Lametti is giving evidence before the Public Order Emergency Commission which is investigating the government’s decision to deploy special emergency powers to deal with the protests. The legal interpretation of the never-used emergency law has become a sticking point as the committee works to determine whether the federal government was justified in invoking the law. Before Lametti’s testimony began, a lawyer for the federal government clarified that he would not waive the attorney-client privilege, the legal principle that protects communications between attorneys and their clients. “I wanted to put on record that the Government of Canada continues to assert and maintain all of its claims of attorney-client privilege with respect to all legal advice and opinions,” said Andrea Gonsalves. “We will object, and Secretary Lametti will refuse to answer, to all questions that delve into areas of attorney-client privilege.” WATCHES | Lametti defines the emergency law for the public order emergency committee
Attorney General Lametti designates the Emergency Law for the public order emergency commission
David Lametty explained the Emergency Act during his testimony before the Commission’s inquiry Gonsalves urged other lawyers to tailor their questions during cross-examination to avoid objections. “Okay, it’s going to be an interesting maneuver,” Commissioner Paul Rouleau said. That hasn’t stopped lawyers from trying to get Lametti to respond to comments made by Canada’s Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) director David Vigneault earlier this week.
The head of CSIS says he interpreted the act broadly
Vigneault said that while he did not believe the self-proclaimed Freedom Escort posed a threat to national security as defined by the CSIS Act, he supported invoking the Emergency Act. The top intelligence official testified that he sought legal interpretation from the Department of Justice and that he understood the definition of “threat to the security of Canada” in the Emergency Act was broader than that in the CSIS Act.
Have questions about emergency law research? Email us at [email protected]
Under the Emergency Act, the federal cabinet must have reasonable grounds to believe there is a public order emergency – which the act defines as a situation that “arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious that are a national emergency. The act then reverts to CSIS’s definition of such a threat — which states serious violence against people or property “for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective,” espionage, foreign interference, or intent to overthrow the government by force. “You didn’t personally think that section two of the CSIS Act was any different to the Emergency Act, did you?” Brendan Miller, a lawyer representing some of the march organizers, told Lametti during today’s questioning: “You’re asking me to give legal advice,” Lametti replied. “You ask for advice I might have given the Governor in Council.” WATCHES | AG to escort lawyer: ‘I’m not sure you got the point’
Attorney General to escort lawyer: “I’m not sure you got the point”
Escort attorney Brendan Miller questions David Lametty about the attorney client privilege during the committee’s investigation. Lametti spoke with Commission lawyers in September. again invoked the attorney-client privilege during this conversation. He told them that, in his view, the two laws do not interact in a way that “would effectively give a single national security agency veto power over the decision to invoke a public order emergency.” A summary of that conversation was entered into evidence Wednesday. “He emphasized that the Cabinet was working with incomplete information, with threats that may or may not have been carried out, and that he had a responsibility to account for those gaps in information,” the summary of the interview said. “Lamety concluded that it was the government’s responsibility to determine whether there is a threat to Canada’s security. He emphasized his view that cabinet made the right decision.” Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Sujit Choudhry argued that attorney-client privilege protects that the legal opinion should be removed. “We face the committee process, the federal government should waive the attorney-client privilege and make this opinion public,” he said in a media statement on Monday.
“Slowly is incompetent,” Lametti told Medicino
Text messages entered into evidence on Wednesday showed that Lametti and Public Safety Minister Marco Medicino discussed ways to clear up the protests against COVID-19. Lametti today described the texts as a joke with a colleague and friend. “There will be occasional attempts at bad humor,” he said. On February 2, Lametti wrote to Medicino that “you must get the police moving.” “And CAF if needed,” he added. “Too many people are seriously affected by this profession. I’m leaving as fast as I can. People are looking to us/you for leadership. And not stupid people. People like Carney, Cath, my team.” Texts entered into evidence did not give full names. Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Lametti appears as a witness at the Public Order Emergency Committee in Ottawa, Wednesday, November 23, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press) “How many tanks are you asking for,” Medicino wrote. “I just want to ask Anita how many we have on hand. “I think someone will!” says Lamety. Another set of texts with Mendicino showed Lametti saying harsh things about then-Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly. On February 4, Mendicino sent a message that police have the power to enforce the law on protesters. “They just need to practice and do their job,” Medicino wrote. “I was surprised by the lack of a multi-level plan,” Lametti replied. “Slowly is incompetent.” Lametti testified Wednesday that at the time he had to move from his residence in Ottawa and was concerned about his staff being harassed by protesters. “I was disappointed, I must admit,” he said. “It’s honest.” Lametti said he would soften his language towards the former captain with the benefit of hindsight. Defense Minister Anita Anand and Transport Minister Omar Alghabra will also answer questions ahead of the inquiry today at the Library and Archives building in Ottawa. The day began with a presentation of what the committee heard from the audience.
