Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Good morning and good afternoon, everybody, wherever you might be in this vast and beautiful land.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 10 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website, and the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health precautions.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. I remind you that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk will advise the chair on whose hands are up, to the best of his ability, and we will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motions adopted by the committee on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, and Thursday, February 17, 2022, the committee is commencing its study on the occupation of Ottawa and the federal government’s response to convoy blockades.

Please note that, unfortunately, due to current operations, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ottawa Police Service were not available to appear at this time.

With us today by video conference, we have the Honourable Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety. From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have John Ossowski, president; Scott Harris, vice-president, intelligence and enforcement branch; and Denis Vinette, vice-president, travellers branch. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Rob Stewart, deputy minister, and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Brenda Lucki, commissioner.

Welcome to all.

Minister, thank you very much for making yourself available on short notice. We know how intense a time this has been for you.

Welcome to the committee, sir. Please proceed with your opening remarks.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you, Chair and honourable committee members.

First, I would like to acknowledge that I'm joining you from the indigenous territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit.

I want to thank you for the invitation to speak today about the steps our government has taken to address a unique and extraordinary situation in Canadian history: the illegal blockades and occupations of the last month.

I appreciate your contributions to the thoughtful exchanges we've had in the House of Commons on the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The emergency and the Emergencies Act have now been revoked, yet the debate will continue.

Today, I'm pleased to be here to outline how the unprecedented events of the past few weeks necessitated decisive federal action.

Over the past few weeks, we saw illegal blockades at borders and vital trade corridors, that impacted our economy, industry, and the jobs and livelihoods of many hardworking Canadians. This was also clearly a public order emergency. We saw illegal protests taking place in our capital, shutting down streets and businesses, with people feeling their sense of safety has been shattered.

We worked closely with provinces and territories to help get the situation under control, but, as time passed, it became clear that authorities needed more tools to uphold and enforce the law and protect Canadians. It was an absolute necessity that we enacted the emergency measures needed to keep Canadians safe, albeit reluctantly, in a way that allowed immediate and time-limited action for as short a time as possible. And that is what we did, to ensure we did not abandon Canadians, or our law enforcement, in a time of great need.

As you know, earlier this week, after careful consideration, we confirmed that the situation was no longer an emergency, and we ended the use of the Emergencies Act. We remain confident that existing laws and by‑laws are now sufficient to protect the public, and we will continue to be there to support authorities if and when needed.

With the enactment of the Emergencies Act, law enforcement finally had the additional tools it needed to manage this extremely challenging situation. It was indeed a measure of last resort, but it was a necessary one. It was instrumental in ending the illegal blockades.

First, it allowed the exceptional and temporary measures to prohibit public assembly leading to a breach of the peace. It clearly designated protected areas around our critical infrastructure, like border crossings and the parliamentary precinct. This meant that the police could protect [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Minister, we have lost your sound. We can't hear you. Is it possible that you hit the mute button on your headset?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

It's not that mute button. It's this mute button on the headset, on the cord.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Can you hear us, Minister?

You can. We still can't hear you.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, the minister could unplug his headset and plug it back in. That's often tried and true. Maybe that would help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Minister, do you have a staffer nearby who might be able to have a look at it?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, perhaps we should suspend for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Well, let's give him a minute.

I'm looking forward to next week, when we'll be together around a table.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Chair, I was just doing an interesting test here. When you hit this button [Technical difficulty—Editor] you can't hear me talk, even though it doesn't look like I'm muted on the screen. Perhaps the minister could try that.

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

Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

We hear you loud and clear.

That's great. Give that staffer a raise.

The floor is yours, Minister.

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

Thank you, Chair, and my apologies for the technical interruption. I'll pick up where I left off.

Second, it prohibited bringing children to an illegal blockade. I know that many of you were distressed, as I was, at the images of children being placed in the middle of blockades.

Third, it helped police go after the money. The unexpected and international use of crowdfunding platforms was a unique challenge posed by these blockades. Invoking the Emergencies Act helped us to meet those objectives.

Finally, it allowed the RCMP and other forces to quickly come together and mobilize to be integrated into operations led by police. Last weekend police from across the country helped end the illegal blockade in Ottawa. Some observers have said that it could have taken four to five days to get them all sworn in without the Emergencies Act.

Put simply, the Emergencies Act worked. As we saw in Ottawa, these new tools were used to great effect, allowing police to reclaim occupied areas of the downtown, remove trucks and other debris, move protesters out and give Ottawans their city back.

Here are a few caveats.

First, I want to assure you that the tools it allowed were exceptional, time-limited, and protected by the safeguards enshrined in our charter.

Second, I want to underscore that invoking the Emergencies Act did not give the federal government the authority to direct the police services of any jurisdiction.

And finally, I want to be clear that these additional tools for law enforcement were there to supplement existing tools, only to be used if and when there was an operational need as determined by police.

I'll remind colleagues that a joint committee of parliamentarians will now be struck, to review the declaration of emergency. That will be followed by an inquiry into the circumstances that led to the act being invoked, how we got there and why it was required.

I want to close by expressing my thanks to the RCMP and law enforcement across the country for their swift and professional work in ending the illegal blockades and restoring public safety. With order restored, the work continues under our existing laws. As former minister Perrin Beatty said when introducing this law in 1988, the Emergencies Act enables the federal government “to fulfil its constitutional responsibility to provide for the safety and security of Canadians during national emergencies”.

Keeping Canadians safe is a responsibility that we take very seriously. It is one we will always fulfill.

I look forward to your questions and comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much, Minister.

I'll now open the floor to questions.

First up in this first round is Ms. Dancho, who I believe is sharing her time with Mr. Lloyd.

Go ahead, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Chair. I may be using the entire six minutes.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

Thank you, Minister, for making the time for these important questions on behalf of the public.

Minister, I want to talk a bit about the thresholds that have been met, that your government has made the case have been met, to invoke this extraordinary power, the Emergencies Act. As you know, the threshold would include a threat to the security of Canada, which includes things like espionage, sabotage and, specifically, the support of a threat or the use of serious violence.

That's very much in line with much of your opening remarks, which I'll just quote from. You said this in French, but I'll be reading this from your English version. You say that it was “an absolute necessity that we enacted the emergency measures needed to keep Canadians safe,” and that the invocation of the Emergencies Act “sent a clear message to those who decided to participate in, or support, these illegal protests”, which included “impacting the safety of the public”. You also said, “We will not yield in our responsibilities to Canadians—we must inspire their confidence that their safety is protected.”

Minister, do you believe our safety was in jeopardy with the protests in Ottawa?

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

Well, certainly the size, scope and scale of the illegal blockades at a number of borders and ports of entry, as well as the illegal occupation in Ottawa, met the threshold under the Emergencies Act. That advice and the decision to invoke it were informed by non-partisan professionals, including the commissioner, who's with us today, as well as other branches of law enforcement, so yes, Ms. Dancho, we believe the threshold was met under the Emergencies Act.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

You believe there was a serious threat of violence to the national security of Canada.

On February 17, you also said, “This is a serious situation. We must resist the temptation to dismiss these as isolated incidents.” You went on to say, “At the core of the movement is anger, animosity and...violence.”

Referring to protesters who would like to come to Ottawa, you were saying to them, “You may be tying yourself to dangerous criminal activity.” You also, of course, insinuated, or you said, and I quote, that several of the individuals at Coutts had “strong ties to a far-right extreme organization with leaders who are in Ottawa”.

Again, you were saying “strong ties”. Do you believe there was a threat to public safety in Ottawa?

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

To be clear, Ms. Dancho, those aren't just my insinuations. Hundreds of charges and arrests have been carried out by law enforcement throughout the course of the illegal blockades, not only in Ottawa but also in Alberta and British Columbia.

I would point out, Ms. Dancho, that those charges are very severe. They include conspiracy to commit murder, which carries with it a life sentence. They're not merely the insinuations of me or the government. In fact, a number of very serious and grave criminal investigations have been carried out and are ongoing.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Right. Specifically, though, you are making the argument that the threshold to national security is a threat to public safety. You tied the extremists at Coutts to the protests in Ottawa. Do you have evidence that there was the threat in Ottawa that you saw at Coutts?

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

Again, just to clarify, those comments related to a number of public reports that had been issued at the time, tracking the movements of some in Ottawa to other border points, including in Alberta.

I would just point out that from the very outset of the illegal blockade, a number of organizers and so-called leaders of the purported freedom convoy had made a number of profoundly concerning and extremist statements calling for the overthrow of the government, through violence if necessary. Some of the leaders had been quoted as saying, again very publicly, that if necessary, it would be through the use of bullets and other similar force.

Those are all reported, documented and catalogued in the public domain, Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

You believe there was a serious national security threat to public safety. I know the Prime Minister also said, when he was invoking the act that first day, that this was “about keeping Canadians safe” and that the government would “not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue”. From your remarks and from the Prime Minister's remarks, you believe the threshold for invoking the act for the purpose of.... You believe there was a national security threat to public safety.

Minister, I walked to West Block for two weeks past these protests. If there was such a threat to public safety, how could you have allowed members of Parliament to walk by that protest every day?

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

I would say a couple of things in response to that, Ms. Dancho.

First, as you know, the Sergeant-at-Arms, in coordination with the Parliamentary Protective Service and the RCMP, did offer additional protection for parliamentarians, as well as for staff who were working on the Hill.

The other thing I would say, Ms. Dancho, respectfully, is that your experience was not the experience of the many thousands of Ottawans who were laid to siege as a result of—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Minister, I apologize, but just to be clear, you were saying the extraordinary high thresholds of these incredible, never-before-invoked emergency powers met the threshold that this was a national public safety security issue, and you connected it to the goings-on at Coutts. You're insinuating that this was happening in Ottawa. That's the main argument that you've made for the purpose of invoking this act, yet I walked every single day for two weeks past these protests.

You can imagine the anxiety that this causes to parliamentarians, to Ottawa staff, and we can go on, yet I don't understand how you could be saying on one hand there are all these strong ties and this was a national emergency for public safety, while I walked by these protests every day. It just doesn't really add up at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I'm sorry, Minister. You have only 10 seconds left.

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

First, I would say it's not an insinuation. We got the advice from our law enforcement that we met the threshold.