Canadians felt “threatened” and “intimidated” by the protests of last winter, and that raised a threat of violence that had to be addressed by invoking the Emergencies Act, Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair told the Public Order Emergency Commission on Nov. 21.
“Just to be very clear, I believe there was more than ample evidence in support that the threat or the use of acts of serious violence—and that ‘or’ is rather important—I think very many people felt threatened,” Blair testified.
The minister was being cross-examined by Rob Kittredge, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, regarding one of the main contentious issues before the inquiry.
This relates to whether the legal threshold had been met to invoke the Emergencies Act, and whether national security threats as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act are material to the declaration of a public order emergency.
Nevertheless, Vigneault said he advised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that invoking the act was required to deal with the situation, explaining that he understood the rationale to invoke was not entirely tied to the CSIS Act’s definitions and could include broader factors.
For his part, Blair argued that the CSIS definitions were actually broader when they relate to the Emergencies Act and that there was a threat of serious violence, which is addressed in section 2c of the CSIS Act.
“For the purposes of the Emergencies Act, that definition, I believe, has a broader application that is contained within that definition,” he said.
Kittredge asked Blair to speak to the issue of serious violence and to give specific examples.
“I believe that many Canadians experienced threats of violence, intimidation, and fear as a result of the activities taking place,” Blair said.
“You’re making a lot of noise about intimidation and threats of violence, but can you point me to any particular specific threat of violence or event that was violent?” asked Kittredge.
“We heard from very many Canadians who were very fearful about the activities of these blockades and protests; they were afraid to walk down their street, they were intimidated and fearful of those reactions,” Blair replied.
“Some of the symbols and other things that were on display were very threatening to very many Canadians, and frankly, the threat of violence is every bit as impactful on the community and on individuals.”
She said things like “the inability to conduct a livelihood in Ottawa” and the “undermining of the confidence in public institutions” were threats to national security.
These testimonies are being challenged by civil liberties groups, who argue the use of the Emergencies Act wasn’t justified.
“[T]he head of CSIS says he was able to advise the government to use the Emergencies Act by using a definition of threats to the security of Canada that was broader than the one in the Act,” Cara Zwibel, director of fundamental freedoms at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said in a statement on Nov. 21.
“The government’s argument appears to be that the Emergencies Act doesn’t mean what it says. It is relying on this novel interpretation to justify its decision to invoke.”
Trudeau Made Final Decision
Blair told the inquiry that Trudeau was responsible for making the final decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.The cabinet had met on the evening of Feb. 13, and Trudeau subsequently had a call with the premiers of the provinces and territories on the morning of Feb. 14.
“There was a cabinet discussion, but the final decision was left at referendum to the prime minister, following his consultations with the first ministers,” said Blair.
