OTTAWA — A senior Liberal minister says the government has “two competing interests” when it comes to sharing information about its use of the Emergencies Act: transparency and protecting national security.
Government House leader Mark Holland was responding Tuesday to questions about what information the Liberals will provide to a judge tapped to lead an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the declaration of an emergency.
While the government says Ontario Appeal Court Justice Paul Rouleau will have broad access to classified documents, it has not said whether that will include access to secret documents held by Trudeau’s cabinet.
That has sparked questions and frustration from civil liberties organizations and opposition parties who worry the inquiry will not be given access to key documents about closed-door discussions and decisions by ministers.
Holland said the government will provide as much information as possible so Canadians have “an absolutely crystal clear picture, right up to the point that it’s not injurious to national security.”
“We have two competing interests,” he told reporters ahead of a planned cabinet meeting in Parliament’s West Block.
“The most important thing we can do is make sure the public has all the information they need to see clearly why decisions were made and how they were made. But we also know we have to protect national security. Those are difficult things to balance.”
The Liberals and opposition parties have previously butted heads when it comes to transparency and national security, notably over the government’s refusal to hand over documents about the firing of two scientists at Canada’s highest security laboratory.
Little is publicly known about the firing of scientists Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng, who were escorted out of Winnipeg’s National Microbiology Laboratory in July 2019 and subsequently fired in January 2021.
Holland in December proposed creating a special all-party committee to review the documents, with a panel of three former senior judges determining what could be made public without jeopardizing national security.
But the Conservatives rejected the proposal, pointing out that in the previous parliamentary session the Public Health Agency of Canada ignored multiple orders from a Commons committee and the House itself to produce unredacted documents.
Holland nonetheless pointed to his previous proposal, as well as the government’s offer to have Parliament’s special intelligence committee review secret documents about the Winnipeg lab, as possible solutions to concerns about the Emergencies Act.
“Where there are disputes, I point to the Winnipeg labs example specifically … we responded by creating a different model that allowed expanded access and a greater adjudication of those points independently,” he said.
“So we continue to be reasonable and rational on this.”
Holland’s reference to the Winnipeg labs dispute did not sit well with Conservative emergency preparedness critic Dane Lloyd, who accused the Liberals of “hiding behind legal tools” and called for the production of cabinet documents.
“If the Liberals are already suggesting they (intend) to approach this inquiry as they have the Winnipeg lab documents, it signals the Liberals’ intent to hide the truth from Canadians,” Lloyd said.
“To be clear, what Mr. Holland is suggesting when he refers to the ‘Winnipeg Lab situation’ is to ignore two orders from a committee, and two orders from the House of Commons for the production of the Winnipeg lab documents, all with reasonable safeguards to protect our national security.”
The Liberal government declared an emergency under the act for the first time in history on Feb. 14, granting extraordinary temporary powers to police to clear people out and to banks to freeze the accounts of some of those involved.
The temporary powers meant protesters and their supporters could face fines up to $5,000 or five years in prison during the emergency declaration.
The Emergencies Act requires the government to call an inquiry within 60 days of revoking the emergency declaration to examine the circumstances that led to its declaration and the measures taken to deal with it.
Monday was the last day the government could call the inquiry under the law. Rouleau must provide a final report in English and French to the federal government by Feb. 20, 2023.
While many people involved in the “Freedom Convoy” said they were there to demand an end to all COVID-19 restrictions, some, including many of the most vocal organizers, also wanted the Liberal government overthrown.
Throughout most of February, Parliament Hill and the streets around it were packed with people and trucks carrying signs and flags adorned with expletives directed at Trudeau.
The protests significantly affected Ottawa residents and downtown businesses. Officials described a state of “lawlessness” as bylaws went unenforced by police for three weeks and the sound of air horns droned on at all hours of the day and night.
However, several provincial premiers have spoken out against what they characterized as a serious overreach of power by the federal government, arguing police already had all the authority they needed to clear out protesters.
The City of Ottawa’s auditor general also launched a review of the local response, and several groups — including the CCLA — have initiated proceedings in Federal Court to challenge the government’s use of the Emergencies Act.
Another convoy, this one on motorcycles, is due to arrive in Ottawa next weekend.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns the government wants to limit the inquiry to investigating the actions of protesters, but not its own decision making.
The Conservatives have echoed that, accusing the government of trying to “whitewash” the inquiry.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 26, 2022.
Lee Berthiaume and Sarah Ritchie, The Canadian Press
