The Decibel - Justin Trudeau testifies at the Emergencies Act inquiry

Episode Date: November 28, 2022

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s five-hour testimony wrapped up the final day of Emergencies Act inquiry.Mr. Trudeau faced questions about his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in February, 2022 in response to the so-called trucker convoy protests which had taken over a part of downtown Ottawa, and had blockaded border crossings in Windsor, Ontario and Coutts, Alberta.Guest host Sherrill Sutherland and parliamentary reporter Marieke Walsh breaks down Trudeau’s testimony and other top moments from the inquiry.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

Our next and final witness is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. On Friday, Justin Trudeau spent about five hours testifying at the Emergencies Act inquiry. It's important because a sitting Prime Minister rarely has to testify about the decisions they make. And Trudeau faced tough questions about his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. What do you say, sir, to the suggestion that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act on February 14th of this year was politically motivated? By that point, the so-called convoy of protesters and their trucks had been camping in downtown Ottawa and border crossings for weeks. It's a decision the prime minister said he had to make to keep Canadians safe. My secondary motivation was making sure Canadians continue to have confidence in their institutions and in our society's ability to function.

I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice in agreeing with the invocation. Today, we've got Marika Walsh on the show. She's the Globe's parliamentary reporter, and she was at the inquiry for the six weeks it lasted. I'm Cheryl Sutherland, filling in for Manika, and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Marika, thanks so much for being here. Thanks so much for having me. So the Emergencies Act Commission saved the most anticipated witness for last, which is, of course, the Prime Minister. And before we get into some of the highlights of his testimony, can you just tell me, like, how big of a deal is it that he sat and answered questions at this hearing? It is a huge deal. Through this inquiry,

we have seen a prime minister give testimony under oath. I think he is maybe the third sitting prime minister to do so, depending on how you account for it. And on top of that, we have seen these incredible documents released, text messages between cabinet ministers, between top advisors that you really never see in Ottawa, and there's really no other mechanism through which we would see it. His testimony, he's sort of the headline event of the headline event in Ottawa for political nerds, at least. And it really was interesting to see how differently he engaged with questions on the stand, how differently he delivered and composed himself than we've seen recently at press conferences and in other sort of parliamentary settings recently in Ottawa. How different was he from what you're used to seeing him as? Certainly when you are covering the prime minister in question period or at press conferences, he relies heavily on talking points, on slogans and other terms and catchphrases that we've heard so often from him.

And he can sometimes do that to the detriment of answering the question. And I think we really saw him bringing what appeared to be his A-game in a very serious way to explain his case to Canadians on Friday. Oh, that's fascinating. So let's get to some of this testimony then, because on Friday, Trudeau told us he invoked the Emergencies Act because the threat to Canada's national security were both economic and violent. We saw trucks used as potential weapons, certainly in Ottawa, with their presence and unknown interiors. There was the use of children as human shields, deliberately, which was a real concern both at the Ambassador Bridge and the fact that there were kids on Wellington Street, that people didn't know what was in the trucks, whether it was kids, whether it was weapons, whether it was both. Police had no way of knowing those. There was presence of weapons at Cootes, as we saw. There was a concern around weapons being stolen in Peterborough that we didn't know, about 2,000 guns that we didn't know where they had gone at

that point. We later found out that they didn't go there, but that was a real concern that we had. Okay, so there's a lot of information there, a lot of reasoning from Prime Minister Trudeau. But what actually did we learn that was new from this testimony? It might not be so much new as it was a sharper focus and a sharper explanation of why the government believes that it met the threshold that it had to legally meet to invoke the Emergencies Act. And the reason why it's such an important question is because of the powers that the Emergencies Act grants a government. It allows the government to, for a time, sidestep the parliamentary process, sidestep parliamentary oversight, and rule by executive

order. There is, of course, this massive retroactive transparency and accountability and oversight that comes with it. But for a time, it was not subject to parliamentary oversight. And so the question of whether it met the threshold, whether the context of the convoys met the threshold is what's so important. And that is what is at the heart of what Justice Paul Rouleau needs to answer and address in his report that's due in February. And it's what's at the heart of the debate, because the government acknowledges that the term threats to the security of Canada, as it's defined in the Emergencies Act, is directly tied to the CSIS Act. And so you would

think on the plain meaning of that, that the context of the convoy had to meet the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the CSIS Act. I'm glad that you brought that up, Marika, because we also heard testimony earlier last week from CSIS Director David Vigneault about how the threats here, like you said, don't meet the legal definition outlined in the Act. And that's when I was assured that, you know, there were, there was a separate understanding, you know, the confines of the CSIS Act, the same words based on legal interpretation, jurisprudence, federal court rulings, and so on. There was a very clear understanding of what those words meant in the confines of the CSIS Act. And what I was reassured by is that there was, you know, in the context of the Emergencies Act, there was to be

a separate interpretation based on the confines of that act. Marika, can you explain what he's talking about when he says separate interpretation? Yeah, and I hope our listeners will bear with me for a second as I get real nerdy. But what it means is that the government decided that the same words in the Emergencies Act could mean something different than the same words in the CSIS Act. Oh, that's confusing. And so why that matters is because the definition of threats to security of Canada is very narrow, very strict. And what the government decided is that when the Emergencies Act talks about threats to the security of Canada, it didn't need to be as narrow, as strictly defined as in the CSIS Act.

And so essentially, there could be what appears to be a lower threshold for the seriousness of a situation for the Emergencies Act to be invoked. And so Trudeau did speak to this on Friday. The director of CSIS is also one of the national security advisors to me. And in looking at the frame and scope of the situation we were in, was very comfortable in saying, yeah, for the purposes of the CSIS Act, this is not met. But for the purposes of the Public Order Emergencies Act that the governor and council has to make a reasonable decision about, we feel that it is met.

And that was the consensus from officials around the table. And again... So two points there. The first is that the prime minister glossed past a very specific caveat in David Vigneault's testimony, and that is that the CSIS director said that he advised the government that the convoys did not meet the definition of threats to the security of Canada under the CSIS Act. But he then received a legal opinion from the federal government that said that he could interpret the threshold and the definition differently and more broadly under the Emergencies Act. And only then did he advise the government that it was necessary to invoke the act.

Why is that important? Why that's important is that it's not that David Vigneault decided that the threshold was met. David Vigneault was told by a government lawyer or a government legal opinion that this is how you could interpret a definition more broadly in order to meet the threshold. And then he said the threshold was met. has released thousands of documents is not lifting the veil of solicitor-client privilege, which means it is not releasing that one legal document that explains how it understands the Emergencies Act. Moreover, why that's so important is because this is the first time ever the Emergencies Act is invoked. So the government, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau is setting a precedent for the threshold for the bar that needs to be met for future governments to also invoke the act. And we actually also heard from Minister of Justice David Lamedi on this point. He faced questions about the interpretation of the law from the head of the commission, Paul Rouleau.

What was the belief of those who made the decision as to what the law was? And I guess the answer is we just assume they acted in good faith in application of whatever they were told. Is that sort of what you're saying? I think that's fair. Okay. Is it that we might not ever know the justification here? Yeah, in a sense. And I think it's really important that you guys pulled that clip because it goes to the heart of the transparency that the government is giving this inquiry. Clearly, there is a lot of transparency and a lot of disclosure. But what the inquiry is saying and what another lawyer for the inquiry said is that there remains, he used the words Gordon Cameron, a black box around a key question. He also, though, said that the inquiry believes that they can find this answer through other means. So there's still policy discussions going on. And I will say that the government

over the last two weeks has fleshed out its arguments, ending with the prime minister saying his definition, essentially, that clip you played at the beginning, is his definition of threats to the security of Canada. And so now it's for Justice Rouleau

to decide if that definition is a legitimate definition and squares with what is written in the act. After the break, text messages between ministers. Hey, they're just like you and me. Something that struck me, Marika, is that we learned a lot through text messages between various politicians, which I mean, why is everyone texting so much? That's my big question here. But let's take an example.

Example, we learned about a text exchange between Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino and Minister of Justice David Lamedi. Let's hear a clip from that. Mr. Mendicino writes, how many tanks are you asking for? I just want to ask Anita how many we've got on hand. You respond, I reckon one will do. On February 2nd or at any other point, were you seriously suggesting that CAF be brought in or that there be tanks brought in to Ottawa to deal with the situation. No, this exchange is meant to be a joke between two friends. A joke about a tank. Okay. Marika, what do you make of what we learned through not just this text conversation,

but, you know, many text conversations we heard about during this commission. So in particular on David Lamedi's texts, I think on the face of it, you could see that there was some joking, as the minister described it, light banter between himself and public safety minister Marco Mendicino around this question of tanks. But I think it's really important to note the text that Mr. Lamedi sent right before Mr. Mendicino made the tank joke. And in that text, David Lamedi said, quote, you need to get the police to move and the Canadian armed forces if necessary. Too many people are being seriously adversely impacted by what is an occupation. I am getting out as soon as I can. So that doesn't sound like a joke. He did get out as he wrote in that text. He actually decamped from the place where he usually lives in Ottawa to somewhere else in Ottawa because he did not feel safe. And in his text messages and in his testimony,

you can see that there was a personal concern for himself, for his staff. And that personal element, I think, can't be removed from this because the cabinet ministers who were making the decision to invoke the act mostly live in the area where the demonstrators were. And so they were among the Ottawa residents, in a sense, who did feel under siege. And that really comes through in the text messages. And it really shows the pressure they were under to act. And we also saw really incredibly from the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, another revealing sort of moment

where we see her handwritten notes, which truly amount to chicken scratch, and a big shout out to our colleague, Marsha McLeod, who has been reading a lot of handwritten notes from a lot of people. But they detailed a meeting with bank CEOs that clearly show the pressure that some of the most powerful business leaders in Canada were putting on the federal government just before they invoked the act. You're a parliamentary reporter, Marika. I mean, like, can you explain how important is it to see like these documents? Like it really is kind of like a peek behind the curtain. Like, what do you think about that?

I think a lot of us in the media room were quite amazed. And as the commission lawyer pointed out, joking or not, the justice minister and attorney general was texting the public safety minister who was responsible for policing in Canada saying the Ottawa police chief is incompetent. They need a plan, pushing for more enforcement, pushing for stronger action, pushing for more answers. And so that goes to questions then around the line between police and politicians. And it goes really quickly from lighthearted, sort of eye-catching, he said what moments to the policy issues behind it.

Rick, you've watched this commission for the past six weeks, and it seemed like there was a lot going on on Friday when the prime minister was testifying from the gallery, like from the people that were watching the commission. How did the room respond to the prime minister's testimony? It was certainly quite the moment. And I felt in part like it was quite the moment because of what the convoy leaders were asking for back in January and February. They were asking for a meeting with the prime minister. And here we are nine or 10 months later, and they're sitting in a room with the prime minister just in a context that none of us could have expected when they arrived in Ottawa on January 28th. So here's sort of the layout. You have the commissioner facing the audience and the witness, the table for the witness also facing the audience. And in the first row or the second row, front up are Tamara Leach and other convoy organizers watching the prime minister. Certainly, there was a few moments where people expressed dissatisfaction with his comments, but also on the flip side, appreciation for his comments.

And they were very rare because the commissioner does not allow for audience participation in these events. Shut it down. I would ask you to please refrain from comments or laughing or whatever. If there's any more trouble, that side of the room is going to be expelled. Is that clear enough? But it certainly is symbolically, I think, quite the moment. And you mentioned some of these convoy leaders that were sitting there. And one of the more interesting parts of this commission is that a lawyer representing the convoy leaders also got to question the prime minister on Friday.

And on Friday, that lawyer read out what convoy supporters had to say. Let's listen to that. Ottawa resident Karen Hanna, who obtained a sociology degree from Ottawa University, stated, For months, the leader of our country publicly shamed people like me and my husband. Our own family members turned on us, blamed us, and some even told us we don't deserve health care. Sam Crozier says, I am not asking for help. I am begging you to please listen, hear my heart, feel my pain and help work towards the true North strong and free that we were promised. I struggle to find joy in anything and daily fear a new announcement being made that will further punish us.

I have written the same email to every member of Parliament daily and been ignored by a large collection of the people meant to be our leaders, meant to be listening to us. Mr. Prime Minister, you have now heard the statements from some of the many concerned Canadians who felt compelled to support the protesters. Do you now understand the reason so many Canadians came to Ottawa with such resolve in the midst of a harsh, cold Canadian winter because of the harms caused by your government COVID mandates and they wanted to be heard? I am moved and I was moved as I heard these testimonies, as I saw the depth of hurt and anxiety about the present and the future expressed by so many people. The COVID pandemic was unbelievably difficult on all Canadians.

And my job throughout this pandemic was to keep Canadians safe. And the way that I chose to do that was to lean on public health officials, lean on experts and science on the best way to keep Canadians safe. And because Canadians got vaccinated to over 80%, we had fewer deaths in Canada than places that didn't reach that. Marika, what do you make of this exchange?

I think that speaks exactly to what we started off talking about, that the prime minister presented, from my perspective, a different approach to this issue and to engaging with the questions he's presented with compared to not just sort of standard practice press conferences, but importantly, compared to January and February of the time when he was asked these questions. His first press conference after the convoy arrived in Ottawa, he talked about people with tinfoil hats and conspiracy theories. Microchips about, you know, God knows what else that go with the tinfoil hats. So you can see how much that answer has changed.

I think on the flip side, though, there are questions for how the convoy leaders and the convoy lawyers came across during this inquiry. I think that if you listen to, for example, the closing statement from the lawyer on Friday, Eva Chibiak, she continued to present this framing and image of the convoy and the protests in Ottawa in a way that people who live in Ottawa do not accept. And she, for example, said that the convoy arrived in Ottawa just looking for dialogue and that the government could have treated the convoy's arrival as a moment of reconciliation. And her comments about the police operation that moved the convoy out after three weeks in Ottawa

described the treatment of the people who were refusing to leave as worse than the treatment that prisoners of war face. And she also called for Trudeau to step down. Yes. See, so much happened on Friday. I can't even remember everything. Yes, she did. She ended her testimony saying that now was the moment for the prime minister

to resign. And so I think it shows you that that gulf between sort of the two sides, the two poles still remains and remains unaddressed and unbridged by this inquiry. Whether we have more understanding of where these people were coming from and where the government was coming from, yes, absolutely. But whether they can see each other, maybe actually the prime minister and his answer to the lawyer show that he has changed more in his perspective than they have. Marika, thanks so much for being our guest today. Thanks so much for having me. It was so nice to see you. That's it for today. I'm producer Cheryl Sutherland, in for Manika Raman-Wilms. Our other producers are Madeline White and Rachel Levy-McLaughlin.

David Crosby edits the show. Kasia Mihailovic is our senior producer, and Angela Pachenza is our executive editor. Thanks for listening. Manica is back tomorrow.