Thank you, Chair.
Under the CSIS Act, “threats to the security of Canada” means:
(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and
(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
9. The significance of these thresholds was explained to your committee by the Honourable Perrin Beatty...who, as Minister of National Defence, was the sponsor of the former Bill C-77 which enacted the Emergencies Act—or the law’s so-called “author”—and who appeared before your committee on March 29, 2022.
10. Mr. Beatty spoke of the choice of the CSIS Act threshold as a deliberate one “because of the care that had gone into writing it” (Evidence, page 17). He continued,
A public order emergency must meet two stringent tests. The first is to establish the existence of a severe emergency that cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law of Canada. The second is that it must meet a definition of threats to the security of Canada that was drafted to protect Canadians' rights and that specifically provides for “lawful advocacy, protest or dissent” (Evidence, page 17).
11. The Honourable David Lametti, P.C., K.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, appeared before your committee on April 26, 2022. When asked whether he had received any written opinions that the Emergencies Act should be invoked, he declined to answer on the basis of solicitor-client privilege (Evidence, page 20).
12. Similarly, while claiming solicitor-client privilege when he was asked what facts or considerations were provided in giving advice in relation to the CSIS Act threshold, Mr. Lametti commented,
First of all, the document that we tabled goes through the nature of the various threats across the country, including some of the threats that you very rightly identified in the way that you framed your question. These, we felt, met the question of serious threats to persons under the CSIS Act definition—primarily that. There is also the economic damage, which could be considered part of the property question. (Evidence, page 21).
13. In the face of this claim, your committee, on May 31, 2022, exercised its authority to send for persons, papers and records and ordered the production of
all security assessments and legal opinions which the government relied upon in determining that (a) the threshold of “threats to security of Canada”, as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, required by section 16 of the Emergencies Act, had been met; (b) the thresholds required by paragraphs 3(a) or (b) of the Emergencies Act, concerning a “national emergency” had been met; (c) the situation could not “be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, as required by section 3 of the Emergencies Act....
14. François Daigle, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, replied to this order, on June 29, 2022, writing, “Upon full consideration, it is our Department’s determination that all legal opinions in our holdings that would be responsive to the Committee’s order are subject to solicitor-client privilege.” He added, “I confirm that I am unable to produce legal opinions as sought in the Committee’s order.”
15. At its next meeting, on September 22, 2022, your committee agreed to
deem the evidence, including testimony and documents—