good faith when invoking the Emergencies Act is the complete opposite of being open and transparent with Justice Rouleau, but—most importantly—with Canadians? Do you agree with that statement or not?
7:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Solicitor-client privilege is a long-standing protocol in this country—