Evidence of meeting #9 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 laws.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:10 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface (Senator, Ontario, ISG)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
To the witnesses, thank you for being here.
I'd like to zero in on the aspect of the proportionality to the public safety threat. Can you tell me how you made the determination, or what factors you took into account to consider the level of public safety threat that took place?
7:10 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I refer you to that section 58 report that talks about the nature of the threats that were being reported and that we saw. That included threats of violence and threats not to comply with the law. It included a presence of ideologically motivated violent extremism, and the other things that are referred to in the section 58 report.
7:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Okay.
I assume that some of that information would have come to you through the Department of Public Safety. Is it that kind of what the process was? I'm just trying to figure out the process within government.
7:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I think the process was mostly—and I think others have talked about this—that we had a group of deputy ministers who met regularly and who shared information. That's the method through which most of that information came to me, anyway.
7:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
In that group of deputy ministers, I assume someone would chair. Would that have been you?
7:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
No.
7:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Within the proclamation itself, then, in declaring a public order emergency, the language says, “the special temporary measures that may be necessary for dealing with the emergency”.
If the consultations took place, I expect your table would have had lots of discussions around that. Perhaps you can tell me specifically why the term “may” would be used, as opposed to “shall” or “will”? It's much more temporal.
7:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
It's difficult to know what the emergency is going to be about. It could be any kind of situation. The idea behind “may” would be to provide much discretion to the government to come up with the measures that would fit the particular emergency they wanted to address.
7:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
For clarity.... I'm just trying to understand what the thought process was at the time. I'm sure the documents will help us with that.
Would that be both what information you had on the table and also any other anticipation or concerns around other information that may come forward and that may influence a shift in terms of what people were doing or what they were up to? Was that taken into consideration as well?
7:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I think we met almost daily and we got information daily. We adjusted based on the information that we had.
We obviously didn't draft these things in a few minutes. We anticipated the potential of the government deciding to do that. We worked with the RCMP and our legal advisers and drafters, and we tried to sort out what would be helpful in coming up with orders. Then it went through a process of review before they were finalized.
7:15 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you for that. I think I understand how the operation of it works from the other end of it.
What I was trying to get a feel for was that, in considering all of these things, you would also consider some of the other concerns you had that may not have occurred yet or were anticipated. Weighing risk, I would suspect, was a big part of the decision that was made—and trying to land on the right spot.
Would there be documents, or some considerations that would be in writing, that would help us understand the other issues that you looked at or that you anticipated based on the information and, I'll say, the very soft side of the intelligence you may have had at the time?
7:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I think what we're hoping to do with this collection of documents that we're pulling together to respond to the motion is to provide a bit of that picture. It will be consistent with what's in that section 58 report. I don't think you'll see something that says, “We think this might happen but we put an X on it.” It was a very dynamic and urgent situation.
As you know, under the act, there was always the ability for.... Had the act not been revoked, this committee, or a committee like this one, would have been able to look at the orders and revoke them or amend them. It would have been possible for the government to bring in new orders, depending on what was happening on the ground and what needed to be addressed.
7:15 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you. It does go by quickly.
Mr. Carignan, the floor is yours for five minutes.
June 7th, 2022 / 7:15 p.m.
Claude Carignan Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Daigle, I want to make sure I understand your testimony correctly. As we know, you are a lawyer. You are telling us that the problem is not because there are no laws, it is because they are ineffective in this particular situation. That is what I have understood.
7:15 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
That is what I said, yes.
7:20 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Right.
What laws did you try to enforce that didn't work?
7:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
First, I would note that it isn't the Department of Justice that enforces laws, it's the police forces across the country.
7:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
We had to observe the situation and see whether the police forces were able to manage it with the laws available to them, whether it was the Department of Transport or the police forces.
7:20 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Maybe you didn't give any legal opinions; we shall see later. However, you did decide to issue an order together.
What specific laws was the government not able to enforce through the police services or other state agents?
7:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
Since I live in the region, I was following the situation closely. What I saw from watching television was that the Ottawa Police Service was having trouble enforcing even municipal or provincial laws, including laws on...
7:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I'm talking about the Motor Vehicles Act and the Highway Traffic Act, in particular.
7:20 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Do you know that because you watched television or because you had to assess that aspect as part of your job?
7:20 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
We were receiving information every day from colleagues of Ms. Lucki and other people. So the government was able to determine whether or not the work was enough to effectively manage the situation.