Declaration of Emergency Committee on April 26th, 2022

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome, Minister.

The meeting is called to order.

Welcome to meeting number five of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, created pursuant to the order of the House of Commons of March 2, 2022, and of the Senate on March 3, 2022. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House of Commons order of November 25, 2021.

I want to thank in advance all those present in the room for following the recommendations of the public health authorities, as well as the directives of the Board of Internal Economy, to maintain health and safety. Should any technical issues arise, please advise me so we can suspend for a few minutes to ensure that all members are able to participate fully. Witnesses should also be aware that interpretation services are available. Those of you participating virtually can access them by clicking on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen.

The Minister of Public Safety will appear before the committee in the first part of the meeting, and we will have the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in the second half. I would remind the minister that his representatives will likely be invited to come back at a later date. Consequently, we ask that you to answer the questions yourself as best you can.

Please note that, at the end of the meeting, the committee will discuss future business for its next meeting, which will be held next Tuesday, May 3.

And, with that, I would like to welcome the Minister of Public Safety and his officials. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

The floor is yours, Minister.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for having me here today.

Before I move to my remarks, I would just note that I'm joined by a number of officials, including my deputy minister, Rob Stewart. We have the commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki. We have the director of CSIS, David Vigneault, and we have from the CBSA, Ted Gallivan.

I am grateful for this committee's work examining the events of last January and February, which led to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The government's decision was precipitated by a series of unprecedented and simultaneous public order emergencies across the country. The images are seared into our memories. Let us begin by recalling the facts.

At the end of January 2022, members of the so-called “freedom convoy” demanded that all vaccine mandates be revoked, failing which the Governor General should unilaterally remove the Prime Minister from office. Others incited the violent overthrow of the government, with one threatening, “The only way that this is going to be solved is with bullets.” These ideologically extreme goals helped incite thousands to form massive blockades at our borders, legislatures, monuments and here in Ottawa in front of Parliament Hill.

The impacts were devastating. The daily costs to the economy at each of these ports of entry were astronomical. I would highlight that in Windsor, where the Ambassador Bridge is located, we lost about $390 million a day in trade. Plants were closed. Workers were laid off. The manufacturing sector was stalled.

Canada's ability to import essential medical supplies, food and fuel and to deliver them to Canadians was compromised. Our closest friend and ally, the United States, expressed its concerns at the highest levels of government. Here in Ottawa, residents were besieged for weeks on end.

The Rideau Centre was shut down. Small businesses were shuttered. People could not get to work or take their children to school. Also, 911 here was flooded with calls, putting at risk people in distress requiring first responders' assistance. The seat of the federal government on Wellington Street was completely overrun by blockaders who entrenched themselves with structures and propane tanks, who parked a crane in front of the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office, and who repeatedly intimidated and harassed residents 24-7, making it unbearable and unsafe.

When police repeatedly told the blockaders to go home, using their authorities to keep the peace, they were swarmed and threatened. When media tried to report what was going on, they were pushed and spat at. By any sensible definition this was a massive, illegal occupation in Ottawa for nearly a month.

The government remained engaged with law enforcement throughout to ensure that they had the support and the resources they needed. However, when efforts using existing authorities proved ineffective, the advice we received was to invoke the Emergencies Act. At all times we were guided by a simple principle of limited use. Put simply, when it came to the Emergencies Act we were reluctant to invoke and eager to revoke.

On that note, I want to express my profound gratitude to all members of law enforcement who carried out their responsibilities with restraint and professionalism. They were able to restore public safety with minimal injuries and no loss of life, which takes us to this exercise.

We welcome the committee's insights, not just on what happened but how to ensure that it does not happen again. We should carefully question the utilization of the Emergencies Act. Why? Because such authority should be granted only when it is absolutely necessary and strictly for the purposes of addressing a specific state of emergency.

Colleagues, as parliamentarians we have a sworn duty to uphold the law, for we are a nation of laws. To uphold the principles and values guaranteed by the charter, we must defend freedom of speech, assembly and lawful protest. However, freedom in a democracy never includes the freedom or licence to trample on the rights of others, or small business families hoping to put food on their families' tables or parents attempting to walk their children to school. We should never ever encourage, countenance or be complicit in illegal behaviour, for it is an affront to the administration of justice and the rule of law. Surely on that point we can all be agreed.

I can hardly think of anything more important at this moment in our country's democratic life. I welcome the committee's work and your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Minister.

We will now begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Motz, go ahead for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister Mendicino, for being here.

I'm always intrigued by the perspective of others when it comes to activities and how those perspectives are different among many of us. My view of what you described is different from yours.

I would ask you a couple of questions, Minister. Do you think Canadians should be able to know why you and your government invoked the Emergencies Act? Right now Canadians simply don't know why.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

The short answer is, yes, I do. The exercise that I'm here to engage with you, Mr. Motz, and others, is to ensure that there is transparency as to the reasons and the events that led to the invocation of the act.

We published, if I could just finish one last quick word—

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

No, that's perfect. That's all I needed to hear.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I was just going to say we published an essential backgrounder that laid out the reasons for that.

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

That's okay. Thank you.

I'm glad you indicated that you want to be transparent with the Canadian public. Based on the stonewalling that's happened in the legal proceedings in court from last week, it would appear as if that may be a position you're taking now as a government. I would hope that if you had good reasons, which you say you did, to invoke the Emergencies Act, you would undertake to share the reasons, and the documents and the information that you relied on as a minister and as government, with the Canadian public. I would hope you would undertake to do that, Minister, for the sake of Canadians.

We're not here for us. We're here for Canadians, to be transparent and accountable to them. Would you undertake to release all the documents to this committee that we can rely on, that you relied on, that your government relied on to invoke the Emergencies Act?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Motz, I want to assure you that we are here to shine a light on the events that led to the invocation of the act, which included, among other things, blockades at ports of entry that completely disrupted our economy, which laid people off, which shut down businesses, which cost the economy millions and which, frankly, here in Ottawa, laid siege to a community where no one felt safe for weeks. I understand you may have a different perspective, but I would hope that you don't have a different point of view with regard to the facts, and those are the facts.

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

I take that as a yes, that you will be undertaking to release all the information you relied upon.

It's interesting that, just yesterday, the media reported that, in fact, the economy was not impacted—as you indicated in your opening remarks—by hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, trade was up and industry and manufacturing was up 16% in cross-border traffic, contrary to your assertion.

One of the things that was intriguing to me was, during the actual convoy protest here, you retweeted some information that was later shown to be completely false and inaccurate. In your role as Minister of Public Safety, how can Canadians now trust that the information you relied upon to invoke the act in the first place was accurate and appropriately reliable?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I want to draw a bright distinction between aggregate statistics and the real-life impacts and consequences caused by the illegal blockades that occurred in White Rock, B.C., where I visited; in Emerson, Manitoba, where I visited; at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, where I visited; and here in Ottawa.

Speak to those Canadians, Mr. Motz. Speak to the small business owners who could not open because of the illegal and violent conduct being undertaken and engaged in by those who were doing it with the specific purpose of disrupting trade and travel. That was unlawful and that was one of the reasons why we invoked the act.

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

That's not my question.

My question was very clear. The information you relied on.... How can Canadians trust you when you were tweeting out misinformation shown to be false? You were tweeting this out, yet you want Canadians to trust you when you say, “The information that I relied upon to inform cabinet and my own decision on whether or not we should invoke the act in the first place....” How can Canadians trust that, all of a sudden, “take my word for it” is reliable and accurate? Without seeing it, we can't. I certainly don't trust that it's accurate until I see it. Canadians are saying the same thing: Show us.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm not sure there's a question there, but I have faith in Canadians' sensibility—

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

I'll ask you a question.

In my 35 years of law enforcement experience, I have a built-in BS detector—a built-in lie detector, if you will—and it's dinging. It's dinging big time. The only way it can be satisfied is you undertaking to say, “I will present, to this committee, every unredacted document you should have access to regarding the decisions we made, to have a look at as a committee, so we can be transparent to Canadians”.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I'm sorry, Mr. Motz. Your time is up.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I think that kind of rhetoric is not parliamentary and not useful. We can certainly agree to disagree without being disagreeable, and talking about things like a BS detector is probably not very parliamentary. I'd ask us all to exercise a bit of discretion.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you for your comment, Mr. Virani.

Thank you for your questions, Mr. Motz.

Yes, I believe we all want to be respectful in our debates. They can obviously become more heated at times, but we will nevertheless try to remain respectful.

Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Motz.

I realize I didn't have a card to signal that time was running out. I just made one to indicate one minute left.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Is that the yellow card or the red one?

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

It's the one that signals one minute left. I think it's the yellow one. I'll show the other side to signal 30 seconds left.

Thank you.

Ms. Bendayan, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the minister for being with us in committee today.

I must say that I find it curious that the Conservatives on this committee are downplaying the economic and reputational impact of the closure—the blockade—of international borders with our largest trading partner, the United States.

Minister, I'll turn to you for a number of questions. There are a number of things I'd like to get on the record, so to the extent that you can, perhaps you can provide succinct responses.

At the time of the invocation of the Emergencies Act by the federal government at 4:30 p.m. eastern on February 14, is it not true that the blockade of our international border in Coutts, Alberta, was ongoing, and that indeed it would only be reopened on February 15?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Bendayan. Yes, to the best of my recollection, that is correct, although I would just emphasize to you and to the other members of the committee that while, at the time of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, we were making some progress with regard to restoring public order, we could not take it as an assurance or a guaranteed outcome.

As I've said in the past, progress was not necessarily linear. The advice we were getting was that law enforcement needed the Emergencies Act to be sure that they could resolve, for example, ambiguities around those who were staying close to ports of entry, which are obviously very critical infrastructure, and to be able to communicate very clearly that they should leave. The Emergencies Act provided that power to them.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

Is the response similar with respect to the blockade at our international border at Emerson, Manitoba, which was also still ongoing at the time of the invocation of the Emergencies Act? In fact, that border would reopen only on February 16.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That is also correct.

As I said earlier to a question from Mr. Motz, I had the chance to visit Emerson and to speak directly with frontline CBSA officers and law enforcement who were there at the time. I know that, again, as you pointed out in your prefacing remarks, some on this committee, even in our chamber in the House of Commons, may have a different perspective on how to characterize this public order emergency. I would encourage them and anyone who doubts to speak with those who were engaged as part of the law enforcement response, and with the Canadians who had to shut their businesses and whose lives were upended.

There is a difference between having an opinion and a perspective and what is fact. What is factually true is that, at the time of the invocation, there were still ports of entry that were being illegally blockaded. That had a huge and devastating impact not only to our economy but to our national security and safety.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

In fact, there was another international border that was still being blocked illegally, and that was in Surrey, British Columbia, at the time of the invocation of the Emergencies Act. That border would reopen only several days later. That is your understanding as well, I believe.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That also is true. Just to add a little bit more detail, I also had the chance to go to the Pacific Highway port of entry, where I once again had the chance to speak with officers who were serving during the illegal blockades. They were there the day that blockaders took an armoured vehicle and rammed it into a barrier for the purposes of disrupting public safety and further interrupting safe travel and trade.

Once again, you can have whatever perspectives you want on debates and policy by this government, but there is no disputing those facts.