Declaration of Emergency Committee on April 26th, 2022

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Mr. Green, go ahead for five minutes.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Honourable Minister, would you agree that in invoking this declaration every single word within the declaration would have a specific meaning?

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

Yes.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Would you agree that, in this case, in the very legal, probably the most extreme legal piece of legislation we have, every word matters.

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

Yes, I do.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

The proclamation declaring a public order emergency, made on February 14, specified that the public order emergency constituted of:

i. the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various locations throughout Canada—

With emphasis, I will add:

—the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of...serious violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada,

Through you, Mr. Chair, to the honourable minister, I want to reference section 83.01 of the Criminal Code, which defines “terrorism” as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause”.

Given that criminal definition, would you agree, given the language that you used in the proclamation, that this was considered a terrorist threat?

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

I would agree that this section is imported into the test for the invocation of the act, as you have referenced. You're right. We were very attentive to the precise language and legal test that was required to invoke the act.

One reason that I said in my introductory remarks, Mr. Green, that the so-called “freedom convoy” began the way that it did was to be sure that all members and all Canadians were aware of part of what incited the assembly and the amassing of large numbers of people, in the thousands, at official ports of entry, in our communities, in our neighbourhoods, and here, even at the seat of the federal government.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I also heard reference to a violent overthrow. The honourable minister used the term “ideologically extreme goals”, yet in the declaration itself there seems to be an overemphasis on the blockades and the impacts on the economic good. I think we, around the table, can all agree that we have a responsibility for Canadians to know the seriousness of this threat, one of which Commissioner Thomas Carrique of the OPP, in testimony before the public safety committee, talked about how, on January 13, the OPP intelligence reporting saw these as high-risk critical events.

In fact, I'll reference number five of the proclamation, which talked about “the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence that would further threaten the safety and security of Canadians.”

Understanding those two points, Mr. Chair, and through you to the honourable minister, noting that threats to security for the purpose of the public emergency order are defined as meanings assigned to section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, I would like to know what considerations you were briefed on, given the threat to national security, that were provided both by the OPP, and as I'm to understand, ITAC, in the weeks leading up to the procession and the eventual occupation of Ottawa.

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

Of course I want to be respectful to the sensitivity of intelligence reports that were given to the government. I do know, Mr. Green, that there is, I believe, a motion before this committee to determine the level of access to that information. I encourage you to undertake those deliberations—

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

If I could, I want to be specific here. What is the factual basis for the objective elements that were considered when you were looking to perhaps rescue charter breaches under section 1? You talked about facts over opinion. I'd like to know the factual basis for which those elements, the six points for temporary measures, were dealt with.

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

I want to be sure I understand your question. I'll try to answer it. If I'm off-track then you'll let me know.

One feature of the Emergencies Act, unlike its predecessor the War Measures Act, was that it ensured that any measures that were included—

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you. This is not the direction that I wanted to go in. What I'm looking for, sir, is that there were six elements, six types of temporary measures. I would be assured that the government would have gone through a charter breach analysis, would it have not?

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

We wanted to be sure—

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Would you be willing to share with this committee the factual basis for which you have objectively and—

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Your time is over.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Yes or no, would the minister be willing to share the factual basis for the charter breach analysis?

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

I would assure you and all colleagues, we want to be transparent, but what I was getting to was that the measures we included in the Emergencies Act were compliant with the charter. That is a requirement of the Emergencies 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 (Senator, Ontario, ISG]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I'd like to zero in somewhat in following up on the chair's question around the jurisdictional issues in policing. We're a convoluted country when it comes to policing, as we saw. We have the Ottawa police—I'm going to focus on Ottawa in this question—and the RCMP obviously serving some aspects here on Parliament Hill in different capacities. Since jurisdiction for policing falls on the Province of Ontario, which I'm quite familiar with, the province has a role to play in the process.

In this situation, where both the city and Ontario declared emergencies and, I assume, therefore came to the federal level asking for assistance, did you go behind the declaration of emergency at the city and provincial levels to see whether or not they had exhausted their own authorities?

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

I want to come to that, but before I do, I really want to acknowledge.... The premise of your question is I hope going to be studied very carefully by this committee, namely, how different branches of law enforcement are able to co-operate and how different jurisdictions are triggered and implicated, including here in the capital.

Having spent some time now here, along with all of you in this city, I am aware, as you all are—very painfully so—that Wellington Street is under the jurisdiction of the Ottawa Police Service, and that did, if I am to be very candid, present some challenges for all law enforcement in the response in the early days and into the period after that of the illegal blockade. I do hope...and I embrace this committee's work on how we're able to navigate that jurisdictional terrain, particularly here in the parliamentary precinct.

As we took our decision in what we could do to respond, we were following the advice of various levels of law enforcement, including the RCMP and the commissioners on the line, but we wanted to be sure at bottom that we were giving law enforcement all of the tools and the resources that they needed to respond.

It was only after that period of time when existing authorities—and there are existing authorities on the books and we're all very aware of that—were ineffective at restoring public safety. That is perhaps another area that we encourage this committee to study very carefully, and we embrace this as a healthy exercise.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

I appreciate with Wellington.... The question I'm trying to get to is how the layers of an emergency order at the city, then the province—it's very unusual for a province to declare the emergency, given they have a provincial police service and their capacity to be able to assist the city, as policing falls, as you know, under the province—and then layering in the federal role....

The question I was trying to get to is this: Did you take at face value that they had exhausted their resources and their capacity to be able to do something at the provincial level to bring in the federal assistance?

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

I would say that certainly we were aware of the fact that the province had invoked its own provincial equivalent emergencies legislation. It occurred before we invoked the federal Emergencies Act.

Without question, that would have been something that would have been on the minds of those of us who had to take the decision, but I would circle back to what I think you began with, which is a very important question. That is that you're right that, in Ottawa, it is the Ottawa Police Service that has the local jurisdiction, including on Wellington Street, to ensure public safety, but how that intersects with the Ontario Provincial Police when they have exhausted their local resources to respond, and then if the provincial police are unable to restore public safety on their own, how other branches of law enforcement are implicated, including the RCMP, is a very important question.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I apologize for interrupting, Minister, but your time is up.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Thank you very much, Ms. Boniface.

Senator Carignan now has the floor.