Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today rejected claims that Ottawa police were about to implement a plan to remove the occupation of anti-COVID-19 restrictions last winter, arguing that the plan was “not at all a plan”.
Several lawyers rejected Trudeau’s claim, suggesting he had not been properly briefed on plans to clear downtown Ottawa of protesters who had blockaded parts of the capital for weeks.
After six weeks of dramatic testimony, Trudeau made his own long-awaited appearance before the Public Order Emergency Commission. He strongly defended his government’s decision to invoke the Emergency Law on February 14 for the first time in the law’s 34-year history.
The commission has previously heard that after initial confusion and dysfunction, the Ottawa Police Service [OPS]the Ontario Provincial Police [OPP] and the RCMP had come together to come up with an operational plan.
“We kept hearing that there was a plan,” Trudeau told a packed room on Friday.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is appearing as a witness before the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa on Friday. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
“I would recommend that people look at this real plan, which was not a plan at all”
Trudeau said the document he heard about mainly talked about using liaison officers to reduce the protest’s footprint, with details on enforcement “to be determined at a later date.”
“Even in the most generous characterizations there wasn’t a plan for how they were going to end the occupation,” Trudeau said.
LOOK | Trudeau says Ottawa police had no plan to end the convoy protest
Trudeau says Ottawa police had no plan to end the convoy protest
During his testimony at the Emergency Act inquiry, the prime minister highlights the poor planning of Ottawa’s police services to end the convoy protests.
The question of whether police could have managed the crowds without the Emergency Act has been raised several times at the inquiry as Commissioner Paul Rouleau considers whether their invocation was really a measure of last resort.
The night before the law was invoked, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki told Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s chief of staff that she felt police had not yet exhausted “all available tools,” according to an email seen by the investigation. In that email, he also listed a number of measures that could be helpful if the government moved forward.
Jody Thomas, Trudeau’s national security intelligence adviser, testified last week that Lucki did not pass on that information during a Feb. 13 meeting with senior officials.
“The people who are in this meeting are expected to provide information that is useful to the decision makers … the prime minister in his cabinet,” Thomas said on Thursday.
A line of anti-mandate protesters stand face-to-face with a line of police officers in downtown Ottawa on February 19. (Michael Charles Cole/CBC)
Thomas also said he doubted the RCMP had established a plan with the OPP.
“There was no evidence that there was a plan,” Thomas said. “We had been told there was a plan several times.”
The Emergencies Act says a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
“That was part of the problem, that not all the tools were being used,” Trudeau said.
Rebecca Jones, a lawyer for former Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly, showed Trudeau Lucki’s testimony that she and the OPP chief were informed of a plan around February 11.
“We were satisfied with the plan,” Lucki said last week.
Jones suggested to Trudeau that there was a disconnect between his witnesses.
“I suggested that what happened is that Commissioner Lucki did not inform you or your cabinet that there was a full plan on the 13th,” he said.
“I can’t comment on that,” Trudeau said.
Lawyers question how much Trudeau knew about the plan
Jones wasn’t the only lawyer to question Trudeau’s assessment of the police plan.
Under questioning from Ottawa Police Service lawyer Jessica Barrow, Trudeau said he did not have the ability to do a line-by-line review of the police plan.
“I understand you would agree with me that there was perhaps a little more substance to the plan than you knew on the 13th,” he said.
“I can’t talk about that,” he said.
Sujit Choudhry, an adviser to the Canadian Constitution Foundation, cited the Feb. 13 Ottawa police plan and noted that eight of its pages have been completely redacted.
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki exits a vehicle as she arrives at the Public Order Emergency Commission, Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2022, in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
Choudhry asked that the pages not be redacted. The government declined.
“Prime Minister, can I put it this way? You said we had to read the plan, but I think you’d agree we can’t,” he said.
“Indeed,” Trudeau said. “I haven’t read the plan.”
OPS Supt. Robert Bernier, who helped design the force plan to end the protest in downtown Ottawa last winter, told the commission last month that he had already planned to conduct a police operation when it was called the law
Asked if he thought the federal act was necessary to remove the protesters, Bernier said he had a hard time saying.
“I couldn’t do the operation without her,” Bernier replied. “I don’t know what complications it would have had if the common law had not been established and used.”
Ottawa police and representatives of other police forces went ahead with what they called the “Feb. 17 plan,” which methodically cleared the downtown core over a weekend. It was one of the largest police operations in Canadian history.
Trudeau says CSIS is not the decision maker
With critics arguing that the government failed to meet the requirements of the legislation, the inquiry has been considering the legal definition of a public order emergency.
The Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as one that “arises from threats to the security of Canada that are serious enough to constitute a national emergency.”
The act refers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act definition of these threats, which include harm done in order to achieve a “political, religious or ideological objective”, espionage, foreign interference or the intention to overthrow the government through violence. It does not mention financial security.
The head of the spy agency has said he does not believe the protest meets the definition of a threat to national security under the CSIS Act, but was told the Emergency Act offered a broader definition of these threats
Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) David Vigneault is seen as he testifies before the Public Order Emergency Commission on November 21, 2022 in Ottawa. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)
During his examination, commission lawyer Shantona Chaudhury suggested to Trudeau that the protests “did not constitute a threat to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act.”
“As defined for the CSIS Act,” Trudeau replied.
“These words in the CSIS Act are used in order for CSIS to determine that they have authority to act against a specific individual, group, or plot … for example.”
Trudeau said Cabinet, not CSIS, decides whether to invoke the Emergency Act.
LOOK | Trudeau explains the reasoning behind the invocation of the Emergency Act
Trudeau explains the reasoning behind the invocation of the Emergency Act
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the Commission’s counsel that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was made based on its definition that there were “activities in support of threats or acts of serious violence, threat of serious violence, for political or ideological purposes”. .’
“The purpose of this project was to be able to provide us with special temporary measures as defined in the Public Order Emergency Act. This would end this national emergency,” he said.
“There was the use of children as human shields, deliberately. Which was a real concern both on the Ambassador Bridge and the fact that there were children on Wellington Street, that people didn’t know what was in the trucks, if they were children. , whether it was weapons, or both.”
The government has claimed attorney-client privilege to protect the legal advice it received on the interpretation of the Emergency Act.
Trudeau said he is “calm and confident” in the decision he made to invoke the act.
CSIS didn’t have the tools or the mindset to deal with the convoy: Trudeau
In an interview with the commission’s lawyer in September, Trudeau said CSIS faced challenges during the convoy protests. A summary of that interview was made public on Friday.
“He noted that CSIS does not necessarily have the right tools, mandate or even mindset to respond to the threat facing Canada at the time,” the summary said.
“He noted that CSIS has a very specific mandate and that when they determine whether there is a threat to the security of Canada, they do so for the purpose of obtaining a warrant, a wiretap, or to authorize an investigation of a specific objective”.
The key mandate of CSIS is to investigate activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of the country and report to the Government of Canada.
Tamara Lich, front left, returns after a break as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waits for questioning to begin while appearing as a witness before the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, Friday, Nov. 25 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press) )
“CSIS has been challenged in recent years by the threat of domestic terrorism, which it was not designed to address. It noted that CSIS has a limited ability to conduct operations on Canadian soil or against Canadians,” he said. say Trudeau’s summary of the interview.
The government felt that passing the legislation would be too slow
In his September interview, Trudeau said the Incident Response Group, a special committee made up of cabinet ministers and security officials, considered introducing legislation to clarify the…