Declaration of Emergency Committee on June 7th, 2022

[François Daigle]

That's not what I said. What I said is that I participated in daily briefings that involved a number of departments and agencies, which briefed us on what was happening on the ground on a daily basis.

[Larry W. Campbell]

This is quite a dance.

Thank you very much.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

We will go to the second round. Given the time we have allotted for this section, they will be four-minute rounds.

With that, we will begin with Mr. Brock.

Mr. Brock, the floor is yours for four minutes, sir.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for your attendance today.

I will specifically be addressing questions to you, Mr. Daigle. I mean no disrespect to the ladies on the panel, but my area is focusing on legal threshold and charter compliance.

Before I get to that area, I want to highlight, in my opening remarks, that Perrin Beatty, a former defence minister and the author of this particular legislation, has said that extraordinary government powers require extraordinary accountability. This committee is legislatively constructed to thoroughly examine the government's role in the invocation of the act. We are not here to discuss the protesters themselves or the circumstances behind their arrival, but whether or not the legal threshold was met and was charter compliant. That's going to be my focus.

We know the act itself requires two thresholds to be met. You're aware of those thresholds. We have to establish that there's a threat to the security of Canada, which is largely defined in the CSIS Act. I take it that you're familiar with this act, Mr. Daigle.

[François Daigle]

I am.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm not going to read out each individual paragraph because it will take far too long. Can you tell me what evidence the Department of Justice relied upon to establish relevant and credible evidence that met the definition as set out through subsections (a) to (d), which are espionage; foreign influenced activities; serious violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective; and the overthrow of a constitutionally established system of government in Canada?

What evidence did the department rely upon?

[François Daigle]

In answer to that question I would point out that we don't have to meet (a), (b), (c) and (d) in order to invoke the Emergencies Act. We only need to meet one of those.

The one that the government seized on was paragraph 2(c), which talks about threats of violence to people and goods. The section 58 report that I have referred to, which has been tabled in Parliament and shared with this committee, lays out the facts and the reasons that set out the threats of violence that the government identified and relied on to invoke the Act.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You say threats of violence. The act refers to threats of “serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of”—not independent of—“achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada”.

I agree with you that there was some evidence of some violent acts. There were threats of harassment. There were threats of assault, if not actual, then perceived threats of assault. How does that then go into the further definition of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada?

[François Daigle]

Again, I would refer you to that report, which sets out the reasons the government had to invoke the act.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm asking you to spell it out right now, sir.

[François Daigle]

I can refer you to the threats of violence when police tried to apply the laws and bring order. We have reports of those. There are reports of—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Let me stop you right there.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you. Unfortunately—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Is that it?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I just want to make sure that we're applying the time restraints fairly. We want to make sure that everybody has a chance.

We will now move on to Ms. Bendayan.

The floor is yours for four minutes, please.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Daigle, I would also like to discuss the test that was done to determine whether it was necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act with you.

I imagine you have a copy of the Act at hand. I invite you to read section 3 of the Act, which you talked about in your opening remarks. You drew our attention to the fact that under that section, the test to be met was that the situation could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

Could I take you back a little bit to the earlier part of section 3 to ask if the intention was to invoke subsection (a) or (b) or both?

I see there are two paragraphs in section 3.

[François Daigle]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

In section 3, it talks about the possibility of declaring an emergency in two situations, which are set out in paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b). Do you think that both circumstances existed on February 14, 2022?

[François Daigle]

In light of the report that was provided for in section 58, it is clear that the situation seriously endangered the lives and the health and safety of certain Canadians, including the economic health of a number of Canadians, because of the border blockades. Under the Act, it could have been either of the paragraphs, and the government stopped at the first paragraph.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

You mentioned several facts.

The Minister of Public Safety testified before the committee about the border crossings at Coutts, Alberta, at Emerson, Manitoba, and at Surrey, British Columbia, which were blockaded, when the Emergencies Act was invoked, since, if my memory serves, that Act was invoked on February 14 at about 4:30 p.m.

Is that correct?

[François Daigle]

Yes, we were concerned about the border. As well, our American colleagues were wondering what was going on at the border.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Just continuing on the theme of the test, I see that the Canada Gazette refers back to section 17 of the Emergencies Act, subsection 17(1) in particular. Can you elaborate on how subsection 17(1) interacts with section 3 in order to complete that test?

Subsection 17(1) states, “When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists”, and it continues to say what may be done in those circumstances. Could you please explain to the committee the reasonable grounds test, and how you view it?

[François Daigle]

First, this is an emergencies law, which implies that there is an emergency.

The government will have to react quickly. Reasonable grounds doesn't mean that you don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as the evidence that you have provides reasonable grounds that an emergency exists, and that emergency is described in section 3, that then allows the government to take some measures to deal with the emergency and to amend them later on.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

I am affording at the end of rounds time for the witnesses to complete the answer for the benefit of the committee.

We will now go to the four-minute round.

Senator Carignan, the floor is yours.

[The Joint Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I haven't had my turn to speak, Mr. Chair.