On Day 29 of the Public Order Emergency Commission hearings, Justice Minister David Lametti refused to answer questions about the Trudeau government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act by routinely citing solicitor-client privilege throughout his testimony. Plus, Lametti and Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino joked about bringing in tanks to break up the Convoy protests.
Also, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez acknowledged during a Senate committee that the government’s controversial online censorship bill would provide government with the ability to press social media companies to tweak their algorithms.
And, Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro says his province has lost confidence in RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, and he’s calling on Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino to remove her from her post.
Tune into The Daily Brief with Anthony Furey and Jasmine Moulton!
A study of academic and energy sector expert perspectives found that Canada can displace half of Russia’s energy exports in the next 7-10 years if the production and export of Canadian energy were to be made a national priority.
The report concluded that with this increased emphasis on developing and exporting Canada’s natural resources, Canada could offset up to 59% of Russia’s annual natural gas exports and 46% of Russia’s crude oil exports.
SecondStreet.org approached experts in the energy sector to fill out a survey to project Canada’s potential to offset Russian crude oil and natural gas. They were asked to estimate how much oil and LNG they believed Canada could export in the short term of one year, the medium term of three to five years, and the long term of seven to ten years.
On average, the answers were that Canada could produce about 285,000 barrels of oil per day in the short term, with the ability to ramp up to approximately 1,860,000 barrels in the long term. Regarding natural gas, experts found that Canada could produce just under a billion cubic feet per day, ramping up to over seven and a half in the long term.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), an oil and natural gas advocacy organization, reiterated Canada’s need to increase its energy production and add to the global energy supply.
“The world will continue to need responsibly produced oil and natural gas for years to come. And we believe that supply should come from Canada,” said CAPP President and CEO Lisa Baiton.
There has been an increased emphasis on replacing Russian LNG and oil exports with alternatives as Western allied nations react to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The SecondStreet.org report points out that 45% of the Russian government’s budget is from oil and LNG revenues and that these funds are responsible for funding the Russian war effort.
“After Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, many observers noted that the tanks and rockets inflicting death, pain and suffering on the Ukrainian people were funded through the Kremlin’s natural gas and oil exports,” reads the report.
Baiton said that “With global demand for energy at pre-pandemic levels and growing, the world needs more of all forms of energy, particularly as nations look to replace energy provided by less secure regimes with supply from safe and trusted producers, such as Canada.
“Every barrel of oil exported by Canada adds to the global supply of energy, even if it is not going directly to Europe,” said CAPP President Lisa Baiton.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently came to Canada looking for a supplier of energy to supplant Germany’s reliance on Russian energy. Yet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that there has never been a business case for exporting LNG from Canada to Europe.
Federal Tourism Minister and Edmonton Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault is accusing Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of attacking Canadian unity with her proposed sovereignty act.
In a broadcast to the province on Tuesday night, Smith said sovereignty legislation would be ready in about a week and act as a constitutional shield to protect Albertans.
But Boissonnault says the Albertans he has met with aren’t “asking for more jurisdictional fights or constitutional squabbles.”
“They want a prosperous Alberta within a strong Canada, and they expect their federal and provincial governments to work together and deliver results that make their lives better,” he wrote in a statement.
“That means focusing on real issues like how we can make life more affordable and build an economy that works for everyone.”
See my response to Premier Danielle Smith’s address last night to Albertans 👇 pic.twitter.com/0kT1uDh1Lp
Boissonnault did not address the $2.4 billion package Smith announced for struggling families on Tuesday night, namely $600 for families and seniors, at least six months of fuel tax relief, and re-indexed social benefits among a host of other benefits.
After announcing her plans to help Albertans through the inflation crisis, Smith turned to her proposed Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. She ran on the proposal — dubbed the Alberta Sovereignty Act during the United Conservative Party (UCP) leadership race – as a means to bar federal bills deemed harmful to the province.
“This legislation is designed to be a constitutional shield to protect Albertans so that when Ottawa implements a policy or law attacking our economy or provincial rights, our government will not enforce those unconstitutional measures in Alberta,” Smith said Tuesday night.
“Some are attempting to scare folks into thinking that this legislation has something to do with leaving Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Yet Boissonnault said Smith’s plan to move forward with the legislation “is deeply concerning.”
“This Act will not create a single job, it will not help a single business, nor will it make life more affordable for a single family,” he wrote.
“Unequivocally, it is an attack on Canadian unity. As a proud Albertan, and an equally proud Canadian, this is something I can never support.”
Smith’s UCP leadership opponents, except Todd Loewen, came out against the Sovereignty Act during the leadership contest. Runner-up Travis Toews, now Smith’s finance minister, said it would create economic uncertainty and chase away investment.
All the former candidates are in Smith’s cabinet except Leela Aheer, who announced she wouldn’t run for the party in the spring general election. Smith said members of her cabinet would not have a free vote on the Alberta Sovereignty Act, unlike the rest of her caucus.
Taiwan has a lot of strategies for how to deal with China’s aggressive posture, as the Communist regime in Beijing continues to threaten the democratic island nation. And one of those strategies involves increased ties with other nations, including Canada.
But it’s something that’s already going on, says a representative of the Taiwanese government station in Toronto. Their hope is just that now, as Canada is coming to terms with its own increasingly difficult relationship with China, that process will speed up.
“The two sides already have a close relationship – people to people, business to business, even if it’s not much government to government,” says Jin-Ling Chen, director general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto, in a wide-ranging interview with True North.
Chen explains that there are over 50,000 Canadians currently living in Taiwan, which despite its small geographic size boasts a population of around 25 million.
As for businesses, Chen cites how Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (known as TMSC), the largest chip manufacturer in the world, has a design department in Ottawa. Although she’s hopeful that businesses from both countries can start doing more work and manufacturing in each other’s countries.
“I’m always urging officials in the Ontario government for the province to set up its own investment office in Taiwan,” Chen says of one possibility, noting how Alberta has already opened such an office in the capital city of Taipei.
Right now, Taiwan finds itself in a difficult situation as China ramps up the rhetoric threatening an invasion. China has also been sending dozens of jets into Taiwan’s air defence zone in recent months. It’s all because the Chinese Communist Party believes that Taiwan – which has a democratically elected President – is a wayward province that must soon be absorbed into mainland China. But the residents of Taiwan – as well as their Western supporters – simply want the status quo maintained.
President Joe Biden has made it clear that he disapproves of authoritarian leader Xi Jinping’s language on Taiwan and has signaled that the U.S. would defend the island in the event of a conflict. But it’s also believed that Russia’s poor performance in its slow attempt to take western Ukraine has caused China to second guess its ability to successfully execute an amphibious invasion.
It’s amidst this turmoil that the Taiwanese government clearly sees an opportunity to score more allies and more formal recognition. While they were once almost entirely ignored from the international stage – they don’t have a seat at the United Nations and most countries, including Canada, don’t have formal ties with them – they’re optimistic things will change.
Director General Chen points to how political delegations from the United States, Canada and European nations all visited Taiwan this year.
While a lot of noise was made about U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan this summer, Chen points out that Liberal MP Judy Sgro led a delegation in October that included Conservative and Bloc MPs. “Everything was fine,” Chen remarks of that trip.
The other big move that Taiwan sees as a gesture of solidarity from the West is how American and Canadian naval vessels have recently engaged in freedom of navigation exercises through the Taiwan Strait, the 150 kilometre wide body of water between the island and mainland China. While the strait is international waters, China makes it clear they think it’s their terrain and aren’t pleased when other countries traverse it.
Chen is also hopeful that Canada will formalize a bilateral trade agreement, after talks on the matter began earlier this year. Taiwan is also pitching to be included in the Trans-Pacific trade deal (known as CPTPP), although China wants in as well.
Just a year ago, it would have seemed highly unlikely that the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would side with Taiwan against China’s wishes. But things are beginning to change.
Chen says the Taiwanese government took note of Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly’s recent comments labeling China an “increasingly disruptive” force. Other cabinet ministers have also spoken of the need to decouple from China.
“We see fellow democracies unite to support peace and stability,” Chen says of these recent changes. “Taiwan is the very front line in defending democracy in the Indo-Pacific.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and several of his cabinet ministers will appear before the Public Order Emergency Commission this week to justify the government’s use of the Emergencies Act to quash the Freedom Convoy.
Today, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland will appear before the inquiry.
On Day 29 of the Public Order Emergency Commission hearings, Justice Minister David Lametti refused to answer questions about the Trudeau government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act by routinely citing solicitor-client privilege throughout his testimony.
Before Lametti took the stand, counsel for the Government of Canada informed the Commission that Lametti, who is also Canada’s attorney general, would not be answering any questions about what could be considered legal advice Lametti gave to cabinet regarding the Emergencies Act.
“I wanted to put on the record that the government continues to assert and maintain all of its claims of solicitor-client privilege,” Government counsel said.
“We will be objecting to and Minister Lametti will be refusing to answer all questions that would delve into areas of solicitor-client privilege.”
Commissioner Rouleau described the decision by Lametti to refuse to answer all legal questions as “an interesting maneuver.”
Government of Canada lawyers tell the commission that Attorney General David Lametti will refuse to answer “all questions that delve into solicitor-client privilege.”#POECpic.twitter.com/jXKRAtLTEq
At the end of Lametti’s cross-examination, Commission lawyers stated that Lametti’s decision to refuse to answer questions put the Commission “in a conundrum.”
“We would observe that we have attempted to find a way to lift the veil that has made such a black box of what has turned out to be a central issue before the hearings,” Commission counsel stated.
“We just regret that it ends up being an absence of transparency on the part of the government in this proceeding.”
The central issue that Commission counsel refers to is the legal test that the government relied on to be confident that the legal threshold required to invoke the Emergencies Act was met. Throughout the inquiry, various witnesses confirmed that a threat to national security as defined by Section 2 of the CSIS Act was not met.
Commissioner Rouleau raised the issue with Lametti that there is a lack of understanding on the part of the Commission as to how to “assess reasonableness” of the invocation of the Act when the government is not forthcoming with its legal assessment of the decision.
“I’m having a little trouble and I don’t know if you can help me, how we assess reasonableness when we don’t know what (the government) were acting on,” Rouleau asked Lametti. “Do we just presume (the government) were acting in good faith without knowing the basis or structure within which they made that decision?”
“What I don’t know and I’m not saying we necessarily need to know is what was the belief of those who made the decision as to what the law was and I guess we just assume they acted in good faith and application of whatever they were told.”
“I think that’s fair,” Lametti responded.
Text messages between Justice Minister David Lametti and Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino suggests the ministers were looking to advise police operations in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy, which included sourcing a tank. #POECpic.twitter.com/7r0azqQcmX
Several text conversations between Lametti and his colleagues, including Public Safety Minister Mendicino, were introduced to the Commission as evidence.
A February 3 text conversation between Mendicino and Lametti shows Lametti urging Mendicino to “get the police to move” and to call in the military “if necessary.”
Lametti wrote to Mendicino, “You need to get the police to move. And the CAF if necessary.”
Mendicino responded back to Lametti, “How many tanks are you asking for?”
“I just wanna ask Anita how many we’ve got on hand,” Mendicino said, referring to Defence Minister Anita Anand, who testified Wednesday afternoon.
Marco Mendicino (in the grey) and David Lametti texting about how many tanks to send in to break up protests. pic.twitter.com/rdNbwK8h7F
When asked to explain these messages, which inferred that Canada’s top prosecutor was considering calling in the military just five days into the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa, Lametti excused the comments as a joke.
“No. This exchange is meant to be a joke between two friends,” Lametti said. “The CAF is always the very last resort.”
When asked by Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms lawyer Rob Kittredge about this text exchange, Anand said, “I believe Minister Lametti has mentioned that that was made in jest.”
Kittredge asked Anand, “Do you think this is a joke?”
“I take no part of my role as Minister of National Defence as something in jest obviously,” Anand said. “I am very concerned to make sure that we are making decisions with full information and I know that is the case with Minister Lametti as well as the other colleagues around the table.”
The text exchange between Lametti and Mendicino also shows that Lametti felt people like former Bank of England governor and former Liberal cabinet minister Catherine McKenna – as opposed to “stupid people” – were looking to the government for “leadership.”
“People are looking to us/you for leadership. And not stupid people. People like Carney, Cath, my team…,” Lametti told Mendicino.
A text exchange between Lametti and Liberal MP Greg Fergus was also introduced to the Commission.
Fergus told Lametti on February 13 that the consensus between Liberal MPs after a caucus meeting was that there were three options available to the government: “1) Invoke the Emergencies Act, 2) Close down Coventry Road and Baseline bases of operations, 3) Put a solid RCMP or CAF spokesman in front of the press, since we politicians have pissed away our credibility.”
Lametti replied that there was no “solid RCMP spokesperson.”
A February 23 conversation between Fergus and Lametti also shows that Fergus thought that the government should have kept the Emergencies Act in place for longer but that Lametti was concerned that senators “would vote against” the government and the NDP would pull their support of the Emergencies Act given that the threat had subsided.
Testifying after Anand was Omar Alghabra, the federal transport minister.
What happens next?
Hearings resume tomorrow morning at 9:30 am ET.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is scheduled to testify tomorrow morning, along with members of the Prime Minister’s Office including Chief of Staff Katie Telford.
Justin Trudeau is scheduled to testify on Friday.
True North will continue to bring you daily coverage of the ongoing Public Order Emergency Commission.
Documents published by the Public Order Emergency Commission show cabinet ministers Marco Mendicino and David Lametti talking about sending in Canadian Armed Forces tanks to deal with the Freedom Convoy – though Lametti said this was just “banter” between friends. True North’s Andrew Lawton says the ‘just kidding’ defense doesn’t pass muster when the government ended up using wartime powers to deal with the protest.
Also, the Liberals are trying to expand their gun ban to include all semi-automatic guns. Rod Giltaca from the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights joins the show live to discuss why this will do nothing but criminalize law-abiding gun owners.
A private members bill currently before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia calls on the government to immediately freeze pay for MLAs.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) urged for the freeze to immediately pass as Canadians struggle to make ends meet in the current economic environment.
“This is good legislation which desperately needs to pass before the close of the legislative session,” said CTF’s British Columbia director Carson Binda in a press release.
“Politicians shouldn’t be giving themselves pay raises while families are struggling to make ends meet.”
BC Liberal MLA and opposition house leader Todd Stone first introduced the motion last month. It would suspend the legislature’s annual inflation adjustment. Stone has also called to reverse any retroactive pay hikes for cabinet members.
With only a few days left before the end of the legislative session and an expected $10,000 pay hike scheduled in April, the bill could face removal from the order paper if not debated before the holidays.
“British Columbians expect their elected representatives to lead by example. As our constituents continue to face financial challenges due to inflation, the last thing they’d want to see is their MLA receiving a pay bump,” said Stone on Oct. 6.
“Accepting a pay increase of up to 10 per cent would be completely out of line with the expectations of families who are struggling to put food on the table or keep their kids in extra-curricular activities.”
Similar measures have been adopted by other provinces. In September, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government introduce legislation to prevent a pay hike in 2023.
“While people are struggling due to increasing costs, politicians should not be getting raises,” the Ontario government said in a statement.
In BC, MLAs make approximately $115,045 a year while cabinet members earn up to $172,567. Meanwhile, Premier David Eby takes home a salary of $218,587.
Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez acknowledged on Tuesday that Bill C-11 would in fact provide levers to press social media providers to tweak algorithms in order to comply with government regulation.
The rare admission came after months of the minister denying that the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) would be empowered to meddle with search algorithms to promote or derank content. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter rely on programmed algorithms to cater content to specific users.
Canadian Heritage Minister @pablorodriguez acknowledged before the Senate yesterday that Bill C-11 would empower gov to indirectly manipulate social media algorithms to comply with regulation.
In response to questions by Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald, Rodriguez explained to the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on Tuesday that indirect manipulation was possible.
“A section of the bill states that the commissioner shall not make an order that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or a source code. However, the CRTC commissioner has told our committee quite clearly that this would be accomplished indirectly,” said MacDonald.
“We’ve been told by many witnesses that if this is done or indirectly required it will have a negative impact on many Canadian creators so in light of that why wouldn’t you support an amendment on this when it comes to discoverability?”
“The CRTC can’t mandate user specific algorithms. What we want is outcomes,” said Rodriguez.
“It’s up to the platform to decide how they do that. They may decide they’ll touch their algorithms but that would be their own decision. They could have playlists, they could have filters.”
Although the Liberal government has claimed that Bill C-11 is at its core an update to the Broadcasting Act, critics have blasted the bill as an affront to freedom of expression and an attempt by the government to meddle with what content Canadians are exposed to online.
In June, CRTC chairman Ian Scott told the Senate that it could direct social media companies to manipulate their own search algorithms.
Scott told senators that while the CRTC can’t make the changes itself it could go to a platform like Youtube and say: “I want you to manipulate it (the algorithm) to produce particular outcomes.”
Scott later backtracked, claiming that his comments were “taken out of context”. As exclusively reported by True North, Conservative MP Rachael Thomas then accused the CRTC chair of telling the truth “by mistake.”
“If the CRTC has no intention of regulating the content Canadians post online, the provision should be taken out of the bill and explicit protection should be put in place,” said Thomas.
“The fact that the government is insisting on keeping the provision points to their likely intent, which is to censor Canadians.”
The admission comes at a time when the Liberal government is facing accusations of witness intimidation and “gas-lighting” content creators.
Indigenous content creator Vanessa Brosseau told the Senate last week that her concerns about the legislation were shut down by a federal ministry.
“One ministry that we met with did have a different perspective and felt that they needed to really intimidate me with their perspective when I was really just there to share my perspective as I don’t know all about the bill and I understand that it needs to be passed on certain levels,” explained Brousseau.
After the Liberals moved to ban hundreds more new models of rifles and shotguns through a last-minute amendment to Bill C-21, Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro says the federal government is seeking to ban legal firearm ownership altogether.
On Tuesday, Liberal MPs sitting on the Parliamentary Public Safety and National Security committee included an amendment to Bill C-21 — proposed legislation to further restrict access to handguns in Canada — which would ban virtually all semi-automatic firearms, including semi-automatic hunting rifles.
Shandro said the “last-minute amendments” target more than two million licensed Canadian firearms owners, including hunters, farmers and target shooters who collectively own hundreds of thousands of firearms.
“The federal government is clearly seeking to ban legal firearm ownership altogether,” he said in a statement.
“In the coming weeks, Alberta will explore all available options to take action.”
Shandro also said the amendment contradicts Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino’s claims that the federal government would only seek to ban “assault-style” firearms.
“If the amendments are successful, Bill C-21 will lead to the most sweeping and arbitrary ban in Canadian history,” he said. “The ban will not only be unenforceable but will criminalize hundreds of thousands of Canadians.”
Conservative Public Safety critic Raquel Dancho asked the committee to pause before continuing to debate the amendment to gain clarity on which firearms would be impacted.
“That is incredibly significant, Chair, and will impact hundreds of thousands of hunters. So we need to be clear about what that is; what we need to ask for is a complete list of the firearms, notably semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, that will be impacted,” she said.
In May 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was banning more than 1,500 models of firearms, including guns explicitly used for sport shooting and hunting. Bill C-21 seeks to legislate those changes, and Mendicino wrote to the provinces, requesting their police services collect the firearms.
In September, Shandro said he would obstruct the gun grab by any means necessary. He also said he wrote to the RCMP that the confiscation scheme is not a provincial priority and is an inappropriate use of RCMP resources.
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick have since joined Alberta in opposing Ottawa’s bid to use local policing resources as confiscation agents.
Debate on the amendment will continue on Thursday.
