Declaration of Emergency Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Peter Harder]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Colleagues, I think while we're two weeks after Groundhog Day, we're very much practising the Groundhog Day theme by revisiting stuff that, Mr. Virani, you participated in as a member and now as minister.

As a resident of Ottawa who was here during that whole episode, my question two years ago was, “What took you so long?” My question today.... I have an appetite, Minister LeBlanc, for your announcement next week. Will that include commitments with respect to Wellington Street?

Could you tell us whether or not there have been any consultations at the provincial level so that your statements next week will reflect joint efforts, or is this a unilateral announcement?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Senator Harder, for the question. I too was in Ottawa. I'm not a resident of Ottawa, but I was in Ottawa during those weeks, and I certainly share the sentiment you expressed. We all have friends and family members who witnessed that circumstance as well and came to the same conclusion.

The response next week will be the Government of Canada's response, obviously, to the Rouleau commission recommendations. Some of those recommendations were properly directed at other orders of government, as you noted.

I don't purport to think that the Rouleau commission will deal with the long-standing issue around Wellington Street—the jurisdiction of Wellington Street, the role of the City of Ottawa, the parliamentary precinct. I know that some of my cabinet colleagues, and maybe the deputy minister, who is with me, are in a better position, having participated in some of those conversations.

That wouldn't be part of what we'd be talking about next week, but I know that it's an active discussion. For example, I've heard my colleague Jean-Yves Duclos discuss that. Mr. Tupper might have something about Wellington Street, per se, that I haven't contemplated in the Rouleau commission finding.

If it's okay, Madam Chair, perhaps the deputy minister could add something.

[Shawn Tupper, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I would simply add that conversations have indeed been ongoing for some time. I would split them into two categories. The first is the definition of the Hill precinct, how it is defined and what boundaries are set to it. The second is how it's policed and maintained.

I've been involved in the second part of those discussions. They have been across jurisdictions. We have been trying to develop advice that can be brought forward to make sure that we have cleanliness in lines of reporting and the ability to respond faster in the future.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you very much.

My subsequent question is for Mr. Vigneault. As I look at the witnesses, you're the only one who's been here before. Is there anything in your previous testimony that, in hindsight, if I can quote Justice Mosley—hindsight is apparently important in judicial practice—you wish to add or comment on?

[David Vigneault]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Harder, I do believe that what I personally took from the commission of inquiry by Commissioner Rouleau was sobering in terms of something very important that took place in our country. Speaking as the director of CSIS, our job is to look at the threats we're facing. Unfortunately, this commission of inquiry, the work you're doing and what we've been talking about are just demonstrating that the threat we face in our country is getting more complex and more pervasive.

I welcome these discussions, because I think we need to do more to be able to protect Canadians. That would be my own takeaway, if I can put it that way.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you very much.

My last question is for Minister Virani. I appreciate that you're reluctant to get into matters that are before the courts, but I, for one, very much favour the action you took in terms of appealing the ruling. Is it possible for you to give me some of the legal questions that you feel are important to have the court review? I referenced, perhaps sarcastically, the evidence in hindsight. Is that one of the principles of administrative law that you would like clarity on?

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

Thank you, Senator Harder, for that question.

Given that the litigation is under way, I can direct you to the notice of appeal that has been filed and that is a matter of public record. There are issues of law in terms of the standard of review that was applied in this context and whether the standard was correctly articulated and correctly applied. There is an issue that relates to evidence and there is an issue that relates to the constitutional finding of the Federal Court.

I would just reiterate that while we obviously have tremendous respect for all the courts in this country, there are concerns with this particular decision. Based on that, we are pursuing an avenue that is available in Canada, which is the appeal that we've filed.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

I'll now move to Senator Smith.

[Larry W. Smith]

Thank you, Chair.

This is a question for Minister LeBlanc, following up from MP Green.

In his decision, Justice Mosley noted that it was responsible for the government to be concerned about the economic impacts of the blockades. In a very broad sense, it could be considered “threats to the security of Canada”. Justice Mosley also notes that it's very hard to define what “national security” means.

As the MP asked, in what ways will this issue be fixed? How should we define what national security means?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Smith, for the question.

That is an issue that the government has reflected on since the invocation of the Emergencies Act and since the Rouleau commission's findings. As I said, the government's intention was to respond publicly within a year, as we'd committed to doing. The court decision that you quoted gave us a few weeks of extra work to reflect on that very issue.

I remember my colleague, the finance minister, was before the Rouleau commission herself, saying that we thought the economic security of Canadians was not the sole determining issue, but it was part of a broad-based government conclusion that the security of Canadians was threatened and a state of public emergency had been reached. Those were the discussions that the government was having at the time.

Certainly, when I spoke to Premier Ford and when I spoke to Atlantic premiers who were worried about pop-up demonstrations at other border crossings.... The premier of British Columbia had spoken to me in light of some reports that the Pacific gateway crossing might be blocked. We had other first ministers, another order of government, across the country, from the Atlantic coast to British Columbia, with a lot of focus on the province of Ontario, telling us—and their police forces were telling them—that there was a real risk of a contagion of these economic blockades. They were expressing very publicly and privately to us the concern that the government needed to bring every possible instrument to bear to bring these situations to a peaceful conclusion.

[Larry W. Smith]

If I could, I will ask one more question.

How was the timing of the acceleration of the threat handled among the various players, not only from the federal government, but from the provincial governments and the forces on the streets? How was that handled?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, I don't know if the commissioner or the director of CSIS can perhaps add to this. They participated in some of those discussions. Certainly Director Vigneault was in his job and was in some of those same meetings as I was at the time—or the deputy minister.

I know that as a government we looked at a threat picture across the country based on what we were hearing from law enforcement partners across the country. This was publicly available reporting. There was an increased risk of a contagion or a spread. That was one of the important factors we considered.

I don't know if the commissioner or David wants to add something.

[David Vigneault]

Madam Chair, I'll be very brief.

Senator Smith, the way the system worked at that point was that very quickly the different levels of law enforcement and intelligence got together through joint teams. We had a team here in Ottawa. There was a team in the province of Ontario as well, which was stood up with the OPP. The purpose was to share and understand, in a very dynamic way, intelligence and information.

From a CSIS point of view, my people's job at the table would have been to bring in intelligence about the threat actors we were concerned with and get information from law enforcement to inform our own investigation.

That very dynamic process was taking place at the officials' levels with law enforcement and intelligence in Ottawa and also in the province of Ontario. That information was then fed up to the incident response group that Minister LeBlanc referred to earlier, so that the cabinet, represented by the members at the IRG, would receive that information and advice.

[Larry W. Smith]

In western Canada, where you had a major dust-up, were they part of that whole process?

[David Vigneault]

Absolutely. For example, at this point, my RCMP colleagues and the Canada Border Services Agency had people on the ground who would be reporting right away to Ottawa in terms of what was happening. Then that information was analyzed and reported back up.

Depending on the situation, CBSA, RCMP or in some cases CSIS would take specific operational measures to be able to address the situation. At the same time, we were providing information and responding to advice requests from the government.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thanks, Senator Smith. Your time is up.

Colleagues, we have time to move to a second round. We will have four minutes for Mr. Motz and Mr. Naqvi, and then three minutes for Mr. Fortin, Mr. Green, Senator Harder and Senator Carignan. I believe that will bring us to a close.

I'd ask Mr. Motz to begin for four minutes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, ministers and witnesses, for being here.

I've been here as well all this time. I've studied as much information as I can at this committee and outside of this committee on the invocation. I still believe, more strongly today than I did in 2022, that the circumstances to invoke the act were not met, the threshold was not met. In fact, I agree with Justice Mosley's decision that it was, in fact, illegal and unconstitutional. This is a binding precedent, unlike Rouleau's particular ruling.

The other thing I think the Canadian public needs to understand is that Canadians expect their government to follow the law, the rule of law, and not to create an interpretation thereof that makes it convenient for the government to circumvent the existing law.

Mr. Virani, you indicated that there are hundreds of years of precedent for lawyer-client privilege, and the relationship has lasted hundreds of years. Do you know what else has lasted all that time? Parliament has been making laws of the land to govern people.

By invoking the Emergencies Act, cabinet gave itself the power to pass criminal laws, which Mosley found to be unconstitutional. Have you actually found and read the infamous broader interpretation, yes or no?

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

I don't understand your question.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Have you actually read the legal opinion, the broader interpretation that the government was telling everyone they relied upon to invoke the Emergencies Act, yes or no?

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

Mr. Motz, I'm trying to be helpful, but even answering that question would disclose solicitor-client privilege, which I cannot do here.

What I would say to you is that—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Let me stop you for a minute.

Can you tell me the date stamp that was on that?

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

Mr. Motz, in terms of solicitor-client privilege—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

So, you cannot. The reason I asked that question—

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

—merely the existence of the questions you're asking me would disclose the privilege.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

You've already answered. It was a yes-or-no question.