Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2022

[D/Commr Michael Duheme]

Quite frankly, if I were to give you an answer, I think I would just be guessing. I think the Emergencies Act also discouraged people from coming to Ottawa because of the possible consequences, the perimeter erected and the fact that access to the Hill was made much more difficult.

Under the Emergencies Act, yes, people were not allowed to enter that perimeter. However, we were able to conduct operations in Alberta and Windsor without having to invoke the Emergencies Act.

That said, the dynamics are always different from place to place, and what we saw here in Ottawa was unprecedented. In other protests that took place, like in Quebec City and Toronto, people were able to benefit from the information we gained here, including how people got in, to better manage the situation.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

As I understand it, practically speaking, the additional tools that the act gave to police forces may not have been used on the ground, but the idea of the Emergencies Act may have discouraged people from coming to Parliament Hill. The powers it gave to the police—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud. I'm sorry, but we're prisoners of the clock.

I will move to Mr. MacGregor.

You have two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I'll turn to Ms. Dickson.

There has been a lot of discourse over the last number of weeks about whether this was a peaceful protest, a legitimate assembly of people, or whether it was an illegal occupation.

We have clearly established that the laws are on the books and there was a question of whether they could be adequately enforced. I hope all committee members would agree with me that it's illegal for me to just park my vehicle and impede traffic and that it's illegal to harass citizens, to hurl verbal abuse, etc.

Ms. Dickson, what I want to focus on is the Conservative government of Premier Doug Ford, because when he invoked the state of emergency in Ontario on February 11, he specifically referenced it being an illegal occupation. That was on February 11, three full days before the federal declaration of emergency.

Can you inform the committee on what basis the Premier of Ontario declared this to be an illegal occupation? Was he referencing at that time specific provincial laws that were being broken?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

Unfortunately, I don't have any information as to what went into the provincial determination, other than the facts that were being witnessed by everyone.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Okay. Thank you. It seems we very clearly have a disconnect between the federal Conservative Party and the provincial Conservative Government of Ontario. That's very clear.

I will turn to the CBSA, because we have kind of left you out. Mr. Harris, I have only about 30 seconds left. Can you just quickly inform us what it was like for your officers when they were dealing with those illegal border blockades?

[Scott Harris, Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

I'm going to turn to my colleague Mr. Vinette, who's responsible for port of entry operations.

[Denis Vinette, Vice-President, Travellers Branch, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thanks for turning your attention to us, I guess.

First and foremost, we looked at our officers' personal safety. That's where it initially started. We looked to make sure the perimeter of each of our ports of entry was secure. We worked with local police. Only on two occasions were our premises breached, but through conversations with the protesters and others, we were able to make it clear that they couldn't be in that space. They moved away from it, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you, sir.

Colleagues, we have two slots left.

Ms. Dancho, the first of the two remaining slots is yours, and you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll follow up a bit on that line of questioning from my colleague, Mr. Lloyd, with Ms. Maislin Dickson. Can you explain for the committee a bit more in depth...?

My understanding is, in order to violate charter rights, or to infringe upon them, the Oakes test needs to be met. In essence, the test requires that the punishment be proportionate to the law-breaking. That's not very well explained, but that's my understanding.

Can you confirm that this is the threshold that has to be met?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

Yes. For the majority of the charter rights, to the extent that there would be any infringement upon those rights, it would need to be reasonable in a democratic society. That's set out in section 1 of the charter.

There are a couple that have that proportionality piece built into the establishment of the right itself, like section 7.

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

Have you had any discussions with your governing counterparts regarding whether the freezing of bank accounts was proportionate? That was of some concern with the organizers and leaders of this, but my concern is for the individuals who may have been protesting on the sidewalk, and their having their bank accounts frozen. I wonder if that's proportionate to their infringement of the law.

Did you have any discussions about that?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

As we know, the Emergencies Act requires and explicitly states that their must be compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All statutes, all regulations and all government action require compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The assessment of charter rights was that the impact and the objective being sought, which was to stop the illegal assembly, could be remedied by leaving the protest. We heard from my colleagues that all accounts have been unfrozen. It was a very temporary, very targeted measure to address the situation that was in front of the government.

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

I have two questions.

When the Minister of Finance first announced these financial, bank account freezing powers, it took her just over a week to come forward publicly to say it was from February 15 onward. Were there any discussions about that? Why was that not provided to the public by the government originally?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

That I cannot answer. I'm sorry.

However, in terms of the orders, we were briefing parliamentarians on February 15 as the orders were made public, and we were quite clear that they had come into effect right then.

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

Yes. I remember we had a briefing together. You briefed me on that, but I thought it was odd that I was being told that information but the public was not. I wasn't sure, frankly, if you were mistaken or if the minister was withholding that information. I apologize; that's a politician's—

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I can't be putting words in the minister's mouth at all. What I can tell you is the legal effect of the instrument.

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

I appreciate that.

The minister also said, and this was before the act was revoked, that if someone's account had been frozen, the remedy would be to go to the RCMP. However, you said no, the remedy would be to go to the bank to plead their case and have their account unfrozen.

Which one is it? Was the minister correct, or were you correct?

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

I'll pass this to my RCMP colleagues, but for the record, I indicated that they would need to leave the assembly in order to have their account unfrozen. I didn't speak to the mechanism by which that would happen.

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

I apologize. When we had our briefing, you told me that they would have to go to the bank. That's what I'm referring to, whereas the minister publicly said—

[Samantha Maislin Dickson]

Understood. I will leave it to my colleagues at the RCMP to speak to what actually took place as circumstances unfolded.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[D/Commr Michael Duheme]

We provided people's names to the banks. We communicated with them and then circled back to the banks to let them know we had communicated with them, and that the funds could be released.

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

Okay. Thank you for answering that.

I have less than a minute left. Could you provide for the committee the list of emergency powers that the RCMP used?

[D/Commr Michael Duheme]

I don't have a specific list with me right now, but I can tell you that when we put the perimeter up, we intercepted people who tried to come in with gas or medical supplies. To quantify everything that was done under the act, nationally at that, I don't have those numbers.