Declaration of Emergency Committee on June 7th, 2022

[Claude Carignan]

Because it's law, I assume they are familiar with it.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

It's rare [Inaudible—Editor] Supreme Court in questions.

[Claude Carignan]

I wouldn't want to be their lawyer in the Supreme Court.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Let's try to keep all the editorial comments regarding staff to a minimum if we could.

We will now pass the floor to Senator Boniface for three minutes.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you again for being here.

I wanted to look a little closer, following the invocation to the point of revocation. I'll make an assumption, and you can confirm for me whether my assumption is correct. I assume the group of deputy ministers and others that met would have met on a daily basis, if not more regularly.

[François Daigle]

Yes, and we continued to be debriefed on what was happening on the ground.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

One of the questions that was referred to in terms of the RCMP providing the information to your table.... I appreciate that's the federal police providing to the federal government. Would it be fair to also conclude that the RCMP would be gathering information as part of its role to gather information from other agencies across the country as to who may have been involved in these blockades, or collecting intelligence in relation to these blockades?

[François Daigle]

That was my understanding. You can ask the question of the RCMP. I do know that they were very engaged and were working directly with the OPP and the Ottawa Police Service.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

I assume also they worked with any other jurisdictions that weren't RCMP in other parts of the country like the Windsor police, for instance.

[François Daigle]

Yes, and they engaged with the police in Alberta. As I said earlier, they were in touch with Sûreté du Québec and with the OPP.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the point of revocation or the facts that led up to the point of revocation.

Can you enlighten us in terms of process? I realize you won't give us legal advice and I appreciate that, but what's the process that led you to the revocation? At least some of us were in the Senate listening to speeches when it took place.

[François Daigle]

The process was getting regular briefings as to what was happening on the ground. Once we received advice that things were under control and that local police forces could manage with their existing authorities, the government considered then whether it was time to revoke the orders.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Particularly with the Ontario emergency declaration, can you advise about those discussions? Is it your sense that there's a limit to the Ontario legislation itself? Was that one of the factors that would have played into it?

I'm trying to understand, too, Mr. Motz's point or others' in terms of the Ontario emergency.

[François Daigle]

I think the Ontario's emergency act is pretty broad and allows for a number of things. They took the orders they took under the emergency act.

When you look at emergency legislation across the country, it's very different from province to province. B.C.'s for example deals mostly with natural disasters, or I think only with natural disasters, so they would have been in a difficult situation had they had to rely on their emergencies powers to deal with something like this.

We looked at the emergency legislation across the country.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

I would like to thank our guests for joining us this evening. This is the end of the first round. At this time, we will suspend briefly in order to set up the next panel.

I declare this meeting suspended.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

This meeting is resumed.

I will recognize Mr. Virani.

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

Thank you.

I have a very brief point of order on something that was raised by Monsieur Fortin in the previous panel. It was the notion of the application of solicitor-client privilege to Crown lawyers or Department of Justice lawyers.

Just for the committee's edification, there is a case citation that I can provide, the case of the R. v. Campbell, 1999, 1 SCR 565, where the Supreme Court establishes quite clearly that solicitor-client privilege also applies to Department of Justice lawyers providing advice.

There is also a reference in Watson and McGowan, pages 1078 and 1079.

I just thought the committee should have that for its benefit. Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

That will be taken into consideration for future decisions.

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

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you very much.

At this time, we have with us here today, between 8 p.m. and 9:30 p.m., representatives from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We have Mr. Rob Stewart, deputy minister. We have Dominic Rochon, senior assistant deputy minister, national security and cybersecurity branch; and we have Talal Dakalbab, assistant deputy minister, crime prevention branch.

You will be given five minutes for opening remarks.

I believe, Mr. Stewart, you'll be providing those opening remarks.

I'll just tell you now that when we get into our rounds of questioning, as you may have heard in previous rounds, it is within the purview of the committee members to direct and determine their time. If they ask you to move on to the next question, it's certainly nothing personal. You may hear me interject and say thank you to either wrap up the round or to move you on to the next topic.

With that being said, Mr. Stewart, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Rob Stewart, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, and thank you for having us here.

I'm here today in follow-up to the presentation to this committee by Minister Mendicino to provide support for the study of the public order emergency and the role the Emergencies Act played in bringing it to a conclusion.

My presentation will focus on my role as the deputy minister of Public Safety in the following areas. First, I will address our understanding of the nature of the threats leading to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Second will be how the Emergencies Act facilitated law enforcement actions, and third is the role we played in communication and coordination with provinces, territories and municipalities.

The public emergency in January and February 1922 was rooted in a movement centred on anti-government sentiments connected with the public health response to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

At that time, participants in protests and blockades in the nation's capital and at strategic ports of entry adopted tactics that disrupted the peace, impacted the Canadian economy and engendered national security risks. This included aggressive protest tactics, threatening behaviour, slowing down traffic and creating traffic jams, in particular, near ports of entry.

The freedom and well-being of citizens was negatively impacted, and businesses were forced to close either due to safety concerns or due to the disruption in the flow of goods and services through blocked ports of entry.

We also observed that convoys of large trucks, which were growing in terms of both size and number, were manifesting unpredictably around the country. In many locations, the protest moved beyond a peaceful threshold and became illegal, giving rise to a volatile and unpredictable environment at the protest sites, with an assessed potential to mobilize to violence.

Broadly speaking, and crucially, information about what was happening within protest groups was not easy to obtain. While CSIS did not identify specific IMVE threats, ideologically motived violent extremism threats, we were aware that some extremist supporters were seeking to link their causes to these protests.

I want to emphasize that CSIS does not investigate, as the director has testified, lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

That said, assessments provided in a public unclassified space by the integrated threat assessment centre on ideologically motivated violent extremism helped inform our understanding of the complex and evolving nature of the threat environment, one that was spurred by misinformation and harmful rhetoric. It also pointed to the potential for lone actors to find an opportunity within protests—an environment in which determined, disaffected individuals could cause harm in a very short amount of time.

There was also a fear that the measures taken by the police would run up against firm and determined opposition that could cause problems and greater instability.

The reasons for issuing the declaration of a public order emergency were set in the public document of explanation pursuant to section 58, as has been mentioned to this committee.

Furthermore, the Houses of Parliament were provided with the consultations document. These documents highlight that, between the end of January and February 14, the escalation of the threat across the country had been regularly communicated with and by PTs and police of jurisdiction to the federal government. They requested the federal government's action in supporting police of jurisdiction to address the threat.

Officials from Public Safety, I and my colleagues, engaged with provincial, territorial and municipal partners on multiple occasions on topics ranging from additional support for law enforcement to reduce illegal crowd gathering to increasing powers to manage the convoys, including infractions, fines, enforcement regimes, tow trucks and possible deployment of additional RCMP materiel and human resources.

That is the context in which the Emergencies Act was invoked in mid-February.

The act provided tools to bolster law enforcement powers such as access to tow trucks to end the blockades. The act also provided tools to deter the continuing of illegal protests and restore public order such as the prohibition on public assembly and the economic measures on convoy financing.

Within the federal government, Public Safety Canada, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Canada Border Services Agency, Justice Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Transport Canada all played central roles.

Through the three weeks of this crisis, we communicated and coordinated closely with other partners. Collaboration with provincial and territorial counterparts took place through an already-established ADM-level FPT committee, the crime prevention and policing committee, as well as through conversations I had with my provincial deputy minister counterparts. In addition, as deputy minister, I engaged with the City of Ottawa manager, the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ottawa Police Service leaders and provincial deputy minister counterparts.

In conclusion, the Emergencies Act was invoked in a volatile environment with potential risk to national security across Canada, taking into account the view and advice of many stakeholders.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

We will begin the opening round with Mr. Motz.

Mr. Motz, you have the floor for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Again, before my time starts, like I asked or suggested to the Justice officials, thank you very much for—

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'm not sure if that's a thing.

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

—being here in person. We really appreciate your doing that. It means a lot.

I'm going to read you two quotes from your minister: “At the recommendation of police, we invoked the Emergencies Act to protect Canadians”. That's quote number one. Quote number two is, “the invocation of the Emergencies Act...was only put forward after police officials told us they needed this special power”.

We have heard from police officials at this committee and at other committees in this Parliament. To date, none of them have indicated that they asked for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, so who asked for it?