Public Safety Committee on Feb. 25th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

It's entirely up to you. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to follow up on our line of questioning earlier. Again, I was asking for evidence of a serious national security threat to public safety, which your government argued was what transpired. Therefore, the threshold was met to invoke these extraordinary powers that had never been invoked before. Then you mentioned that there were threats of rape and that certain organizers talked about using bullets. Is that your evidence that there was a serious national public threat to security for Canadians?

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

Ms. Dancho, that's just the tip of the iceberg. You had blockades across the country. There were hundreds of charges laid as a result of the blockades. There were hundreds of charges and arrests straight out—

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

That's correct, yes. I apologize for interrupting, but—

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

—that flowed from the illegal occupation. What I'm getting at is that it was not just insinuations, Ms. Dancho.

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

Right, but the blockades, of course, had to come down. They were illegal. However, again, we're talking about the argument that was made by your government that the threshold—the very high threshold of a threat to the national security and public safety of Canadians—was met. Then when I pressed you, you said there were allegations of rape, and some organizers said something about bullets. Again, I was walking by those folks, so if you believe that this is true, again I'll just ask you, why would you let us parliamentarians and women parliamentarians walk—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, under Standing Order 11, this is repetitive questioning. We've already had this question asked. We have the minister for a limited amount of time, so I'm wondering if we might be able to move on to non-repetitive questions.

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

If I could respond to that, Mr. Chair, I think the Minister of Public Safety of Canada, who was formerly a Crown prosecutor, is able to handle my line of questioning just fine. He does not need the assistance of Liberal members of this committee.

Am I correct, Mr. Mendicino?

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

I'm happy to take your questions, Ms. Dancho.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mendicino.

If you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, I'll continue on that one minute and 26 seconds.

I'll just review, because I am genuinely concerned about this. Women on this panel right now walked by that protest every day, and you're saying there was a serious threat to public safety. Again, can you confirm that there was a serious threat to our public safety in walking by that Ottawa protest every day, and that the threshold for invoking this act was thereby met?

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

Ms. Dancho, at the risk of generalizing, I would say that for every one example of a safe passage there are probably thousands who did not feel any public safety. Far from my simply insinuating that there was a lack of public safety and order, one only has to take a look at the extensive criminal enforcement operations that led to serious charges.

Yes, Ms. Dancho, although I say it regretfully, there were individuals who were intimidated and harassed. There were expressions of hate. There were apartment buildings that were chained, and there were efforts to set buildings on fire.

The individuals who live in Ottawa were terrorized. The individuals who were trying to go to work in Windsor and elsewhere in southwestern Ontario could not, because of the illegal blockades.

All of these events, tied together, constituted a national emergency. When we arrived at that, we gave law enforcement the tools they needed to get the job done. I'm very happy to say, Ms. Dancho, that they did it with the least amount of force in a very professional manner. As a result, the situation is now far better.

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

Right. I appreciate that, but again, my line of questioning is that you said there was a serious threat to public safety and therefore the threshold for invoking this act was met. Again, in all the things you've just listed, if that's the case, then why would you permit members of Parliament, their staff and journalists to walk by this protest that was so threatening, so dangerous and so violent, by your own words today? Why would you allow us to even get close to that protest if it was such a threat to public national safety and security? It really doesn't make sense to me why you would do that.

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

It's a fair question, Ms. Dancho.

I would simply say that we offered additional protection to MPs. As for journalists, trust me, I reached out to some of them and urged them to be very careful, but they probably wouldn't have listened to me anyway because they were concerned about reporting about the facts, Ms. Dancho.

It is regrettable that a number of individuals within the Conservative Party seem to want to gloss over the facts, but this is to our detriment collectively. I would just hope that on sober reflection you would see that as a result of the steps we took, we restored public safety and order, because that is what we had to do.

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

Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Mendicino, but in response, I would hope that if the claims you're making are true, that if national security and public safety were in jeopardy—due to threats of rape in Ottawa, bullets and all of these other things you said—you have serious and sober reflection about the fact that you allowed members of Parliament, journalists and staff to walk among the protest for three weeks. I think that requires serious, sober reflection if that is in fact the case.

Mr. Chair, I'll cede the rest of my time to Mr. Brock. I have 30 seconds left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

All right.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

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

Thank you.

The most disturbing aspect I heard, Minister Mendicino, is this rape allegation—a very heinous, serious crime.

We debated this particular issue for over 40 hours. Not once did the Prime Minister, you or any other senior member of cabinet, or any member of your backbench, raise a rape allegation, so my question to you is very pointed. If that allegation did not result in a criminal charge—and it's not rape under the criminal charge, as you know since you're a lawyer; it's an allegation of sexual assault—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Your time is up—

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

—will you undertake to provide—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Sir, the question—

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

—this committee with proof of allegations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Please, have respect for the chair.

The question has been put.

Mr. Mendicino, you have 10 seconds to respond.

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

The absence of criminal charges doesn't mean it didn't happen in Ottawa, and it doesn't happen every day, Mr. Brock, and I would think you would know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

The last slot on this round, to take us to the end of the discussion with the minister, goes to Mr. McKinnon.

You have five minutes. The floor is yours, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to mention that a week ago Parliament was in fact shut down for a day because of safety concerns, so I think that speaks to the safety of parliamentarians on the Hill.

What I want to talk about now is that in circumstances of this kind, whether it's the blockade that happened here or the blockades we had a couple of years ago, the public often sees not enough action. They demand, depending on the circumstances, that the mayor, the premier or, in this case, the Prime Minister take action, yet we know that we, as political actors, are limited in what we can do, because we have to maintain the independence of the police services.

Could you speak to squaring that circle? What actions are available to us when we see events of this kind unfold and we don't necessarily see effective action?

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

It's a very important question, Mr. McKinnon. You're quite right that the government fulfills functions that are quite different from those fulfilled by the police service. We in government are responsible for putting into place the necessary laws and for making sure that law enforcement has all the tools and resources it needs to maintain and uphold public safety, whereas it is up to law enforcement to then enforce those laws. There are very well-established conventions as to why those functions need to be maintained separately.

I would say that doesn't mean there isn't a need for communication. I would simply point out that between my team, my department and me, and the commissioner, there was very good communication. I want to commend her and the RCMP, as well as all law enforcement, for being very attentive to the concerns the government was expressing. Likewise, her advice to the government was extremely helpful so that we could understand what the challenges were, what the threats were and why we eventually needed to invoke the Emergencies Act.

The point I would make is that the Emergencies Act, while intended to be a sparingly used statute, was an essential tool. It was essential in the circumstances because of the significant disruption that was caused at our borders and the significant and devastating impact on our communities. Law enforcement used this tool with designated no-go zones, with financial controls and with the ability to more quickly mobilize police into the areas where we needed them. They did it to great effect at all times, responsibly and with restraint, and with the least amount of force. That is how, I believe, the Emergencies Act was intended to be used.