Senator Gold: Listen, if I misunderstood your question, I apologize. I understand perfectly well. Again, I want to stress one thing. The reason the government has said that the work is not over isn’t based on secrets that can’t be disclosed. There is always information or intelligence that can’t be disclosed, as I’ve explained several times. But that’s not the case here.

Police services are also publicly saying that more time is needed and that the emergency measures must be kept in place. Furthermore, some of the people who came to Ottawa in trucks to protest have moved a few kilometres away and have said that they are going to return.

Esteemed colleagues, we would be naive to believe that people prepared to take up arms to make death threats against the police would be dissuaded from doing so simply because we are restoring order in the streets and at the borders.

We find ourselves in a situation where the police are saying they need more time. Certain public statements prove that some protesters have not yet returned home to resume their lives. That is why the government deems that emergency measures must continue for the time being.

[English]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the government leader in the Senate. I, too, want to thank you, Senator Gold, and your team, for being in such good form in being able to respond and also to keep calm and to engage in respectful listening. It is a model of conduct that I think we can be proud of, and I hope we will be able to continue in this way.

My question picks up on a comment you made a moment ago about trucks from the occupation still being “nearby.” My question is geared to the fact that in some circumstances the world learned from Ottawa in that the kind of occupation of Parliament Hill that has occurred for over 20 days in Ottawa has not been allowed to occur in some other capital cities — Paris, for example — because of measures that police were able to take, and they were able to take those measures without resorting to this kind of emergency declaration.

Section 59 of the Emergencies Act specifies that 10 senators and 20 members of Parliament are in a position at any time to bring a motion to revoke, under any of the four parts of the act. In this case, it’s clear that we’re looking at subsection 59(1)(a), which deals with Parts I and II, because this has been declared an emergency of public order.

My question is this: If there were to be such a motion — preferably not from any one particular political caucus — and if that were to be presented, respectfully and thoughtfully, would this kind of motion that is allowed for under the Emergencies Act have a place in our ongoing debate and our interactions with the government on this decision?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. I followed your question, which is an important one, up until the very end. I’m not entirely clear what the last phrase was. I will make an effort to answer, but I would encourage you to follow up if I have misunderstood the thrust of it.

Thank you for pointing out the different provisions, which I won’t elaborate on; I’ve said it in my speech.

A motion under section 58 is what we are seized with. Our job is to confirm or deny. As I said earlier, I am not going to lean on the fact that we’re dealing with one process under the act and then there is another process.

However, since you raised it — and it’s important for senators to appreciate, as I’m sure they do — even if we confirm, as I hope we do, the government’s decision to invoke the act and declare an emergency as of February 14, which is technically the question before us, the act, in its wisdom and in the wisdom of the parliamentarians who drafted it, gave us tools to continue to challenge the government’s maintenance of an emergency, even if both houses of Parliament confirm it.

Now, I know that for many who are tired — “tired” is maybe the wrong word; who are concerned about the maintenance of extraordinary measures, I think is more accurate — they want to see an end to this as quickly as possible. The government’s position is that it is not appropriate to end the measures now and that it is appropriate to confirm the decision the government took on February 14. It is equally true that even if those of you who would want to end it now do not win the vote, there are other methods and means that you could and should use, if you so wish, to have us, as parliamentarians, revisit it.

I should add, senator, as you well know, that it does not require both houses of Parliament to agree. All it would take would be 10 senators here — it could be from one group or from all groups, including unaffiliated senators — to trigger a process with which we would be seized. As a senator, putting aside my role as Government Representative, I would be pleased to see us, as parliamentarians — I’m not encouraging you to do this; please don’t misunderstand me — but as a senator, as someone who believes in our democratic institutions, I would be proud that we were using all the democratic tools in our kit in order to make sure that what the government does, this government or any other government, is held to account.

Lest I be misunderstood, it is the position of the government that it had reasonable grounds on February 14 and that the measures are still necessary for the time being. It is also the position of the government to applaud the previous government for having put into place a law that has so many checks and balances and protections; one that does not oust our fundamental rights and freedoms. That makes me proud as a Canadian, as a senator and as the representative of the government.

Senator McPhedran: As part of my question, I want to reinforce a point I made earlier, but let me pose a very focused question. Do we need now these extreme measures?

Let me anecdotally share that I was in Ottawa for the first days of the occupation. I tried to get to my office at ten o’clock at night and ended up getting caught in the convoy loop. There were a lot of difficulties as a result of that. I’m very grateful to our Parliamentary Protective Service, our security at the Senate, for their assistance that evening.

At that point, at the beginning, the trucks were not able to get to Parliament Hill. The police had blocked and stopped them. They were able to create tremendous disruption. They honked non-stop day and night, and people were able to get close. And we know that some of those people exhibited horrible, ugly demonstrations of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism — you name the form of discrimination; it was all on display. But the trucks could not get to Parliament Hill at that early stage, and that was January 29. So I have to reinforce my question: Do we need these extreme measures now?

Senator Gold: Thank you. There is no question that the situation on the ground here in Ottawa has changed. Happily, it has changed for the better. But, as I’ve said on a number of occasions and will repeat, the position of the government is that the work is not finished. What does that mean? Investigations are not complete. A lot of information was gathered: licence plates, the names of people who were present here in Ottawa. Those investigations will continue, including of those who did not leave after it became illegal.

In addition, there is reason to worry that some of the organizers have not given up an intention — a desire certainly, if not indeed an intention — to reoccupy, whether this city or elsewhere, and to reblock bridges or ports of entry. For those reasons, and considering that those whom we have trusted and who acted admirably — with as much restraint as was humanly possible — to return the streets and the neighbourhood of Ottawa to order, are saying, “Please, we need a little more time to finish the job.”

The important thing, senator, is the act is in place. But all the way through it, and this has been the position of the government, only those measures needed, in the places and to the extent they are needed — with due regard to our constitutional rights and to be exercised in a proportional way — will be used. That’s the case.

The fact that we do not see police using extraordinary powers or abusing their extraordinary powers, should I say, now that the streets are calm, is a testament to the fact that this act is being applied surgically, proportionately and fairly.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Senator Gold, several of my colleagues, including Senator Lankin, have drilled down further into my concerns about the powers of the parliamentary review committee. I have listened to your answers very carefully. You have said that the parliamentary review committee will require an oath of secrecy but not to the same degree as the committee overseeing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

You also said that the committee will have access to information they need but not intelligence information, and this is a reason to support the bill. The order is the review committee and the inquiry, but I’m still concerned about how you can have serious oversight unless you have access to all the relevant information. I’m sorry, but “trusting us” is not good enough for me and probably not for many Canadians.

Here is what I would like to ask you: Couldn’t the parliamentary review committee members be temporarily sworn into the Privy Council so they can be given information in strictest confidence about things like terrorist threats or weapons that could warrant a continued emergency situation? They will be looking forward as well as backwards in that review. Couldn’t they be sworn in temporarily into the Privy Council as done for parliamentarians at NSICOP, for this parliamentary review committee?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Respectfully, that’s not exactly what I said. I did not say — and would not say and could not say specifically — what CSIS might have disclosed. I was referring to a CSIS annual report, and there have been many of them that pointed out a long period of ignoring the rise of far-right extremism in Canada. CSIS — and indeed the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, in its report, also, if I recall — signalled that. Based upon information to which, frankly, I’m not privy, even as a member of the Privy Council, there has been such a rise and threat posed by far-right extremist groups such as to re-engage CSIS’s focus and place them at the top of the list with which CSIS is concerned — more so than other forms of terrorism or extremism that have dominated the public mind, and in some cases tragically in terms of actual acts.

That’s what I was saying, senator. It is a matter of public record that our security services have identified far-right extremism. We have evidence of foreign funding as well. CSIS has made the link publicly between the agenda of these extremist groups and the COVID-19 fatigue that has allowed them to mobilize that to other ends.

Senator Gold: Of course.

Senator Wells: In the beginning of your remarks, you talked about the profound sense of responsibility that we have here, and I agree with that, and the need for rigorous parliamentary oversight, and I agree with that. In fact, it’s baked into the act. You also said specifically — it was one of your first lines — that we are called upon to concur with our colleagues in the elected chamber. You’ll remember you said that.

We hear a lot in this chamber about the elected chamber and what the elected chamber did and how this motion has received overwhelming support in the elected chamber. Frankly, I see that, as many others do, as a code to be subservient to their will. In fact, to me, that’s used when the argument is weak.

We are an independent chamber. In fact, it is in the act that we act independently of the other chamber. We’re not doing a pre‑study here. We’re not receiving a bill from the House as a subjugant to what they might want.

Not to blame your speechwriter, but could you tell me your thoughts on the necessity for this chamber to be independent of what the other place might be with regard to this matter, which is not a bill? It’s a motion resulting from a very important action by the government.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question.

You will recall that I also started off that way at Premier Bourassa’s request, although maybe not at first. However, mediation was preceded by the arrival of the army and the Sûreté du Québec. There were violent incidents and confrontations that were not resolved, notwithstanding the intervention of the Canadian Armed Forces at the Quebec premier’s request.

As you well know, by arriving in Ottawa and setting up camp, even on the first weekend and well before that, the things said by those who had the microphone, their speeches with the flags . . . I will not repeat those things because it is unparliamentary language.

We heard threats to the Prime Minister’s life, we heard statements to the effect that for some members of the freedom convoy the objective was to overthrow the government, the Governor General, the Senate as well as the others I already mentioned in my speech. These are not conditions or a discourse conducive to opening a dialogue between reasonable people. We were confronted with a group where those who identified themselves as leaders — allow me not to fall into a trap — wanted to replace the government. They hurled insults, not just at the government, and their language was deplorable.

The truth is that the government tried to let the police address this issue legitimately, not with the anger of the people who had dragged them into all of this, who had the microphone and who seized the public forum.

I believe the decision that was made was understandable. But let me just say that whatever happened, we are not addressing the motion that is before us. Rather, we are discussing what could have been done and why things weren’t done differently.

We are, without a doubt, free to ask questions and think. What we must decide, however, is whether or not to confirm the public order emergency that was declared on February 14, no matter the reasons. We were in a situation where the city was taken hostage. Fortunately, all this just ended, including the blockades, which went on for far too long at tremendous cost to the local economy and our reputation.

That’s the question we should be asking, and we will have time to ask it. This question is valid, and I appreciate the reference to my father, whom I miss dearly. There will be time to think about this issue, but right now, we must decide whether the government was right to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Government of Canada’s position is that it was the right decision and that we still need to keep this act in effect.

Senator Dupuis: Am I to understand, Senator Gold, that the request from some senators to receive ministers so they could get information from the people who made these important decisions was not fulfilled because a certain number of senators were opposed to it?

Senator Gold: If I had a speechwriter, I would — but, no. Thank you. It’s an important question. And let me be clear: I was being descriptive and factual because by the time our debate started — and we had all hoped it would start earlier, frankly, but the police activity made it impossible for us to return as planned.

We are an independent chamber, pointe finale, in all respects. In this respect of the Emergencies Act, it’s absolutely clear and to be applauded that we are to decide independently. We don’t have to wait for them to decide. We had not intended to wait for them to decide. We had no control over the other side. Had we been sitting and the House adjourned, it’s very possible we would have started the debate before them and even concluded it.

The fact does remain, however, that by the time our debate had started today, the House had spoken. I was pointing out to the chamber that the House has spoken, and it’s not simply the government party but also one of the opposition parties that supports it, as did their former leader Ed Broadbent.

So, colleagues, please know, as I assume you do, the respect that I share for us as an independent, complementary institution. I reserve the right, in the context of legislation, to speak about what our role is vis-à-vis the elected officials, which is hard‑wired or baked into the Constitution. This is the understanding of what the Senate was and was not to be by those who created our Constitution and created the country of Canada. The country was here before. But in this particular situation, this is not a case where it’s a question of deferring to the other place. Our job is to decide whether we confirm the invocation of the act or deny it, and that’s entirely up to us.

I find it relevant, nonetheless, that, after a long and charged debate, the other place has decided to confirm it. I invite senators to consider that fact or disregard it as you see fit. I think it’s relevant. But it’s not because we are subservient. On the contrary, the act makes it clear, as does the Constitution, we are an independent chamber and shall remain so.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): That’s the nice thing about having a mask on, Senator Gold. You could not say that with a straight face, “with great pleasure.”

Senator Gold, earlier in answer to one of our colleague’s questions, you talked about having respect for other views and other opinions. I have worked together with you now for a few years, and I believe that. Your exchange with Senator Housakos earlier today, however, didn’t show that. It clearly showed that you had — I want to choose my words carefully — some disdain for partisan views that you didn’t share. I know you’re shaking your head, and if that isn’t true, I will accept that. However, if somebody just listened to the exchange, that wouldn’t seem to be how you feel.

Senator Gold, I’m going to quote for you an exchange that took place on CTV last Thursday night, where one of your colleagues from the other place showed his disdain for certain views. Evan Solomon asked the Minister of Justice:

A lot of folks said, look, I just don’t like your vaccine mandates, and I donated to this. Now it’s illegal. Should I be worried that the bank can freeze my account? What’s your answer to that?

Minister Lametti responded:

Well, I think if you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating . . . to this kind of thing —

— not to Trump but “this type of thing” —

— then you ought to be worried.

Leader, in other words, if you hold an unacceptable view, you should be afraid that your bank account will be frozen is in essence what Minister Lametti said.

Now, you say that you believe in other people having views other than your own, and that’s acceptable. Can you tell us, Senator Gold, does the Prime Minister share your views? Does Minister Lametti share your views? Because his actions and his words would not indicate that. How can this comment from Minister Lametti be viewed as anything other than political retribution?

Senator Gold: Once again, thank you for the question. All I can say and want to say, esteemed colleagues, is that we were sure we wouldn’t be able to obtain unanimous consent. For that reason, we chose to proceed differently. We did not want to play political games. We respect the House and our rules, but we must also respect our duty and the need to have all the information from the government, which is asking for your consent. That’s why we tried, unsuccessfully, to organize a Committee of the Whole. Fortunately, we at least succeeded in giving you access to the ministers, and I am grateful for their time. The ministers agreed to talk with us and answer our questions while the House of Commons was sitting, just before the vote. I am also very grateful to the senators who attended. I trust that it was a valuable experience.

[English]

Senator Gold: Let me respond to your last question first and perhaps permit me to make a comment or two about some of the other remarks.

The Emergencies Act itself, the declaration issued pursuant to it and the regulations all draw a distinction between illegal protests, illegal assemblies, illegal actions and lawful, peaceful protests. It is well established in Canadian law that there is a difference between vigorous protest — even protest that is inconvenient, as it often is, as we know here on the Hill — and those that are accompanied by violence, threats of violence, rhetoric that is demeaning and hurtful, and actions of intimidation and harassment of ordinary citizens.

The law and our jurisprudence sets out the difference between lawful, legal and illegal protests. It’s not “Justin Trudeau” that decides, and it wasn’t Justin Trudeau alone that decided. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, as I said and will simply repeat, came —

Senator Plett: That’s not the question. When did it become illegal? That’s the question.

Senator Gold: Strictly speaking, some of the activities became illegal upon the proclamation of the state of emergency. It was only illegal to continue to stay in areas like the Parliamentary Precinct when the tools were finally made available to the authorities to protect our Parliamentary Precinct, and the neighbourhoods, may I add, where people live and work. So that is the narrow legal question.

The broader question, which I was trying to answer, was that the circumstances arose and became quite clear for some time before the invocation that whatever might have started out as a peaceful protest degenerated, morphed into something that was far from a peaceful protest and, as I outlined in my speech and in the declaration, is an intolerable situation in any free and democratic society.

If I may briefly address, respectfully, some of the other things that you said, I never said 200 individuals were insignificant. What I was —

Senator Gold: There were several aspects to your question, so I’ll try to give you a clear answer.

First, there’s a wide range of measures that should be seen as a set of measures authorized through the proclamation of a state of emergency and that, combined, made the difference here in Ottawa and are making a difference in keeping us protected now.

Without the proclamation, there is a whole swearing-in process to bring in, for example, 1,000 officers from the Sûreté du Québec, and to give them the authority to enforce the law here in Ottawa. That takes time. There was a crisis. The city had been taken hostage.

Therefore, one aspect of the highly targeted measures was to temporarily eliminate the swearing-in requirement so that we could bring in police officers from across Canada who would be able to immediately get to work. Without getting into what the Ottawa police were capable of doing before and what they would have had the time to do, it was quite clear that they did not have the means to ensure that the various police forces could work together in downtown Ottawa and on Parliament Hill.

We therefore had to make changes to the leadership, and we had to use the proclamation to allow for a coordinated police effort and an adequate number of police officers to put an end to the blockade.

Other means were also used. The impact of the financial measures, which were another important tool, must not be understated. It’s important to note that despite a state of emergency being declared in Ottawa and across Ontario, there was no way to protect Parliament Hill or downtown residents until these measures were brought in. I also mentioned the other tools — and I don’t want to take up too much time, as I’m sure there will be more questions — but it would have been impossible to get the trucks out without the measures that were brought in.

While it’s true we can always ask “what if?” and think about what could have been, I’m here to tell you and to try to convince you that the government not only took the exercise seriously, but it also met the requirements of the law to conclude, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency existed and these measures were necessary.

That is the government’s position, and I think it has been clearly demonstrated by the facts on the ground.

[English]

Senator McPhedran: My question is to Senator Gold. Although, Senator Gold, I remain keenly interested in the section 59 motion by senators and members of Parliament crossing all political boundaries, if possible, I do have to ask if you will forgive me because I misspoke. I gave information from only my perspective, from my office, which is many blocks away from Senator Pate’s office. After I indicated that trucks had been stopped by our security forces, Senator Pate sent me a photograph taken at four o’clock on Friday, January 28, clearly showing me that there were trucks parked in front of her office on Wellington. Please, I hope you will accept this correction and the fact that I made a statement based on my limited perspective.