Thank you.
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.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Thomas, I'm going to continue asking you questions since you're the star this evening.
As I understood your testimony, what convinced you that the thresholds had been met were the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge, for example, the fact that a convoy was headed for Ottawa and the fact that those people had obtained millions of dollars in funding.
Do you know the exact figure? To your knowledge, how much money had they raised?
6:45 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
It was in excess of $20 million. The exact number, I think, was revealed during the inquiry.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
You thought they had approximately $20 million at the time you recommended that a state of emergency should be declared.
6:45 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Thank you for the question. We knew it was in excess of $10 million.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I see.
Those are the reasons why you concluded that there were grounds to invoke the Emergencies Act. Is that correct?
6:45 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
It was, as I've said, the number of blockades, the number of people who were coming to join the Ottawa blockade and occupation, the concern about weapons, the rhetoric, the IMVE actors who were in the mix and the connection between all of those entities. Yes, that's the totality of it.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Wasn't there any other way to address the situation?
For example, you could have had the trucks blocking Wellington Street removed. They were in fact removed when the time came. The police officers pushed back the protesters.
Do you think other measures could have been taken under general legislation applicable to the jurisdiction?
6:45 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Thank you very much for that question. I think you've raised some very important points.
Number one, tow trucks were a problem in multiple locations. Tow truck drivers were either intimidated or, we've learned, paid not to participate and not to provide service. We looked as far as Montreal to get tow truck drivers to come to Ottawa, as but one example. We had a national tow truck strategy, which I know the deputy minister of Transport Canada has explained to you.
Tow trucks were a major issue. We're talking about big rigs. We're not talking about the average tow truck. That equipment was hard to find, and we had to compel tow truck drivers to come and to respond.
Regarding other measures, we had two tracks of action that we were looking into and that Mike MacDonald led on behalf of PCO with Public Safety. You've heard “track one” and “track two” being talked about. Track one was existing legislation and what could be used within existing legislation—provincial, municipal and federal—to resolve the situation.
At the end of weekend three, none of it was working. We could not gain traction with the province in Ontario. In the city, the police chief said there was no policing solution. You've heard that testimony—
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I'm going to interrupt you, since our time is quite short.
The chief of police said he wanted 1,800 police officers to clear the downtown area. In the end, there were 2,000 in the area the day after he resigned.
I thought that, under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act, you could have directed that the tow trucks be mobilized and that, if their drivers didn't want to remove the trucks, you could have sought an injunction to compel them to do so. Am I wrong?
6:45 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
It's an Ontario act, and Ontario did not compel the tow truck drivers. We used the federal act to do that.
There were many opportunities—
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I understand that you used the federal act, but here's the question: could you have used legislation in force, such as Ontario's Highway Traffic Act or the Criminal Code, for example?
Couldn't you have relied on them and said that what was being done was prohibited and sought an injunction to force the issue?
6:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Injunctions were discussed and not used. It is more a private law remedy, as described by the Minister of Justice.
There were actions that could have been taken under existing legislation, but when they weren't and we were at the end of the third weekend, the federal government had to act. You have heard the testimony, both at the inquiry and here, that there were challenges in getting Ontario to the table to have discussions and use their act.
The federal government doesn't apply provincial legislation. The province does.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
You may have heard that Commissioner Lucki told us in one of her appearances that not all available measures were used and that, in her view, before going—
December 1st, 2022 / 6:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses here today.
As you know, we've been at this for the better part of eight or nine months, trying to lay the foundation for what will, hopefully, become recommendations back to the House and the Senate to improve upon the legislation, the definitions and the thresholds, in the hope that we don't find ourselves back in a similar situation.
I'll begin with you, Ms. Thomas, through the chair.
Is it your assessment that, while different levels of government may have had legal remedies available, the practical collapse—I'll say that, for lack of a better term—of policing and the inability of police to adequately provide law and order, particularly as it related to the occupation here in Ottawa...? Did that inform some of your advice to the Privy Council Office?
6:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Thank you for the question.
When the policing remedies in the City of Ottawa became unavailable—they could not respond, the magnitude of what was going on was beyond their capability—yes, that certainly, after the third weekend, was part of the advice.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Is it your assessment that it was on the third weekend that they were rendered unavailable. I'll say “failed”; I'm going to use that language. There was a failure of policing to adequately provide law and order in the nation's capital, on Parliament Hill. At what point in your assessment did you believe that to be a risk to national security?
6:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I can't give you an exact day, sir. I apologize for that. What I will say is that—
6:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Would you say that it was early on, in your assessment? Did you contemplate that the lack...? We've seen this in testimony now—the lack of confidence among the RCMP, the OPP and the OPS? There was some pretty clear testimony that those communications had broken down in many fundamental ways, including operational planning. Would you agree that there was a breakdown in those communications?
6:50 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
I would agree that certainly there was a breakdown in communication, and the inability to create an operational plan that was effective and executable was certainly a significant issue.