Declaration of Emergency Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I don't appreciate that, Minister Virani. What is the government hiding?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Brock, we can discuss the importance of solicitor-client privilege, but I'll put it in a pithy manner. It is an important principle that has existed for literally centuries in our joint profession, which you and I both—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

There's precedent—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Could I finish my response?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Sir, this is my time.

There is precedent—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, can I finish my response?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Excuse me, but it's very difficult for the interpreters to interpret when you talk over each other.

Mr. Brock, I'll set you back to 45 seconds. Can you just shorten your questions so we can get an answer in?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Virani, there is ample precedent of numerous governments, including this particular government, having waived legal opinion and having waived solicitor-client privilege. If the Prime Minister, to Justice Rouleau, was so serene and confident in his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, in light of Justice Mosley's repudiation of the invocation of that act, what is the government hiding?

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Go ahead very quickly, Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I would say that solicitor-client privilege is foundational to the development of legal advice in a candid and frank manner between a solicitor and their client. It is a sacrosanct privilege that has existed for centuries in British common law, and it is one that this government firmly believes in in terms of producing high-quality legal advice.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You, sir, are in the position of waiving that privilege.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

We'll now move to Mr. Maloney.

You have five minutes.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

Ministers and other witnesses, I really want to say how grateful I am for your being here today, especially seeing as it's an evening meeting.

My question is for both ministers, but perhaps, Minister Virani, it would make sense to start with you, given your background in this committee.

I've only recently joined this committee. In fact, this is my third meeting. You said you look back fondly on this. I look forward to the day when I can look back fondly on this committee, but unfortunately, as we've just witnessed, this committee has become highly politicized and it has lost its way.

If you look at the Emergencies Act legislation, there are two things. There is this committee and there's the royal commission. Both of them have been put in place for various specific purposes. One is to look at the conditions that were in place that required the government to invoke the legislation, and one—which is this committee—is to look at what went on during the time the Emergencies Act was invoked.

We're two days away from the two-year anniversary of its being invoked and a few days away from the two-year anniversary of its being revoked. I would say that this committee has gone far beyond its scope and far beyond its mandate, and I would like to hear your view on that and perhaps hear from Minister LeBlanc too.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney, for the question.

I'll say to you that my interpretation of the statute as it's plainly written was exactly the same when we first commenced at this committee. Many people who are members of this committee have made exactly the same argument, that this was meant to be for oversight during the period of the invocation of the declaration.

I think that, at this point, we are where we are, but it's unfortunate and somewhat ironic that something that was commenced after the constitution of this committee, the Rouleau commission, concluded before this committee has even wrapped up its work. I do think, however, there is still ample room for this committee to do the important work that a joint Senate-House multipartisan committee can do, which is actually to provide recommendations on a timely basis—as in very, very soon. Doing that would be helpful to the deliberations of all parliamentarians in terms of reflecting on the invocation and reflecting on the way forward.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

You just had a discussion with Mr. Brock about the production of the opinion that was provided with respect to the invocation of the act. Leaving aside the issue of solicitor-client privilege, I think that discussion is a glaring example of how this committee has gone beyond its mandate, because given the terms of reference for this committee, that opinion has no relevance here whatsoever.

Minister LeBlanc, you suggested that you're going to have some response to Justice Rouleau. You and Minister Virani—but particularly you, Minister LeBlanc—are going to put forward some proposals with respect to how the legislation can be improved. Unfortunately, you might be in a situation of not having a report from this committee. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about how the legislation could be reviewed now and whether one of those proposals might include redefining the scope of this committee in terms of a time frame so we don't run into this situation of the committee going beyond its scope and beyond its time and turning into something it was never meant to be.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney, for the question.

In my understanding of the statute—what I was briefed following the invocation and then rescinding the invocation—my understanding of the role of this committee was as you described it and as my colleague Arif also endorsed.

Next week, I will set out the government's response to all of the Rouleau commission recommendations. You properly noted, Mr. Maloney, that in the commission report he does make suggestions around potential legislative amendments—some around the Emergencies Act and the definition in the CSIS Act. Those are complicated undertakings.

I think the government and Parliament would very much benefit from the advice of this committee, because it's a committee representing both Houses of our Parliament. I think there's a unique opportunity to hear from parliamentary colleagues on how Parliament may consider those legislative amendments.

I'll be setting out specific government responses to some of the more administrative police of jurisdiction issues that the commissioner identified. Also, as you would know, a number of the recommendations also touched other orders of government. We will be, I hope, providing a detailed response, as we committed to do.

I totally share your view, if I understood it, Mr. Maloney, that it would be certainly helpful, I think, to Parliament to benefit from the view of a committee of parliamentarians who have studied this issue in terms of whether there are legislative steps.

The Emergencies Act, as we heard, is a piece of legislation that's almost four decades old. It was the first time it had been invoked, so it would be a thoughtful exercise, I think, that would benefit Parliament.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Your time is up.

Mr. Fortin.

[The Joint Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable ministers, ladies and gentlemen of the panel, welcome. We are happy to have you.

Mr. Virani, you said earlier that our committee started its work some time ago, and the Rouleau Commission rendered its decision before we did. Regardless, you participated in our meeting on June 13, 2023, when you were still a member of our committee. You remember voting for a motion asking that all the evidentiary documents produced at the Rouleau Commission be translated. And yet, it is now February 27. In two weeks, it will be nine months since the motion passed, and we have yet to receive anything. The Privy Council Office and the Translation Bureau have not even started working on translating these documents.

What do you think of the situation?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I can’t really say anything about that. I remember the issue being raised last June, but I don’t know how things are going now.

[The Joint Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

What is your opinion on the delay, Minister? Nine months later, nothing is done. Does that impress you? Don’t you find that surprising?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have no opinion on the matter. I think you already consulted witnesses about it during the first hour of the meeting.

[The Joint Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Virani, you told us the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was taken based what was known at the time. I will not ask you to say it again.

As for you, Mr. LeBlanc, unlike Minister Virani, you were in the cabinet when the Emergencies Act was invoked. Do you agree that this decision was based on what was known at the time?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Absolutely. We thoroughly discussed these issues in several forums. We made a decision that we considered reasonable and legal based on the best information we had at the time.

[The Joint Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

What information was that?

These events happened two years ago. As you know, we’ve been sitting on this committee for about a year and a half, maybe a little more. We are talking about it right now. However, in the evidence heard by our committee, I heard nothing that seemed to justify invoking the Emergencies Act. The blockade at the bridge was dismantled before declaring of a state of emergency. Here, in the streets, there were trucks that refused to move, but it took two days to remove them. After police officers intervened on February 19 and 20, there was nothing left. The Chief of Police, Mr. Sloly, came and told us that he asked for hundreds of police officers to dismantle the blockades. Police officers intervened after he resigned, but it remains that it happened and it was resolved in two days.

In all honesty, I do not see the justification. Intervention was required, we agree on that. However, invoking the Emergencies Act seems excessive to me.

My only question is on the fact that all the ministers who appeared before our committee told us that they understood us, but they made the decision based on a legal opinion they obtained.

Are you, like your predecessors, going to tell us you cannot show us this legal opinion, even though you could justify invoking the Emergencies Act by producing a copy?