Declaration of Emergency Committee on April 26th, 2022

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

The last question is on the—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Let me add just one sentence, which is this: We tailored this act to the situation in order to be proportionate, and in order to protect Canadians' rights. It was the most effective way to go.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Did you use the balance of probabilities, or did you use a threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt” when you made those considerations?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

We used the threshold elaborated in the act in sections 3 and 16—

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Your time is up.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

—and in section 2 of the CSIS Act.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Minister.

I now give the floor to Senator Boniface for five minutes.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you very much.

Welcome, Minister, and thank you for being here.

I'd like to talk a bit about Ottawa and the injunction. I'd just like to have a sense of what you saw as the importance—if there was any importance—of the multitude of complaints from the citizens of Ottawa. Like many people here, when I stay here during the week, I run into neighbours. The neighbours have certainly filled me in on how they viewed this and the way it was handled.

There was an injunction filed by an individual, as you know, which banned the noise pollution emanating from the trucks and other conveyances. How did that play into the decision-making around the declaration of emergency? To give you a chance in the fullness of.... The question I get is this: Why did an individual have to make the injunction when, in fact, there are three levels of government that could have done the same thing, which perhaps had a lot more to work with?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you, Senator Boniface.

I, too, live in Ottawa much of the week and was living with this as well. My office was right on Wellington. I won't comment on the substance of the injunction, other than to say that it is a private law remedy used by a private individual. Nothing in what we do precludes private individuals from taking private law remedies.

As government, we have public law remedies. The Emergencies Act is one of them, and that is what we chose to use because we felt it was necessary. All of the citizen complaints, if you will—putting it that way—are evidence that their rights were being infringed upon in a very serious way by the illegal activity of the convoy.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

It would have been taken into consideration. I'm trying to get to the heart of the question on why not one of the levels of government looked at an injunction as one of the options prior to getting to a declaration.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

As government, we don't use injunctions as a private law remedy. We use other direct public law means—the Criminal Code, other statutes and, in this case, the Emergencies Act.

It's a different basket. I taught in a law faculty for 20 years. If you talk private law, you look at injunctions. This isn't part of the tool kit that governments use, because we have other tools.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

We'll disagree on that, because I've actually been involved in a situation where an injunction was used. How that's used....

I just think there is a view in the public out there that asks, “Why did this individual have to do this on their own?” I'm not saying that it should have necessarily been the federal, provincial or municipal government. I'm just asking, as we move forward, whether this is something this committee should consider: How may an injunction have assisted in this type of situation?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

We did intervene in support of that injunction, but it's still a private law remedy.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you.

It would also be interesting—going back to the point you made in your opening comments on the issue of restrictions for people coming to Canada for the purpose of the protest or such.... I assume, then, that there is some evidence that suggested we had people interested in coming across the border from, I would assume, the United States, to participate in the protest, and that would be why you put that in, specifically.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

That's correct. It's in the public domain that there were reports of people crossing the border. CBC reported, I believe on February 13, that there was also foreign funding through a variety of different sites.

The various pieces of information that we had explain the various measures that we took.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

The final question is one we asked your colleague Minister Mendicino. It's to try to get a sense of what point in the protest time frame it moved from a lawful demonstration to an illegal occupation.

How would that align with your declaration of an emergency?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

The idea that it went past limits.... I think it is fair to say that people were making those kinds of arguments right from the get-go, whether it was about the Ambassador Bridge, Coutts, Emerson or threats in other places.

The question for us with the Emergencies Act is an entirely different question, which is at what point is it clear to us, as a federal government, that the situation has now moved beyond the ability of the province—

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

The time is over.

Thank you, Senator and Minister.

I now give the floor to Senator Carignan for five minutes.

[Claude Carignan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, Minister.

As I understand it, you are the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and you provide legal opinions to the Government of Canada.

Is that correct?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Yes, that's one of my duties.

[Claude Carignan]

That's good.

I'm going to read you a passage from what the father of the Emergencies Act, Perrin Beatty, said at the second reading stage of Bill C‑77 in the House of Commons on November 16, 1987:

…unlike the War Measures Act, Part II of Bill C‑77 confers no new powers relating to search, seizure, arrest or detention. The provisions of the Criminal Code in these areas are considered to be entirely adequate to deal with the instigators of public disorder, even under unusual and exceptional circumstances.

Minister, how can you say it's consistent with the charter to seize bank accounts without statutory authority, a search warrant or judicial authorization solely for the purpose of scaring people?

Tell me that's consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for that question, Senator.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the facts. There were no seizures in this instance. Accounts were frozen, but there were no seizures.

[Claude Carignan]

So, in your mind, freezing an account doesn't constitute a seizure.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It was temporary.

[Claude Carignan]

Then you think that freezing an account for just one hour doesn't constitute a seizure.

Is that correct?