Evidence of meeting #5 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 question.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
That's correct.
We didn't actually seize property. This is the distinction where I disagreed with the interpretation of Senator Carignan. We temporarily froze for as long as the illegal activity that those funds were supporting, directly or indirectly, was maintained. As soon as the activity ended, the accounts were unfrozen.
We did not keep any property. We did not seize any property at any time.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
That is correct. It's only meant to impede the support of illegal activity.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Minister Mendicino said in his opening remarks that the government was “reluctant to invoke and eager to revoke” the emergency order.
Do you agree with that sentiment?
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
I do very much so.
When you get appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General, you don't think you're going to be the first Minister of Justice and Attorney General to invoke the Emergencies Act. Believe me. You hesitate. You are careful. You make sure that.... It's a last resort. Well, it's the second-last resort. The last resort is the army, and I was as shocked as others were to hear that Senator Carignan wanted to bring in the army.
We did not want to bring in the army. I am proud that we did not bring in the army. I am proud that we resolved this situation without injury. We resolved it peacefully and I'm very proud of that.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Naqvi and Minister.
Mr. Green, since it is now my turn to speak, I leave you to chair the meeting.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you.
Minister, I'm listening to your testimony, and I also condemn the situation that occurred on Parliament Hill. I know incidents occurred elsewhere, but let's focus on what happened on Wellington Street and on the Hill because it made no sense. I find it hard to understand how the situation was allowed to degenerate that far. If someone had told me a year ago that people could park trucks and set up barbecues and hot tubs on Wellington Street, I would've considered it ridiculous and impossible. But it happened. When I hear that the Emergencies Act had to be invoked, I find that alarming.
Do you think we're in the same situation today as we previously were? If people decided this weekend to block Wellington or nearby streets, or even Parliament Hill, would we be at the mercy of all that once again, and would we invoke the Emergencies Act again? Could any other measures be introduced under current statutes, such as the Criminal Code, the Highway Traffic Act or any other act?
9 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
That's the good question, Mr. Fortin.
I obviously can't put myself in the shoes of the police, but they have tools available to them. The Emergencies Act provides them with other tools.
Consequently, if a situation arises in future in which the tools provided under the Criminal Code or other statutes aren't sufficient, we may have to consider the possibility of invoking the Emergencies Measures once again. However,…
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Minister, the tools you mention, such as the right to remove vehicles, are already provided under the Highway Traffic Act. You know that as well as I do, if not more so. The powers conferred on the police, in particular, to conduct seizures, remove vehicles and arrest people who disturb public order, are already available.
How can you contend that you needed additional powers? It seems to me the tools we had before the act was invoked were adequate to do everything that was done after the fact.
9 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
We had discussed the situation on the ground with the police forces and our colleagues across Canada, and no tow trucks were in fact available to remove vehicles. So we took the necessary measures.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Does that mean that no one, anywhere in Canada, could find tow trucks available to remove vehicles from Parliament Hill? That's even more alarming.
9 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
As you heard Ms. Lucki and others say, announcing that the Emergencies Act would be invoked had a salutary and very positive effect on the ground.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I understand. It definitely had an effect, but the question is whether we could have resolved the situation with the tools we already had.
9 p.m.
Liberal
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
We were dealing with a situation, and we resolved it. I hope that won't be necessary in future.
9 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Minister.
I now give the floor to Mr. Green for three minutes.
9 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
Much has been said about the need for us to have transparency and accountability throughout this process, yet we've heard in early testimony, and in comments in the media, a constant reference to cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege. I think there's an opportunity here for us to provide Canadians on both sides of the issue the clarity they need. I'm not asking you to waive cabinet confidentiality, but I do have specific questions around charter compliance.
Within the Department of Justice, through you, Mr. Chair, to the Attorney General, would you have staff dedicated to charter breach analysis?
9 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Okay, for each of the objective elements that were considered in the six types of temporary measures that were invoked, on what factual basis was it shown that the charter breaches were saved under section 1.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
9:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Will it not be the case that they're in a high likelihood, given the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's impending legal action? Will there be a scenario in that legal action where you may be compelled to testify to provide Canadians with answers on the factual basis, as we've heard from the Liberal side, time and time again, that these decisions were made on the basis of facts.
This committee is an important committee. Will you, in this moment, provide us with clarity on the factual basis for which the objective elements were met for the six temporary measures?