Emergencies Act inquiry: Trudeau ends testimony, says ‘politics was not the motivation at all’ for invocation

Open this photo in gallery:

8:50 p.m.

Trudeau says threats of potential violence, economic concerns behind decision to invoke Emergencies Act

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said threats of potential violence and economic concerns spurred him to invoke the Emergencies Act, offering Ottawa’s most forceful defence yet of the decision to trigger sweeping powers to end last winter’s convoy protests.

The Prime Minister testified on the final day of the Emergencies Act inquiry in a packed hearing room in the heart of the capital as several convoy protest leaders watched from front-row seats. The final decision to invoke the act rested with Mr. Trudeau. After consultations with cabinet, top advisers, and premiers, he did so on Feb. 14.

By then, protests had been gridlocking downtown Ottawa for more than three weeks; vehicles jamming border crossings had fractured supply chains and grabbed headlines around the world; and pressure was mounting on the federal government to intervene.

– Marieke Walsh, Marsha McLeod, Bill Curry

4:15 p.m.

Trudeau concludes testimony; says invocation of Emergencies Act about ‘ensuring the safety of Canadians’

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ended his testimony at the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act by saying politics had nothing to do with his government’s decision to invoke the legislation.

”My motivation was entirely about ensuring the safety of Canadians,” he said just before 4 p.m. ET in response to a question from government lawyer Brian Gover.

”My secondary motivation was making sure Canadians continue to have confidence in their institutions and society’s ability to function and enforce the rule of law when it’s not being respected. Politics was not the motivation at all in the invocation of the Emergencies Act.”

Commissioner Paul Rouleau then asked lawyers for various stakeholders if they had any other questions. When they said they did not, Mr. Rouleau thanked Mr. Trudeau for his testimony, which began just after 9:30 a.m. ET.

”Well, Prime Minister, I am very pleased to be able to tell you we have completed our work for the day with you,” he said.

The inquiry has also completed hearing testimony from witnesses involved in the convoy and border protests. More than 60 people have testified, including seven cabinet ministers, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP Commissioner, other police officials and protesters.

On Monday, the inquiry begins hearing from about 50 experts in various fields to help Mr. Rouleau develop his recommendations.

Topics on the agenda include criminal law, policing powers, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, cryptocurrency and the international supply chain, said a statement from the Public Order Emergency Commission (the official name of the inquiry).

This policy phase is to run until Dec. 2.

The commission was established in April to conduct a review, as required by the Emergencies Act, after the federal government declaring a public order emergency on Feb. 14, 2022.

The deadline for the inquiry to submit its final report to the House of Commons and Senate is Feb. 20, 2023.

– Ian Bailey

Open this photo in gallery:

3:00 p.m.

Convoy lawyer questions Trudeau

Eva Chipiuk, a lawyer representing convoy protest participants, read personal testimony from individuals who were negatively affected by pandemic restrictions. She then asked Mr. Trudeau to respond.

“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’s COVID mandates and they wanted to be heard?” she asked.

“I am moved, and I was moved, as I heard these testimonies, as I saw that depth of hurt and anxiety with the present and the future expressed by so many people,” Mr. Trudeau replied. “The COVID pandemic was unbelievably difficult on all Canadians, and my job throughout this pandemic was to keep Canadians safe.”

Ms. Chipiuk followed up by suggesting that Mr. Trudeau’s own rhetoric during the pandemic contributed to public division.

“A number of people have testified in this inquiry referencing your widely published comments calling the unvaccinated racists and misogynists, and we have heard testimony in this inquiry about how some of your officials wanted to label protesters as terrorists. Would you agree with me that one of the most important roles of a prime minister is to unite Canadians and not divide them by engaging in name calling?” she asked.

“I did not call people who were unvaccinated names,” Mr. Trudeau replied. “I highlighted there is a difference between people who are hesitant to get vaccinated for any range of reasons and people who deliberately spread misinformation that puts at risk the life and health of their fellow Canadians.”

At a Jan. 31, 2022, news conference, Mr. Trudeau commented on the convoy protests and said freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of democracy, but “Nazi symbolism, racist imagery and desecration of war memorials are not.”

– Bill Curry

1:52 p.m.

Trudeau: ‘I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice’

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last winter’s convoy protests posed both economic and violent threats to Canada’s national security and that, before he invoked the Emergencies Act, the premiers were unable to suggest any alternatives to using the act’s sweeping powers to end the protracted demonstrations.

“I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice,” Mr. Trudeau said.

He testified that there was consensus to invoke the act from senior cabinet ministers and top security and civil service advisers. He called a memo from the country’s top bureaucrat in favour of triggering the act’s powers “essential” to his decision – even though the memo lacked a threat assessment. And he told the inquiry that despite the resolution of the two most serious border blockades, it was his understanding that overall the protests were escalating, not dissipating.

– Marieke Walsh, Marsha McLeod, Bill Curry

1:15 p.m.

Trudeau is asked to release secret legal opinion on Emergencies Act; government lawyer objects, says it could set a ‘dangerous precedent’

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was directly challenged Friday to waive solicitor-client privilege and allow the release of the internal legal opinion that concluded, according to the government, the threshold was met for the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

”As you know, there is a legal opinion over which solicitor-client privilege has been asserted,” said Sujit Choudhry, a lawyer who cross-examined the Prime Minister on behalf of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. “We asked [Attorney-General David] Lametti to release that opinion, and in a public statement this week, he said he couldn’t because he lacked the authority to. That would be up to his client ... So again, for the record, sir, and this has been an issue all week, not just this morning, would you advise that that opinion be released in the interest of transparency?”

Mr. Trudeau did not immediately respond.

Brian Gover, a lawyer representing the government, interjected to strongly oppose the request.

”Solicitor-client privilege is of course a very substantial right in our legal system,” he said. “I remind my friends that in this case, as the Prime Minister has said, cabinet confidence has been waived for the fourth time in 155 years to provide evidence of inputs ... We need not go further with the inquiry and pierce the veil of solicitor-client privilege, setting, what in my submission, could be a dangerous precedent going forward. This is certainly an issue that requires careful consideration and not one to require a prime minister to respond to in the spur of the moment.”

Mr. Choudhry asked the Prime Minister why the government has never previously stated that the definition of threats is broader under the Emergencies Act.”

I put it to you that not until this commission has the Government of Canada ever publicly communicated that the threshold for declaring or determining threat to national security is different under the Emergencies Act than under the CSIS Act. Not once. Why is that sir?” he asked.

”It’s in the first line of the public order emergency section of the Emergencies Act,” Mr. Trudeau replied. “That the governor and council can, on reasonable grounds. declare a public order emergency, if in their reasonable opinion, I’m paraphrasing, obviously, there are threats to the security of Canada and it is a national emergency. That doesn’t mention the CSIS threshold anywhere.” Mr. Trudeau appeared to be paraphrasing 17 (1) of the act related to declaring a public order emergency.

That section states: “When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.”

– Bill Curry

12:20 p.m.

Trudeau rejected negotiated option, says protesters ‘wanted to be obeyed’

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rejected suggestions that protests in Ottawa and elsewhere could have been resolved through negotiation rather than invoking the Emergencies Act.

”It was clear that it wasn’t that they just wanted to be heard. They wanted to be obeyed,” he said. “They wanted us to change public health policy designed to help Canadians and were going to occupy locations across this country and interfere with the lives of Canadians until such a decision was taken.”

The Prime Minister also testified that a key factor in his decision was that he did not see a viable alternative.

“If I had been convinced that other orders of government, or any other law in Canada, was sufficient to deal with this emergency, then we wouldn’t have met the threshold,” he said.

Lawyers with the commission have now completed their questioning of the Prime Minister. Lawyers representing various other parties involved in the hearings – civil liberty advocates, the protesters, representatives of other governments – now have an opportunity to question Mr. Trudeau.

– Marieke Walsh, Marsha McLeod, Bill Curry

11:45 a.m.

Trudeau addresses questions about meeting legal threshold to invoke Emergencies Act

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau directly addressed questions Friday as to how cabinet determined that the convoy protests met the legal threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act.

The act contains a definition of “threats to the security of Canada” that is identical to one in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

The head of CSIS has said the protests did not meet the definition of threats under the act, but nonetheless advised the government to invoke the Emergencies Act.

The definition has four main parts. Mr. Trudeau highlighted the third part, which references activities in 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.” The definition later states that it does not apply to “lawful advocacy, protest or dissent” unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities mentioned above.

Mr. Trudeau said there were several indications of “real threats of serious violence” by the third weekend of protests. “Things were not getting better. Things were getting worse.”

The Prime Minister also told the commission that another key factor in his decision was that he did not see a viable alternative. “If I had been convinced that other orders of government or any other law in Canada was sufficient to deal with this emergency, then we wouldn’t have met the threshold,” he said.

– Bill Curry

Open this photo in gallery:

11:35 a.m.

The scene before Trudeau’s testimony

Before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took his seat in the witness chair, there was an expectant edge to the packed room and a heavy security presence.

When he was announced as the next witness, many people turned toward the doors at the back of the room, where other witnesses have typically entered.

And then...nothing happened, no one appeared.

“Maybe we’ll take a few minutes,” said Justice Paul Rouleau, evidently as confused as everyone else. “I’m not sure where a process is, but it’s a bit anticlimactic.”The charged, watchful silence dissolved into awkward laughter. “So, should we take five minutes?” Justice Rouleau said.

But then, just as he prepared to rise and pause the proceedings, Mr. Trudeau materialized through a side door like a magic trick, and off they went.

– Shannon Proudfoot

Open this photo in gallery:

11:30 a.m.

Trudeau wanted ‘to reassure President Biden that Canada was going to be able to solve’ border blockades

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he was more concerned than the President of the United States about the protests that shuttered critical border crossings this year.

Mr. Trudeau, appearing today before the inquiry looking into his government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, was asked by commission counsel Shantona Chaudhury about a conversation he had with President Joe Biden in February.

Ms. Chaudhury was referring to a readout of a call between the two leaders as the Ambassador Bridge, between Detroit and Windsor, was blocked. ”I wanted to reassure President Biden that Canada was going to be able to solve this,” Mr. Trudeau said. ”I think he was very concerned, but I don’t think anyone was more concerned than me.”

The Prime Minister also testified about the environment that his cabinet, especially the Incident Response Group of ministers and officials, were dealing with as the prospect of using the Emergencies Act loomed.

He cited the weaponization of vehicles, what he described as the use of children as human shields by protesters, concerns about weapons at various locations and active resistance to police trying to enforce the law.

He also said CSIS raised the point that people promoting ideological causes could inspire lone-wolf actors. There was also a concern about counterprotests.

”There were all these things that presented real threats of serious violence,” he said. “There was a sense this was a broadly spread thing.”

– Ian Bailey

11:15 a.m.

Trudeau defended decision to invoke Emergencies Act in pre-inquiry interview

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau defended his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act at the Public Order Emergency Commission on Friday, saying economic threats can trigger national security threats and Ottawa needed to step in to preserve public confidence in Canada’s institutions.

Like all inquiry witnesses, Mr. Trudeau was previously interviewed by commission lawyers in private. Mr. Trudeau’s interview took place on Sept. 9, and a summary of that interview was published Friday as he began speaking.

He said in his initial interview that he viewed the events of early 2022 in terms of three weekends.

Jan. 29 to 30:

During that first weekend, Jan. 29-30, he said that what PMO staff were seeing on social media highlighted “a deeper and more serious level of motivation” than what police services were telling the government to expect, adding that on the campaign trail he and his “political staff had observed a level of anger, violence and racism and misogyny expressed in public rhetoric that, in his view, was striking.”

Feb 5 to 6:

He described the second weekend, Feb. 5-6, as worse than the first.

”By the second weekend, in the Prime Minister’s view, it was obvious that police lacked the ability to end the situation in Ottawa,” the interview notes state. “Any hope that the Ottawa occupation would be settled easily was gone, and things were heating up elsewhere.”

Feb 12 to 13:

By the third weekend, Feb. 12-13 – ahead of the government’s decision on Feb. 14 to invoke the act – the government was dealing with several protests across the country, including at key border crossings.

”There was a sense that demonstrators were being tactical and strategic and knew how to take advantage of an ebb and flow; if, for example, they left one port of entry in southwestern Ontario, they could move to another such as Fort Erie,” the notes state.

”The Prime Minister reflected that a big part of the decision-making was the government’s judgement call about timing. If the government had invoked the Emergencies Act after the first weekend, people would have said it was too soon. If the government had waited six weekends, it would have been too long,” the notes state, adding that Mr. Trudeau and cabinet felt the third weekend was the “right moment” to invoke the Act.

Read the full summary of Trudeau’s pre-inquiry interview.

– Bill Curry

Open this photo in gallery:

10:55 a.m.

Trudeau: Ottawa protests crossed a line

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has told the inquiry into his government’s use of the Emergencies Act that he supports public protest to affect government policies, but the chaos in Ottawa this year crossed a line.

”If you’re out protesting that the government is shutting down a safe-injection site or something, you are asking for changes in public policy. There is a difference between occupations, saying we’re not going until this has changed, in a way that is massively disruptive and potentially dangerous versus just saying, ‘Yeah, we want public policy to change and we’re trying to convince people to get enough of them that politicians will listen,’” he said in response to questions from commission co-lead counsel Shantona Chaudhury.

Mr. Trudeau is explaining how his government dealt with the protests, including its invocation of the Emergencies Act for the first time since the legislation was enacted in 1988. He is the first sitting prime minister to appear before a public inquiry since Paul Martin testified before the Gomery Commission in 2005.

Mr. Trudeau began his testimony just after 9:30 am ET and was expected to take questions for two hours.

Early on, he said it became apparent that the protest that would eventually cause chaos in Ottawa was going to be something very different for a city used to dealing with protests.

He said his team noticed a disconnect between what the political arm of his office was expecting and what the Ottawa police and the public service were saying - that this was a normal protest. ”There was a little bit of worry that this could be a different brand of event than Canadians were used to seeing.”

Ottawa Centre MP Yasir Naqvi, according to a readout of a call with the Prime Minister, said it was a very dire situation on the streets, with residents being harassed for wearing masks and a toxic tone among the protesters. “It’s unbelievable, the images that we see are hard to believe,” the Liberal MP said.

According to the readout, Mr. Trudeau said there wasn’t much clarity on how long the situation would last.

”I daresay the citizens of Ottawa are used to political activity and protests on the hill on a range of things, but this was present and in their daily lives and disrupting their weekend in a way that wasn’t the usual political protest,” Mr. Trudeau said today.

– Ian Bailey

10:35 a.m.

Here’s a look at other times Canadian prime ministers testified at public inquiries

Today’s dramatic conclusion of the Public Order Emergency Commission hearings is not the first time a Canadian prime minister has taken the stand in a commission of inquiry.

The country’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, testified at a royal commission on the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1873. The first question was phrased as such: “Will you have the goodness to state to the commission all the facts within your knowledge related to this matter?” And the answer began: “I suppose it had better be done as a narrative?”

Justin Trudeau, however, is the first sitting prime minister to appear at a public inquiry since Paul Martin in 2005, at the Gomery Commission.

Open this photo in gallery:

Here are the few occasions when Canadian prime ministers put themselves under oath:

• 1980: Pierre Trudeau refused to testify publicly at the McDonald Commission, though he did testify behind closed doors and his testimony was wrapped into the final reports.
• 2005: Mr. Martin called a commission of inquiry into the sponsorship program and advertising activities, led by Quebec Justice John Gomery.
• 2005: Jean Chrétien also testified at the Gomery Commission.
• 2009: Brian Mulroney testified at an inquiry into the allegation that a German-Canadian arms lobbyist had given him large sums of cash in 1993 and 1994 in connection with a proposal to manufacture armoured vehicles.

– The Canadian Press

9:55 a.m.

Internal documents, emails and text messages hold inquiry’s most interesting revelations

Some of the most interesting revelations of the public inquiry are contained in the thousands of pages of internal documents, e-mails and text messages that have been disclosed.

Normally, conversations involving cabinet ministers and political staff are never made public, as they are exempt from federal access-to-information laws.

Documents tabled Thursday from the Prime Minister’s Office include several “read out” summaries of conversations involving Mr. Trudeau. They appear to be transcripts of recorded conversations, but it is not clear whether they are verbatim accounts.

One document includes a transcript of a Feb. 11 call between Mr. Trudeau and David Cassidy, the president of Unifor Local 444, which represents Windsor-area auto workers, as well as other sectors.

During the conversation, Mr. Trudeau expressed frustration with the protesters’ demands and lack of clear leadership.

”First of all, they are calling for the overthrow of the government,” Mr. Trudeau is quoted as saying. “The rest are calling for policy changes based on false facts. The other thing is there is no there there. I mean who do we talk to? This group is being coordinated from afar. On the ground in the protest, there is not anyone speaking for anyone. The solution is for police of jurisdiction to intervene...What we saw in QC and Toronto, police were able to deal with it, but unfortunately other police weren’t, and they were able to escalate.”

Mr. Cassidy described the situation as ridiculous and embarrassing. “I mean, who are these people?” he asked. “They think they can just demand something from the government. They’ve lost all support, you know that.”

Mr. Trudeau responded that the situation was absolutely untenable.

“The police forces were caught with an old playbook,” he said. “This is also a worldwide phenomenon. They are just warming up for the US midterms. I’m fairly confident we will be able to put this in the rearview mirror.”

– Bill Curry

9:15 a.m.

Opinion: It’s Trudeau’s show

Read the full column about what to expect with Mr. Trudeau’s testimony.

– Shannon Proudfoot

Open this photo in gallery:

9 a.m.

What to expect as Trudeau testifies on final day of Emergencies Act inquiry

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is testifying today at the inquiry into his government’s use of the Emergencies Act to deal with protests earlier this year.

He is taking the stand at 9:30 am.

Mr. Trudeau will be following members of his cabinet, including Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who have appeared this week before the Public Order Emergency Commission, which is hearing testimony in Ottawa a short walk from Parliament Hill.

Paul Rouleau, a former Ontario Superior Court judge, is commissioner in a process to examine the circumstances that led Mr. Trudeau’s government to invoke the act earlier this year for the first time since it was enacted in 1988.

Mr. Trudeau’s government invoked the Act on Feb. 14 in a bid to end anti-government and anti-vaccine mandate protests that had lasted more than three weeks in Ottawa and closed critical border crossings.

The act provided varied powers to officials, bolstering efforts to deal with last winter’s protests over COVID-19 restrictions, that among other things, led to chaotic demonstrations in Ottawa and at border crossings. Following police actions, the government declared an end to the emergency on Feb. 23.

After being sworn in today, Mr. Trudeau is expected to face questions about such points as why existing laws were not deemed sufficient to deal with the protests, when the government decided the situation had reached the point that the act was required, talks with provinces and the legal advice the government received.

Under the act, an inquiry has to be held within 60 days of revoking the use of the act.

Over five weeks, the commission had heard from more than 60 witnesses before, this week, it began hearing from seven ministers around the table of the cabinet that agreed to use the legislation.

Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Justice Minister David Lametti, Defence Minister Anita Anand, Transport Minister Omar Alghabra and Ms. Freeland have all provided insights about the cabinet’s thinking as the act was considered and enacted.

Here’s what to know about the commission and everything that’s happened so far.

– Ian Bailey