Declaration of Emergency Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Mr. Green.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

Part of our work is to try to come out with some sound recommendations. Hopefully, in the foreseeable future we'll be doing that in a draft report, with recommendations back to the House almost two years later.

Through your experience in this, I wonder if you might agree with the recommendation that there be clarity around future interparliamentary or joint committees that the legislation of the Official Languages Act be the guidelines by which we define our requests for information.

Would you agree with that, given the volume and complexity we've locked ourselves into?

[Matthew Shea]

I don't think it would be appropriate for us to weigh in on your deliberations and your recommendations, but we would welcome whatever recommendations you have.

I would reiterate that we would like to work with committees, and I think the goal we should have as a government is to work with your clerk and with your members to find solutions before they take months and months. I appreciate the frustration, and I would like us to learn from this and be able to respond more quickly to future demands.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

Mr. Lymburner, I'm going to ask you a question. You guys, on a good day, are pretty stretched, given that you have a bunch of freelance work. Is that fair to say? As a labour party guy and a union supporter myself, I'm not a huge fan of opting out. I'm not a huge fan of AI.

In a perfect world, what would your complement of full-time equivalent, collective agreement-protected people within your department look like to adequately deliver a bilingual government?

[Jean-François Lymburner]

As I mentioned, the number of translators we have at the bureau is 700. Of those, 100 are supporting specifically the work of Parliament. We augment our work when possible, depending on the type of work. For example, if it's not a classified document, then we can leverage some other types of translation services that are not as critical, if you will, as the ones we do have.

As I mentioned, the number of translators is something we're tracking extremely carefully because we hire pretty much everyone who's coming out of university in that domain. We definitely have the capacity of the bureau at heart for that. Yes, we're fully prescribed.

Also, somebody mentioned the interpreters and their health. That's another area. When we lose an interpreter.... That's a critical service, and we have to reschedule. Some events happen on a regular basis.

If I can just add, we mentioned two or three months for the index, but as I mentioned earlier, we can release them as soon as we get some, so early release of those that are translated as they are being done would bring them to you faster.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Mr. Lymburner.

On behalf of the committee, let me sincerely thank our witnesses. Your participation is greatly appreciated, and the information you provided is extremely helpful for our deliberations.

I shall suspend this meeting briefly while our next panel takes its place at the table.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Colleagues, we will resume.

I shall now introduce our second panel. We will hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from members of the committee.

Appearing this evening before the joint committee, please welcome the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, PC, MP, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs; and the Honourable Arif Virani, PC, MP, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

The ministers are accompanied by officials. From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have David Vigneault, director, who is no stranger to this committee. From the Department of Justice, we have Shalene Curtis-Micallef, deputy minister and deputy attorney general of Canada; Samantha Maislin Dickson, assistant deputy minister, public safety, defence and immigration portfolio; and Jeanette Ettel, senior counsel, human rights law section. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Shawn Tupper, deputy minister. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Michael Duheme, commissioner.

I remind the ministers that they will each be given five minutes for their opening remarks. Minister Virani knows this well.

Mr. Virani, you may begin, followed by Mr. LeBlanc.

Welcome back.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It is a pleasure to be back. I remember these sittings quite fondly. In terms of the timing, I remember being tired and hungry on most evenings. It is a pleasure to see some very familiar faces and to see some new ones as well. Thank you very much for having me in this new capacity.

I'm here to discuss the declaration of the public order emergency that took place two years ago. I'm pleased to be back here at this committee.

Since our government declared the public order emergency in February 2022, there's been significant time for review and reflection on what was a very exceptional decision.

The Public Order Emergency Commission, led by Commissioner Rouleau, was convened as one of the many accountability mechanisms inherent in the Emergencies Act in terms of the way the statute is structured. That commission found that the declaration of the public order emergency met the legal threshold in the Emergencies Act, that it was appropriate and that its measures were effective.

Obviously, this committee is also a statutory mechanism that ended up reviewing the operations of the declaration. I was very privileged to be part of that work and that review. I look forward to your concluding your work and I look forward to seeing the final recommendations. I believe they were in draft format that last time I was sitting at the table, over where Mrs. Romanado is sitting right now.

I want to remind the committee that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was not taken lightly. It required consulting leaders throughout the country, including all provinces and territories. The measures we took were temporary and narrowly tailored to the emergency, taking into account the information available at that time.

All the temporary measures ended when the declaration of a state of emergency was revoked on February 23, 2022.

Invoking the Emergencies Act was a reasonable response to the extraordinary context of February 2022. I think time is fading in some of our memories of what the situation was approximately two years ago, including the very dynamic and continuously unfolding situation in several parts of the country. As we stated in the explanation of the reasons for the declaration of emergency, there was a risk of serious violence, which was a crucial consideration supporting the decision to declare a public order emergency.

The sole purpose of the temporary measures that were made was to bring about a swift, orderly and peaceful end to the circumstances that necessitated the declaration of the public order emergency. As required by the legislation of the Emergencies Act, the measures were consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Former minister Lametti provided this committee with a charter statement outlining the charter considerations that were engaged.

We recognize that the declaration of a public order emergency temporarily allowed the granting of extraordinary powers; however, the legislation balances this with a range of accountability mechanisms.

One of the most important mechanisms is that when the act is invoked, the government is bound to hold an inquiry at the end of the crisis.

Commissions of inquiry are independent entities mandated with inquiring into matters of public importance. They fulfill two important functions: draw conclusions from the facts and develop recommendations for the future.

When unexpected, disruptive or otherwise important events occur and they have an impact on Canadians’ lives, the public has a right to know what happened, to know the reason why it happened and to learn lessons from those experiences.

As you are all well aware at this committee, our government was found to have acted reasonably and consistently with the law by Commissioner Rouleau in his “Report of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order Emergency”. That report by Commissioner Rouleau was released last year, in February 2023.

While I cannot comment on ongoing litigation, I can say that our continued position is that the government's actions were reasonable and justified, based on what we knew at the time of the invocation.

The illegal occupation of streets and use of blockades represented an exceptional and unprecedented threat to our economy, right across the country.

I am proud to say we were able to use the legal tools at our disposal to find a peaceful resolution for a national emergency that threatened the very democratic values that contribute to the freedom of all Canadians.

Thank you very much for having me, Madam Chair.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Minister Virani.

We'll turn to Minister LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable senators and colleagues in the House of Commons.

Thank you for inviting me here. Unlike my colleague Arif, this is my first time at your joint committee. It's a privilege to be here.

Madam Chair, thank you for introducing the senior officials from the public safety portfolio who are accompanying me here this evening.

I appreciate the invitation. The invitation obviously followed the Federal Court's ruling on the invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022. I'm happy to be here with my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, who indicated the government's position with respect to ongoing litigation matters.

That said, just like my colleague, I want to seize the opportunity today to discuss with you, the members of the committee, the exceptional circumstances that led the government to invoke the Emergencies Act in February 2022.

These circumstances included unlawful, countrywide protests that presented a threat to the safety of Canadians, as well as blockades targeting essential infrastructure.

Our country was confronted with illegal blockades at border crossings and vital trade corridors. This impacted our economy and industry, and the jobs and livelihoods of many hard-working Canadians.

Indeed, the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge alone affected about $390 million in trade every day. This bridge supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and its most important trading partner, the United States of America. I remember during those days the multiple conversations I had with the Premier of Ontario, Premier Ford, about the importance of working with his government and using every available tool to bring this to a peaceful conclusion as quickly as possible.

Coupled with the blockades, the illegal occupation of our city streets also presented very real threats to Canadian businesses, both big and small. Participants in these activities used a number of tactics to threaten and intimidate local residents and businesses. Their activities disrupted the peace and contributed to a general sense of public insecurity.

Prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, citizens, municipalities and the Province of Ontario all participated in court proceedings seeking injunctive relief to help manage these threats, and a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of residents of Ottawa.

Members of the committee, given these exceptional circumstances, as my colleague said, the government maintains its position that this unprecedented situation constituted a public order emergency. The government therefore also maintains that its use of the Emergencies Act was both necessary and lawful.

As you know, since you have studied the matter for quite some time, the Public Order Emergency Commission supported the decision in its final report, as my colleague clearly pointed out. After reviewing more than 85,000 documents, interviewing 139 individuals, receiving testimony from 76 witnesses and hearing from 50 experts, the Rouleau Commission concluded that the very high threshold required for the invocation of the act was met.

While the Public Order Emergency Commission found that the high threshold to invoke the act was met, the commission's report also provided recommendations that the government is carefully considering. I hope to have some details as early as next week in terms of the government's specific response to the thoughtful recommendations of the Rouleau commission. In particular, we're obviously examining recommendations to improve collaborations between jurisdictions, support community safety and help strengthen our capacity to respond to similar events of national significance in the future.

With that, Madam Chair, my colleague and I would obviously be very happy to answer any questions the committee members might have.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you both very much.

We will move to our first round. The first round will be five minutes.

We'll start off with Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, ministers, with your supporting cast. Thank you for your attendance tonight. It's been a long time coming to get both of you here, with your supporting entourage, and we're very grateful.

I want to start off by opining that it's of no surprise to me, and I'm sure to many members on this committee, that both ministers doubled down on literally the same talking points we've heard from this Liberal government throughout the last two and a half years, but most importantly after the ruling of Justice Mosley. In my respectful opinion, the Federal Court ruling provided a massive political humiliation for the Justin Trudeau government.

Minister Virani, were you given a copy of Justice Mosley's decision before it was publicly released at 1:03 p.m.?

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

I received Justice Mosley's decision when it was a matter of public record.

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

Thank you.

Literally 14 minutes later, Minister Virani, at 1:17 p.m., both you and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland issued a release indicating that both of you were planning on appealing.

Prior to your making that announcement publicly to Canadians, did you read all 191 pages of Justice Mosley's decision in the span of 14 minutes, yes or no?

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

I was assisted by people who were with me. We jointly reviewed the decision.

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

Did those people jointly review all 191 pages in 14 minutes?

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

We made an assessment of the decision. You've seen the notice of appeal. That is a matter of public record. We have tremendous respect for the Federal Court and all the judges therein. Reasonable people can have disagreements about matters of law and mixed matters of law, in fact, which is the case here—

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

Thank you.

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

—and we outlined that in the notice of appeal.

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

How long does it normally take the justice department to publicly state whether they are going to appeal a court judgment?

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

I'm not aware of any average in that regard, Mr. Brock. What I would say to you is that it's entirely context-specific. It's a case-by-case determination.

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

In my two and a half years as a parliamentarian, Minister Virani, I have witnessed your government opining on several Supreme Court of Canada rulings and various provincial court of appeal rulings. The talking point has always been “We need to review the decision. We need to measure our response, and we will decide in due course whether or not we will launch an appeal.”

However, in this particular case, you clearly didn't read all 191 pages. It was important to you, because you were politically humiliated. The entire government was humiliated, particularly your Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, that you illegally invoked the Emergencies Act. That's why you received your marching orders, probably from the Prime Minister if not from the PMO, to publicly state your intentions to appeal, yes or no?

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

You're mischaracterizing exactly what I just said to you in my previous response. I said I was ably assisted by others who were there in the room, and we jointly reviewed the decision.

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

Mr. Virani, you were a member of this very committee when, on May 30, 2022, we ordered the production of the government's legal opinion. That motion passed unanimously. You were in support of that, Minister Virani. Now that you are in a position to do something about it, will you turn over the legal opinion?

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

The opinions and advice are matters of privilege, which you will appreciate as a fellow counsel, Mr. Brock, and I believe you received responses from both the previous deputy minister, Mr. Daigle, and the current deputy minister, who is sitting beside me, to that effect.