All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
03:41:15
Emergencies Act inquiry - Thursday, Nov. 10, 2022 - Viva la Commissionse!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Public Order Emergency Commission is now on session.
Good morning.
Just before we start, I just want to give a bit of a message as to the events of yesterday.
As many of you know, We had to interrupt the hearing yesterday because our senior counsel, Gabriel Poliquin, suddenly became indisposed.
He was seen by medical professionals and his episode was likely nothing serious.
So he's expected to make a quick recovery after a few days of recuperation and we'll be back with the Commission next week.
He wishes to thank all who have reached out to him with messages of support and it's very appreciated by him and of course by the Commission.
So, with that brief introduction and reassurance, we can go on to the next witness.
Good morning, Mr. Commissioner.
I'm John Simmel Sharon-Holtz, Commissioned Council.
our first witness today is Marlon DeGrom.
Good morning.
Right up here.
Thank you.
Sir, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
I swear, please.
We have the Bible, the Quran, or the Torah available?
Bible, please.
Thank you.
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
My full name is Marlon Armand de Grande.
M-A-R-L-I-N, A-R-M-A-N, and the surname is D-E-G-R-A-N-D.
Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
So help you God.
I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Morning, Mr. DeGran.
Morning, sir.
How are you?
Good to see you again.
So, Mr. DeGran, you'll recall that you met with Commission Council on August 30th for an interview?
Yes, I do.
Remember that?
And we prepared a summary of the evidence that you provided during that interview, correct?
Yes.
So, I'll just pull up WTS 703.
So, this is your witness summary, which will come up on the screen.
Do you have...
Any corrections to that witness summary this morning?
I do not.
Great.
And you can confirm this is the witness summary that you've seen, you've reviewed it?
Yes.
Perfect.
So I'll have that entered into evidence.
You also will recall that the province of Alberta, the government of Alberta, has prepared an institutional report.
You've had the chance to review that as well?
I have.
And I also understand that you've sworn an affidavit attaching and confirming the content of that institutional report.
I have.
And so just for the record, the institutional report is ALB.IR.701, and then the affidavit is AFF.6015.
Thank you.
So, Mr. DeGran, I understand that you are Assistant Deputy Minister of the Public Security Division and Director of Law Enforcement for Alberta Justice and Solicitor General.
Is that correct?
It's correct.
At the time that we spoke, we've since had a ministerial change, and our department is now sort of split to justice on one side, and I'm with the newly created Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Services.
But the roles stay the same.
And so you're still Assistant Deputy Minister?
That's correct.
And what was your, can you maybe describe your responsibilities at the time?
At the time of these events?
Yes.
I was the Assistant Deputy Minister and responsible for the coordination.
I have a number of duties as the Director of Law Enforcement.
Primarily at that time was the coordination of law enforcement in the province.
We also are responsible for oversight, research and statistical analysis, crime prevention, and a number of other matters under Section 8 of our Police Act.
And who did you report to at the time?
The Associate Deputy Minister, now Deputy Minister for our department, Dennis Cooley.
Fantastic.
And they reported to Minister Savage, is that?
Yes.
Our minister at the time was Minister Savage, interim minister.
Thank you.
And so my understanding is that you would, one of your roles was to liaise with law enforcement on behalf of the government and the Solicitor General?
That's correct.
Liaise and coordinate with.
You maybe start by providing us with a brief summary of policing services in the province.
Certainly.
And very briefly, we have, of course, multiple levels of policing.
The RCMP is the federal policing entity in the province, as it is anywhere in Canada.
Within Alberta, we have a police act which...
Dictates the levels of responsibility for policing being for communities over the threshold of 5,000.
They're required to have their own police force or a municipal service.
They also have the option to contract with the RCMP in our promise.
Mr. DeGraff, I could just ask that you slow down a bit because it's all being translated, especially when you know the area, you tend to talk a little fast, I think.
Yeah, I probably do all the time, so thank you, I will.
Okay, so certainly there are multiple levels, as I was saying.
Municipal policing is responsible in communities over 5,000.
In seven of those instances, we have municipal police services that are independent and self-administered.
The number of instances, 48, I believe, the communities have chosen to contract the RCMP as their contracted police service.
The RCMP is also our contracted police service.
For the provision of provincial policing in the remainder of the province, including First Nations and Métis settlements, with the exception of three communities which have self-administered First Nations services.
And so my understanding is in communities under 5,000, though, then the policing would be provided by the RCMP?
That's correct, as the provincial police service.
And so that would include, for example, COOTS?
Yes.
And I believe that's the K Division of the RCMP?
RCMP K Division, the designation for all operations in Alberta.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Can you maybe describe as well, I understand the Sheriff Highway Patrol is also under your purview.
Can you maybe explain their role?
Certainly.
The Sheriff's Branch is a branch under my division and it entails a number of discrete units, one of which is the Sheriff's Highway Patrol.
Sheriff's Highway Patrol works closely with the RCMP in the delivery of traffic services and traffic safety across the province.
Their role insofar as the border dispute at Coutts was directly in support of the RCMP's operational.
And we provided a number of our officers to the RCMP to assist in any number of areas, including traffic control and checkpoint control, under their direction and within their operations.
Ordinarily, the sheriffs work collaboratively and cooperatively with the RCMP, but independently from the RCMP as a peace officer organization.
They are not police officers.
A specific mandate and specific authorities, which are quite broad, but in the case where they were providing operational support at Coutts, they were working under the command structure of the RCMP as part of that response that was the responsibility of the police force of jurisdiction.
So normally they would have, or in all cases, I guess they would have the authority to enforce The Highway Traffic Act, for example, would be one of their key pieces of legislation that they enforce.
Yes, that certainly is a Traffic Safety Act and a large number of provincial and other legislation.
They actually have authorities under the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act and other pieces of legislation.
And so maybe can you just explain a little bit more why in this case they would operate at the direction of the RCMP?
Certainly.
The event at the border specifically was obviously a policing event and police are charged with the responsibility for administering or for overseeing and addressing public order events and cases of, you know, breaches of the law, etc.
In that particular case, the police force of jurisdiction being the RCMP has overall command and control of the event and it would be improper and problematic.
For an independent agency, such as the sheriffs, to operate in an operational manner in that or an enforcement manner in that event outside of the command and control of the RCMP, as you could conceivably come at cross-purposes for some of the strategies that were attempting to be embarked upon, both from a negotiation perspective or an enforcement perspective, et cetera.
So you need to be coordinated and there has to be one unifying command and one command and control apparatus for the response.
Thank you.
You mentioned briefly there the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act.
Can you maybe explain for us what that is?
What does that law do?
It is a piece of legislation, and I probably am the wrong person to give you a very detailed explanation on it, but in a sense, it allows for police in the province to have another tool in their toolbox when dealing with matters that provide intrusions to or affect the operation of critical infrastructure in the province.
It's not akin to, say, the Emergency Act, which is why we're here today, in the sense that there's no need for invocation.
It's much like the Traffic Safety Act, the Criminal Code, or any other statute that's available as a tool to law enforcement every day, an act that is in place in Alberta.
And is your understanding that highways are a piece of critical infrastructure under that act?
That's correct.
Okay, thank you.
And who's able to enforce that act?
I think you already mentioned the sheriffs, both the sheriffs and the RCMP can enforce?
Yes, any police service can in their area of jurisdiction.
Municipal, yes, thank you.
And so what kind of function, you've already mentioned you liaise with police, do you place some sort of...
Oversight function as well?
We do have an oversight function.
We have policing standards that we develop in a collegial manner within the province with law enforcement and which we're charged with ensuring are met.
We have audit programs that we are involved in and, of course, we are involved in policy development and giving advice to the government on legislative changes that may or may not be required.
So I'd like to talk now about Coutts a little bit.
Sure.
So my understanding is that the province was aware that a slow roll was headed towards Coutts and scheduled to arrive on January 29th.
Yes, we became aware of that through information that was provided to us through law enforcement and through our Provincial Security Intelligence Office.
Where would you typically get your situational information on an event like this?
We have a reasonably well-developed level of coordination between the law enforcement entities in the province, all police services, as well as our sheriffs, and our Provincial Security and Intelligence Office.
It allows for the sharing of information in as near to real-time as possible between those entities so that we can, and of course through the use of the Criminal Intelligence Service of Alberta within our combined forces law enforcement entity alert.
Through those things we receive information on a regular basis on any evolving situations that have an ability to impact.
Any area of jurisdiction, or in this case, potentially multiple areas of jurisdiction across the province, and we ensure that it's shared not only broadly within the law enforcement community, but also provides insight for myself.
And you would have received all those situational updates?
I received situational updates from my folks, for sure, yes.
And was the province aware of the threats of a blockade prior to the arrival of the convoy at the border or near the border?
The information we were receiving at the time through the RCMP was based on their conversations with organizers.
Nothing that we saw indicated that, well, there's always the potential for a blockade, but nothing we saw indicated that that was the intent.
Of the slow roll convoy.
There were a number of events being planned, including events at the Legislature and in Calgary, and those were all being monitored at the same time.
The particular convoy that rolled from basically Leftbridge to the Coutts border was initially intended to be, from the information that was provided to us, a bunch of vehicles coming to the area.
demonstrating through a slow roll and leaving the area.
Mayor Willett, I don't know if you heard his testimony a few days ago.
He testified that he advised the Premier and Minister Savage on September 27th of the risk of a blockade.
Maybe we can pull up COU 50183.
I'm sorry, September?
Oh, my apologies.
Sorry.
I wrote up my notes late last night.
I understand.
Yeah, no, thank you.
Sorry.
January 27th, of course.
So here you see Mayor Willett's email.
I became aware of an organized effort planned to begin Saturday to totally block all northbound and southbound traffic here at the Coutts border crossing as well as Carway and Del Bonita.
Were you ever made aware that this information had been provided to the Alberta government?
I can't say that I've seen this.
I'm not going to say for sure that it didn't flow through the traffic, but I can't say that I've seen this before.
More generally, were you provided?
With any intelligence that there was a risk?
Oh, absolutely.
It was always, as I stated earlier, that's certainly a risk.
And it was a risk that I'm sure there's chatter around that as well on the social media sites.
But the organizers, as I understood them from the conversations that the RCMP were having, and I defer to them to speak in detail around that, were saying that wasn't the intent.
That stated there's always that risk.
Were you advised prior to the arrival that there may be a splinter group potentially that had an intention to blockade the border?
I don't remember anybody mentioning splinter groups within any of the conversations I had at that time.
Okay.
That became apparent on the day of the event, though, that there was a group that splintered off from the thousand or so vehicles that were initially there.
There was about 250 that...
Sort of splintered off and stopped and blocked the road.
So Mayor Willett testified that he received a call the next day from someone he believes to be from Minister Savage's office, informing him that, you know, thank you for the information.
The RCMP are on it.
You're not aware of that discussion?
No, no, I'm not.
Sorry.
Were you briefed on the RCMP's plan for that event prior to the arrival on the 29th?
I was.
And do you know whether there was planning for the possibility of a blockade?
I'd want to defer probably to Deputy Commissioners of Blocky on that, but the briefings I had were around...
The fact that there's knowledge of the convoy, the approximate size of what they anticipated was going to be coming, their plans to reach out to convoy organizers, distribute information, speak with individuals at checkpoints to make sure they understood the rules around not blocking the highway in both areas, giving them direction on how to lawfully.
Protest within the area.
Those were all the plans that were articulated to myself, as well as, at a gross level or high level, the number of police officers that would be, you know, brought to bear in terms of managing the event as it was unfolding.
And do you recall what that number was?
No, I don't.
I'm sorry.
You were satisfied, generally, with their plan?
I was.
And obviously we will speak to them about that as well, but it's good to get your recollection.
Have you formed an opinion since then on why the RCMP was not able to prevent the blockade from setting in on that day?
I was never on the ground at the site, so I rely heavily on the information from the police.
And some measure of personal experience from the long past.
But the reality is that the blockade occurred spontaneously, as I understand it, in the sense that a number of vehicles were circuiting down to the border point and back up and across in a bit of a demonstration circle, which was slowing traffic but not blocking it.
At some point, a number of vehicles just decided to stop and block the highway, which is, of course, contrary to the assurances of the organizers and contrary to the directions that were given by police.
So at that point in time, the police on the ground were faced with a very difficult problem in the sense that they had 250-ish vehicles blocking a highway.
You understood that the blockade blocked traffic to and from the border, correct?
That's correct.
On the Canadian side.
Yes.
And that it also prevented access by Coots residents to Milk River and vice versa?
I believe so.
Yeah, there were some early conversations around the challenges that they...
Community of Coutts was facing and I know one of the things that the RCMP informed me they were working with and they managed to gain support for was creating access for the community to roadways out of the area in the first day or two of the event or a couple days of the event.
And you understood, I think what you're telling me is you understood it was a key artery for Coutts.
To get to essential services and milk?
Certainly.
Yeah, certainly.
Although I'm not as familiar with Coutts to say if it was the only artery, but I believe it was certainly key.
Okay.
You spoke just now about the RCMP briefing you about creating an alternate route for residents.
Can you maybe just tell me a little bit more what you know about that?
I really don't know a lot more about that other than to what was relayed to me from the RCMP in the sense that they were looking to create access for the community and that it was resolved.
And again, from memory, I can't recall which day, but it was resolved early on in those first few days.
In the first few days, and that they would have successfully created some That's correct.
And is your understanding that that, were you ever advised that that route was used for commercial vehicles as well?
To cross the border?
Well, not to cross the border, but once they had crossed the border to kind of get out.
There was a number of...
As the RCMP relayed to me that there were a number of vehicles, truck drivers, sort of caught up in the matter that didn't want to be there, but had no way of getting out.
And I'm going from memory, and I can't remember which day it was, but again, on those early days, there was some progress made in discussions by the RCMP with the protesters to...
Allow those that did not want to be there to leave, and I believe 25, 30 trucks were escorted out of the area.
But beyond that, there was no real avenue for truck drivers to go through when all the lanes were blocked.
I think it's important to note that throughout the duration of the event, which was a couple of weeks, there were...
You know, the majority of the time, there actually were one lane of travel open both north and south.
So fair to say, to your knowledge, there was no alternate route available for commercial vehicles.
RCMP was relying on essentially the good faith of the protesters.
Well, through COOTS, Sweetgrass Border Crossing, that would be accurate.
Yes.
There are other border crossings that very early on.
Efforts were made to ensure that those remained open, while the primary border crossing to the United States from Alberta is, of course, at Coutts, at Sweetgrass.
The Del Bonita and Carway crossings are also available.
They have more restricted hours and efforts were made by our Transport Canada folks as well as the RCM, sorry, Transportation.
Folks in Alberta, not Transport Canada, my apologies, Transport Alberta Ministry and the RCMP to work with CBSA and American officials to ensure that we could extend the hours and the services that were available in those border crossings to facilitate travel to the extent that could be done outside of COOTS itself when it was closed.
Thank you.
I might have some more questions on that later, but that's helpful.
Thank you.
So, my understanding from the institutional report is that on January 31st, the RCMP was prepared to conduct some enforcement action, but that some protesters left around that time and there was attempts to negotiate with the remainder of the protesters, but that that was not ultimately successful.
Is that correct?
That's the information that was relayed to me from the RCMP, absolutely.
And what was your understanding of why those negotiations were unsuccessful at that time?
I actually couldn't speak to that.
I can tell you that with some of the protesters wanting to leave and others indicating that they were interested in transitioning to a lawful protest, the RCMP made the tactical decision to...
Proceed with negotiations, which seemed reasonable and sound to me, and they did so.
Those ultimately proved unfruitful at that time.
But again, I wasn't on the ground having those conversations, so it would be speculative for me to say why they didn't work out.
Were you advised around this time, January 31st, that the protest leadership was not quite clear yet?
Now, I can tell you that I was advised as the matter progressed that it was difficult to negotiate because there were multiple areas, or multiple individuals that would come forward and claim leadership.
And in this case, there was a group that, there was the initial leadership of the convoy, and then there was the Splendid Group, and then there was a group at this point in time, January 31st, that came forward and identified themselves as leadership.
We're speaking with the RCMP.
I think later on, and I'm not sure that it was the 31st, I think it was in the subsequent days to follow, other groups identified themselves or individuals identified themselves as leadership and not being represented by the folks that had previously been speaking with the RCMP.
And one of the difficulties that was expressed to me from the RCMP was that they were getting multiple Groups and factions, if you will, within the global protesters.
There are individuals with a mixed group of motivations within the protest event itself, and it was making it difficult to negotiate.
Thank you.
Is one of the reasons that enforcement wasn't pursued at this time, again, January 31st, because some more moderate elements started coming forward and expressed an intent to become a more lawful protest?
Had you been briefed on that?
That's what the RCMP actually indicated to me.
And, of course, their goal is always to resolve peacefully with the minimal use of force.
So they took advantage of that.
And what did you understand a more lawful protest to look like?
The information that the RCMP were stating is their goal was always, certainly throughout the event, but certainly at the start, was to re-establish the flow of traffic through the Coutts border crossing.
And did that succeed?
As I indicated earlier, there were times when it was successful.
In a limited fashion, in the sense that one lane was left open, and there was varying degrees of flow of traffic, sometimes escorted, sometimes free-flowing at a smaller pace.
At some points, the border was processing up to 50% of its normal volume of traffic through the area, and then it would be shut down for a period of time, reopen, and then shut down again.
And then, ultimately, we shut down until it was resolved for, I think, two or three days at the end.
So around the 10th, 11th?
Yes, somewhere there.
Yeah, it was resolved on, I think, the 14th.
Yes.
And is your understanding that...
During this time, commercial vehicles were still using the Coutts point of entry, maybe in limited numbers, but there was still activity at the Coutts point of entry?
When the lanes were open, yes.
As I stated, though, there were periods where they would be shut down.
There was a period where there was a car accident that necessitated a shutdown.
So it wasn't a constant flow, and it was interrupted at times, and then reopened, and then interrupted at times, and then reopened.
And maybe I just want to clarify, my understanding is that the blockade was, I don't have a sense of the distance, but maybe a kilometer away from the actual.
Yeah.
Customs point of entry, and so that's why I'm kind of making a distinction between the two.
Yeah, you're probably almost as familiar with the area as I am, having never actually traveled through that border point myself, but my understanding of it is the actual customs office is just south of where the blockade took place, which is on the two sections of Highway 4, which...
Traveled down to it and there's a bit of a crossover and come back up to it.
And that was where the where the blockade itself was, the primary blockade.
And there was another one that actually sort of rose up up up the highway closer to the community of Milk River.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
So, you've already spoken about the contingency planning that was made with alternate point of entries.
Do you have a sense of what the impact was of having to reroute some of that traffic to those other points of entries?
Can you speak to that?
Some of the challenges were, as they were expressed to me, and of course I wasn't in personal conversation on many of these things, were that U.S. officials.
Receive certain types of goods only at certain checkpoints, live animals, stock, foodstuffs, heavy transports versus automobile traffic, private vehicle traffic.
And there was a lot of challenge in trying to extend.
Not only hours of operation, but also accommodate at alternate points of contact for customs clearance the different types of commercial goods that travel through that border point.
And I will not profess to be an expert in that area.
It's an area that I understood to be a challenge and one that was worked on throughout the event with our folks from transportation, agriculture, as well as their US colleagues and CBSA.
Thank you.
If we could pull up ALB401573.
I understand that on February 3rd, Deputy Commissioner Zablocki of the RCMP sent a letter to Minister Savage requesting the deployment of additional officers under the PPSA, right?
That's correct.
And that's the Provincial Police Service Agreement.
Between the province and the RCMP, is that correct?
Well, it's between the province and Canada, and the RCMP is the service provider, and that's the article that allows for the RCMP to move policing resources across multiple business lines in order to self-support when the resources require that.
And this is the response from Minister Savage.
And if we can just go down a little bit.
So there's a response the same day that approves the request, correct?
That's correct.
And it says, if you go down to the fourth line, this is in response to a current blockade near the Couttsland border crossing and intelligence suggesting further blockades planned throughout the province.
In my opinion, this constitutes an emergency in the province of Alberta under the Provincial Police Service Agreement.
So, why was additional deployment necessary according to the RCMP?
What did they tell you about that?
Yeah, my conversations with Deputy Commissioner Zablocki, in those conversations, he indicated that, of course, the resource draw to maintain order and safety at the blockade and, of course, manage other events.
Were and could be happening across the province was significant and there are specialized resources that are used in those types of events as well as general duty resources and his intent through invoking this article of the provincial police services agreement was to reach out to other provinces for extra resources so as to give his team relief.
In the sense that he could spell people off for a period of time, get them through a rest period, and then put them back into their role.
And he eventually obtained, I think, 40 officers from British Columbia.
That's correct.
Can you tell us about, here it mentions intelligence suggesting further blockades planned throughout the province.
What can you tell us about that?
I might have mentioned it earlier, but during the events at Coots, we also had events in Calgary, numbers of people protesting and walking, marching through the community.
We had events at the legislature in Edmonton.
We had intelligence and actual action of...
Rolling blockades in some parts of the province, I think Fort McLeod and a few others.
So I believe Tabor police dealt with a minor event as well.
And so there were also tracking on social media at different times, calls from individuals to...
protest in other parts of the province and create other traffic scenarios, slowdowns that sort of thing.
So those would have been the events that I believe the Deputy Commissioner would have been referencing, although, of course, he would be able to speak to that himself.
Thank you.
So, at this time, and this is February 3rd, what was your understanding of why the RCMP had not yet been able to bring the blockade to an end?
By February 3rd.
At that point in time, they were still working on negotiations with the protesters.
If memory serves, they had a lane open by then and there was north and south traffic flowing through there.
They had also by then encountered difficulties, if memory serves, with obtaining Heavy tow capacity.
Should they have to move to an enforcement action?
I don't believe at this point in time they were looking to execute on an enforcement action.
They were engaged in constructive dialogue that had been keeping the lanes open mostly for North-South traffic to some degree, and we're hoping for a peaceful and non-enforcement.
oriented solution but they also recognized they had challenges logistics And by that time, the RCMP had begun to look for towing resources, correct?
That's correct.
And did they feel obtaining those resources would be necessary to any enforcement action?
Yes, they did.
You can remove the people, but we would still have large numbers of large vehicles that We're blocking the highway.
I take it you're familiar with Alberta's Emergency Management Act?
I'm familiar with it.
You mentioned it before.
This is one that you actually need to invoke?
That's correct.
Okay.
And so under that act, the government of Alberta can declare a state of emergency?
That's a province.
And are you aware that...
The use of that act would have allowed Alberta to compel the use of towing resources, of operators, and also to prohibit access to certain areas.
I am aware of that provision.
In your witness statement, you say that Alberta considered invoking this legislation, but that it was determined not to be necessary.
Can you explain the basis for that assessment?
So, as a public official, we, of course, provide advice to elected officials.
Within that, we explored the realm of the possible in the sense that we did identify the Emergency Act, its provisions, and the authorities that would come with its invocation.
We also identified a number of statutes that provided law enforcement.
With effective arrests and charging tools to deal with the actions that were taking place at Coutts.
And to be fair, there are a number of authorities that exist sub or below the Emergency Act that would allow for police to arrest, detain, and remove people from that area.
The determination was made by our government that given...
The number of tools that were already available in statute to police, the addition of the Emergency Act would have changed nothing in terms of the authorities that the police required.
And you mentioned compelling individuals to cooperate.
That would certainly be something that could be attempted.
But there's also...
Information that many of the individuals within the industry were fairly supportive of the protest or did not wish to be seen to be involved in taking action against the protest for their own reasons.
And I won't speak to those because I don't want to put myself in their head.
But the reality is that a To provide support could conceivably and probably have been met just as easily with a refusal and then you are left with a choice of having to now deal with enforcement in relation to service providers and still not be any further ahead in terms of where you're trying to go.
We ultimately thought there were more appropriate and better avenues to seek.
That support, one being Canadian Armed Forces support from CFP Edmonton, and the other is ultimately what we did do, which was resolve it ourselves through the purchase of equipment.
Thank you.
What was the basis, I guess, for the assessment?
Some people may not comply, even if compelled.
Did you receive advice on that from RCMP, from intelligence, or was it just...
I should make that clear.
That's a very personal assessment on my part.
That was not advice that was provided to anybody, and I can't speak to our government officials, our minister and premier, and where their head was at on that, so I should be very clear about that.
The experience and the reaction, and this wouldn't have been February 3rd, this would have been much close to 8th or 9th that I was getting from my folks that were engaged in conversations with the industry when they were attempting to solicit support for the RCMP to use their equipment.
It was categorically dismissed and people were either not returning our calls.
Point blank or telling us that they just would refuse to cooperate.
Did the RCMP ever request that this act be invoked?
No, they do not.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, so we can pull up COU 6016.
These are text messages between Minister Sani, former Minister of Transport, and Mayor Willett.
And we can go to the second page.
We can go down a little bit.
Okay, here.
So...
You'll see here on the right, Mayor Willett says, he's talking about meeting with protesters.
They need someone from government to get a straight answer from.
If it comes up, are you still willing to take a trip to Coots?
And she responds, of course, I need to get clearance from the bus and RCMP.
Were you consulted on whether the government should send a...
An emissary of sorts to coots to meet with protesters?
To be clear, I've not seen this until my preparation for the inquiry, and this was provided to me.
So I wasn't consulted.
I know there were conversations at one point of MLAs independently meeting with protesters and having conversations.
I've not seen anything to substantiate whether that actually occurred or not.
My information is that it wasn't something that the government was officially trying to do, but again, I can't speak to whether it happened or not.
I do know that during those conversations, we met with our, not we, myself, but our department, spoke with our minister.
Around that to make sure that we knew what may or may not be taking place and could convey that to the RCMP, of course, who are still charged with managing the event.
The information that was conveyed to me was that there were no certainly official meetings taking place down there and that they would be guided by the RCMP, who, of course, had operational command and were engaged in negotiations so as not to complicate.
Any conversations that they might be involved in.
And do you know what the reason for?
Because my understanding is that Minister Sani did not end up going to Coots.
Do you know what the reason for that decision not to officially engage with the protesters was?
I don't.
I can't put myself in the Minister's mind.
I apologize for that.
I don't believe we've received any requests from the RCMP, though, to engage at that level.
Okay.
So I suspect that might have been the reason.
So I suspect that might have been the reason.
In the institutional report, it says that the RCMP asked the Sheriff's Highway Patrol not to take enforcement action until February 7th.
Do you remember that?
Yes, I do.
Okay.
And do you know why that was the case?
Again, the RCMP...
I believe we're asking that we make sure that our officers did not take unilateral enforcement actions outside of their operational plan.
I can only surmise, and I will leave it to deputies of Blocky to confirm, but that would have been to ensure that any actions that we took didn't interfere with any negotiations that might have been ongoing with individuals at the site.
Okay.
And so what changed on the 7th?
Because I know after the 7th, there was a number of violations were issued.
Do you know what changed?
That would have been at the time there was a sort of a very moderate or small enforcement, I guess you could term it enforcement initiative that the RCMP wanted to engage in, basically starting with information if memory serves correctly.
Moving into, I think it was Checkpoint 10 near Milk River to have conversations with people, provide them with information, start charging vehicles, etc.
So, it would have been a coordinated effort based on the RCMP's operational plan and under their direction that our officers would have been involved in.
Do you know if any protesters left because of that limited enforcement action around that time?
I can't say that.
I'm sorry.
I'm sure the RCMP could tell you, but I just don't have that off the top of my head.
In the institutional report, it states that the province made an alternative protest site available, and we heard this from other witnesses at Milk River, and that that would have been on February 10th.
Can you tell us how that came about?
Absolutely.
The RCMP actually suggested...
That it would be useful to them in their conversations with protesters if we were to make available a site that they could protest on that would meet their visibility needs but not obstruct traffic.
We engage with transportation and ourselves, but primarily transportation, in developing a site near Milk River which met the needs.
of the RCMP on property that we owned already, and transportation actually put in access in egress areas for protesters and set up, I believe, even Wi-Fi access for protesters to be able to utilize in order to facilitate those that wanted to protest lawfully at the site.
This was a tactic that the RCMP wished to engage in.
You know, manage the negotiations to migrate this to a lawful.
And did the RCMP brief you on whether that was done because there was buy-in from protesters on something like that, or done in hopes that once it was set up, they could get buy-in?
Do you know?
You know, they did.
I don't recall knowing whether it was one or the other.
It was a request, and of course, we do what we could to assist, so we did it.
The institutional report states that the Sheriff's Highway Patrol maintained certain checkpoints at other points of entry to prevent blockades?
Near other points of entry, yeah.
Yes, that's correct.
Delbonate and Carway were primarily the land ports of entry that we were concerned about, and under the direction of the RCMP, our Sheriff's...
We set up checkpoints there to ensure that vehicles traveling down to those points of entry had legitimate business reasons to be doing so.
And are you aware of whether any potential blockades were thwarted by those efforts or not?
I'm not.
I couldn't speak to what could have been.
So, yeah, it's possible, but I'm not aware of any.
anybody showing up and being turned away in a in on mass yeah if you will I understand that on February 9th, I believe, a charge under the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act was laid against Pastor Artur Poloski?
That's correct.
Is that the only charge that was laid under the...
I don't want to misspeak here.
Something tells me it was used twice, but certainly that's the only one that comes to mind.
So you understood that the act...
Did the RCMP ever explain to you why it wasn't utilized more?
Why that particular act was not utilized more?
No.
I know that enforcement was a strategy that was being looked at On a case-by-case basis, moment-to-moment, situation-to-situation, and they would use it in a manner that worked for them in terms of managing the overall event.
But they never provided me with, you know, detailed explanations around why this charge against this person, why not this charge against these people.
That's an operational level of detail that's candidly not something I would normally ask about.
And that was within their discretion to decide under what act to charge an individual?
100%.
Did the Alberta government ever take any steps to kind of attempt to have the act used more fulsomely during this period or anything like that?
No, in the sense that we were very careful throughout the entire event.
To ensure that we were not directing police in their operational response.
We were asking questions of them around planning, what they had done, to the extent that they could share, what they would share in terms of their intentions and things that we could do to facilitate the resolution of the event.
But we're very careful not to direct them.
Your understanding is that law enforcement action in the early morning of February 14th is what led to the end of the blockade?
Certainly, that was the beginning of events that ultimately led to the event.
I would hesitate to say that that was the single event that was causal in that sense.
There was a lot of work that was done by the RCMP and others.
In the days leading up to that, to develop relationships, etc.
So, to what extent was that crystallizing event the sole reason and how much of that was facilitated by the outreach that was done in the past and the communications that was done by the government around the impacts of this?
I think there are a constellation of factors that could have played a part in those decisions, but certainly those enforcement actions were a catalyzing event.
Did you ever hear from RCMP that one of those factors may have been the rumors that the Emergencies Act would be invoked?
No.
So when did you hear that they would...
Sorry, let me back up.
The evidence we've heard is that protesters met in the morning of February 14th and decided they would be leaving the next morning.
Were you advised on the 14th that they had made that decision?
I was.
And do you recall around what time you were advised?
It was very early in the morning that I was advised of the enforcement actions.
Well, very early for me, sorry.
7:00, 7:30.
Now, I'm struggling now to recall if it was at that particular conversation or in one of the conversations I had in the morning that I was advised that it looked like the protesters were now dismantling.
I want to think it was kind of a little bit later on, but that would be speculative on my part.
It was all within...
The morning, certainly, of the 14th.
So within the morning, you understood they would be leaving the next morning?
Yeah, or in beginning preparation that day, actually, and there was already events, people taking down tents and structures and leaving on the 14th.
And was it, I forget his name, Deputy Commissioner Zabloski?
Is he the one who would have been briefing you on that?
That's correct.
Deputy Commissioner Curtis Zabloski.
Thank you.
And your understanding is that the next morning, they were all gone by early morning?
For all intents and purposes, operations were resumed on the 15th at the border point.
I think there were still...
There may have been individuals still packing up, etc., in the area.
And I'm not sure if Milk River...
Had fully transitioned to the lawful protest site.
It would have been the 15th, 16th, but I believe operations at the border resumed on the 15th.
So your understanding with respect to Milk River is that throughout that day at some point, the protesters at the Milk River checkpoint would have moved to the legal protest site, or at least some of them?
Yeah, they moved or left.
The majority actually left, if my memory...
Serves me from the conversations I have with the deputy.
This may be too on the ground from your vantage point, but are you aware of any protesters moving from Coutts to that legal protest?
Yeah, I wouldn't have that knowledge, sorry.
And so your understanding is no other than the raid early that morning?
No enforcement action had to be taken to clear the blockade in Coots.
There were a couple of arrests and some vehicle seizures associated to an event prior to the search warrants and the further charges there.
And there, of course, were the earlier charges that took place later on.
Outside of that.
In the actual clearing of the blockade?
That's correct, yeah.
Yeah, there were no further arrests beyond, I think there were 13 individuals that were arrested in those initial hours.
So your understanding is none of the powers under the Emergencies Act were used?
Oh, yeah.
To clear the blockade?
The Federal Emergency Act, no.
What about other protests in Alberta at that time?
What was their status?
If you can recall.
We continued to have protests in Calgary for quite some time after that, as well as in Edmonton around the legislature.
And both the Edmonton Police, the Calgary Police and the RCMP and our sheriffs were involved in those.
We had protests at the Calgary Remand Centre involving individuals supportive of Mr. Pozlowski.
I apologize if I'm saying the name wrong.
It's not intentional.
Around that individual.
And we had a number of events that recurred for some time.
And in your witness statement, you state that there was always a possibility that protesters would attempt another blockade, but to your knowledge, there was no intelligence suggesting that might occur.
So is your evidence then that there was no...
Incredible threats of a blockade forming after the 14th?
My recollection of the intelligence briefings that I was getting was there were individual chatter, like individuals that would chatter about we need to go back, regroup and reestablish.
But there was no uptake being shown on the open source information that we were receiving and no information that was indicating that this was anything other than aspirational chatter from...
Isolated individuals.
And so I think it'd be fair to characterize that there was no intelligence surface that would indicate there was a real threat for that to evolve.
But that's not to say that the police didn't take serious the possibility.
I believe the RCMP remained, you know, present in some numbers in Milk River and in the area for some time afterwards just to ensure that that didn't take place.
And were you ever briefed on any factors that would have led to there being no uptake of those kind of threats?
No.
No.
Okay.
Let's talk a bit more about towing capacity.
So I understand that fairly early on, I believe February 1st, the province began to make requests for towing resources, correct?
That sounds right, yes.
And those requests were always for both tow trucks and tow operators?
That's correct.
So I'll refer to tow resources, but...
Capacity, yeah.
I mean both.
And I think you've already told us that that capacity was critical and necessary if any enforcement action was to be taken.
In the event of mass enforcement action, I guess I should clarify that.
If we were going to go and remove all of the protesters and remove the blockage, if the RCP were to do that, that would absolutely have to be in place.
Can you tell us a little bit about the challenges the provinces faced in obtaining tow capacity?
To begin with, the RCMP, as the police force of jurisdiction, made their efforts, and they had some limited success very early on, very, very, very early on, first days.
That support dissolved from industry quite quickly.
They went afield, and that was local support.
They went afield and garnered some limited support, which also quite quickly dissolved.
And then they were struggling after that to find any support anywhere, both within the province and commercially outside of the province, Brisey, Saskatchewan.
I believe they might even have looked to commercial entities in the south, but I'm I'm not 100% certain of that.
I'll let them speak to that.
They approached us to indicate the challenges that we're facing, and they indicated that they were going through their channels to...
We seek support from the Canadian government for the use of heavy lift capacity that exists at the Canadian Forces Base in Edmonton.
And we're looking for anything that we could do to assist in terms of just generally trying to work through that.
We initially, when tasked with trying to support them, supported their call.
For Canadian Forces logistical support.
And we also embarked on a process, sort of an evolving process of attempting to secure that lift capacity for them.
The first was through revisiting the commercial entities that they'd contacted as the government to try and secure support for them.
We were unable to...
Gain any support that way.
We looked afield to the City of Edmonton, City of Leftbridge, City of Calgary, Industry, HATCO, those sorts of things, CNCP, colleagues to the south of the U.S. border, to try and look for any capacity that we could get there.
We had some very limited success in the sense that we had one city that was able to provide us with.
With a heavy tow truck.
And that's a minor sort of like a loader type and small crane support from another city.
But not the equipment that the RCMP required.
So in support of our ask to the Canadian Forces, we had the RCMP actually set out exactly what they needed for equipment should they have to go to that type of enforcement action.
And that was what constituted sort of our...
Our list of tow trucks and capacity that we sought out for them.
Eventually, we determined that there was not going to be a commercial avenue there and it was becoming apparent that we weren't going to get access to the tow capacity at CFP Edmonton.
And we were able to, through a multiple number of sort of...
Online sites identify private vendors who had lift capacity used tow trucks, if you will, for sale.
The commercial providers of those entities, it was a long waiting list to get anything from the actual manufacturers.
We'd explored that already.
We did manage to secure a small number on the weekend of, I think it would have been the 12th.
We had them in place down in Leftbridge and turned over to the RCMP.
And by the 14th had identified and were closing the deal on the remainder of the list, saved two items, which were all, I believe, in place on the 15th in the south for the RCMP.
Super.
Thank you.
If we could pull up ALB.
50 is 153, so I'll have just a couple more specific questions on this topic, but you've provided a great overview, so thank you for that.
um um So my understanding, and I think you've mentioned it, is that...
The RCMP had already made a request of Public Safety Canada for assistance from Canadian Armed Forces, correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
And that they had declined to become involved.
Is that your understanding?
I can't say that they declined to the RCMP to become involved.
I can tell you that the RCMP indicated they weren't seeing the support.
Whether they had an answer or not, I really would have to defer to them.
because I don't recall them ever telling me whether they've been formally told no.
Okay.
And do you know whether any other options were being explored other than the Canadian Armed Forces within the federal government for these kind of resources?
I can't speak to specifically what options were being explored, whether they were looking at Transport Canada or other entities for their capacity.
I did have conversations at various times with the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, Kevin Brasseau, around our needs and around efforts that we were making.
Along with what I described earlier, I'd also reached out to industry contacts within Alberta, as had our transportation department, to try and encourage them to help us in finding support.
So I did ask Transport Canada's ADM if he could reach into his.
Contacts within industry and see if they could garner any support from us.
Whether that materialized into any efforts or not, I would have to defer to Transport Canada on.
Okay, thank you.
Let's go to ALB 5097.
So this is the February 5th letter from Minister McIver to Ministers Mendicino and Blair.
Can you explain what the purpose of that letter was while it comes up?
Just have a quick peek.
I believe this was the formal request.
There had been informal conversations, as I'm given to understand before this, but this is the formal request.
From our minister to the federal ministers for the deployment of those heavy lift capacity resources that the Canadian forces possess in Alberta to assist us in removal of any equipment should the RCMP go to an enforcement action.
This was a formal request for that support.
And it says, we can see at the bottom of that first paragraph, At the end of the third to last line, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have exhausted all local and regional options to alleviate the week-long service disruptions at this important international border.
So what was meant by that, that the RCMP had exhausted all options?
As I described earlier, that's their efforts to try and secure...
Commercial or other, you know, industry or city support to provide those kinds of supports that they needed.
So that was only referring to towing capacity?
That's correct.
Is your understanding?
That's correct.
yeah this this letter was about towing capacity And then if we can go to the second last paragraph.
So you see there, to support this approach, I'm requesting federal assistance that includes the provision of equipment and personnel to move approximately 70 semi-tractor trailers and approximately 75 personal and recreational vehicles from the area.
So that was the request?
Yeah, it was structured that way as opposed to the way that the RCMP structured their request to us in the sense that we have former military personnel and indicate that you don't actually ask for.
The equipment, you ask for the capacity, and they determine the equipment.
Okay.
And here it doesn't specifically indicate that this was a request for Canadian Armed Forces resources, but was your understanding that that was what you were looking for?
Certainly that was what we were looking for, although any capacity that could do that, whether it came from the CAF.
Or some other branch of the Canadian government would have been welcome.
But you weren't necessarily specifically aware of other sources?
I could think of no other source, certainly in province.
I understand that there was a conversation between Minister McIver and Minister Blair on February 7th, so two days later following up on this.
And do you know what the response from Minister Blair was at that time?
Off the top of my head now, I can't recall, but I think the response was something to the effect.
It might be in the institutional report.
I think in your institutional report it indicates that he raised some doubts about the use of the CAF equipment.
Yeah, that's where I was going to...
I think he was indicating that they were having conversations with the Chief of Defence.
It wasn't positive.
At that time, it wasn't clear either way.
Yeah, it wasn't looking like there was hesitation.
If we can go to ALB401868.
so these are the text messages between ministers mcciver and player We can
go to page two.
If we can just go down.
So, February 8th.
Minister Blair says, sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
I spoke to our Minister of Defence and conveyed the importance and urgency of an answer.
We can keep going down.
From CAF, she's speaking to the Chief of Defence Staff this morning and will advise.
You were advised that that had taken place, that they were in communications.
Yeah, I was advised that.
I had not, of course, seen the texts themselves until my preparation for the inquiry, but I was advised that those conversations were taking place.
And in parallel to this, as you've already described, the province was undertaking its own steps to obtain these resources, correct?
That's correct.
to whatever ability we could, we're looking for anything we could find.
We'll come back to this, but if we can go to ALB401328.
ALB401328.
This is an email chain from February 12th.
We can start at the bottom.
So who is Rae-Ann Lejeunesse?
At the time, she was the Deputy Minister, if I'm not mistaken, of Transportation in the Government of Alberta.
And so she writes to you that she's communicating with Transport Canada and that they've struck a working group and that it would be a good idea to loop you into that conversation.
And if we go up to the second email...
You advise, and the federal government, as you see, is copied on this exchange, correct?
The Transport Canada specifically?
Mr. Keenan?
You say, we're actually opposed to make several purchases today, as a matter of fact, with the number of vehicles identified for follow-up.
So you were aware that you had communicated with the federal government that that was taking place at the same time?
That's correct, yeah.
And my apologies for the typo in there.
I believe intended to say poised, but it was also Saturday afternoon there.
Sounds good.
And you say our biggest challenge appears to be obtaining operators at this time.
So we might be faster on equipment acquisitions if we can combine efforts.
And so were you...
Were you of the view that you were making progress on the equipment, but the operators were still the largest issue?
That's correct.
We were making progress by then.
We'd acquired some of the list and were working on leads, some of which later fall through, but others that ultimately proved fruitful on the 13th.
And that was one of the things you had asked the federal government for?
That's correct.
It was my hope that we were searching out with our team for...
Commercial capacity that we could purchase, and I thought that perhaps the federal government could do the same.
We could just go up to the top.
So, again, there, third paragraph down, Transport Canada was coordinating a working group.
To support local police, provincial authorities in securing truck and tractor removal capacity.
So what was your understanding of those efforts?
Maybe if you can describe that.
I actually don't have a lot of information around the efforts that were being made at the federal level.
We did have a follow-up conversation the next day with ADM Brasseau and PWGSC representative.
Prior to us actually completing the purchase of the last group of equipment, but I'm not sure what efforts they were actually undertaking at the federal level.
It was unclear to me.
If we could go to ALB 401468.
So that same day, you had communications with Kevin Brosseau.
Who is he?
He's the Assistant Deputy, at the time, he's Assistant Deputy Minister for Transport Canada.
And if we can go down, what were you providing him with here on February 12th?
This was on the 12th.
So, this was the remaining items from the list that the RCMP had provided us, which we had yet to acquire.
So, of course, those are the items we were still looking to get.
Although, again, we had a...
Deal pending later that day that ultimately fell through on much of this.
And then we ended up acquiring it all.
It was saved the top two items.
We acquired the rest of those on the 13th.
On the 13th?
Well, they were in our possession, I think the 14th, 15th, something like that.
Okay.
The deal started on the 13th.
If we can...
So you provide them with the list and then if we go up?
Oh, sorry.
Go down to the bottom, actually.
I understand you guys had a phone call that day.
What do you recall being discussed?
I think that was just a touch base.
I'm going from vague recollection here, so please know that this might not be 100% correct, but from my memory, the conversation was...
Fairly generic in the sense that we were touching base, talking about the fact that we needed to combine resources and talking about what we had acquired and what we were trying to acquire.
And that was the trigger for my following email to him, giving him the list of what was outstanding.
And again, I'm going from memory, so I apologize if that's not 100% accurate.
And your understanding at that time was that they were still working on the request?
They're working on ways to support us, that's correct.
And in terms of the Canadian Forces request, yes.
And did the Alberta government ever receive a formal response to the February 5th request?
Not that I'm aware of.
If we could go to pb.can.nsc50690.
My understanding, and we'll see this when the document comes up, is that this is a draft response to that request.
If we go down a little bit, you'll see a second paragraph below is a current draft of our RFA request response.
If we go down...
We'll go down a little bit further.
Sorry, down more.
Okay.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, so my colleagues and I have given the request serious consideration.
We have consulted key partners to assess our ability to assist you.
Given the lack of commercial resources, the Canadian Armed Forces would be the only federal asset that might potentially meet this request.
Unfortunately, discussions have made clear that the CAF have neither the type of assets required nor the expertise to do this without significant possible risk.
Was that sentiment ever communicated to you verbally or in writing some other way?
Not like that, no.
I know there's, from personal experience, I know there's hesitance on the part of the Canadian Armed Forces to be involved in any police-type actions domestically, and I understand that's an issue of concern to them and to the Government of Canada, of course.
I've obviously not received this.
It was a draft, so I don't think it was sent.
We have former...
Significantly high-ranking Canadian Armed Forces officers who are now within the government of Alberta, including lieutenant colonels, colonels, brigadier generals, major generals, and a lieutenant general who have experience in command of Canadian Armed Forces based in Alberta.
I'm surprised to read that they thought that they don't have the assets required.
To move those vehicles, given that the Armed Forces Basin, from my personal knowledge in Alberta, has the assets to move tanks, Leopard tanks being very large, so they can recover, lift, load, and move tanks.
I would have thought they would have had a capacity for this, but I'm not with the Canadian Armed Forces.
In terms of risk, one of the things that we made clear in our conversations I'll let them speak to it, but I'm hoping made clear as well, is there would be no use of any Canadian Armed Forces personnel in an enforcement capacity.
They wouldn't be meeting protesters on the ground.
The RCMP would be responsible for clearing and making safe the area.
And any heavy equipment movement would take place after that had taken place, and the CAF would have been there dealing with equipment, not people.
So, I'm not sure where the significant risk part comes from, but again, I can't speak to the CAF's response or the Government of Canada's response, so I'll let them explain their thinking on that.
Okay.
I just want to look at this paragraph that starts with further.
It says, I understand that Alberta has the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance as a highway is considered essential infrastructure and it is unlawful to willfully obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the obstruction, maintenance, use, or operation of any essential infrastructure in a manner that renders the essential infrastructure dangerous, useless, inoperative, or ineffective, as per the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act of Alberta.
There are a number of contraventions or other applicable legislation that may also be enforced by Alberta and its police forces.
I encourage you to look at the actions taken in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario who have used new or existing authorities to safeguard critical infrastructure.
Had this type of sentiment been communicated to you in your discussions with the federal government that...
Alberta ought to be making better use of the enforcement authority at its disposal.
It had not been communicated to me, but candidly, it's a little off point to the request in the sense that the request was not for assistance in bringing laws to bear that would enable our officers to conduct enforcement actions.
We had.
As I indicated earlier, considered all of the legislative authority that was available in the toolbox for law enforcement to deal with this and felt that there was sufficient.
I would agree with the statement that there are sufficient legislative authorities within existence at the time to give the police the authority to act.
The challenge was that to support their actions in that manner and to ultimately remove.
Those vehicles, we required a logistical capacity that the police lacked.
Not a legislative authority, but a logistical capacity.
And we were looking to the Government of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces to help augment that logistical capacity gap.
Candidly, the police already knew about this legislation.
And the police didn't request any additional enforcement?
No.
If we can go to pb.can401514.
So this is a call, notes from a call on February 13th between Assistant Deputy Minister Dal Kabab.
And Brousseau, I believe you participated in this call, and there was ADMs from Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta.
Do you recall this?
Yeah, I recall the conversation with Talal.
If we can just go down, there's a bullet marked Alberta in bold, and I'd like to look at the second bullet under that.
Alberta requests CAF support.
Alberta requests for CAF support have been denied.
But they are surprised that their request to access reservists with operational skills needed to drive towing trucks was not accepted.
This part of the request is news to us and we committed to follow up on this specific point.
I should clarify, these are notes taken on the, I believe, Transport Canada side.
Was your understanding from this call that the request for the towing trucks denied?
That's correct.
There was also, and I think for clarity around the reservist piece, there was another proposal that was being communicated, and I can't tell you through what channel, but it was for the Canadian Armed Forces and the Government of Canada to consider the use of some of the reservists that might have operator skills.
To operate heavy lift equipment, should we acquire it?
We had some that were identified, but we could use a few more.
And if there were a reservists within the Canadian Armed Forces who, by virtue of their experience in their trades, might have that skill set, we'd proffered up the idea that perhaps we could use them either on a...
As a hired capacity to us or through whatever mechanism might make sense to the CAF on their own time to support us.
And the response that I was made aware of was that that would not be considered.
Sorry, that the use of those reservists would not be considered.
Would not be considered.
And was your understanding from this call...
That Transport Canada had not considered the part of the request with respect to operators?
Yeah, that reservist portion.
That was actually something that neither the ADM from Public Safety Canada or his colleague from TC had indicated they were aware of, but they were going to look into that.
Okay.
If we can...
Mr. Clerk, I don't know if you still have that text message exchange available that I said I would come back to.
Were those the texts from Cootes?
No, Minister Blair and Minister McIver.
It would take me a moment, but it may be quicker if you can provide me.
I'm just looking for it here.
Maybe it's ALB 1868, maybe?
Yeah.
Sounds like there's a consensus.
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
I know I'm coming up on my time here.
I have, I'd say, maybe five minutes left, if that's okay.
Okay, thank you.
If we could go to page three.
If we could go down.
So, there was a follow-up on February 10th and February 21st, and your understanding is there was no answer from the Minister before the invocation of the Act?
Yeah, based on the text exchange that I see here.
But you had, in the call on the 13th, you were aware through Transport Canada they would not be providing the tow truck resources?
They had not been able to provide that, and I was aware from other conversations that the CAF...
We're not looking to assist.
And so I'll just look at the response here from Minister Blair on February 21st.
You may be aware that we invoked the Emergency Act on February 15, which addressed the tow truck issue quite effectively.
Happy to answer any questions you may have, although, and we can continue.
I'm sure the RCMP can advise you on how it works.
A letter will be forthcoming.
You can keep going.
I understand Prime Minister spoke to Premier Kenney about the Emergencies Act, but you can keep going.
We'll ensure correspondence follows to you.
And then Minister McIver responds, we receive no help until after Coutts' issue is resolved, and you know that.
Disappointed to hear you say otherwise.
Keep going.
To the next page.
As I was disappointed to learn of your reaction to our efforts to respond to the threat to critical infrastructure and the integrity of our international borders posed by these illegal blockades, fortunately, the CACP, the OACP and RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police have been clear and unequivocal that these measures have been essential to their efforts to solve the criminal blockades.
We are all grateful that the RCMP was able to resolve the very dangerous situation at Coutts safely.
Keep going to the next page.
What is true is that Coutts was resolved on the 14th, and we got our own tow trucks after you could not help, I guess.
Continue.
Your letter speaks for itself, as does your lack of response until too late.
Getting to the end.
To be clear, is your point that we should have invoked the Emergencies Act earlier?
No, you were too late and did the wrong thing.
My point is saying nothing now would have been better than not telling the truth.
I wanted to ask you about this last text from Minister McIver.
You were too late and did the wrong thing.
What is that in reference to?
If you have an understanding of what that would be in reference.
Yeah, it's very difficult for me to put my head directly into the mind of Minister McIver.
Candidly, though, my understanding and inference from this based on our global conversations within the GOA were that we didn't require the legislative authority of the Emergency Act to resolve our issue.
We required logistical help that was available in province, and it was denied to us, so we found a different way to address it.
That is, bought the tow trucks ourselves.
Thank you.
That's, again, in the absence of being able to have spoken to them directly on this, that's my sense of it.
Understood.
Thank you.
Just a last topic here that won't take me very long.
My understanding is that a first minister's meeting was held on February 14th, where the federal government consulted with the premiers of the provinces on the potential use of the Emergencies Act.
You're generally aware of?
I'm aware that that took place, yes.
That there was a meeting of the first ministers on the 14th.
And do you have...
Any knowledge of whether Premier Kenney was provided with advance notice of that First Minister's meeting?
No, I personally was not involved in the conversations, but I'm aware and have viewed...
Information from our Premier's office and his Chief of Staff.
That outlines the fact that the Premier was not provided with advance notice.
It's normally a process for engaging in the setting of the First Minister's meetings, which will often be a week or more in advance with agendas and topics.
The information provided from our Premier's office is that there was no advance notice and there was no advance notice of topic.
There's no time to gather information or brief the Premier on the Emergency Act because it was unclear.
We didn't have notice of that being the meeting on the 14th.
Thank you very much, Mr. Grant.
Those are all my questions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Well, I think we can take the morning break at this point.
So we'll take 15 minutes and come back to proceed with the further examination and cross-examination.
So, 15-minute break.
Thank you so much.
The commission is in recess for 15 minutes.
My apologies.
I'm used to standing for the commission is in recess.
I'm used to standing for the commission.
Thank you.
Order a lot.
The Commission has reconvened, the Commissar Applaus.
You're okay?
Okay, first I'd like to call on the Government of Canada please.
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
I'm Mr. DeGrant.
My name is Brendan Vindian-Heissen.
I'm one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada in this matter.
Good morning.
Sir, in response to the series of questions you were just asked about whether Premier Kenney was consulted about the setting of the First Minister's meeting, I believe you said that this was the information available to you from the Premier's office.
Is that right?
That's correct, sir.
That is not information that we have seen under oath or affirmation.
Is that fair?
I could, I will assume that's the case.
I've not been following all the proceedings of my apology.
You're not aware of that?
I'm not aware of that, yeah.
And you yourself were not, I take it, present at the First Minister's meeting?
That's correct.
And likewise, you were not personally present for Premier Kenney's telephone conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, for example?
That's correct.
Or the Prime Minister, right?
That's correct.
And there's nothing you're aware of that disables former Premier Kenney from swearing his own affidavit about these matters?
I'm not familiar enough with the proceeding to even comment on that, but no.
You're not aware of anything that disables him from testifying before this commission, should he have wished to do so?
This is Stephanie Bowes, Council for Alberta.
I think we're getting into...
Asking this witness a legal question about whether or not there's anything that prevents former Premier from swearing an affidavit?
I'm not sure it's a legal question.
I'm wondering if the witness is aware of anything that disables the former Premier from doing so.
Well, and actually, all due respect, I actually would suggest that I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't actually...
Probably be qualified for that.
I'm not aware of that, but I could very well be things there that I'm not aware of.
Okay, fair enough.
Let's turn to you.
So you were an assistant commissioner of the RCMP until 2018, is that correct?
That's correct.
And so you understand well here what deputy commissioners of Blocky and the other RCMP officers involved in the CUDS blockade went through, yes?
I have a sense of it.
I was obviously not on the ground, and it was not operational at the time, but I have previous experiences that would certainly inform on that.
And you respect Deputy Commissioner Zablocki and his service in the discharge of his duties in respect of Coutts?
Absolutely, yes.
And everywhere, a K-Division of the RCMP policed the province of Alberta during these events, right?
Yes, I have a great deal of respect for Commissioner Zablocki and his command team.
You became an Assistant Deputy Minister with Alberta Justice in 2018, right?
That's actually not quite correct.
I started as an executive, my apologies, you would have no way of knowing this sir.
So I started as an executive director, I reported to the Assistant Deputy Minister at the time, Bill Sweeney, and I became the ADM in 2021.
Sorry, just wanted to be factually accurate.
No, no, I appreciate that.
Just going with the...
Yeah, no, of course, you would have no way to know that.
You swore the province's institutional report in this proceeding as well, right?
Yes, I did, sir.
Okay, we'll come back to that.
Now, in the province of Alberta, this situation, if I can call it that, began really on January the 29th.
Is that accurate?
Yes, from memory, that's...
In terms of the beginnings of...
Yeah, this little roll, yeah.
And if we go to ALB 401010 at page 2, I'll just pull up the initial report about it to you.
Sure, thank you.
If you go down to page two, please.
You see that, I take it it's...
Peter Tufik, I think, reporting to you about the blockage of the roads north and south to the Coutts border, right?
Yeah, that would be now Chief Superintendent, I'm not sure if he was at the time, Peter Tufik with the RCMP.
Okay, okay.
And it says in the second last substantive paragraph there, the organizers have made calls to the participants to move their vehicles, but the message has been ignored, right?
That's correct.
And strategies are being worked on to...
Get those who are participating in the stoppage to get roadways moving again, right?
That's correct.
If we go up to the first page, you see a report moving just a little further up the page.
There's a report on the officers who are deployed.
Just to the top, please.
There we go.
And you see the report from Jason Delaney to Rick Gardner is that from the Alberta sheriffs, you've got 12 members deployed at Coutts.
Yeah, that's correct.
Yeah, that's on the 29th.
And three of them have been reassigned from Coaldale, two reassigned from Redcliffe, and two are sent in from Lethbridge on overtime, right?
Three from Coaldale, two from Coutts on the first day shift, and then the evening, yeah, three from Coutts, two reassigned from Redcliffe, and two from overtime.
That's correct.
Okay.
And the RCMP is supplying 25. CBSA, a dozen, and this Canadian Pacific Railway Police, a single officer.
Yeah, that's what it says.
Yes, correct.
Could we go to ALB 401312?
Page two.
Just go to page two, please.
This will be a tweet from the Premier issued on or tweeted on January the 30th.
It says the blockade of the Coutts border crossing violates the Alberta Traffic Safety Act.
It's causing significant convenience for lawful motorists and can dangerously impede movement of emergency service vehicles.
This blockade must end, right?
That's correct.
And if you flip over to page three, you'll see that he issues a longer statement, which is to the...
Which is really to the same effect, yes?
That's correct, yeah.
And this had no immediate effect on the Coutts protest, did it?
It would be difficult for me to say what individualized effect it had, but ultimately we still had a blockade.
You still had a blockade.
Okay.
we go to alb four zeros one two five seven please And this is a report which comes to you.
If you could just move down the page, please.
A bit further down.
There we go.
You see it's being reported to you now, Tuesday, the 1st of February, that you're receiving information about new blockades on the highway by Fort McLeod, on Highway 3 by Pinscher Creek, and calls to block Highway 43 west of Grand Prairie, right?
That's correct.
And did you interpret those as being blockades sympathetic in spirit to the blockades at Coutts?
If they, in fact, were accurate, that would have been the assumption that was being made.
But we just were making sure that that information was passed on to the RCMP who were also hearing that.
And I believe at least two of the three might have had some activity, but it was resolved reasonably quickly.
If we go to ALB 1263, please, ALB 401263.
This is a February 1st intelligence assessment provided to you, sir.
Thank you.
And just want to make a few highlights here of what is brought to your attention as well as that of some of your colleagues from PSIO.
That's the Provincial Security Office?
Yeah, it's the Provincial Security Intelligence Office.
Thank you.
So the first point is that there doesn't appear to be centralized leadership at this blockade, right?
That's correct.
It emerged from the so-called Freedom Convoy movement, right?
It emerged from in the sense that it's inspired by and in support of.
That's correct.
And if we go to item B, there doesn't appear to be any overt direction being given between the Coutts blockade and Ottawa Freedom Convoy organizers, although this is possible, right?
Anything's possible, but there was no information or intelligence to support that, although that, of course, was one of the things that the law enforcement agencies was looking to determine.
Okay.
It refers in the last sentence under be there to be one of the spinoff support events for the Ottawa Convoy that gained its own momentum and now appears to be self-supporting, right?
Yeah, that's correct.
Individuals outside of the blockade location appear to be acting as entrepreneurs in organizing support and logistics, right?
That's correct.
You were seeing that?
Yeah, that's what the information intelligence that was being reported to me was.
Of course, I relied on that.
Okay.
If you go further down the page.
You see already that there are individuals on pro-blockade social media groups organizing phone campaigns to threaten tow companies with financial repercussions and to set up boycotts of companies they believe have acted in support of the police, right?
Is that a serious concern to you at that point already?
It was because it was, of course, one of those factors that was limiting the cooperation that the RCMP were able to gain from that industry.
If we go down the page further than to spin off actions, there's social media comments calling on blockade supporters to block in police to prevent them from removing vehicles from the site, correct?
Yeah, those are individual comments that were out there.
That's correct.
And you're also hearing from your law enforcement partners that support convoys have bypassed or broken through police blockades to deliver supplies.
Yeah, that's correct.
There was even reports of...
Vehicles such as farm implements and tractors coming to cross-country instead of on road to get to the site.
It's a very open area and it's very difficult to contain and secure.
The PSAO is reporting that social media messages are promoting a decentralized blockade of highways throughout Alberta, yes?
Yeah, there were individuals out there calling for spontaneous action around the province in support of the blockade.
Very little materialized other than the main...
Concerns that emerged in Edmonton and Calgary, although, as I indicated earlier, there were some small ones.
I think you saw them at FormaCloud and Tabor, like I mentioned earlier, and a few others.
Could we go just to the very bottom of the page now and see the last section here, intelligence gaps?
Do you see that section?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
And this refers to areas where there just isn't visibility.
From an intelligence perspective as to the identity of the leaders and their level of influence at the blockade site, right?
That's correct, yeah.
It was very difficult to find true to find leadership.
And you've got an intelligence gap about how much support is likely to manifest in the real world from the calls for decentralized blockade action.
Exactly, sir.
Let's go now, please, to ALB40's 1620.
This is a February 1st report concerning what's referred to as a brawl.
Okay.
Are you familiar with that?
I think I know which one you're referencing, but I'll...
Did you happen to observe the testimony of Mr. Van Hugenbos?
No, I did not, actually, sir.
Sorry.
Okay.
If you go down the page, it says...
You're reporting here that you assume others are well aware of this, but if you go down the page, we'll just see what's reported out to you.
Here we go.
And this is a report about how the...
If you look at the third sentence, the crowd became increasingly hostile at and made threats against members, that is, law enforcement members, at the checkpoint to the point where they surrounded the members, right?
That's correct, yeah.
And the protesters pushed through the barricades with their vehicles and collided with vehicles traveling northbound on Highway 14. Yeah, that is my understanding of is the officers at the checkpoint moved their vehicles to avoid any collision and then...
Vehicles from the checkpoint began to traverse southward.
At least one was in the northbound lane and collided with another vehicle that was northbound in the northbound lane.
And that is when the reference to the brawl is there was a confrontation that ensued between the participants in the collision that the RCMP and sheriffs on scene had to break up.
Yes, and I know you didn't have a chance to observe it, but when we were here with Mr. Van Huygenbos...
I believe you watched a video of that incident taken by the driver.
Oh, okay.
Interesting.
Yeah, sorry.
I haven't seen that.
Well, you can go back and watch it.
I will.
Thank you, sir.
Could we go now please to ALB401313?
This will be a February 2nd report, sir, on the social media intelligence work being done by PSIO.
Okay.
Thank you.
In this case, you'll see that you're being informed that from a web and social media perspective, the term bear hug is a rising search query.
Do you see that?
Yeah, that's correct.
I think that was information from other ministries.
Deputy ministers were receiving intelligence that over various social media platforms, I think Facebook and others, that people were calling for a bear hug, which was a call to sort of obstruct traffic throughout the province.
If we go to ALB401611, this is still on the 2nd of February and it's reporting on events in Calgary, also associated with this phrase "bear hug".
Okay, thank you.
Just go down the page.
There we go.
So this is a report coming in.
With respect to an Operation Bear Hug calling for truckers to block major highways in Alberta.
And at the top, there's an Operation Bear Hug in Calgary intended to support the convoy on the 5th of February, which is this upcoming weekend, right?
That's correct.
I guess it's important to ensure that this is characterized as aspirational intelligence.
These are people that are trying to develop these things.
I don't think we ever developed...
Significant intelligence in this area, but certainly there were some sporadic and small-scale events.
You'll see in that second paragraph that there's, whatever you want to call it, forward-looking intelligence, that there's a plan to gather near the minister's house.
Yep.
Okay.
That's correct.
And if you go down the page a bit, just to scan through it, you'll see that there's events being reported on in the southern region, north central, Fort McMurray regions, and Peace region, right?
Yeah, if you're looking at the north central region, those are unconfirmed reports.
And then the peace region, again, unconfirmed reports of activity around there or planned activity.
Calls to block every road?
Yeah, those are calls.
Yeah, that's correct, sir.
This term bear hug, are you familiar with that term as having been promoted by an outfit called Canada Unity and a gentleman named James Bowder?
I'm not, actually.
No, I'm sorry.
I've been at a bit of a disadvantage.
That's fair enough.
At any rate, it's clear by February the 2nd, when you're receiving these reports, that there's the potential for police resources becoming somewhat stretched in the province.
Is that fair?
Oh, absolutely.
Depending on how things manifest themselves and evolve, but that's certainly the point of the intelligence, was to make police aware.
And the RCMP, as police of jurisdiction under contract with the province of Alberta, are responsible to please the whole of the province and not just Coutts, right?
That's correct.
Although there are, as I indicated earlier, municipal forces in Lacombe, for instance, in Leftbridge, Medicine Hat, etc.
Absolutely.
Fair enough.
Aside from the municipal police services.
Yeah, and the First Nations services.
That's correct.
if we go to alb go back to alb 50543 please Thank you.
This will be the letter from Deputy Commissioner Zablocki.
The Article 9. The invocation of 9.1.
Okay.
Okay, so we just moved down the page.
At the end of the first paragraph, you see, well, you told us that you greatly respect Deputy Commissioner Zablocki's judgment as a police officer.
Fair?
That's correct, sir.
And you see that...
Deputy Commissioner Zablocki indicates in the last sentence of the first paragraph that this situation does, in my opinion, constitute an emergency in the province of Alberta.
I see that, yes, correct.
Do you consider that a reasonable assessment on his part?
Insofar as it's pertaining to the Provincial Police Services Agreement, yes.
I guess there's some context there, sir, in the sense that the Provincial Police Services Agreement under Article 9 envisions...
Situations which would require the movement of resources to support major events, emergencies, etc., as they pertain to that agreement, that contract, if you will.
It's a little different than, say, perhaps our Provincial Emergency Act or perhaps the Federal Act.
I'm just not sure.
I just don't want to conflate.
No, that's fair enough.
If you look at the second paragraph, he refers to this urgent and critical situation being what warrants him requesting the extraordinary application of the emergency provisions in the agreements, correct?
That's correct, yeah, you betcha.
And that is going to involve bringing in or transferring in more RCMP officers from places other than Alberta, correct?
Not only that, but also movement of...
Officers within Alberta from different business lines, because there are provincial policing business lines, there are also municipal business lines and federal lines, and it would allow him to dip into those resources as well as resources external to the province to augment his provincial police service and give them the resources they need to manage the event.
Can we go to ALB401177?
And if you bring them in from other provinces, particularly though, what it means is you've got less police available in those provinces to police those jurisdictions.
Fair?
That's correct.
When we receive such requests for our officers as well, one of the first questions we ask is, of course, what is the impact on court policing?
And it's up to the commanding officer of that division that's sending them to determine whether those can be sent in a manner that's safe.
Here you're reporting about the information you've received from a provincial colleague in British Columbia about the planned events there, correct?
Those were the intelligence pieces that they were hearing, that's correct, and they were hearing aspirational information as well around Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I believe, in that conversation I had with my colleague.
And all three of those are provinces which also rely upon the RCMP as...
A primary police of jurisdiction outside of those municipalities large enough to have their own service.
That's correct, sir.
And so those protests could likewise draw exceptionally on local resources in order to maintain order if that had to be done by the RCMP.
Fair?
If they materialized to certain levels, I'm certain they could, but I'm not sure whether they did or not.
Can we go to Elb?
528, please.
The bottom of the page, please.
I might have the wrong reference, so never mind.
You became aware that there were protests planned for Edmonton the weekend of February.
Yeah, that sounds right, sir.
It does.
And a considerable number of vehicles, I think several thousand showed up according to the institutional report.
That's correct, yeah.
There's multiple points of origin and they converged in Edmonton there and the Edmonton police, the sheriffs working with assistance from the RCMP were tasked with managing that event.
February 4th is the Friday heading into this weekend, I think.
That's, yeah, from memory, that sounds right.
Thank you.
Now, did you have an opportunity to hear Mayor Willett testify yesterday?
I did not, sir.
I've been kind of careful to avoid too much because I didn't want to cover my own opportunity here.
I'm sure you have other things to do as well.
So let's go.
We heard from Mayor Willett.
If we could call up COU 6016.
We heard Mayor Willett testify yesterday about his perspective on the ground, really from the ground level at Cootes.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
And this will be a text exchange with Minister Sani that he tendered into evidence yesterday for the Commission Council.
can we go to page um uh seven please Here we see an indication from him on February 4th that an Archer Palowski had showed up.
And fired everyone up at the Coutts protest site to convince them to stay.
You aware of that?
Yeah, I actually am aware of that event, yes.
From the RCMP's reporting, not from this conversation.
Could we go to pb.can.401835?
That's the multimedia file that we had yesterday.
I'm going to ask to play this from the 207 mark until 4:18.
Thousands of people are coming.
They don't have enough RCMP officers to deal with that.
They don't have enough army to deal with that.
Remember, you have the power now.
Do not give it away just because it feels right.
And yes, some of you might be arrested.
Yes, some of you might pay the price.
I'm not going to teach you that it's pleasant and beautiful on concrete in jail facing...
The biggest guns in the country, it's not.
They don't treat us well over there, especially when you're a pastor.
Three days on concrete and two nights.
Every half hour, they banged on my door.
They did not allow me to sleep for three days and two nights.
They wrapped me up.
They stripped naked me.
They put chain on my leg.
And yet I'm still here with you.
Those people don't play fair.
They're coming here with their badges and they're telling you that they represent the law?
No, they're representing lawlessness.
They are gangsters for the biggest mafia that there is, Kenyan's mafia.
And it's up to you now, for the first time in two years, to rise up, to stand up, and to hold the fort.
And if this is our Alamo, so be it.
And if you don't want to be here, no one is stopping you.
You can take your car or your truck and you can go.
There is a huge rally in Calgary.
There is a huge rally in Edmonton.
You can join them.
No one will think of you as a coward.
Everyone has to face the giants of the lungs.
But I'm telling you, there is this huge opportunity right now that we have been given.
God has given us this moment in history.
Why?
Because international media are watching you right now.
That's power.
Not yet.
During 1980.
Thank you.
Have you seen that speech before by Artur Palowski?
No, I haven't, actually.
Thank you.
You hear that he is singling out Premier Kenney as the source of the problem, and I believe he referred to Kenney's mafia?
Yes, that's what I heard, yes.
And he said, this is our Alamo, referring, I take it, to the standoff at the Alamo in Texas?
That's, I assume, the reference.
And he points to the international attention that has been gathered and says, that's power, right?
That's correct.
Could we go to COU 6016?
This is similarly we heard from Mayor Willett about, and it is the same series of text exchanges.
And I just want to address one other factual issue that was circulated.
Okay, you see he refers here in this instant message, again with Minister Sani, to...
A gentleman named Paul Brandt.
Do you see that?
Yeah, I do, sir.
Thank you.
And he's referring to a Rebel news story and saying that, in my opinion, Paul Brandt should post a clarification on the Rebel news story that he helicoptered in aid.
Are you familiar with that?
I'm familiar with the story.
The rumor about that?
Yeah, you bet.
Go down the page.
And you see that Mayor...
Well, it indicates that that's not in fact true, that his photograph that was circulating of Paul Brandt was five years old, right?
Correct.
That's what it says there.
Paul Brandt is a...
Just for the benefit of whoever doesn't know, he's a well-known, internationally successful country musician from Alberta, correct?
That's correct.
And there was a rumor, in fact, that he was going to come and perform a concert in support of the Coutts blockaders, right?
That was one of the two rumors that we heard involving Mr. Brent.
If we go to page 13...
You see Minister Sani still on the next day, February the 6th.
She's asking, was food dropped off to the protesters by helicopter, right?
Correct.
Yeah, and that's the character of the rumor that was going on about Paul Barrett that he dropped off food by helicopter, right?
Well, I don't see his name on this text, but certainly that was one of the rumors.
Whether there was other rumors that the minister was hearing about other helicopter drops, there were, and I'm not even sure, I think by this point, the NOTAM, or the Noticed Airmen Restricting Airspace, might have been in place as well.
So that might have been, I don't want to put myself on the mind of the minister as to what she was inquired about.
Sure.
According to Mayor Willett, at least, he says Rebel rented a chopper and made a video, which is what circulated, is that?
Is that according to your recollection of what happened there?
See, I'm not familiar with any information around Rebel News renting a chopper, but certainly that's the post from the mayor.
If we go to ALB 401444, and I just want to suggest at any rate that this notion about Paul Brandt renting a helicopter, coming to drop off food, putting on a concert, that was disinformation, right?
I believe it was.
We actually...
Conveyed that to the RCMP and they had conversations with Mr. Brandt's personnel and they indicated that they had no intention of providing a concert there and did not violate the NOTAM.
Okay, and if you go to the bottom of this page, this is a report to you from your PSIO director, yes?
Yeah, that's correct, sir.
February 6th and at that point...
At 3.27 in the afternoon, he is saying that there's no credible public information confirming this Brandt helicopter story, but it appears plausible based on the aircraft itself.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, we share the same speed of talking.
Sorry.
Yes, I do read that.
That's based on the photograph that was received.
What I was hearing from Mr. McCauley was that there's nothing to state that this actually happened.
The helicopter in the picture appears consistent with that used by Mr. Brandt, but there's nothing to indicate whether he did what was being rumored to have been done, whether that is resupply.
And even if that was the case, it would appear that it would have taken place.
Prior to any notice to airmen restrictions on the airspace being in place.
Yes, okay.
And that's the NOTAM that's referred to there, the notice to airmen?
Yes, that's correct, sir.
Can we go to ALB 401626?
This is a report to you, raised for your attention, I think again on February the 7th now, so the Monday.
Thank you.
Tuesday.
February 7th.
Okay, thank you.
Monday.
Monday it is.
If you go down to the bottom indications being forwarded up to you, a regional stakeholder raised the following concern.
There's the risk that many of the protesters, referring to Coots, are armed with firearms kept in their tractor trailers and trucks.
Violence is possible, right?
Yes, that's what came to me ultimately through Mr. Buffen.
And that proved to be the case ultimately, did it not?
I'm not sure where the firearms were found, if there were any found in trucks and cabs, but certainly, ultimately, firearms were found and seized there.
This was early information that I, of course, immediately passed along to the RCMP who were managing the event.
Okay, we'll hear from Deputy Commissioner Zablocki about that when he testified.
Yeah, absolutely.
This, in any event, if true, as it proved to be, made it a very dangerous situation and raised serious officer safety and public safety risks.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
The presence of firearms at any dispute of this nature could potentially be dangerous in any event that the police deal with.
On February the 7th, are you aware that Archer Pulaski was arrested and charged with offences including mischief over $5,000 and interrupting the operation of critical infrastructure?
I am aware, yes.
Could we go to ALB 401087?
This is February the 9th.
It's being reported, up to you, that Alberta sheriff sprayed two protesters with pepper spray?
That's correct.
And that that's because two protesters reportedly moved towards the sheriff's sergeants and refused warnings to stop, correct?
That's correct.
I do have a bit more information that was developed since that initial sort of heads-up, if you will.
It did appear that the...
The individuals...
I better be careful because I don't want to conflate two incidents.
Okay, well...
So we'll leave it there.
Maybe not.
Really just the raw fact that this is what's reported to you is all I'm asking.
That's correct.
In terms of your state of mind at the moment.
Yeah, I apologize.
Yeah, that's probably the best.
Thank you.
and um if you go to alb40 is 1307 Thank you.
Can we go to the bottom email, please?
This is an email reporting in on protests occurring that Friday night and over the weekend at the Calgary Remand Centre.
Sorry, the very bottom, please, page four.
Okay, scheduled protests at the Calgary Remand Centre.
Are you aware of those protests in sympathy with Arthur Perlowski?
Yeah, it was in relation to Mr. Perlowski.
And they ended up continuing for seven straight days.
That sounds right.
I don't...
I have that specific number in my memory.
we go to the institutional report alb.ir.701 And to page 18, please.
Okay, this is indicating, first of all, if we go down the page, we think we're looking for the weekend of February 12 and 13. Maybe just keep going.
I may have the page wrong.
Yeah, please continue to go.
There we go.
February 12 and 13. The City of Edmonton obtained an injunction for the weekend of February 12 and 13 as a result of the prior weekend's events.
Yes?
I'm not sure what their motivation was, but certainly in anticipation of the events that they were seeing being planned from there, they obtained an injunction for that weekend, that's for sure.
Can you go to paragraph 80 on this page?
You'll see there's a report on about 840 vehicles in Edmonton, down from 3,000 the weekend before.
But what I'm concerned about here is at the end of the paragraph, 200 protesters from the Liberty March...
Yeah, there was a counter-protest that evolved that was going to confront the protesters and stop them from demonstrating and doing their drive-through.
There was going to be a confrontation there and the police service reports that they intervened and separated the parties and allowed for the protests to carry on.
Violence dramatically escalates when you're dealing with a counter-protest situation, is that fair?
If allowed to come into physical contact with each other, it's much more difficult to keep it peaceful.
Can we go to COU 702?
This would be one of the last exchange I want to go to with respect to Mayor Willett, who testified yesterday, and this is an exchange with Bill Graveland.
It'll be page 3, please.
Thank you.
And it is dated as of February the 12th, so two days before the Emergencies Act.
I'm going to move down the page.
All right.
You see there, Mayor Willett says, morning Bill, and he refers to, you know, you need to find someone in a protected position to call these guys what they are, domestic terrorists.
You see that?
I do see that, yes.
And Mr. Graveland says, honestly, I had a number of run-ins several years ago with the freemen on the land.
After an unpleasant exchange with some of them at the saloon, I realized that's likely what they are.
Sorry you're going through this.
Do you see that?
I see that.
That's correct.
Do you know what Freeman on the land refers to?
I am.
I'm familiar with the term in the movement.
It's been founded, I think, by Associate Chief Justice Rook and described as an organized method of disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
Yeah, the tactic is organized, that's for sure.
Yeah, Justice Rook's deliberation is very accurate.
Yeah, he is a very well-known decision that you may be familiar with from 2012 on that point.
That's correct.
Meads and Meads, I believe.
I'll take your word for it, sir.
That's fine.
You can take my word for that.
I believe you'd be accurate.
we go to pb.can.401834 And, sir, I'll ask if we can go to...
Well, this is a decision issued one week ago today by Associate Chief Justice Rook.
And if we could go to the last...
Page 16 at paragraphs 69 and 70. Thank you.
I just want to point out to you for your reaction that the view of Associate Chief Justice Rook expressed last week in paragraph 70 is that the litigation abuse he's describing here is part of a broader pattern and that the law in Alberta is not adequate to control abusive litigants.
Do you see that?
Paragraph 70 in the middle.
7-0?
Yes, I see that.
Okay.
And that's a, well, I won't ask you to comment on your agreement with the court.
Could we go now to February the 14th?
You understand that on February 14th, the arrests occurred at Cootes, right?
That's correct.
Approximately 2 o 'clock p.m. that day, Mountain Time?
I thought it was 2 a.m., sir.
Okay.
So, like, into the evening of the 13th and then, sorry.
Approximately 7 o 'clock a.m. Mountain Time, Premier Kenney attended the First Minister's meeting, which you referred to earlier.
Okay.
Can we go to SAS 50120?
These are the notes produced by the Government of Saskatchewan with respect to the statements made at that meeting.
We've got only what is rehearsed in the institutional report from Alboro.
Thank you.
If we go down to the bottom of this page where there's notes with respect to Premier Kenney's statements, you see the last few lines there.
This is Jason Kenney speaking from about...
Yeah, I see his name.
See that section?
Yeah.
So just looking at the last comments that are attributed here, see it as a very serious provocation, could prove a net negative.
PJs can compel tow drivers, please stop the trucker vaccine mandate, language provocation, don't quibble if necessary.
Do you have any awareness of what was...
but um so if i could just have one moment yes you could have it quickly uh read through this okay uh go ahead sir okay and um if we can then go to ssm.nsc.can Mr. Commissioner, I know I'm right at the edge.
I'll probably be about two or three minutes if that's acceptable.
I don't think you're done on my count, but I do appreciate your honesty with This?
I'll keep my mouth shut in the future when I guess we're on.
Apologies, counsel.
Could you please repeat that doc ID?
I have you having another five minutes, so you know.
Okay.
All right.
And so it's SSM.can...
Another...
Let's just see.
Another four minutes.
Sorry.
SSM.nsc.can.402941.
And this is another set of notes produced from Mr. Clough, who testified in front of this commission.
Thank you.
If we go to page 22. I'm sorry these are sideways.
It's a limitation of the product, I think.
You scroll down the page.
There we go.
Thank you.
You see on the right-hand side of Mr. Clough's notes.
With respect to Mr. Kenney's statements during the First Minister's meeting, you want to take a look at that for a moment?
Thank you.
We have the luxury of four minutes.
Yeah, no, I understand.
Go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
So you see that others have it here, again, this word quibble.
Mr. Klaus written, attributed to Mr. Kenney, I don't quibble with the use of the Act, but other ways to reduce tensions.
Do you see that?
I see that, yes.
And in fairness to you, you're not able to speak to whether or not that's an accurate reflection of what Premier Kenney said because you weren't present.
Fair?
That's very fair.
And...
This meeting occurs approximately, well, some hours after the RCMP arrests are made at Coutts, correct?
That's correct.
And it occurs in a context where, and I'll just ask you if you're aware of this, approximately 2,000 firearms were missing, having been stolen in a trailer in Peterborough, Ontario, which had not been recovered for some days.
I'm not aware of that, actually.
Sorry, sir.
Fair enough.
We'll deal with another evidence.
At any rate, the act is invoked at approximately 4.30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Okay.
Now just coming back briefly to some of the content of the institutional report if we could pull that up for just a couple of last questions alb.ir.701 to page
Page 7. Paragraph 34. I think there's a disjoint in the numbering.
You can't speak to, and we're not present for Premier Kenney's calls with Minister Minichino, correct?
That's correct.
And we'll look at page 8. Paragraph 38. Likewise, I take it we're not present for Minister McIver's call with Minister Blair?
That's correct.
I'm relying on the information that we provided with the institutional report on both cases.
Yes, and again, that information is not provided under oath other than to the extent that your affidavit says you have heard it.
That's correct, sir.
And page 9, then, please.
Again, it's paragraph 43, and I take it I'll know the same answer, but you were not.
Present for this further call between premier kenny and minister medicino that's correct sir and if we go to page three finally paragraphs two and three you see there um it is it is stated or asserted that in the end of paragraph two alberta Received virtually no consultation from Canada in its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act as applicable
to Alberta and the entirety of the country.
Fair?
That's fair, sir.
And that's really a matter of characterization.
I'm sorry?
Is that your characterization or is that the province's position?
That would be the province's position.
And certainly from my personal experience, I received no.
Well, we've heard of areas where you were engaged with federal colleagues.
Yeah, post.
That's correct, sir.
Paragraph three, you say Canada, at the end of the paragraph, Canada failed to provide any assistance upon Alberta's request to simply borrow equipment from them.
And is that how you would encapsulate the dialogue that you were engaged in with Transport Canada and others?
Yes, sir.
I'm not sure that it would be fair to say they didn't try.
I would suggest, though, that we receive no assistance.
Okay.
Well, we'll hear from others about that.
Thank you, sir.
Those are my questions.
Thank you very much, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next I'd like to call on the convoy organizers.
Morning, sir.
Good morning and good afternoon.
How are you?
Good afternoon.
I had to check.
Sorry, sir.
My name is Brendan Miller.
I'm counsel for Freedom Corp, which represents the protesters that were in Ottawa only, nobody at Coutts, between January and February of 2022.
Pleased to meet you.
So, I just want to dive right in.
So, and I don't want to ask for anything subject to...
Criminal code sealing orders or things, and just based on what I know from the public record about this group that ended up being arrested at the border in Coutts area with respect to the conspiracy to commit murder and all of that.
It's my understanding that the RCMP undercover agents, and this is based on the public record, were involved with that group from a very early point.
Is that fair?
I think that I wouldn't have that kind of tactical level of information, so I honestly don't have knowledge of that, and you would probably be better asked that of the Deputy Commissioner, and I'm not trying to avoid it.
I just sincerely was not briefed at that level of detail.
Okay.
Was it your understanding that that group, their plot was to have two females smuggle in a hockey bag a whole bunch of guns into the protest?
I have actually no understanding of the undercover operations or the intelligence gathering operations of the RCMP.
The level of detail that I was briefed at was really of the existence of threats within the group that were potentially more violent and that they had intelligence to indicate that they were armed and planning to do violence in relation to the police should an enforcement action take place.
Right, but are you, after the fact, aware that the two females that they were intending to have smuggle in these firearms were actually two undercover RCMP officers?
I apologize, I just have no detail in terms of the actual criminal file or the investigation itself.
Quite carefully avoided that level of interaction with the police and kept it at a higher level.
To your knowledge, before the invocation, of the Emergencies Act.
Was this investigation and this operation with respect to these gentlemen who were arrested at Coutts for conspiracy to commit murder, was it ever relayed to the federal executive political branch that is cabinet?
Are you aware of that was before the invocation?
Was that information that this group was there relayed to the federal executive?
Yeah, the federal executive branch in the sense of the political branch of government with respect to elected ministers.
Yeah, I wouldn't have any knowledge of that.
That would be a conversation probably at the federal level of the RCMP and certainly not one I was privy to or was briefed on.
Thank you.
And it's fair to say that with Coutts, of course, none of the provisions under the Emergencies Act that were invoked in the subsequent orders in Council, none of them were used in respect to Coutts, were they?
That's correct.
And to your knowledge, none of the protesters at Coutts had any of their accounts frozen or anything like that under the...
I don't have any knowledge of that.
I can't say that it didn't happen.
I just don't know.
Right.
Now, to your knowledge, were you aware of when the RCMP finally mobilized their national public enforcement units to go to Ottawa?
They actually brought in other officers from BC and other folks.
Were you apprised of when that happened?
Similar to the Article 9 provisions that we spoke to earlier, there was another request for support to the national response to the situation in Ottawa.
And that came right after the weekend, so I want to say 15th, 16th, somewhere in that range.
And I was aware that the RCMP, along with the Calgary Police and the Edmonton Police, were providing officers to support the Ottawa Police Service in their...
Right.
And you agree with me that that request, it doesn't require the Emergencies Act to be invoked.
This is a thing that can be done.
And it could have been done at any time between when the protest started in Ottawa to when it was asked, right?
That's correct, yeah.
It's used at any time.
Right.
And for whatever reason, the RCMP in Ottawa never asked for all of these units, which could have easily been made available and sent to Ottawa to assist with resources.
They never asked for them before the 15th, did they?
I was not aware of any requests at all before that.
And you've watched some of this hearing.
The biggest issue in Ottawa was resources.
And it was some of the evidence from poor Chief Slally, who had this thrown on him, that he was asking the RCMP for resources.
And Commissioner Luckey said that you've got what you've got.
But at all times, is it fair that Commissioner Luckey could have asked, made a request like that was made on the 15th, and asked for these officers to come to Ottawa to assist him?
The provisions of the Police Services Agreement remain in place to this day, and have been since 2012 when we signed the agreement, so they could have been asked for.
I won't speculate as to what our response would have been.
Yeah, thank you.
Okay, next is the JCCM.
Good morning.
Pleased to meet you.
And pardon me.
It's good afternoon, as my friend just pointed out.
Can we please pull up ALB.40383.0001?
Just while we're waiting for that to come up, you were asked about former Premier Jason Kenney earlier today.
And when the document comes up, I think what it'll show is a letter dated February 15, 2022, from the Prime Minister to then-Premier Jason Kenney.
Have you seen this document before?
If I could scroll through it a tiny bit more or maybe reduce the...
Yes, please just direct the registrar.
Yeah, sorry, if we could maybe just...
Sorry.
Thank you.
I believe I've examined this document.
Thank you.
So if we can just look at the first paragraph on the second page, it's before us right now.
We see the Prime Minister saying that we are facing significant economic disruptions with a breakdown of supply chains.
This is costing Canadians their jobs and undermining our economic and national security with potential significant impacts on the health and safety of Canadians.
Did former Premier Jason Kenney or anyone else ever tell you, anyone else from the government ever explain to you what the Prime Minister meant by this reference to potential significant impacts on the health and safety of Canadians?
Familiar with any explanation of the Prime Minister's thoughts behind that from anyone?
Okay, thank you.
Can we please pull up ALB401517.0001?
And excuse me for just a moment, please.
My sincere apologies.
I just had a slight domestic...
I don't believe.
There we go.
Can we have your audio?
Go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
So earlier you told us that Alberta had formally requested assistance from the federal government to not receive any formal response.
And eventually, this is in respect to tow trucks, and eventually Alberta just obtained its own equipment.
That's correct, sir.
We're looking at an email here from Peter Lemieux to you and others about Equipment Alberta Procure to support the RCMP operation at Coots.
Okay.
And who is Peter Lemieux?
Peter Lemieux is the Acting Executive Director of the Provincial Security and Intelligence Office, and during this time he was the individual who I tasked as the lead in the procurement of that equipment.
Okay.
And this equipment was procured on February 13th, 2022?
It was procured over a couple of days.
And I think ultimately all of it was in place by the 14th or 15th.
I think 14th.
Well, if you just scroll down a little bit, it says here...
Yeah.
On February 13th, 2022, Government of Alberta procured the following equipment.
Yeah, I saw that in the note from Peter earlier.
I think a better term for on February 13th would have been by February 13th.
We had actually acquired a small amount of that equipment earlier than that.
Most of it was procured, and then it was all in place, I believe, on the 14th down south.
And is this list of equipment reflective of the equipment that the RCMP needed?
Save two specialty vehicles.
This was the exact equipment that we were told by the RCMP that they required if they were to have to execute an enforcement plan and tow all the vehicles at the border crossing.
And what were those other two vehicles that are not listed here?
There are some other documents that speak to them, but one is a tire service truck and a number of tires, and the other is a heavy-duty mechanics truck with tools.
Okay, thank you.
And if we can just pull up pb.can.401514.
We saw this document earlier today.
Just while we're waiting for it to be pulled up, it is an email to Rob Stewart.
Okay.
Thank you.
You recall seeing this email, correct?
If we can just scroll down a little bit.
Yeah, I've seen this earlier today.
That's correct.
Okay.
And if we can just scroll down a little bit more to where it says Alberta.
Under the heading Alberta, it says that the biggest operational challenge to date is procuring, towing, wrecking equipment, and skilled workers to operate the equipment.
That's correct.
By this point, you had most of that equipment at least.
Could we scroll to the top again so I could confirm the date?
Yeah, of course.
If I remember correctly, this is a review of a conversation that we had earlier on in the day, on the 13th.
That being the conversation with myself, Ediem Dekalbab Talal, and the Public Works Government Services representative.
I can't recall who was there on that call.
And at that point in time, we were in the process of procuring.
The equipment that we ultimately, later on by the 13th, by the end of the day, we'd actually procured.
So when you see the reference from Peter Lemieux to by the 13th we had it, the information that Talal in this message was referencing came from a point in time prior to us having finalized the purchase of the last of the equipment.
Still looking for trucks when he and I had a conversation, and his reference to our conversation contained in this email to Rob Stewart is based on that sort of time-dated information that we were still looking for it.
Right, so that explains why the information in the document we're looking at isn't completely current.
Yeah, they're temporal in terms of the course of the day.
They're relying on information that was provided at the start of the day, whereas the Peter Lemieux document references what we had by the end.
And by that point, on February 13th, you had no idea that the federal government was about to invoke the Emergencies Act?
That's correct, sir.
Thank you.
If we can just pull up document ALB.401376.0001.
And what we're looking at here is an email from Daniel LaVille.
I'm not sure how to pronounce his name.
I'm sorry about that.
It's to you and some other people.
Yes, thank you.
And I think it's actually being forwarded to you and it's dated February 15th, 2022.
That's correct.
Dan LeVille was the communications director for our ministry at the time and was forwarding to me a copy of an Alberta RCMP news release.
Okay.
And that RCMP news release said that there were four people charged with conspiracy to commit murder and they're listed here, right?
Yeah, that's what it says.
And I appreciate you have limited information about this and I appreciate that these are allegations.
But can you tell us?
Or do you have any idea who these people were allegedly conspiring to murder?
I can't speak with certainty because, of course, I wasn't part of the investigation, but it was my understanding it was police.
But that would be third-party or speculative on my part, and I would want that to come out in evidence at court.
Okay, thank you.
Well, I'm not going to ask you to speculate.
If we look a little bit, if we look down this list, we see that there are nine other people.
They are charged with mischief and possession of weapons for a dangerous person, for a dangerous purpose.
That's correct.
Okay, so 13 people were charged in total.
At the time?
Yes, and can we look at...
ALB.IR701.
This is the Alberta Institutional Report.
Okay, thank you.
And if we just go to page 8, paragraph 25. Okay, thank you very much.
So this paragraph describes how the RCNT executed a warrant on three trailers, leading to the arrest of 13 individuals.
That's correct, sir.
And those are clearly the same 13 individuals we just discussed.
Yeah, that's the reference, yes.
That's correct, sir.
And it says here that the warrant was executed before dawn.
Do you happen to know if it was executed before the first minister's meeting, which took place on February the 14th?
Now, I have to be careful and caveat my response in the sense that my understanding of the first minister's meeting is that it was, as articulated by Council for Government of Canada, somewhere around 7 or 7.30 in the morning.
It was not party to that event.
If the timing was as indicated by Council, then it would have been before.
My conversation with the Deputy Commissioner indicated it was in the early morning hours, 2.30 or so in the morning, that the arrest took place.
Oh, I see.
Okay, thank you.
And earlier in your evidence, you mentioned the hour 7.30 a.m.
That's when you found out about the warrant being executed, right?
Yeah, that was me having a conversation with the Deputy Commissioner.
That's correct.
Got it.
And 7.30 is a rough estimate.
Probably could go back on my phone and try and find the call, but it was before normal business hours.
It's okay.
I just wanted to make sure I understood.
If we look down to paragraph 27 of the institutional report, it also says that the emergency fact was announced on the afternoon of February 14th, and based on your evidence and on the report, that was well after.
The RCMP successfully completed the seizure and arrests of these 13 people and the defense-related property.
That's correct, sir.
And you didn't have any other information about threats at the time?
At the time, just the intelligence I was receiving from the Deputy Commissioner around the fact that there was a volatile presence within the group that they were examining and they proved a threat or a risk.
It was very generic or at that high level, the types of conversations that I had with the Deputy Commissioner.
The Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, of course.
That's correct.
Yeah, Deputy Commissioner was a blocking.
I think you're out of time, just so if you could wrap up pretty soon, I think you're out of time.
If I can have 30 more seconds, Commissioner.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
So, just one last point.
You were shown a video of Arthur Pawlowski, and am I correct in understanding, or can you confirm that he was arrested for giving that speech, and he was arrested on February 8th, 2022?
He was arrested by the RCMP, and I know it was tied to his actions down at the blockade.
I would probably want to defer to them as to the rationale specifically around what evidence they have that led them to cause them to arrest him and charge him.
Okay, fair enough.
But he was arrested on February the 8th, and he was held for bail, and he was denied bail on February 16th, 2022.
By a judge from the Provincial Court of Justice.
Would you agree with that?
I can't disagree with it.
Sounds right.
I just don't have the dates in front of me.
So yeah, sounds right.
Okay, thank you very much.
Those are my questions.
Okay, next I call on the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses.
No questions.
Thank you.
Okay, next on the Windsor Police Service.
I apologize.
No questions for Tom McRae for Windsor Police Service.
Okay, next is the Government of Saskatchewan.
Good morning, sir.
It's Mike Morris, counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan.
I'm saying good morning because it's still morning here and I think your internal clock's probably still set to Alberta time.
Good morning.
Pleased to meet you.
I just have a few questions for you.
Sir, I understand that in February of this year, you represented Alberta on the FPT Crime Prevention and Policing Committee, is that correct?
At the ADM level, that's correct, sir.
Okay, and that would be a committee which is composed of officials from the federal, provincial and territorial governments, correct?
That's correct, sir.
And as such, that committee would include representatives from the government of Saskatchewan then, correct?
That is correct, sir.
My understanding is that the committee met several times before the public order emergency was proclaimed on February 14th.
Is that correct?
That's correct, sir.
And my review of the material indicates that the committee met on February 1st, February 7th, and February 11th.
Does that accord with your understanding?
That sounds very correct, sir.
Thank you.
And did you attend the meetings on the 1st, 7th, and 11th?
I did, although I believe on the 7th there was Deputy Minister presence as well, and Associate Deputy Minister Dennis Cooley was there with me.
At any of those meetings, did federal officials indicate that the government was considering invoking the Emergencies Act?
No.
In your view, would the committee have been an appropriate forum to discuss whether it was advisable for the Federal Emergencies Act to be invoked?
I think it would have been a very good initial forum to have initial conversations.
Certainly consultation, as I understand it to be envisioned, would be required at a much higher level, but certainly that would have been a very good starting point for that.
But in the end, you never had the opportunity to have those consultations then, correct?
Oh, that's correct, sir.
And just a couple more.
In your experience with these FPT meetings, can they be convened on very short notice?
Yes, they can, when required.
And would that even include on weekends?
Point of fact, it did later, but yes.
Thank you very much, sir.
Those are my questions for you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next call on the Government of Alberta.
Good afternoon, Mr. Grant.
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
My friends have covered quite a lot of ground with you.
There's just a few areas I want to cover off, and one of those areas deals with the timing of the execution of search warrants and arrests in Kootz, Alberta.
I'll ask if the clerk can please turn to ALB 401522.
Thank you.
And this is an email dated early in the morning, 6:36 in the morning of February 14th from John Ferguson to Duane Lacusta and to you.
Do you know who John Ferguson is?
Yes, John Ferguson is and was at that time the assistant commissioner in charge of contract operations for the province of Alberta with the RCMP.
And as far as you're aware, he was involved in the law enforcement of the protests?
Very much so, yeah.
And if we look at this email, we'll see some events noted at approximately 2350 hours pursuant to the above activity, which is described in the paragraph above.
Two of those suspects who are part of the core protesters group and have been identified as part of the security cell were arrested.
Now, I take this to be on February 13th.
Do you understand that to be the case as well?
Yeah, I believe the 2357 would have been on the 13th and then...
Subsequent arrests after midnight were on the floor.
And so then looking at the timing of those arrests, we go down to the next paragraph on Monday, February 14th at approximately 0100 hours.
Other key protesters within the security cell were also arrested.
And then a search warrant was already executed at the saloon.
The main meeting place for the security cell was negative for weapons.
Then again, a further paragraph down at approximately 0300 hours, search warrants were executed at the residence in Coutts and the associated trailer.
So all of these events involving the arrest and execution of search warrants at Coutts were occurring late on February 13th and very early on the morning of the 14th.
Yeah, basically right at midnight in the early morning hours of the 14th.
Thank you.
Now, I'd also like to turn back to record.
And I'd also like to turn back to record.
And I'd also like to turn back to record.
Provincial Police Service Agreement is included as a document referenced in Alberta's institutional report before this commission.
I take it you're quite familiar with that record.
If you could try and slow down a bit for the translators, please.
For sure.
I'll take it you're quite familiar with that agreement.
I am.
Is there a definition of the word emergency in that agreement?
I actually have a copy of it with me, but I don't have it readily available.
Can't recall.
You can't recall?
Okay.
Yeah.
It is in our institutional report as well.
Right.
I take it that your understanding is that the definition of the word emergency as contemplated under the Provincial Police Service Agreement is different from the word emergency under either the Federal Emergencies Act or Provincial Emergency Management Act.
Absolutely.
And the contemplation under the Provincial Police Services Agreement is around Resources and the ability to marshal sufficient resources to manage extraordinary situations, whether they be, in this case, protests, but it could be fires, floods, or major events such as a G8 or a G20 and the security events that come around that.
So it is very different than an emergency as would be entailed under, say, the Alberta Emergency Act or the Federal Emergency Act.
And you used that word extraordinary, which is a word that was also used in the letter from Deputy Commissioner Zablocki to Minister Savage asking for the deployment of RCMP officers under Section 9.1.
To the best of your knowledge, was this the first time Article 9.1 had been used in Alberta for the deployment of RCMP officers?
No, no, not at all.
What other types of circumstances has that occurred before?
I believe we had that invoked during the fire response in Fort McMurray.
We brought in officers from Newfoundland, BC, Saskatchewan to support the provincial operations.
I believe it's been used in the past for jail strikes and other natural disasters as well.
It's been used for GHG20 deployments across the country, Olympics, etc.
Okay, thank you.
And also in Alberta's institutional report, there's mention of other protest activity that occurred in other parts of Alberta during January and February 2022.
And you've discussed that to some length with my friends already.
What was Alberta's role with respect to other protest activity that was happening in the province?
So with the exception of protests around the legislature itself, operational response...
Is solely with the police services of jurisdiction and we provide support through our sheriff's branch when requested and as needed.
Our role is around coordination and intelligence sharing and monitoring, providing advice to government and ensuring that to the best of our ability, every law enforcement agency is connected with each other and with ourselves and not caught out unawares with any intelligence that might exist.
In any one of the law enforcement entities in the province.
And you mentioned, with exception to, protest activity was taking place around the legislature.
Why is that?
The sheriff's branch of my division is a specific task around security on the legislative precinct in the province and work very closely with the Edmonton Police Service on that, but they're charged with sort of the direct security on the ledge itself.
And so any protests involving activity, whether they be dismounted or foot activity on the legislature and on the roadways within the precinct, are primarily managed through the Sheriff's branch until such point in time as it becomes clear that the protest is going to be non-peaceful or unlawful and then the police comes in and assumes responsibility while our officers continue to work with them.
But we do have a much more robust participation in matters on the legislative precinct.
Did you become aware of any incident involving these protests at the legislature grounds in January and February that the sheriff's branch was not able to handle?
Not that the sheriff's branch, with the assistance of the EPS, could not handle.
They were all managed quite, I think, appropriately.
Okay.
And one final record to take you to.
That's ALB402402.
Is that a multimedia file, Council?
I don't believe so, no.
No, it shouldn't be.
ALB ends in 2402.
2042.
Ah, thank you.
This is an executive notification developing situation in the Alberta Legislature Freedom Convoy, February 26, 2022.
Now, February 26, 2022 was after the declaration of a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act was revoked.
Were you aware that at this time there were further protests that were occurring in and around Alberta?
Oh, absolutely.
There were.
Continue protests in Calgary, specifically, and Edmonton.
Did any police agency express to Alberta that they required anything beyond their standard policing powers to deal with any of these protests post-emergencies act replication?
No.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. DeGrand.
Those are all my questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any re-examination?
Two very brief points.
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner Jean-Simon Schoenholtz for the Commission.
First, I just want to make sure the record is clear on a point raised by my friends for the convoy organizers.
If we could pull up the institutional report, ALB.IR.701 and go to page 30 at paragraph 138.
You'll recall my friend was asking you about the provision of provincial RCMP resources to the response in Ottawa.
Do you remember that?
I do, sir.
Thank you.
And I think you mentioned it was on the 16th.
You weren't terribly sure about the date.
The first sentence here of paragraph 138 says on February 18th, Commissioner Brenda Luckey of the RCMP requested that Alberta provide 42 officers to support efforts in Ottawa.
Is that the request you were referring to?
That's the request.
I think I might have even said 15th in my earlier evidence, and I apologize.
It's the 18th.
Thank you.
The only other thing I wanted to ask you, my friend, I believe for the JCCF, was talking to you about that list of resources that you had acquired on February 13th.
Do you remember that?
Yes, I do, by the end of February 13th.
And the point I wanted to make sure that we understood, I believe you had a meeting with the federal officials on the 13th.
Are you aware whether or not the fact that those vehicles had been obtained on the 13th was made known to federal officials?
And I was probably clumsy in my earlier explanation, so I'll try to clarify that.
At the time of my earlier conversation with the federal officials, ADM Brasso and others, we had not yet acquired the bulk of the equipment.
We had a small number that we had acquired and already shipped down.
We were in midstream of acquiring some and it fell apart the day before.
And we were in midstream that day of acquiring some, but we still hadn't.
We haven't secured them yet.
So at the time of my conversation with Adiam Brasso and Adiam Talal Dekalba, and I apologize Talal.
I know him, but I hope I'm not recognizing his name.
But at the time of that conversation, we hadn't yet acquired them.
The reference in Peter Lemieux's document was sometime down the road stating that by the 13th we had acquired them because later on that afternoon or later on that day, his team was able to secure the purchase of the remainder of the vehicles.
So that's why at the time of our conversation with the federal officials, we hadn't secured them yet and we were still seeking them.
Later that day...
We acquired them, and post that day, the indication from Mr. Lemieux is by the 13th we'd acquired them, because by the end of that day we had.
And do you know whether and when the federal officials would have been advised that that list of resources had been acquired?
Yeah.
I don't know.
Honestly, from memory, I don't recall.
When we had that conversation.
I apologize.
I should have that off the top of my head.
I don't.
Thank you.
Those are all my questions.
Okay.
Thank you.
Just on that, I have a couple of questions.
Just on the equipment you acquired, and I may have missed it in my notes.
Had you arranged or secured?
The operators for all that equipment?
I didn't get to know that was a concern.
Yeah, we'd actually acquired a number of operators that could move vehicles around.
We'd acquired a number of operators, like a small number, that could actually operate tow trucks and heavy lift equipment.
So we had a small component of folks that could do that.
We also had made connection with...
A private sector individual who is going to provide us with limited operators, but also training for any staff that we might have to operate those vehicles, the lift part of the vehicles.
We had a number of operators that could drive them and work them, but actually operating the tow capacity itself was something we needed some training on.
So we had that started, but we were still looking for more to augment that.
That would have facilitated a much better operational response rather than the limited number that we had at the time.
So that was a bit still a work in progress, but you had started and working it out.
That's correct, sir.
Okay, and another question, just going back to the 9.1 request that was made on February 3rd for That's the request to move additional officers to Alberta.
And that was granted.
We saw that letter.
Yes, it was, sir.
When was that terminated, or when did it end?
Do you know?
The officers in question that came from British Columbia were 40 in number, and they, as I recall, returned to British Columbia at the end of that weekend of the 13th, 14th.
They were released back to British Columbia.
There would have still been officers within Alberta, primarily from municipal and perhaps federal business lines that would have still been augmenting.
And I would actually have to defer to the Deputy Commissioner on when he was able to release them back to their business lines and just rely exclusively on the provincial officers.
I just don't know when that was.
But there's no formal rescinding.
Of that letter.
So it was not formally rescinded, but your understanding as they went back about 13th or 14th, would that be after the operation in Coutts?
Would that make sense to you?
It would make sense to me, but I would want to defer to deputies of Blocky for the specifics around when they were released.
And then you were taken to the request by Ottawa to move officers to Ottawa.
Would it be fair to say that...
When you were requesting officers from British Columbia, you would hesitate to send officers to Ottawa, or is those two separate, totally distinct, or would you weigh that?
Well, at the time of that request, on the 18th, we actually did release...
Sorry, if that's what you're asking.
No, I'm asking if before the 14th.
In other words, you were asked, is there any reason you wouldn't have sent officers earlier?
And I'm just asking, and I may be wrong, but it seems common sense to me.
Yeah, no, it's very much a common sense question.
And what happened is what did happen on the 18th, it would have happened on the 14th.
I would have looked to deputies of Blocky to ask him.
What is the nature of the request?
In this case, it wasn't for just general numbers.
It was for specialty officers.
They call them special officers, special tactics operation officers, certain special units.
I would have asked the question, could you realistically release those, given what you're dealing with in the province?
And I would be guided by his advice on that.
I would have been surprised had he said he could.
But there are other provinces in the Maritimes, etc., that he could have.
They could have pulled from.
Okay.
And then you talked about the Critical Infrastructure Defense Act, and I'm trying to understand a bit.
That gives a lot of broad power, as I understand it.
Is that fair?
Yeah, it's a broad application in the sense that if certain activity takes place on any piece of...
Critical infrastructure is defined under the Act.
It allows for enforcement by police with specific penalties that are quite substantial.
And it doesn't have to be invoked?
just no it's yeah it's just standing legislation And then, this may be the last one.
I'm just going through my notes.
I apologize.
You mentioned something about, and I think it was maybe February 13th, but I'm not sure, a request for reservists to be used, I think, to operate equipment.
Did you ever get an answer on that?
Yeah, and the February 13th reference was the conversation I had with Talal Dalak, the ADM and Public Safety Canada and other federal officials where I raised them.
My surprise that we did have an answer back that was indicating that, and this is an earlier request from earlier in the week, where the Canadian forces indicated that they would not allow their reservists to participate in support of our operations in the manner that we'd asked.
So we'd already had that answer, and I was expressing to the ADMs my surprise that at least that level of support couldn't be approved.
And maybe I've got it wrong, but I thought...
In that note, there was a suggestion that he would look into it.
That was my question, whether after looking into it, anything further came.
Yeah, he did indicate that he was not aware of the request.
He would look into it, and I did not hear back from him.
It was a busy time for him, though, I understand.
Okay, because it was the looking into it that I didn't know whether.
We received no feedback after that, sir.
Okay?
Okay, well those are my questions.
Thank you very much for attending and I understand you're going back to the cold, but not much we can do about that.
I am indeed.
Thank you, sir.
It's been a pleasure.
Thank you.
You're free to go.
So we will have a long lunch today, an hour and three minutes.
So we'll be back at two o 'clock and continue with yesterday's witness.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection