All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2022 - Viva & Barnes
04:13:34
Part 2: Emergencies Act Inquiry Live!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
To do the first thing because their own members were stretched so thin, I think you said.
I agree.
Now, this was, of course, the same thing that occurred in a sense in both Windsor and Cootes and probably other places in terms of the under-resourcing of police services trying to manage those situations.
Is that true?
I think...
There's a confluence of events here.
Obviously, the unprecedented nature of these protests did lead us into a situation where more resources were required.
I don't know if that equates to chronically under-resourcing police, because if we were better prepared, as they were in other cities, they didn't need more officers.
Understood.
I suppose that it wasn't...
We know, don't we, that...
That the protest in Coutts, the blockade in Coutts, was not prevented, able to be prevented by RCMP officers on the ground there.
It wasn't anticipated, and it happened before they could mobilize.
Then once it did, once the protesters were there, their vehicles were on the road and stopped, then enforcement became very challenging, correct?
Exactly.
And I think, in fact...
One of the lessons that was learned in coups by your team, I assume, and others, was that an effort, an early effort to enforce failed because protesters resisted and police were required to fall back.
Do you recall that happening on February 1st?
I do.
And that's an indication, isn't it, of the challenge of enforcement.
You need significant resources to enforce that kind of a police operation.
I would agree.
In terms quickly about Windsor, do you understand that the Windsor, that resources that were requested by the Windsor Police Service and by the OPP were pledged by the RCMP prior to the completion of a plan by the Windsor Police Service?
I don't know the details of that.
Okay.
I would be inclined to believe that the RCMP would have made a commitment to support whatever action would be taken.
In the absence of a plan?
Just a commitment.
Right.
And of course, for the reasons that you've given to one of my friends, the circumstances of the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge was a significant escalation in the national security threat, wasn't it?
Absolutely.
Now, the...
Of the protests across the country, do you agree that Ottawa was the most complex and the most challenging?
In the physical sense, I believe that's true.
In the economic sense, not as much.
Fair enough.
In terms of the physical sense, or if one thought about it as a security issue, it was the more volatile.
The most vehicles and the most protesters across a larger area.
Is that fair?
Agreed.
Now, I think you indicated that there was a time, at least, when there was a debate between or perhaps even a disagreement between federal and provincial officials in Ontario, that is, about which police service was the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service to call on.
Is that fair?
Well, we've been showing evidence to that effect.
I didn't have that issue with my colleague.
All right.
Understood.
Now, a couple of other things.
You were also aware, and I think you've told the Commissioner, that enforcement was not the preferred strategy here in any of these protest locations.
Negotiation, de-escalation was the preferred strategy.
That is always the preferred strategy.
And yet the ministers, the federal government ministers with whom you were interacting, were demanding some kind of action.
Is that fair?
The ministers we were briefing wanted the situation to be resolved.
There is no question about that.
And the same was true to your observation of municipal officials here in Ottawa?
Absolutely.
And, of course, the community, the residents?
Absolutely.
A high level of...
It was a highly challenging situation for the police service and for Chief Slowly.
Yes, absolutely.
You observed, and I'm sure you felt it, the two of you were in the middle of this too.
Can you tell the commissioner, did you yourselves feel enormous pressure to try to do something to solve this problem?
I did.
Mr. Roshan?
That would be fair, yeah.
And you observed it across the spectrum of police services and other government agents.
Is that fair?
That would be fair.
You agree that Chief Slowly, during the time that you were dealing with him, was a passionate defender of the city's residence and of the police service in trying to find a solution?
I would agree.
And acted in good faith in the performance of his duties?
I would agree.
I would agree.
I would agree.
The Deputy Minister's Committee on Operational Coordination.
Yes.
True.
DMOC.
Could I please show the witness the interview summary from...
Oh, no, I won't need to go to that.
Let me show you the document, PBCAN507.
5-0.
See if this assists your recollection, if you would, please, Mr. Stewart.
Thank you.
There's a suffix on that, R-E-L dot 001.
I don't know if that's important to the registrar.
There we go.
Thank you.
Do you recognize this document, Truckers Convoy and Protective Services' key messages for DMOC February 3rd at 2.30 p.m.?
Well, these would be speaking points for the commissioner.
I would not have received her speaking points.
All right.
Can you...
Can you confirm for this commissioner that you were at this meeting?
Yes.
Could you please scroll down, if you would, please, Mr. Registrar, to an expression that begins, I will be honest.
Second page.
Ah, there it is.
Just read that, if you would, Mr. Stewart.
For the record, I'll be honest.
This may not be something that can be negotiated out of...
Or resolved only with enforcement.
There may need to be some other solutions.
Maybe the engagement of an interlocutor.
Does that refresh your recollection that on the 3rd of February in the afternoon, Commissioner Luckey raised this concern that there may not be a solution only through enforcement and there may be other solutions including an interlocutor?
Yes, it refreshes my memory.
And that she said that?
I check against delivery, but I believe she did.
All right.
I'm out of time.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you.
Next, the Ottawa Coalition.
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Mr. Stewart, Monsieur Rochon, my name is Emily Tammen.
I represent the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses.
And I just have a couple of questions for you arising out of your testimony today.
Monsieur Rochon, if I could start with you, please, sir.
You explained that within the broader intelligence matrix in Canada, that public safety is a consumer of intelligence, right?
Correct.
And you indicated this morning that the government had determined prior even to the Freedom Convoy that there is a need for a refresh of the national security strategy.
Is that right?
Not technically speaking.
The government is always looking at policy matters, and it'll be a decision for the sitting government of the day whether or not to publish an update to that strategy.
Subset to the national security strategy, there are a series of other strategies like a cybersecurity strategy, a critical infrastructure strategy.
So we're always working on those, yes.
Okay, and the current strategy, I believe you said dates back to 2004?
The national security one, yes.
And at that time, I think you explained that threats to Canada's national security were understood to be different than they are today.
Is that fair?
Indeed, I would say post 9-11, the very creation of our department at Public Safety followed.
And indeed, I think that was the impetus for Canada's national security strategy at the time in 2004.
Okay.
And so in pursuing a refresh or in continually, you know, considering and reconsidering the government's approach, it's a recognition that the current strategy may not be optimal.
Because it could miss certain kinds of threats from groups oriented around certain radical ideologies or even, as you said, I think this morning, individuals acting alone on the basis of a broader range of grievances than the current strategy might have otherwise been built for.
Is that fair?
I would even go so far as to highlight the counterterrorism strategy, which I think dates back to 2012, if I'm not mistaken.
And we're in the process of refreshing that.
Parliamentary Committee in the House of Commons for National Security, SECU, has recently done a study on ideologically motivated violent extremism, which came out with 33 recommendations.
We recently tabled, I believe, the government response to that study, and we're in the process of updating our counterterrorism strategy that will deal with what you referred to, yes.
Okay.
And you testified this morning that in the lead-up to the Freedom Convoy's occupation of Ottawa, Correct.
threat, right?
Based on the intelligence that had been produced for you.
That would be correct.
But ultimately a national security threat was, as Mr. Stewart you articulated, I think, adjudicated to exist, at least from the perspective of the federal government, which ultimately led to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, right?
Correct.
As a consumer of intelligence products, then, would you agree that the intelligence product you were provided with was flawed in the sense that the threat posed by the convoy was grossly underestimated at every level of OPS, OPP, RCMP, CSIS?
I wouldn't say flawed because intelligence is only as good as a moment in time when it's collected and you have to know where to go looking for it.
And at the time...
All of the various indications were pointing to a peaceful protest.
And so police of jurisdiction who handle these types of protests on a regular basis, there was no reason to question their integrity in terms of their assessment.
But as the protests grew in number across the country, and indeed witnessing the various behaviours and the entrenchment of the occupation in Ottawa, and the impacts on...
Canadians, Canadian lives, the economy, the reputation of the country, trading issues, supply chain issues.
Yes, it definitely rose to a national security concern.
But we can't necessarily know if the issue was how the available intelligence was interpreted or if it was actually a failure of intelligence to actually see what might have been in front of.
Law enforcement authorities.
Is that fair?
The difficulty is that you don't know what you don't know.
And therefore, there are always unknowns.
Right.
So we heard from former Chief Peter Slowly that he believes that there is a double standard that exists in how national security threats are identified and communicated.
Right-wing extremism and white supremacy are often not flagged in threat assessments, while radical Islam and Islamic-based terrorism threats are.
Do you agree with that assessment?
I would only agree with it in so much as perhaps historically there might have been a bias, but I believe more recently, as I've indicated, ideologically motivated violent extremism has risen to the level where our...
Security and intelligence agencies have it as the top priority at the moment.
I would argue that if you look at just at the terrorist listings that we're responsible for with public safety, we've, I think, listed up to nine now IMVE groups in the last three years.
So I would not agree with that characterization in the present day.
But historically speaking, we certainly were more focused on other types of terrorism.
So you wouldn't agree, then, I take it, that the potential threat posed by the Freedom Convoy wasn't recognized or articulated as a national security threat because of biases and intelligence gathering and in a reluctance to identify certain types of threats as being national security threats?
No, I would disagree.
Okay.
Mr. Stewart, in your statement...
You're said to have expressed the view that the government and law enforcement lack certain tools to monitor social media and properly distill its content to identify threats.
Is that accurate?
Yes.
I wonder if you would agree then that it's likely surprising to Canadians that law enforcement continue to have a deficit in that regard, given the central role that social media plays in modern-day communications.
And particularly given that it can be monitored on an open source basis.
Is that something, to your knowledge, that will be addressed in the refresh or reconsideration of the national security strategy?
I'd like to clarify that point.
There is a very high noise-to-signal ratio in social media.
So there's a challenge inherently in monitoring all the channels that people use to communicate to the extent that they're accessible.
And there are many that are not, that are encrypted.
So it would be, I think, a mistake to say that the police or any institution have necessarily all the capabilities they need to monitor what is going on in the electronic world.
And then beyond that, it's about assessing it and trying to make sure that, you know, what we understand to be the case is either likely to be or is the case.
And that assessment process is also very challenging.
So I think there's a lot of inherent challenges here.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, so just switching gears a little bit.
We've heard evidence, and I'm completely moving to a different area now, that by February 3rd...
Mayor Watson had spoken with the Prime Minister and with Minister Mendicino about the situation in Ottawa and the need for federal resources.
From the perspective of public safety then, the convoy occupation by that time was recognized to be a significant event, right?
Yes.
But no one within public safety at that time on February 3rd was considering invoking the Emergencies Act at that point, were they?
There was no active consideration at that time.
And the Commission's heard evidence that on February 4th, a private citizen launched a class action against the convoy because residents felt completely abandoned by all levels of government and policing institutions.
You're aware of that?
I am.
But no one within public safety at that time was considering invoking the Emergencies Act, right?
It was not under active consideration at that point in time.
And you've indicated that...
It did become an act of consideration around February 11th.
Is that fair?
Yes, I did.
So would it be fair then to say that the federal government never really saw a role for the Emergencies Act as a tool for dealing with the Freedom Convoy until the international borders were blockaded?
No, I think that's putting it too linearly.
I think the...
A combination of factors led it to become more actively considered, including the borders being located, the protracted protest in Ottawa, and the threats of personal and economic harm.
Okay.
But a significant part of the consideration with respect to economic harm had to do with international trade, didn't it?
It had to do with blocking ports and gateways, yes.
So had it not been for the border blockades?
Would, in your assessment, residents of Ottawa have continued to have been left to deal with the effects of the convoy, despite the tremendous social and economic harm they were experiencing?
There was always going to be a police action in Ottawa.
So I think you are neglecting the fact that that was mobilizing, albeit in a very incremental way.
But specifically with respect to the Emergencies Act, would you...
Based on your understanding of the discussions that took place around that, in your view, would the Emergencies Act have been an appropriate tool to deal with the situation in Ottawa had it not been for those other events?
The Emergencies Act is generally considered to be a tool of last resort under very exigent circumstances, urgent, time limited.
So there were many other tools in the toolkit.
Indeed, Ontario used one, and it was not used until...
Quite a bit later in time.
So I would say, you know, we were all conscious of it as being a tool.
But in the minds of those who were, you know, sort of discussing it with counterparts, there were other tools as well.
Okay, thank you.
Those are my questions.
Next, I'd like to call on the Ontario Provincial Police.
Good afternoon.
My name is Chris Diana, counsel to the OPP.
I wonder if we can start by bringing up your witness summary, which is WTS 66. And while that's coming up, I expect that most of my questions will be directed to Mr. Stewart, but Mr. Roshan, if you have some insight or some information, then please chime in.
All right, so this is your witness, Summer.
Can we go to page 21?
And the last paragraph.
And I want to ask some questions about the consultation that took place before the invocation of the Act.
So it reads, DM Stewart added that the Act was welcomed by law enforcement, especially police of jurisdiction.
Though they were never explicitly asked to invoke the Act, they were asked whether they had the tools they needed, and the answer was consistently...
That they could use more tools.
I want to ask about that paragraph in particular.
You used the word they, which suggests that multiple law enforcement agencies were canvassed about tools that could be used under the Act.
Is that fair characterization of the summary?
There's a test spelling mistake in there, just for the record.
The were in the second sentence.
No, this is a composite statement based on all the consultations we undertook with officials as well as with police.
Right, so my question arising from that is which law enforcement agencies were consulted about the use of the Act?
It...
What I was saying in this witness summary and what I would say to you is that no police agency was asked about the Act.
All right.
And so my question is, which agencies were asked whether they needed more tools?
RCMP, OPP, OPS.
All right.
Do you have any knowledge on how that consultation took place?
No, it would have been guided by the RCMP.
All right.
Because Commissioner Karik, and I don't know if you heard his evidence, he testified that the OPP was not consulted about the use of the Emergencies Act or any tools.
By anyone with a federal government.
Do you have any reason to dispute his testimony in that regard?
I would not have first-hand knowledge of this.
The RCMP was our primary interface as a department and in the discussions that we were having.
So is it fair to say that that paragraph is based on information that you would have received from the RCMP rather than your own personal direct knowledge?
Insofar as it pertains to the OPP.
Or other law enforcement agencies?
Law enforcement here could also represent officials in provincial governments.
All right, because we're talking about tools, which in terms of law enforcement agencies is what I'm referring to.
And so do you have any direct knowledge of other law enforcement agencies that were consulted about those tools?
No direct knowledge.
All right.
Now, at the time, of course, you would agree that the OBP had a very prominent role.
Within the province, both in Windsor, Ottawa, and elsewhere in Ontario?
I would.
And you would agree that the OPP, considering its role in multiple scenarios, would be in a good position to provide a meaningful response to a consultation request?
I would agree.
Indeed, as you heard, I assume they were.
And indeed, the OPP would have a different perspective than the RCMP because they have different jurisdiction, correct?
That is true.
They have different jurisdictions, but they work very closely together.
Do you know if there is a written record of consultation with law enforcement agencies on the Emergencies Act?
I do not.
Considering the extraordinary nature of the Emergencies Act, do you agree that perhaps there should be a written consultation record for accountability purposes?
The consultations were...
The consultation in the broader form were often recorded and there have been notes to that effect, right?
And again, they weren't about the Act, they were about the tools.
And then the formal consultations were also recorded and reported to Parliament.
And the reason I ask is because there is a consultation record, which I won't take you to unless you want to see it, but that consultation record refers to consultation with different provinces and officials, but there's no specifics about consultation with law enforcement.
And my question is whether, are you aware of any document that deals directly with the law enforcement side of the consultation?
No, I'm not aware.
But you would agree that perhaps, considering the fact that law enforcement has to use those tools, it would be a good idea to have written records of that consultation?
I would agree.
Did you have any direct involvement with consulting law enforcement?
I think you said you did not.
Not police, other than the RCMP.
Right.
If we can turn up document pb.nsc.can.503256.
Actually, if I may, I'll correct that answer because I did have calls with Chief Slowly on which Commissioner Karik was also participating.
So I would say I had firsthand evidence from Chief Slowly that he needed more tools as well.
All right.
Now, I don't think, I don't know if you were, you don't appear to have been copied on this document.
This appears to be an exchange of emails between Commissioner Lucky and Mike Jones.
Do you recognize this email?
I do.
Now, Patrick Vezina is counsel, I believe.
Who are Allison Whalen and Dennis Daly?
They are RCMP.
One's a civilian member, the other's a regular member.
Okay.
Did you see this document at the time that it was generated or around the time it was generated?
I do not recall seeing this document.
Now, Mike Jones, as I understand it, was Chief of Staff for Minister Minichino.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And if you scroll down to the bottom, it starts with an email request made on February 13th from Mike Jones to Brenda Luckey.
Part of it is redacted.
If you scroll up, I think it's clear kind of what the purpose of the email is.
If you scroll up a little higher, higher, higher.
Commissioner Luckey, stop there.
Commissioner Luckey.
Kind of gives a list of some tools that she might find useful.
Is that your understanding of this email?
That is my understanding.
Now I know that this exchange...
And for the record, that is what I assumed the RCMP would have consulted with colleagues about.
Okay.
So this is evidence of consultation with the RCMP from the federal government side.
My question is whether or not it's unusual that this request comes from the political side.
It comes from the Chief of Staff rather than from your office, from the Deputy Minister's office.
Under the circumstances, I wouldn't say it was unusual.
It's typically, and I know the way it works, provincially, of course, because that's my area, but Commissioner Carrick testified that almost all his dealings were directly with Deputy Di Tommaso, and the communication went through the level of the Deputy Minister.
But the Commissioner of the RCMP is a direct report to the Minister of Public Safety.
Right, and so it's...
More common than for the political side to engage directly with the Commissioner of the RCMP?
It is.
And I wanted to follow up on a comment because this is an opportunity for us to look at all these issues, all these kind of broader systemic issues.
Could you raise it yourself earlier in your evidence about Nova Scotia and maybe taking another look at what is the appropriate role of the political side as opposed to your side of the House?
Do you have any thoughts on how...
From the federal side, that can be improved from where it's at now.
That's a very open-ended question.
I don't think my opinion is here or there.
I would observe, however, and this is why I raised it this morning, that this has become an issue in a number of domains where people have asked what's the division between Requests for information and advice, which this, I think, constitutes, versus what are, you know, sort of interference or, you know, engagement in police operations.
And so I would certainly agree with the proposal that that could be clarified.
Yeah, and I guess one of the reasons I ask, you're not copied on this.
And as Deputy Minister, if there is going to be direct engagement with the political side, don't you expect you to at least be copied on it for your...
For your informational awareness?
At one in the morning, it probably wouldn't matter.
Right.
No, I think it would have made sense for her to copy me.
She copied her subordinates.
Right.
And I guess, again, we're here, we're in this context where we can look at these issues.
These opportunities don't come across very well.
And you've got a lot of experience in your role, as do you, Mr. Roshan.
So you can weigh into this question as well.
But is there any merit in...
Having clearer lines or more clearly defined lines about how the interaction between the political side and the RCMP Commissioner to avoid any kind of misunderstandings.
There is merit.
And do you have any recommendations on how those lines should be drawn?
No.
Do you have any thoughts, Mr. Rochon?
No, I'm afraid not.
And just finishing up on the question about intelligence.
You were asked a question by my friend who was up before me about whether or not there was essentially a failure of intelligence.
Now, your evidence earlier was that you're in a position where you're only receiving or you're consuming the intelligence, correct?
Correct.
That is correct, yeah.
But you only know what's provided to you, correct?
Correct.
So, for example, you didn't even know about Hendon.
What you're looking at is what other people are synthesizing, putting together, and letting you know, correct?
Correct.
So really, you wouldn't be in a position, especially at the time, to know whether you had reviewed all the intelligence or whether what had been provided to you was an accurate reflection of what was out there, correct?
I would argue that the reason why we have an ADM National Security Operations Committee table every week is to have subject matter experts across 16 departments and agencies bring forward information that would be relevant for that table, and then we ask questions and try to anticipate.
threats to national security.
And in this particular instance, we would have all been aware of convoys, and we would have been deferring to the RCMP or transport or indeed And so if the RCMP or whoever's reviewing this information decides that information such as there's no exit strategy,
an intention to make the workings of government more difficult.
If that doesn't get included, then obviously you would never know.
So there's a lot that's put on the shoulders of those who are providing the information to you.
Would you agree?
Yes and no.
I mean, there's enough experience around that ADM, National Security Operations Table, to ask those types of questions.
Intelligence fusion is always a challenge, and so bringing together all of the various pieces of intelligence to get an accurate picture at a moment in time is something that we have experience with, and at that point in time, we had no reason to believe this was going to be anything more than a peaceful protest.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Much appreciated.
Thank you.
Next up is the Windsor Police Service.
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
This is Tom McRae for Windsor Police Service.
I have no questions.
Thank you.
Next is the Government of Alberta.
Good afternoon.
My name is Stephanie Bowes for the province of Alberta.
I just have a few questions around the RFA that came from Alberta.
I think, Mr. Stewart, you're probably the one who will be answering these questions today, but certainly if this is something that both members of the panel can respond to, please feel free to do so.
For now, can I ask that the clerk please bring up the Public Safety Institutional Report?
That's document DOJ.IR.708.
And while that's happening, Mr. Stewart, I believe you mentioned in your evidence that the RFA that came from Alberta didn't follow the usual course, namely that there wasn't discussion before it was submitted.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Do you know if there had been discussion ahead of the RFA, would that have changed the response by the federal government in this case?
In all likelihood, it would not.
Okay.
And then on that institutional report, Mr. Clerk, can you please scroll down to page 22 and look at paragraph 75, please?
And this is referring to the February 5th RFA from the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Alberta.
And it says, upon reviewing the request, it was determined that the RFA process was not the correct mechanism for addressing the issue of additional law enforcement personnel.
Requests for additional RCMP officers must be made under sub-article 9 of the Provincial Police Services Agreement and not through an RFA.
So is it true that the RFA from Alberta was interpreted to be a request for RCMP officer deployment?
No.
It was perceived to largely be a request for tow trucks.
Okay.
There is a mention of personnel in the RFA.
I'll just take you to that as well.
That's document pb.can.50718.
And I'll take it you've seen the RFA from Minister McIver before, is that correct?
I have.
Okay, and then if we look at paragraph five, or sorry, paragraph four.
Within that paragraph, we see, 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.
Do you know at the time this was received what the interpretation of personnel was meant to be?
And I'm not talking from Minister McIver's point of view.
I'm asking what the federal government interpreted that request to be.
I can say quite authoritatively, I believe it was not assumed to be law enforcement because everybody understood the Article 9 process very well.
It's been used many times over the years.
So this was inferred to be Armed Forces personnel.
Okay, thank you.
And we do know, of course, that there was a request for deployment of RCMP officers that was appropriately made under the Police Services Agreement.
That came just a few days later, correct?
Correct.
All right.
can we please take a look at document pb.can.401514 And this is an email from Mr. Dacobab to yourself on February 13. And it outlines a meeting that...
Transportation Canada individuals had with colleagues from Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.
And if we scroll down to the bullet points that begin with Alberta, we can see those there.
Alberta requests for CAF support have been denied, but they are surprised that the 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.
Do you know if there was any follow-up on that point?
I do not.
Ultimately, the Government of Canada was going to deny Alberta's request for assistance, correct?
Actually, what happened was that we evaluated the initial request and determined that the CAF equipment would not be appropriate.
And as this indicates, it was not my understanding that there was another dimension to the personnel request.
However, we did not formally notify Alberta that the RFA would be turned down on the basis of the fact that we were still Having discussions about the federal toolkit and ultimately address the tow truck issue via the Emergencies Act.
Okay, now I'd like to take you to some draft letters that were in Canada's production for this, beginning with pb.nsc.can409547.
Kevin.
We can see that this is dated February 7th.
It's addressed to the Honourable Minister McIver, which is the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Alberta.
And if we scroll down to the last paragraph on the first page, it says, further, I understand that Alberta has the required authorities necessary to enforce compliance as a highway is considered essential infrastructure, and it is unlawful to willfully obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the construction, 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.
Yeah.
It says, This letter is unsigned.
Do you know why it was unsigned and unsent at this time?
For the reasons I just explained.
Okay, but you would agree that on February 7th, the Government of Canada's position was that Alberta had the required authorities to deal with the illegal protests around Coutts, Alberta?
We determined that the full suite of provincial tools had not been exhausted, which is sort of a first principle of the RFA.
All right.
And then there are a number of other follow-up draft letters that contain essentially the same language in it.
Just for the record, I will take you to ssm.can.nsc402745.
five And this is a memorandum for the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.
I understand, if you scroll down to page two, that you digitally signed this memorandum on February 9th.
Do you see that?
I see that.
And in this memorandum, you recommended that the Minister of Emergency Preparedness sign an enclosed reply indicating that the Government of Canada was refusing the RFA.
Okay.
Is that correct?
I believe so.
I haven't seen the attachment, but I believe so.
Well, and the enclosed correspondence on this one is actually redacted, but if we look at the body of the memorandum, we see the reasons for refusing.
On page two, the paragraph above the heading recommendation says...
This remains an issue within provincial jurisdiction.
Alberta has the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance.
So very similar reasons for the refusal that was being outlined in the February 7th draft, correct?
Correct.
And then if we turn now to SSM.NSC.CAN403115.
This is a series of emails from February 11th.
And in the email from Rady Barak to Minister Bill Blair, it says here is the latest draft in reply to Alberta's RFA.
And again, going to page two, we see a paragraph starting with further, I understand.
And it says Alberta has the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance and then refers to the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act.
So again, here we are February 11th, very similar reasons to those expressed on February 9th and February 7th, correct?
Correct.
And if we scroll to the very top of this, we see that Minister Blair approved the response.
Were you aware that he had approved such a response?
I was.
Okay.
And I told a provincial official, although I cannot remember who that was.
Do you know the level of provincial official you told?
Or the meaning in which you told them that?
A deputy minister called me and asked if we were going to approve it sometime within 24 to 48 hours of the original request.
And I said, my expectation is we would not.
Okay, so very early on, the decision was made.
It would be refused.
The reasons for refusing it seem to not really have changed throughout the course of the time when the draft response was being considered.
Is that fair to say?
Yes.
And then I'm going to take you to one last draft, and that is on pb.can.nsc.
I believe it's five zeros, six, nine, zero.
And this is an email.
My understanding is with the timestamp, this time is actually, the true time that this was sent should be five hours ahead of this.
So sometime in the evening on February 12th.
Excuse me.
If we scroll down to the second email there, and on the second page, We again see we've got a draft response.
And again, the wording is very similar.
Further, I understand Alberta has the required legal authorities and then reference to the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act.
So by as late as February 12th, the Government of Canada's position on Alberta's RFA was that it had the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance of any illegal protest activity occurring in Alberta.
Do you agree?
It had powers to address the circumstance, including compelling tow truck drivers.
You're now well out of time.
Can I just have one minute to clarify which act that power comes under, Mr. Commissioner?
Okay.
I'm sorry.
You referred to Alberta having the power to compel tow truck operators under the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act.
I'm going to put to you that that act is not actually the correct act.
It is only five sections long, and the Commission has heard evidence from the Assistant Deputy Minister DeGrand that that legislation makes interfering with critical infrastructure and offence, but it's not something that Alberta needs to invoke.
Alberta does have the Emergency Management Act, which does grant in it the power to compel service providers to provide services.
So despite maybe having a confusion about which act that power falls under, it doesn't change the position of Canada's response to Alberta's RFA.
Would you agree?
I would agree.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's my only question.
Those are my only questions today.
Okay, thank you.
Next, if I could call on the CCLA, please.
Good afternoon.
Can you see and hear me okay?
Yes.
My name is Kara Zwiebel.
I am counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
I wonder if we could pull up document pb.can.401584.
And this, just while it's getting pulled up, I believe is an email chain related to the technical briefing that you mentioned earlier.
I guess there were several technical briefings that happened.
And if we scroll all the way down to the bottom, just so we can see where this starts.
So this is someone in the communications branch of public safety.
And writing to say that there may need to be a follow-up, a second.
I think here we're talking about a media briefing.
Is that right?
I believe so, yes.
Okay.
Because there wasn't enough time for all the questions given some other briefings that were going on.
And if we scroll up a bit.
There's some discussion here about the possibility of doing this another way.
Could we do this in writing?
I gather at this point everyone in your department is running on fumes and there's quite a lot going on and the idea of doing yet another briefing is not necessarily something you feel is the best use of time.
Is that an accurate characterization?
I would simply say from my recollection that We pretty much ran full-on doing technical brief after technical brief after technical brief with different stakeholders, be they both Houses of Parliament,
media, as well as stakeholders, and each one typically would run for half an hour to an hour, but in this particular case, we were affording stakeholders sometimes up to two hours, sometimes even longer.
And we were trying to address as many questions, but as you can appreciate, we had a panel of experts from a great number of departments and agencies, and therefore questions stemmed from law enforcement activity to border service activity to finance.
And therefore, we were, I think, if I look back at this particular exchange, probably wondering whether there wouldn't be a way of...
Having people submit questions in writing and maybe there would be a better way of posting our answers online as opposed to continuing with the number of technical briefs that we were providing.
Okay, thank you.
And can we now go to document ssm.can.402668?
So I think this is going to be, I believe, your speaking notes for...
Maybe it's one, maybe it's all of these technical briefings.
And if we can just go down to the first full paragraph on page three.
And I think this is the document that we were talking about earlier about the need to focus on the public safety portfolio elements a bit more and not duplicate what justice or other departments might say.
And so, yes, okay, so on this page, I gather this is roughly what you communicated during these briefings.
So first, noting that the Emergencies Act is a significant step, one that will help ensure law enforcement across Canada have broad and clear authority to protect public safety, ensure our borders remain open, and safeguard our national security.
And then scrolling down a bit, it's also noted that this is a message to people who are participating in these protests and interfering in critical infrastructure that there will be consequences.
And then a little bit more, the next paragraph notes that these measures will supplement existing provincial and territorial measures and assist the RCMP in becoming integrated.
I think this probably speaks a little bit to that question of avoiding the swearing in and some of that red tape.
It's important to underscore that invoking the Emergencies Act does not give the federal government the authority to direct the police services of any other jurisdiction.
So, two questions, I guess.
The first is...
Is that statement, the use of any other jurisdiction, are you saying here that using the Emergencies Act allows the federal government to direct the federal police, the RCMP?
Or are you just clarifying that nothing in the Emergencies Act changes the normal situation where the government does not direct police in their operations?
I would say it's the latter interpretation.
Okay, thank you.
But would you agree with me that while invoking the Emergencies Act doesn't give the federal government the authority to direct police services of any jurisdiction, the orders, the emergency orders that were made under the rubric of the Act, grant police new authority to enforce those measures.
Grant?
Sorry, can you...
Yes, sorry.
Well, I wasn't sure if you were finished.
That's why I was waiting.
Apologies.
Yes, I think it certainly gives them additional tools via the means of additional authorities that they can avail themselves of.
Okay, right.
And just like the criminal code gives the police certain tools, it's ultimately going to be police officers that will make determinations about the manner of enforcement?
Yes.
And ultimately, police authorities that will decide how they will exercise their discretion.
This notion of police discretion is an important piece of this.
Would you agree?
I would agree.
Okay.
And you would agree that these orders under the Emergency Act provided all police across the country with the authority to enforce these new measures?
Yes.
Okay.
And although the federal government was not directing the police service of any jurisdiction, would you agree that by invoking a federal emergency and making the emergency orders, the federal government was clearly intending to communicate a message not just to people participating in protests, but also to law enforcement of all jurisdictions, that this is something the government takes very seriously?
And we're looking to you to enforce.
Yes.
I think at some point also, Minister Blair made a comment.
This was a bit before the act was invoked.
But I think he was sharing with the media that this was something the federal government was considering.
And he said it was important that police do their jobs.
Do you recall that comment?
Not specifically, no.
But I don't disagree with the thought, I guess.
Okay.
And Mr. Stewart, in your testimony earlier, you said that enforcement, and I think this is when you were talking about the engagement proposal, but the engagement proposal was not really an alternative to enforcement.
It was something that would be used What was going on in Ottawa?
It was a question of timing.
That's correct.
Okay.
One more question related to there was a document that you were taken to before.
And this is around the relationship with the government of Ontario and the powers that they had under their Emergency Act, or their Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
And I think you noted that the Ontario legislation had more teeth than the federal legislation in terms of the penalties.
Do you recall saying that?
That's correct.
Okay.
But you would agree with me that the provincial legislation didn't allow For the kind of broad financial powers that were included in the emergency regulations invoked and enacted.
Correct.
So that the freezing of assets immediately without notice or due process is likely something that the province would not have been able to do or is not contemplated under their legislation.
It was not contemplated, and indeed, it was done under the Bank Act.
So that's a federal statute.
Can we just go back to that pb.can.401584?
This is the email chain, again, related to the technical briefing.
Sorry to jump around a little.
I'm just trying to use my time as effectively as I can.
So if we just scroll down a little bit, keep going.
Thank you.
Right there.
So, Mr. Rochon, this was, again, I think you're discussing sort of how to make the best use of everyone's time and what's a very busy time.
There was better control in the first meeting because it was one that you were checking.
Second brief was bananas.
Justice is at fault.
Can you tell us a bit about that second briefing and what happened there in terms of the communications?
Certainly.
The way these briefs are typically handled, in my experience, having gone through many of these over the course of my career, is that you normally have a moderator.
So a moderator from either department will invite, will essentially moderate a call.
This typically will happen on a teleconference line.
The teleconference line will be open to a series of stakeholders.
If it's a media event, for example, you'll have a number of media spokespeople who will be in a queue, and they, having never been on the other side, I'm not sure what technology they use, but they get into a queue in order to be able to ask questions.
Normally, a moderator will open up, will explain who is representing the government, will walk through The time that will be allotted to an opening statement by the government officials, then how much time will be allotted for questions, and whether or not questions, whether or not stakeholders are afforded to follow up to that question.
Having been a former Assistant Deputy Minister of Communications in a previous department, this is protocol that we normally follow.
Unfortunately, in light of the way these were being set up, This particular brief, from my recollection, justice was supposed to be lead.
So the first meeting was chaired by public safety.
We would have followed that protocol.
And therefore, we only would have gotten to six questions because the six questions were likely rather broad and they were followed by each a follow-up.
And we didn't...
the cutoff time of an hour, if I remember correctly, that first brief, uh, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, I meant that it was rather bananas.
Okay, so it's more, it's a question of the procedure.
Yes, absolutely.
Thank you very much.
Those are all my questions.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Next is the Canadian...
...act, noise bylaws...
...are not being enforced by the OPS because they were overwhelmed by protesters.
That's correct.
So there was this resource issue in Ottawa.
You know, not enough police officers on the ground to enforce the law.
That's correct.
So I'd like to take you to your interview summary.
And Mr. Clerk, this is WTS 6066.
And it's page 12, please.
So if we look at the third paragraph under the Ottawa Police Service heading.
What it says here, it says the DM, that's you sir, also described how there was some tension between the City of Ottawa and the federal government because Chiefs slowly wanted more assistance and questions were raised about how many RCMP officers and resources had been deployed to assist the OPS rather than to protect federal assets.
So what you're describing here is that there's this tension because Chief Slowly wants more help to address the resource issue and is asking, well, how many of these RCMP officers are really just being used to protect federal assets rather than helping us, the OPS, enforce things like the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act to deal with the protests.
Is that fair?
That is fair.
And the tension is that OPS wants more help and is questioning, well, how much help are we actually getting, right?
Right.
And you go on to say in that paragraph, the RCMP's position was that the OPS should have asked the OPP for more resources and that it was the OPP's responsibility to come and serve.
He, that's you, sir.
Explained that the RCMP felt pressed by the OPS, but that the OPP was the force that the OPS should look to pursuant to legislation.
And then there's a reference to the Ontario Police Services Act.
So there's this tension, and the RCMP is feeling pressed, and the response you're hearing coming from the RCMP is that the OPS should really go to the OPP, right?
Correct.
Not exclusively, though.
To be clear, not exclusively.
The RCMP had agreed to come with resources that they had to hand to help.
And there was some confusion around how they were counting heads and whether those people were at the disposition of the OPS or whether they were under RCMP control and potentially deployable.
So there was some confusion about that.
But at all times, there was an expectation that the OPP would come as well.
Yes, right.
The RCMP position was, well, OPS should go to the OPP first and then come to us.
Is that fair?
That is the RCMP's position as I understand it.
And so the position, you know, the response that you were getting from the RCMP wasn't, well, the OPS is asking us for help.
We should do everything we can do to give them whatever they need as soon as possible.
That wasn't the position you were hearing?
Not to that extent.
No, the RCMP's position was that they could provide some help, but to the extent that more help was required, the Ottawa Police should be asking the OPP.
Right.
And so, you know, maybe it's just me, but it kind of sounds to me like there's one level of government saying, you know, passing the buck and saying you should look to another level of government.
But I take it you don't agree with that?
I don't agree with that.
Now, this idea that the OPP was the force that the OPS should be looking to pursuant to legislation, Commission Council asked you about that in her examination, and she suggested that it was the Police Services Act, and you said, I believe so, right?
I did.
So there's this idea that's going around that there is something in the Police Services Act that means the OPS should be going to the OPP.
Primarily or first before it goes to the RCMP?
That is my understanding.
All right, so I've taken a look at the Police Services Act and I think we should bring it up.
Mr. Clerk, that's CCF 6-0's 11. And to page 15, please.
And so if we could just pause here for a moment.
So Section 9 of the Police Services Act, Section 9-1 talks about, you know, when a police service is absent or inadequate OPP assistance may be sought.
So what 9-1 says is if the Commission finds that a municipality to which subsection 4-1 applies Is not providing police services, it may request that the Commissioner have the Ontario Provincial Police give assistance.
So what it says is that it may request that the Commissioner have the Ontario Provincial Police give assistance.
And now if we scroll down to subsection 6, what it says OPS to go to the OPP.
key.
Thank you.
I agree with the way you put it.
As I understood it, in the circumstances we face, the RCMP was willing to help and did not stand on principle as to whether they were the first or the second asked.
They felt the OPP was what the Police Service should be asking.
Okay.
Technically, yes.
Okay.
Technically, that was what the RCMP's position was.
Well, not technically.
That was the RCMP's position.
Well, I understood it to begin.
You've just obviously improved my understanding that that was what the law required.
The circumstances drove a different set of considerations.
Okay.
Fair enough.
And now...
You're not aware of any other law or legislation that requires the OPS to go to the OPP for help first before seeking help from the RCMP?
I am not.
Okay, those are all my questions.
Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you.
Next to the City of Windsor.
Can everyone see me?
Yes.
Hi.
Good afternoon, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Rochon.
My name is Jennifer King.
I'm counsel to the City of Windsor.
I have some questions for you about emergency management of critical infrastructure in Canada.
Will you agree with me that local authorities play a central role in emergency management in Canada?
I would agree.
You are familiar with the current Emergency Framework for Canada 3rd Edition?
I am.
And that can be found at WIN402230.
So, Mr. Stewart, I can't see who's responding, but this is public safety's key policy framework for federal-provincial-territorial coordination with respect to emergency management in Canada, correct?
Correct.
And you'll agree with me that the framework does not directly engage with municipalities?
The framework tends to operate through the basis of provinces and territories as being the primary authority.
Okay, and the framework relies on provinces and territories to engage with local authorities?
That's correct.
The approach outlined in the framework provides for a scaling up where the provincial and federal governments step in only when local capacity is exceeded, correct?
I believe so.
And you'll agree with me that this approach requires excellent multi-level coordination?
I would agree.
Would you agree then to ensure effective coordination?
On the ground, municipalities and other local first responders should be directly engaged in Canada's framework?
I think there is a high degree of virtue in interoperability and interconnectedness across all of the first responders.
Insofar as we're talking about and ultimately requests for assistance, I believe there is a chain of authority that has to be worked through.
And shouldn't be worked around.
Okay.
Well, there are coordination instruments that are referenced in the framework.
And Mr. Rochon, I think you referred to a national strategy for critical infrastructure this morning?
I did indeed.
And the intention for this is to provide for, intended to kind of create an approach between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to emergency management with respect to critical infrastructure, correct?
Yes, not just that, but also better coordination with the private sector and all levels of government.
Okay, and all levels of government, including municipal?
Yes.
You would agree that the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor is critical infrastructure within the meaning of this national strategy?
I would be inclined to agree that it is as critical infrastructure.
However, I do want to clarify the point that we weren't operating in...
Large measure in invoking the Emergencies Act under the context that that framework speaks to.
That framework speaks to emergencies other than law enforcement emergencies.
And it doesn't address the role of the different ministries and levels of government to support a police-led response?
Well, it's obviously been some time since I've looked at it.
But I'm conveying to you my understanding here that we did not treat, in general, we did not treat the protests as an emergency management issue.
And that the framework that we have designed and agreed with provinces and territories to deploy does not typically apply to issues of public security in the sense of law enforcement.
It deals with natural disasters and the like.
So you're saying that the national strategy for critical infrastructure is not intended to address the type of protest that we saw in February?
So those are two separate things.
Emergency management is one frame where a critical infrastructure is a separate one.
And the original critical infrastructure strategy, written back in 2010, Unfortunately, there are different strata within the management of emergencies.
So, a cyber event, cybersecurity, or a national security event, a terrorist event, does not fall under the rubric of emergency management, and it would follow a different set of circumstances, as it is written now.
The new critical infrastructure strategy that we're pulling together, we're currently consulting, and we're leveraging various different tables in order to better understand how we can manage critical infrastructure going forward, and that is still a work in progress.
Okay.
Well, I think I'm running up on my time, and if I could just have one or two more minutes, I have a few questions to wrap up.
I just wanted to, perhaps I won't take you to the document, but are you aware?
You can have one or two minutes.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Are you aware that Mayor Dilkins of Windsor wrote to Minister Mendicino, Minister Blair and the Ontario Solicitor General in March indicating the need for broader collaboration and support from provincial and federal governments to bolster the safety and security of our borders?
No.
If I was aware, I've forgotten.
Okay.
Well, I don't have the time to show it to you, but I will say that Mayor Dilkens in his testimony did indicate that he went on to request a meeting to debrief emergency regulatory obligations regarding the Ambassador Bridge.
Did you discuss this request to meet with Minister Mendicino or Minister Blair?
No.
Okay.
Would you recommend that the ministers meet with Windsor provincial and federal representatives to discuss long-term needs and planning to protect Windsor's international crossings?
I would agree to the more general statement that it's important that federal and provincial ministers take lessons learned from as it pertains to protecting critical infrastructure.
Okay.
I think that's all my time.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next call on, province of Saskatchewan, please.
Good afternoon sirs.
My name is Mitch McAdam and I'm one of the lawyers for the government of Saskatchewan.
I just have a few questions for you today.
First, Mr. Stewart, in your interview summary at page 20, you indicated that you were aware of the Federal Emergencies Act back in 2020 at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and you mentioned that again this morning.
So I take it that you are involved in the discussions back in 2020 about potentially invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Isn't that true?
That is true.
And sir, I'm going to ask you a few very general questions about that time.
I have some documents that I can pull up if you need to see them, but in the interest of time, I'm not going to pull them up unless it's necessary.
But if you do need to refresh your memory, by all means, ask me to pull them up.
My questions are going to be quite general.
All right.
To begin with, sir, you'd agree with me that in that case there was a process of engagement with the provinces that spanned at least a couple of weeks?
That is my recollection.
And you'll agree with me that there was a letter that was sent by the Prime Minister to the premiers formally initiating consultations under the Emergencies Act?
That is my recollection.
And you'll agree with me that...
That letter was followed up with a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premiers to discuss the matter?
I don't have any direct knowledge of that.
I know there was a call that was organized for Minister Blair, who was Public Safety Minister at the time, with his counterparts, to have a discussion about the potential utility of the Emergencies Act.
Okay, but you're not aware of any telephone conference call involving the Prime Minister and the Premiers?
Not aware.
Okay.
And are you aware that the premiers were given about a week to provide a formal written response to the idea of invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with the pandemic?
Not in that specific sense, but I was aware that they were given an opportunity to respond.
And they were given some time to do so?
That's the specifics of it.
I don't know about it.
Okay, so if I say they were given a week, you can't agree or disagree with that?
That is correct.
Okay.
But will you agree with me, sir, that the process that was used back in 2020 when there was discussion about invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic was quite different than the process that was followed in February of this year before invoking the Act to deal with the blockades and protests?
I would agree.
Thank you, sir.
Next, sir, I'd like to ask you a few questions about the FPT meetings that were discussed this morning.
And Mr. Stewart, you talked about a meeting of deputy ministers that you attended on February 7th.
Do you recall that meeting?
Yes, it was a call.
Okay.
And Mr. Rochon, my understanding is that you attended a meeting of the FPT Crime Prevention and Policing Committee.
On February the 11th.
Do you recall that?
Yes, I believe that's correct.
Yes.
And Mr. Stewart, would you agree with me that at the meeting on February 7th, at no time did you advise the provincial officials that were on that call that the federal government was contemplating invoking the Emergencies Act?
That is correct.
And Mr. Roshan, would you agree with me at the meeting on February 11th?
At no time did you or anyone else from Public Safety Canada advise the provincial and territorial officials on the call that the federal government was considering invoking the Federal Emergencies Act.
That's my recollection, yes.
And Mr. Stewart, would you agree with me that these opportunities, the Deputy Minister's meeting that you had and the meetings of the CPP...
Committee would have been a good opportunity to discuss the potential invocation of the Emergencies Act with provincial officials?
Had the invocation of the act been a subject of active discussion, yes, but it wasn't.
Okay, so at the time of these two meetings, it wasn't under active discussion?
In the time I did the meeting, it was not.
So on February 7th, it was not?
That's correct.
Okay.
And Mr. Roshan, when you had the meeting on February 11th, was the emergency act under active discussion at that time?
I'm trying to think.
At that time, I believe the situation of a national security threat was certainly top of mind, and we were, by recollection of not having the document in front of me, My recollection is that we were looking at every available tool available to us and to provinces and territories and municipalities in order to be able to deal with the situation, the threat that seemed to be growing.
So, sorry.
Go ahead.
Mr. Stewart, you're aware of a meeting that Mr. Dacobab from your department attended with officials from Alberta, Manitoba?
13th.
That's a meeting that he reported to you by email on Sunday night.
Do you recall that?
Yes, I do.
Okay.
And at that time the invocation of the Emergencies Act was under active consideration by the federal government, wasn't it?
Yes, it was.
And your information is that Mr. Dacobab or the other officials, federal officials on that call, did not advise their provincial counterparts that the act was Under active consideration, did they?
I cannot say for certainty that any of them knew.
Okay, so you're saying the federal officials that were on the call would not have known that the Federal Emergencies Act was under active consideration at that time?
I'm not sure that they did.
I can't say for sure.
So they couldn't have advised their provincial officials of that?
Indeed, had they not known.
Okay.
And as far as you know, they didn't advise provincial officials of that.
I would agree.
Thank you.
So you're now out of time.
Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Those are all my questions.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next is the National Police Federation.
Yes.
Hello.
This is NeNe Jones for the NPF.
We have no further questions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next.
the democracy fund Good afternoon, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Rochon.
I'm Rob Kittredge, representing the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
And I only have five minutes today, so just to make efficient use of my time, I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Stewart.
So I apologize for leaving you out.
Can we bring up document SSMCAN1096 _REL.0001, please?
And this is the document that my friend representing the convoy organizers was trying to show you earlier on when he ran out of time.
Mr. Stewart, the Liberal Research Bureau is an entity within the Liberal Party that receives government funds, conducts research, and provides briefs to support the Liberal Party politicians, ministers, and MPs, right?
I'll take your word for it.
Yeah?
I'm not familiar with it.
Okay.
You're not familiar with the Liberal Research Bureau at all?
No, I have nothing to do with it.
And you've never heard of it?
Oh, I've heard of it, but I didn't know what it does.
You have no idea at all what it does?
No.
Okay.
So this document on the screen, would you agree that it appears to be a brief preparing MPs as to what they should say in response to the motion and in debate in response to the motion to support the invocation of the emergency side?
Certainly how it appears.
All right.
Can we scroll to page four, please?
Towards the bottom of page four.
Thank you.
And you can see here at the bottom of page four, it outlines the CPC's position, the BQ's position, and the NDP's position, which it indicates that the NDP will support the motion.
Would you agree with that?
That's what I observe.
Right.
And in your dealings with the ministers and elected executives, They told you that before the Emergencies Act was invoked, they already had the support of the NDP to uphold the invocation, didn't they?
No, they did not.
When did you first learn that the NDP were going to support the invocation of the Act?
Upon the vote.
Are you aware of any polling that was done to assess public support for the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Not aware.
All right.
All right.
And moving on a little bit.
Numerous witnesses from the OPP and the OPS have testified that the invocation of the Act may have been helpful, but it was not necessary to clear the protests.
Would you agree with them on that point?
I believe that the invocation of the Act provided very useful tools to law enforcement.
Useful tools, but not necessary tools.
Well...
I'm not in a position to render an opinion on that.
I would only observe, as I've observed already, that upon the invocation of the Act and the use of those tools, the protests diminished and stopped.
And that goes beyond useful.
When discussing the invocation of the Act in an email on the night of February 14th, you indicated that the emergency powers didn't bring a lot of significant benefits, didn't you?
I acknowledge that was perhaps an under.
Estimate on my part.
Right.
But at that point, you were having trouble even coming up with examples of how the emergency powers might be useful in clearing the protests, weren't you?
I was encouraging my colleague, for the purposes of doing technical briefings, to try to be more specific and clear.
Right.
But you were running out of ideas on how it might be useful.
The ideas were already on the table.
In the sense of the drafting of the various orders and measures, the issue here was how they were explained.
Right.
Provincial powers at that point hadn't been exhausted, had they?
In Ontario, I would say they had.
You would.
Your interview summary indicates that you thought that the power to compel tow trucks was important.
Do you remember that?
I do.
But really, you have no personal knowledge of whether that power was actually necessary to clear the protests, do you?
It was reported to ministers, and I was present at this time, that that was an important element and was used.
You have no knowledge at all of whether tow trucks had already been retained by the OPP prior to the invocation of the Act, do you?
I do not.
Right.
And you have no direct knowledge of whether the power to compel tow trucks was useful to police anywhere in Canada, do you?
Really?
No first-hand knowledge.
Right.
Similarly, while you suggest that the Declaration of Emergency, the financial measures, and the other emergency powers may have acted as a deterrent, you don't actually have any direct knowledge of that, do you?
Well, that's a hypothetical.
In light of my observation that the protests were significantly de-escalated and stopped, I think deterrence was a major factor.
So you'd speculate that the invocation of the act had a deterrent effect, but you don't actually know that.
That was its intent.
Pardon me?
That was its intent.
But you'd speculate that it was effective.
It's hard to observe it.
Right.
So you have no real direct knowledge that it did have that effect.
You just speculate that it had that effect.
Okay, you could call it speculation.
I would call it conclusion.
Okay, thank you very much.
Those are my questions.
Thank you.
Next, the CLA, CCCDL, Criminal Lawyers.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Can you hear me all right?
Yes.
Okay.
My name is Colleen McEwen, and I'm co-counsel for the Criminal Lawyers Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, two organizations with joint standing at the Commission.
My questions are related to the consultation process, and I'm directing them to Deputy Minister Stewart.
If the clerk could please bring up the witness summary, WTS 6066.
I'm looking specifically at page 21 in a paragraph that you've already been brought to.
It's to scroll down a bit.
With respect to the issue of consultation with provinces, do you see that paragraph?
I do.
First, I have a question of clarification.
When you say that first sentence, with respect to the issue of consultation with provinces, DM Stewart stated that there was a lot of consultation done with the provinces that was discounted because it was not premised on whether the federal government was going to decide to invoke the Act.
When you say it was discounted, can you just clarify for us who was doing the discounting or what context you're making that comment in?
What I was trying to convey there is that, to the point made by one of your colleagues minutes ago, there were expressions of points of view that there was insufficient consultation on the invocation of the Act.
And of course you understand that the Emeritus Act requires consultation in Section 25. Is that right?
That's my understanding.
And, of course, the federal government tabled with Parliament its explanation of the consultation process it undertook.
We tabled an extensive report, right.
Now back to this paragraph in the witness statement, Commission Council has already asked you what you meant by the paragraph more broadly and what I've written down in my notes, which I welcome any corrections you have as I was furiously typing, what I've written down is that you explained that you deemed these broader discussions to be consultations on the Act because the conversations were really about the substance of when there being the substance of the Act, about tools.
What was needed?
Do you remember saying?
Yes, I do.
And I just want to clarify, to the extent that you're able to answer this question, is it your view that these broader consultations, discussions, they're about tools and about substance, but not about the Emergencies Act in particular?
Is it your view that those can be considered consultations under Section 25 of the Act?
Yes.
Thank you very much.
Those are my questions.
Thank you.
Next call on the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.
Good afternoon.
My name is Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham and I'm counsel for the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.
I'm going to be directing our questions today to Deputy Stewart.
So we've heard a lot in this inquiry and even today on the topic of consultation.
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs would like to know what First Nations governments, representatives, members, or Indigenous groups did you consult with during the Freedom Convoy situation?
I'm not aware that we consulted with First Nations on matters associated with law enforcement in urban areas or at border points.
Are you aware of any efforts on behalf of the Government of Canada or police services to consult with First Nations of the territory?
Of the territory?
On which the events took place.
Oh, sorry.
Excuse me.
I am not aware.
From a public safety perspective, would you agree that it is important for the Government of Canada and Police Services to consult and cooperate with First Nations of the Territory in a situation like this, in a public order emergency event?
I would agree.
Thank you.
Are you familiar with federal legislation which came into force on June 21st, 2021 to affirm and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also known as UNDRIP?
Only superficially familiar.
If I could please ask the clerk to bring up document BCC 6-0-49, and I'd like to just quickly go to section 5, which is on page 5 of that legislation.
While the clerk brings that up, section 5 essentially mandates the Government of Canada To in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the declaration.
Can you explain at all prior to your departure in the role how laws and policies were being aligned with UNDRIP within Public Safety Canada and how that would specifically relate to a public order emergency event?
I can.
At Public Safety at the current time, there's a very significant engagement process going on with First Nations on two issues.
One, on enlarging the support for policing that's provided through a grants and contributions program called the First Nations Inuit and Inuit Policing Program.
And the other part, more significant, I would say, is on making policing, Drafting legislation, co-developing legislation to make policing an essential service.
That engagement process has been going on since the spring and has resulted in Or involved extensive consultation across the country by the minister and officials.
And does relate in its ultimate goal in ensuring that First Nations are the beneficiaries of policing services on an equal basis to other areas of the country or parts of the country.
And therefore, by extension, would be very much more engaged in the management of public order events.
Thank you.
Did you consider UNDRIP or work to implement it at all in carrying out your role and mandate within Public Safety Canada, and specifically in responding to the Freedom Convoy situation?
Well, what I just described, I think, would be consistent with UNDRIP.
And in the Convoy situation, my consultations were with federal, provincial, and territorial officials.
Okay, and just...
Sorry.
Thank you.
Just one last question.
Is public safety or policing response to a public order emergency event, from either a strategic, operational, or tactical point of view, is it different depending on who is involved in the Assembly or the event?
Should not be.
Just to follow up on that, if I can keep the same document up, but go down to page 14. Appended to the legislation is a copy of UNDRIP, and I'd like to draw your attention just very quickly to articles 26 and 28. Articles 26 and 28,
I won't read through them for timing purposes, but what they essentially say is that Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they've traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used and acquired, that states shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories, and resources, and that Indigenous peoples have the right To redress when these lands, resources, or territories have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used, or damaged without their free prior and informed consent.
Keeping in mind these articles and UNTRIP as a whole and the unique distinct legal rights that Indigenous peoples hold, does the protection and recognition of these rights, should they impact how government responds to those rights in a public assembly?
I don't believe I can answer that question.
Would you be able to confirm who you think might be able to answer that question?
Bye.
Thank you.
Insofar as it becomes a matter of interpretation of UNDRIP, I believe justice officials would be the first people to ask.
Okay, thank you very much for both of your time and thank you to the Commission for the opportunity to ask our questions.
Okay, thank you.
Next to call on the Government of Canada.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The process is you go to the OPP, that's stated, but it doesn't say then you go to the RCMP.
Do you remember that question?
I do.
We don't have to pull up that Services Act because this is more of a legal question, but Section 2 of the Police Services Act defines police force as OPP, municipal police, and does not include the RCMP.
Does that sound correct to you?
That sounds correct.
And would it be to your understanding that the Ontario government cannot pass legislation to bind the RCMP as a federal body?
That would be my understanding.
You were also asked a question about the lack of consultation with law enforcement.
Do you remember that?
I do.
I could ask you to turn to...
institutional report for public safety which is DOJ IR 708.
If you could go to the appendix, Roman numeral 2, that's page 27. And if you scroll down to page 29, well, first, this is the list of meetings attended by Yourself, Deputy Minister, just so that's what the appendix says.
Okay.
And on page 29 at the top, can you see?
February 5, it includes meetings with the Ottawa Police.
February 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th, it includes meetings with the OPP.
Do you see that?
I do.
So did you have some meetings and consultations with the OPP and Ottawa Police?
Yes.
Mr. Rochon, you mentioned that there were unknowns in talking about intelligence, I believe, in some of your answers.
And I just wanted to ask you, concerning the convoy protest, were there intelligence gaps?
I would argue there are always intelligence gaps.
That's the nature of the business.
Part of the...
Art of collecting intelligence and fusing it and assessing it is to come up with questions as to what is in the art of the possible.
Therefore, what is it that we know and what could also transpire and what do we need to protect Canada and Canadians against in terms of assessing threats?
So when it comes to the unknown, you will have seen through a number of assessments.
Whether it be from the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Center, ITAC, or PCOIAS, the Intelligence Assessment Secretariat, or indeed from RCMP or other intelligence organizations, they were always flagging the level of threat.
They would articulate it as medium and they would articulate the possibility of ideologically motivated violent extremism and the fact that a lone wolf could occur.
And so when it comes to assessing intelligence, there's always a level of what is the likelihood that something could transpire.
So when it comes to unknowns, there were many unknowns throughout the situation.
And as the situation continued to be prolonged, and indeed, as we saw it expand across the country, those questions as to whether or not a hostile state actor may be involved in terms of the funding, whether there were questions of extremist groups or...
Possible extremist factions involved.
Would this provide fertile ground for extremists to recruit?
There were counter protests that were emerging as well.
So all of that factored into a bunch of questions that I would characterize as unknowns and that needed to be taken into consideration.
So it's not just factually what did we know.
Because at the end of the day, when it comes to intelligence and when it comes to law enforcement and security, it's not about dealing with something once it happens, but it's about preventing something before it happens.
And in order to prevent it, you need to think through what could happen and put in place measures to protect Canada and Canadians.
Because you're looking ahead at threats and you want to protect them from materializing.
Is that correct?
That's a much more eloquent way of putting it, yes.
Mr. Stewart, do you have anything to add to the unknowns at the point where the Cabinet made a recommendation to invoke the Act?
Any kind of unknowns that were in mind, to your knowledge?
Well, I can only be more specific, I believe, which is to say, on the eve of enforcement in Ottawa, we knew that enforcement was challenging.
And we knew there had been some very significant negative reactions to attempts at enforcement, such that the police were deterred from doing so to any great extent until they mobilized enough of a critical mass of resources.
But even on the eve of that enforcement action, after the Emergencies Act was invoked, we had no awareness as to what was in the trucks or how people who were in the trucks would react to an enforcement action.
So you could call that an intelligence gap or just a lack of information, but we did not have a line of sight as to what would happen.
For Mr. Stewart, you mentioned the engagement proposal that was considered by Cabinet on February 12th, and you were taken to a comment that was made.
Was the fact that the Windsor proposed engagement failed earlier that day and news later that day that the Ottawa proposed agreement appeared to fail form any part of the consideration by Cabinet in its decision to not pursue your engagement proposal at that time?
And I'm talking February 12th, the day before.
I don't believe I'm at liberty to discuss what cabinet ministers said.
I think it's plausible to think that was in their minds.
You also, in response to a question, you mentioned a concern that the invocation of the Emergency Act might incite rather than calm the protest.
Do you recall that?
As I've just tried to express, yes.
In hindsight now, having seen the evolution of it, would you agree that concern did not materialize?
I would agree.
You have been taken to page 21 of your interview summary two or three times now, so I'd like to take you to that same page again for a different paragraph.
WTS number 066.
At page 21. It would be that middle paragraph that DM Stewart also stated.
That's right.
Yeah, cool.
That's right.
So where it says DM Stewart also stated that they underestimated the deterrent effect of the Act.
Dakal Bab emphasized this point, adding that prior to its invocation, provinces, including New Brunswick and Quebec, were calling him to express concerns about border blockades and protests at legislatures.
After the Act was invoked, those calls stopped.
And within a week of the Act being invoked, the protests and blockades were gone.
So, in your view of that, you're saying that the Act had a deterrent effect from your Inference, is that correct?
I am.
One last document I'd like to take you to is the actual Section 58 explanation for the invocation, which that's PB CAN 40160.
Sarah?
Oh,
Just to make sure, PBCAN, sorry, yeah, 1160.
Yeah, that's it.
So, if you go to bottom of page 5, yeah, that's it.
So, where it says violent incidents.
So, it says violent incidents and threats of violence and protests and arrests, sorry, related to the protests have been reported across Canada.
The RCMP's recent seizure of a cache of firearms with a large quantity of ammunition in Coots, Alberta, indicated that there are elements within the protests that have intentions to engage in violence.
Ideologically motivated violent extremism adherents may feel empowered by the level of disorder resulting from the protests, violent online rhetoric, increased threats against public officials, and the physical presence of ideological extremists at protests.
also indicate that there is a risk of serious violence and the potential for lone actor attackers to conduct terrorism attacks.
A question for both of you.
Can you provide any comments on this as to I believe them to be true.
And in a more general sense, I will underline a point made by my colleague that this is a devolving And the focus on violent extremism has shifted from coming from abroad to domestic.
And in the context in which we are, and I've said this, under-equipped and indeed not empowered to do the work that we need to do to pay attention to what people's intentions are.
I would note that since 2014, There has been significant domestic violent extremism.
I believe the numbers are 26 people killed and 40 injured in over a dozen attacks, often by lone wolf actors with no prior indication that they would do so.
So this is a very serious concern.
And Mr. Rochon?
The only thing I would add is that The opinion around the security and intelligence community was that the paragraph that you read was factually correct.
There were indications of potential violent acts, IMVE adherence, that we're certainly engaging online and we're making threats online.
And we needed to be mindful that those threats could materialize at any moment, given...
The growing nature of the situation both in Ottawa and across the country.
Okay.
Could you turn to the middle of page seven?
Right.
So where it starts, in addition, I'm not going to read this paragraph to you.
I'll just let you look at that and just go down the page.
I'm just going to ask a general question.
It talks about Essentially 13 protests that are being referred to directly impacting port of operations, major ports of entry operations.
So it mentions over the next page as well it continues.
So I just want you to confirm your understanding of these facts.
The report mentions 13 protests that directly impacted port of operations and disrupted them in the days leading up to this declaration.
So there's 12 in addition to the Ambassador Bridge.
More specifically, it mentions disruptions at ports of entry at the time of invocation that were still of concern.
In addition to Ambassador Bridge at Windsor, the Sarnia Blue Water Bridge, The Peace Bridge at Fort Erie, Emerson, Manitoba, Cootes, Alberta, Surrey, BC, on the way from the Pacific Highway.
Do you agree with those facts as they've been laid out?
Yes.
And I would also add, while these were clear and obvious manifestations of interference with people's ability to cross the border and commerce, there were many other slow roll convoys in other places in the country.
And so it was also a condition that they might manifest at other ports of entry or indeed elsewhere and interfere with, as we say, people's lives.
Would that be part of the unknowns?
Yes.
And at page nine...
of the same report in the lower half of the page where it starts "threats." Page nine?
Yes, stopped right there.
Yeah.
So that paragraph, it was not just port of entry or protests that we've identified so far.
It mentions that there were threats also made to block railway lines that wouldn't Result in significant disruptions to Canada's freight rail industry, in addition to service, I'm sure, of substantial monetary loss.
Can you see that there?
I can.
And what's your comment on that?
We heard about threats.
I don't believe they ever manifested as blockades on a railway line.
But two years ago in 2020, in February, we experienced that.
Occurrence, and it was a very significant event from an economic point of view.
My last question is at page 11, the bottom paragraph, or sorry, the middle paragraph.
It starts, there's significant evidence?
That's right.
There's significant evidence of illegal activity to date, and the situation across the country remains concerning.
The freedom convoy could also lead to an increase in the number of individuals who support ideologically motivated violent extremism and the prospect for serious violence.
Proponents of IMVE are driven by a range of influences rather than a single belief system.
IMVE is more often caused by a combination of ideas and grievances resulting in a personalized worldview.
A resulting worldview often centers on the willingness to incite, Do you have any comment on, for both of you, that paragraph?
I think it accurately reflects the views of officials and the government when the Emergency Act was invoked.
Exactly.
I mean, what I was trying to explain earlier on today when I was asked the question is captured in that paragraph and that there was the threat that the longer that...
This situation was allowed to happen, the more likely it was that IMVE groups would take advantage of it, and that was a significant concern for the security intelligence community.
Those are my questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Any re-examination or reply?
Just one area briefly, Commissioner.
Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Stewart, this is just...
An area of questioning arising from the questions you were asked around police independence and also relating to some evidence that we heard from Mr. DiTomaso last week.
So, Mr. Clerk, can I just ask you to pull up...
Now I've lost the document number.
opp i think four zeros four five eight three So, while that's coming up...
Mr. Stewart, this is a text exchange between Commissioner Luckey and Commissioner Karik.
We can go to page 52 of the document.
Bottom right hand corner.
Yeah, there we go.
Okay, so just scroll up a little bit.
So starting at the text that says, so the green here is Commissioner Karik and the blue is Commissioner Lucky.
And the context of the conversation is with respect to the potential new chief coming into OPS.
So Commissioner Karik writes, with respect to your comments yesterday, I agree.
We need to ensure OPS leaves Steve in play until we have done what we need to do.
Introducing a new external player in the short term will set us back.
Commissioner Luckey then replies, "I will see what I can do to get them to delay bringing in an interim chief if you think that will help." Commissioner Karik responds, "If you have some influence, I think it would be helpful.
our ministry policing advisor is going to suggest the same name.
Just going to the next page, 10/4 says Commissioner Leckie and then Then she says, "Had DM Stewart reached into Steve Kay, Ottawa City Manager?
He assures that they are very sensitive to this, keen for the ICC, plan to proceed, and don't want Bell to be replaced." Rob, Rob being you, got the sense that there's a lot of political infighting going on.
And then Commissioner Cree says, "Thanks Brenda.
We've made the same recommendation by the province.
Hopefully they stay the course." Okay, so first thing.
Can you tell us first about that conversation that you had with Commissioner Lucky?
When did she reach out to you?
Do you remember?
No, not in specific terms.
I mean, we talked often several times a day.
Okay.
Do you remember this conversation?
I do.
What did she raise?
What were her concerns?
Well, more or less as expressed by the city manager there, that they wanted to...
Keep the ICC, which they just agreed to not that long before, and its ability to, you know, execute on a plan, going.
And they worried that that would be set back.
They were ready to go on the 16th of February.
So that was the message.
And I undertook to talk to Steve Canelakos and his answer as she represents it, that the city...
I was not going to get an interim chief.
They were going to go with Acting Chief Bell.
Do you remember when you called Mr. Kanellaka?
Well, sometime in that timeline, I would say.
Fair enough.
And what did you tell him and how did he respond?
I would have said to him, I'm hearing from probably just directly the commissioner that there are concerns about, you know, changing up the guard here in Ottawa.
What's your plan?
I would ask him the question.
And do you remember what he replied?
Kind of paraphrased by this message.
Okay.
And the reference here to a lot of political infighting, can you explain or elaborate on that at all?
Um...
It is my understanding that what the Ottawa Police Board was doing was working to Find an interim chief.
And police boards, by their nature, are independent from the municipal government, although they're chaired by a councillor.
And it had not been known that they were doing that to anybody.
And that when it surfaced as an issue, it caused some consternation.
At the senior level in the city government.
And then as an observational point, I would only say that within a couple of days, I believe there was a city council meeting in which the chair of the police board was forced to resign.
That's correct.
So did that come up on the call you had with Mr. Canelacos, the potential removal of the chair or?
Only tangentially.
Did he mention that he'd be speaking to the Chair about?
No, he didn't.
No, he just said the Mayor is upset.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
Can we now just pull up an extract from Mr. DiTomaso's testimony?
PRN 21 at round page 244, please.
Okay.
Sorry, 250, apparently, of the PDF.
Okay.
So I'm just going to take you through Mr. DiTomaso's comments on that exchange and ask you for your view.
So starting at the very bottom, Commission Council goes through the exchange and then asks Mr. DiTomaso, to what extent were you aware of these discussions that were being had with respect to the Chief of Police in Ottawa?
And on the next page, Mr. DiTomaso replies, not aware at all.
And what my position was with regards to the selection of the next chief, that was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Police Services Board, and I certainly didn't want my advisor to interfere with that at all.
Okay, says Commission Council, and the discussions that are being had here, would you agree that this is impermissible, the kind of political interference and something that's in the exclusive purview of the board?
Mr. DiTomaso says, I don't know whether anyone followed up with these actions at all, but I made it clear to both Ken Wetherill and the advisor that they were not to interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of the board, and it was the board's sole responsibility to select the next chief full stop.
And then Commission Council asks, so if these actions had been taken, is it your view that this would have been improper?
And Mr. DiTomaso says, yes.
Can we just get your views on that as well, Mr. Stewart?
Sorry, this is a domain of Mr. DiTomaso's of which I'm really very unfamiliar.
I don't understand or have deep knowledge of the operation of local police governance.
That's fair enough.
Thank you.
Those are my questions.
Okay.
Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
You're now free to go.
We appreciate your coming to testify at the Commission.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you very much.
I think we'll take the afternoon break, 15 minutes, and when we come back, there's a new panel.
15 minutes.
The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes.
The 15-minute break.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Order a look.
The Commission has reconvened.
Okay.
We have two new witnesses.
We do indeed.
Shantona Choudhury for the Commission, for the record.
Our new witnesses, we're changing gears completely.
Heard from Public Safety all day so far, and now we're going to Global Affairs.
So, the Commissioners called Ms. Cindy Termis-Huyston and Mr. Joe Coe-Martin to the stand.
Ms. Tremorsheisen, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
I wish to affirm.
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
Cynthia Tremorsheisen, do you want both names spelled?
Yes, please.
C-Y-N-T-H-I-A-T-E-R-M-O-R-S-H-U-I-Z-E-N.
Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by you to this commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do.
Thank you.
Mr. Camarten, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
I'll swear in the Bible.
Okay.
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
Joseph Comartin, J-O-S-E-P-H-C-O-M-A-R-T-I-N.
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.
Mr. Commissioner, I'll just note that I'll be conducting the first half of the examination, then my colleague, Ms. Dahlia Shuhebar, will be taking over.
So, good afternoon, Mr. Morseisen, Mr. Comartin, thank you for being here.
We'll just start by introducing your witness summary.
So, Mr. Clerk, can you pull up WTS 60526?
Okay.
You'll recall having sat for an interview on August 23rd with Commission Council?
Yes.
Yes.
And you've had a chance to review this interview summary?
Yes.
Okay.
And you'll note that certain interviewees who are present at the interview are not present today, namely Ms. Martin-Morgan, Deputy Minister, Mr. Loken, Mr. Sébastien Beaulieu.
Can you confirm on your own behalf that you've reviewed the summary and that it's accurate to the best of your knowledge?
And that insofar as it contains the information provided by your absent colleagues, they have reviewed and accepted it as well?
Yes.
Yes.
Then the second, just a little piece of housekeeping, is the institutional report.
So Mr. Clerk, that's DOJ IR 702.
So, Ms. Morseisen, do you recognize this as the institutional report provided by Global Affairs Canada?
Yes.
And you've reviewed it?
Yes.
And you confirm that it's accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, so I'll just start now by asking each of you to introduce yourselves.
So, starting with you, Ms. Morseisen, can you tell us, well, I understand you're the Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Can you just tell us briefly, describe that role?
Sure.
So maybe just by way of context, Global Affairs Canada has four deputy ministers.
There's a deputy minister of international trade, of foreign affairs, and international development.
And then there's a fourth deputy minister, which is my role, which is the associate deputy minister of foreign affairs.
And so in that role, I support the deputy minister of foreign affairs and the minister of foreign affairs.
The overall management of the department, but also in the management of foreign policy files that are delegated to me.
Okay.
And the Deputy Minister, as we've seen, is Ms. Marta Morkin, or at least was at the time of the convoy, I think, recently changed.
That's correct.
She retired, but she was at the time of the convoys.
Okay.
And the Minister of Foreign Affairs is Ms. Minani Ujiri?
Exactly.
Okay.
And Mr. Komartin, can you tell us your position, your position as Consul General of the Destroyer?
Detroit Consulate, but tell us a little bit about what that role involves.
Yes, I was Consul General in Detroit until the end of September of this year.
The Consulate is responsible for four states in the United States: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
I would say our primary work is divided between certainly consular affairs, but that's a small part of what we do.
The other major part is a Breakdown between the trading relationship between the two countries and the amount of work that we do in terms of contacts, mostly with the business community.
The other side of the office deals with political and academic and people like that.
Okay.
I'll now ask you to describe at a very high, broad level.
How each of your roles was engaged at the time of the convoy.
So during the convoy, generally speaking, what was your role in all of this?
So, for instance, Mr. Morrisheisen, I understand that you essentially oversaw GAC's response, GAC being Global Affairs Canada's response to the events as they were unfolding of the Freedom Convoy.
Is that right?
That's correct.
So at the time where the convoys were starting, we actually had another...
Crisis situation brewing, which was the imminent invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
Deputy Minister Morgan made the decision that she would focus on Ukraine primarily and would delegate responsibility to me to handle the headquarters aspects of the convoy-related issues.
My primary role at the time was to participate in the...
Regular meetings of the DMOC, the Deputy Minister's Operations Committee that I think you've heard about earlier in these sessions.
And then also I engage with a number of colleagues in the department, particularly our colleagues responsible for North America relations, and then also colleagues in protocol, which is a part of the department that is responsible for supporting foreign missions in Canada.
We'll be getting into all of that.
DMOC is one acronym that we actually have learned today, but thank you for...
There's a lot, and especially in global affairs, it's challenging.
And our understanding is that, along with Deputy Minister Morgan, Minister Jolie's time was very much occupied by Ukraine during this period.
Is that accurate?
Absolutely.
She also was very focused on Ukraine.
Now, Mr. Co-Martin, can you tell us at a high level what your involvement was during the time of the convoy?
I'd have to say it was mostly reactive.
We were being contacted both from elected officials, particularly from Michigan, but also from Ohio, and a good number of senior business people, particularly from the auto industry and the manufacturing sector.
As well, some from the agricultural sector, basically looking for, I guess, information from us as to how the blockade at the Windsor-Detroit bridge was going to be dealt with.
Okay, so essentially interacting with U.S. officials and business stakeholders.
We'll be looking at some specific examples of that.
But before we get there, can you just tell about the very early days of the convoy?
When did the convoy hit the radar, so to speak, at GAC?
I would say it probably hit the radar when it did for a lot of average Canadians.
We first started hearing about a convoy potentially coming to Ottawa.
It's sort of late January.
And so we were very much following the news.
And that would be when we first were aware of it.
Okay.
And within the department, what was the reaction at that point or response?
So I think the initial...
That response was like a response to maybe other protests that had happened in the past in Ottawa.
I mean, Ottawa is the capital city and so protests are not infrequent.
And so I think...
My own early thoughts were, I wonder what kind of road closures there will be.
We might have to ask staff to redirect.
So initially it was, I think, that kind of response.
And then, of course, as the convoy actually came to Ottawa and settled in, there were other reactions.
And you were attending the daily DMOC meetings as they were happening on behalf of GAC?
Yeah, so the daily DMOCs didn't start until I think it was around February the 10th.
According to my recollection, the first DMOC discussion that I attended where the convoy was a specific topic of conversation was January the 31st.
So I think that's when it started to be a topic of discussions interdepartmentally that I was a part of.
So that would be the Monday after the first weekend, essentially.
I'll take your word for it that it was Monday.
It doesn't matter too much day of the week, but that's the approximate moment in time.
Okay.
So what would you say that the GAC's mandate became very engaged?
I think initially the mandate was around wanting to ensure that we were living up to our obligations under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations.
So this is the international legal instrument under which we're responsible for ensuring the security of diplomatic missions in Canada.
And so in the downtown core area that was affected by the convoy initially, There were about 50 diplomatic properties.
Most of them were embassies, a couple of them official residences, so those are the homes of ambassadors or high commissioners.
And so the department under that legal instrument has a particular responsibility to ensure the safety and security of diplomatic missions and their staff, and to ensure that they're able to access their facilities unimpeded.
That their consular clients are able to attend to those buildings.
So that was the early area of focus for us.
And this was primarily done at the working level in the early days.
And then the second aspect of our mandate that really started to come into play a little bit later was with the blockades of various border crossings.
And particularly the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge became an enormous area of focus just because it's such an important crossing.
About 25 percent of our trade with the United States goes over the Ambassador Bridge.
So that's when there started to be an enormous amount of engagement, particularly with U.S. officials, but also concerns that we started to have about our reputation as an international trading country and as a country that was safe for investment.
And that started to come up as we headed into.
to sort of the 7th and 8th of February and thereafter.
Okay.
We'll come back to all of that.
My colleague, Ms. Yuhebar, will be asking me some more specific questions about the missions.
And I'll be asking you some questions now about your engagement with U.S. officials and what you were hearing.
But before we get there, I just want to set the stage contextually a little bit.
Some things that you brought up in your interview and are also referred to in the institutional reports and in the documents.
So you've mentioned that Ukraine was a crisis the GAC was dealing with at the time as well.
And there's a couple of other contextual elements.
So, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask you to bring up PB CAN 5-0's 27. And if you can just scroll down to page 3. There we go.
So this is a tweet from Representative Elisa Slotkin that's mentioned several times in the documents we received from GAC.
First of all, who's Representative Slotkin?
Can you tell us?
Maybe I'll direct that to Mr. Cobartin, who knows this better than I do.
She's a member of the House of Representatives at the federal level in the United States.
As an interesting background, she actually was...
She was posted a number of times in Iraq.
She has a military background.
And I believe also some association with CIA at one period of time.
But this particular quote, frankly, was of concern to us in terms of the context.
She was speaking about the impact the blockade was having at one of the auto plants that is in her district.
Okay, so we'll just take a moment to read through that quote.
It's a tweet, I believe on February 3rd is the date, and it says, sorry, just scroll up a tiny bit.
Thank you.
Maybe later than that.
If we needed another example of why supply chains matter, look no further.
It might be the 9th.
The blockade of the Ambassador Bridge, that's right, so I think it's the 9th.
The busiest border crossing in America is already creating major disruptions for our businesses in Michigan.
Just scroll down a little, Mr. Clerk.
The next tweet, she says, Michiganers have been saying for decades that when our manufacturing is outsourced too much, we end up paying the price.
It doesn't matter if it's an adversary or an ally.
We can't be this reliant on parts coming from foreign countries.
I've been in contact with the White House today about the situation.
They're closely following these events.
We're waiting for Prime Minister Trudeau's way forward.
So, yes, thank you for the correction on the date.
I believe it's the 9th.
And then she goes on to say, the one thing that couldn't be more clear is that we have to bring American manufacturing back home to states like Michigan.
If we don't, it's American workers like the folks at Delta Township who are left holding the bag.
So can you tell us a little bit generally about that concept of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. and what was going on generally in the zeitgeist at the time?
So maybe I'll start and Mr. Comartin might want to add.
A couple of different things that I would point to.
First, from a Canadian perspective, we were quite concerned because, of course, the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge was happening after two years of COVID, where we're already seeing supply chains quite stressed.
A lot of businesses were already under considerable strain.
And so I think there was a lot of concern on the part of businesses that was exacerbated by that background.
The second issue is that we have over many, many years had to fight very hard for access to American markets and also for the supply chains, including with respect to the auto industry in Canada.
There's a strong trend towards Buy America in the United States and also a strong trend among some parts of the U.S. political class to bring manufacturing back to the United States.
And so there's an ongoing effort by Global Affairs, by other federal departments, but also by provincial governments and our missions in the United States to continually make the case that Canada is a reliable trading partner and also a reliable investment partner.
And so that's very much the context behind this.
So this tweet would essentially be an example of that bring manufacturing back home sentiment.
Absolutely.
Mr. Co-Martin, would you have anything to add to that?
Well, just that this was the, her comments were the strongest that we had from any of the elected representatives.
I think it reflected to some degree the passion she feels for her district, but it also reflects a certain level of ignorance in terms of the relationship, the treaty relationship we have between ourselves, Canada, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.
Which we'd just gone through in the previous couple of years of renegotiating that agreement.
And this idea of bringing back manufacturing to the United States, even from allies, would have been a complete contradiction of that agreement.
So you're referring to the renegotiation of NAFTA?
Yes.
Okay, well, let's start looking at some of the specific examples of communications or statements that were made by U.S. officials.
I don't know if you want to start, or please do start, actually, by giving a general overview of what you were hearing, Mr. Cope Martin.
Well, a great deal of concern coming from the elected both senators and members of the House of Representatives.
I was dealing with those who were from my...
I think one of the messages was the impact it was having on the supply chain.
They also were expressing repeatedly.
I got messaging to the extent that why isn't Canada doing more?
Their analysis was that the three levels of government were not cooperating, didn't have a coordinated plan.
That was the kind of perception they had.
Of what was going on.
And that was difficult for us to respond to in the first couple of days.
Certainly by the 10th and the 11th, we were able to point out that we were dealing with specific responses.
That message was quite strong, that they did not see that all levels of government were responding in a coordinated fashion.
at this point mr clerk can you pull up pb can four zero sixteen sixty one So, I appreciate this isn't an email that either of you received.
It is...
Your colleague, Mr. Komar, I'm sorry, Martin Loken, who's the Deputy Head of Mission, Foreign Policy and National Security at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.
And he's writing to Jody Thomas, whom we've heard is the National Security Advisor.
And he says at the bottom here, concern about Ottawa's situation now overshadowed by the blocked ambassador bridge and supply chain disruptions.
There is a sense Canada is not devoting enough resources, human or otherwise, to dislodge the truckers.
So is that an example of what you were just telling us about that sentiment?
And that's something that Mr. Logan was hearing and you were hearing as well?
Yes, we were hearing that directly from the White House.
He was, and I was getting it locally in my territory.
Okay, and Mr. Morseisen, you were hearing that as well?
That's right.
We were also hearing that directly from the United States Embassy here in Ottawa.
And then also there were a number of conversations at the ministerial level between various departments where similar concerns were being conveyed.
All right.
Then if we can just turn up SSM CAN 50442.
And just scroll down a little bit, please.
So this is a public statement by Governor Whitmer.
So that's the governor of Michigan, I take it?
That's correct.
Okay.
And scroll down a little bit.
She says, at the beginning, my message is simple.
Reopen traffic on the bridge.
Scrolling down onto the next page.
It is imperative that Canadian local, provincial, and national governments de-escalate this economic blockade.
They must take all necessary and appropriate steps to immediately, safely reopen traffic so we can continue growing our economy, supporting good-paying jobs, and lowering costs for families.
So I can just ask you, so this statement, I believe the date was February 9th as well.
And this was a public statement made.
So in addition to direct communications being made to you, there were politicians making public statements.
And what was the purpose of that, do you believe?
I think the public statements were very much an opportunity to send a message not only to the Canadian government, but also, I would suspect, to their own publics to make clear that they were...
Working hard to do something about this situation.
I mean, the impact of the closure of the Ambassador Bridge was almost immediate, particularly on the auto sector, which Mr. Comartin would know better than me is a critical part of the Michigan economy and, of course, of the Ontario economy as well.
Mr. Comartin, why don't you tell us a bit now about what you were hearing from the auto industry, from who and what they were saying?
Well, starting on the...
Late in the day on the 7th, which is when it first got shut down, we were already hearing from them of having to shut down lines of production.
They were beginning to look at alternate ways of moving the product across, which was primarily going to be, it turned out they were already looking at it, but primarily at the Blue Water Bridge up at Sarnia, Port Huron.
And other methodologies of trying to move their product.
They were...
Trying to wear my diplomat hat here for a second.
They were much more aggressive.
That's not the right term.
They were much more forceful in their comments about the fact that Canada had to get their organization in place and get this stopped right away.
um mr clerk can we pull up ssm nsc can four zeros 1605 Scroll down to page three, please.
Okay, so this is a weekly advocacy report that sort of recaps what happened over the course of...
February 7th to 11th.
And the first thing addressed, essentially, it recaps some of the conversations you've had, Mr. Comart.
And so I'm hoping you can take us through a few of these with the assistance of the notes here.
So the first thing that's mentioned is a call that you had with Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence.
And I believe that was in response to a public statement that she had made the day before or earlier, also calling on the Canadian government to do something about the Ambassador Bridge.
That is accurate, but it also was, she had been wanting a call with the ambassador, our Canadian ambassador in Washington, and who was not available at that particular time.
So it was offered that I would speak to her.
Initially, I've had several contacts with her before, you know, worked on a number of items of relative interest to the two jurisdictions.
So that's how the call came about.
And she did, I believe, subsequently have a call with the Ambassador.
The important part about her role is that both the Ambassador Bridge and the tunnel are in her district, as is the new crossing that's being built currently.
So she has a major interest in the impact that this was having.
Automotive plants and other manufacturing plants that were being negatively impacted already.
Okay.
If we can just scroll down a little bit more, Mr. Clerk, the second call that's mentioned is with Congresswoman Dangle.
Can you tell us a bit about the context of that one?
Yeah, I've had quite a lengthy contact with her prior to the blockade.
I had pushed for this call because she had been on As It Happens.
CBC the night before, and that would have been on the 10th, and had made some, which surprised me quite frankly, because we've always had a very close working relationship, and she has with Canada as well, and made some statements that were fairly close to what the statements were that you saw from Lisa Slotkin.
So I wanted to raise that with her, and so we had a good conversation.
I had asked her, in keeping with what calls I had had with Representative Kildee and with Senator Peters, that we were seeking from them, for them when they were talking about this in public, that they would stress the importance of the relationship between Canada and the United States.
And she assured me in the course of this conversation that she would attempt to do that going forward.
I think the other...
At this particular time, so it was easier for me, I think, to convince her to be sympathetic, was the injunction either had been granted.
I think that call was in the morning.
The injunction was granted by the Superior Court in Windsor later that day, and I had seen, I had assured her that I had expected it would be a positive order and the injunction would be granted.
So, you know, proof positive, I guess, that we were.
As a jurisdiction, we're moving on this.
Taking some action.
Okay.
And then the next call referred to, just scrolling down a bit, is the Detroit Regional Chamber on February 10th.
Yeah, President Ruru has been a longtime friend.
He's the head of the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, which takes in not only the city of Detroit, but a number of the municipalities in southern Michigan.
It's the most influential chamber in the state.
And again, he was speaking forcefully.
This was the day before I had told him the injunction had been sought, but had been kicked over to the following day.
But was quite positive in willingness, I guess, to send his messaging out to his membership and to the general public about the importance of the relationship.
That it was a strong one and needed to be preserved.
Okay.
And the next series of calls that are mentioned are the OESA and MEMA.
Can you tell us about those conversations, who those are, those organizations, and what was said?
They're both basically manufacturing associations.
the OSA, Stairs for Original Equipment Suppliers Association, and then the Motor Equipment Supplies.
Again, we've had extensive contact with these associations over the years.
They're very knowledgeable of the importance of the supply chain relationship between the two countries.
They were, Ms. Frieda in particular was upset.
She had raised the concept of the Emergency Act I don't think she understood the The act itself, but wanted that.
At that point, my information was that it was not being considered.
I didn't have any indication to the opposite and indicated some of the other things that we were doing.
Again, this call took place on the 11th, the day the injunction of it granted.
And I think this call took place after it was granted.
So I was able to say, we've got that.
And at that time, I think I also knew that the province was moving on their emergency legislation as well.
Okay, so that's February 11th, and you were specifically asked by Ms. Freem whether the Canadian government was planning on or intending to invoke emergency legislation, and your information at that time was no.
That was what I had to communicate to her.
Okay.
I think in the interest of time, we'll leave that document.
Can we pull up Mr. Clerk PB CAN 5038?
Okay.
Page one, bottom half.
Okay, that's exactly where we're supposed to be.
Thank you.
So this is an email from Stefano Marin.
Who's that?
Can you identify who Stefano Marin is?
He's an employee at our embassy in Washington.
Okay, and he's writing to Ambassador Hillman and Mr. Locus and Mr. Comartin are both copied on this.
He's giving an overview of the situation, key takeaways, and one of the things he says about...
He's talking about a conversation with Representative Kildee.
Can you just tell us who Representative Kildee is?
He is a representative for one of the districts in Michigan.
I think the important thing to know about him in terms of his background is he was a strong proponent of the tax credits for the Thank you.
And they've been strong on pushing this, that these credits were going to be limited to batteries having to be built in the United States as opposed to in Canada and Mexico.
So his support that we were trying to get to have them agree that the...
Credit should be granted to vehicles or batteries built in both Mexico and Canada.
His support was really important that we were able to do that, which we eventually did.
But at this period of time, it was still up in the air.
And so we really needed to get him on side as much as we possibly could.
Okay.
So Representative Kildee is someone that you essentially needed on your side in this battle.
Okay.
What Mr. Loken mentions in this email, he emphasized the shared nature of the challenge, referencing American support, including through funding for the convoys in Canada, and then the many ways in which the officials are working together.
Is that something that you were hearing about as well?
American funding, American support for the convoys in Canada?
So maybe I'll start, and again, Mr. Comartin may need to add something, but there were a number of concerns, first of all, about American citizens funding through some of the kind of crowdfunding platforms that were being used by the convoy, and in fact...
There was information when one of these crowdfunding platforms was hacked that a very large percentage of the funding was actually coming from US sources.
So that was something that...
I was aware of.
And there was also concern about the Ottawa 911 number being flooded, and many of the callers were actually from the United States, and this prevented auto emergency services from appropriately doing their work.
And I believe both of these issues were referenced in the call that took place between President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau around this time.
And I think these were referred to as well.
I think that's right, and we'll probably be hearing more about that as the next couple of weeks unfold.
For now, I think you've given us a good overview of what you were hearing from the United States, so we're going to move to other countries now.
Mr. Clerk, if you can pull up ssm.nsc.can50156, please.
Thank you.
So this is the material that was prepared for you, Mr. Morseisen, skipping a little ahead in time on February 14th, but it gives a bit of a summary of some of the things that were being said.
So if we can just scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk, to where it says top-level messaging there.
GATT continues to monitor the situation in the U.S. and around the world, concerned that the Canadian quote-unquote model is being exported.
And that the Canadian flag is being misused as a symbol to fuel protests and capitals around the world, e.g.
France, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand.
Can you tell us about that, Mr. Morseisen, what you were hearing, what was going on?
Sure.
I mean, one of the things that we are always worried about is Canada's reputation abroad, and that's for a number of reasons.
From an economic perspective, we are a very trade and investment-dependent economy.
Over 60% of the value of our GDP is made up of international trade in goods and services.
We're a particularly trade-dependent country, and so we need to maintain a strong and positive reputation as a place where people can safely trade and invest and do business.
And part of that sort of positive trading and investment climate is a climate where the law is respected.
And so clearly what we were saying during this period was...
I think we were also really concerned from a broader reputational perspective that our flag was being used in some of these copycat protests that were happening around the world.
The flag is a symbol of our country, and it was being used, frankly, as a symbol of defiance of the law.
We were quite concerned about those reputational impacts.
Okay.
We're going to come back to some of the copycat protests in this, but I just want to take you to something else right now because it came up.
Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM NSC CAN 50141, please?
Okay, so again, this is some material that I believe was...
Being prepared for you in preparation for a DMOC, Mr. Morris Heisen.
We'll scroll down a little bit to page two, please.
There we go.
Impact on Canada, U.S. So this is going to the trade impact that you mentioned.
So it says there's a high level of U.S. concern on implications on flow of goods, ripple effect of protests across the U.S. Then it says immediate trade impact, $2.4 billion a day, two-way trade, $500 million via Ambassador Bridge alone.
And then some talk about the longer-term impact and pressure on for nearshoring supply chains.
So first of all, was GAC doing its own economic analysis or analysis of trade impact, or where did this information come from?
Do you know?
So I don't know what the exact source of these particular stats were.
We do have a chief economist at Global Affairs Canada.
And so our chief economist, in particular, one of the areas that she and her team monitor is our international trade performance.
And so she and her team will regularly produce stats.
On those issues.
So these may have come from our chief economist.
I can't confirm that.
We did not do, to my knowledge at least, detailed economic assessments of the specific impact.
I believe other departments were doing that, including the Department of Finance and possibly the Department of Transport.
But specific economic impact assessments weren't being done, to my knowledge, by Global Affairs Canada.
Okay, so you had less knowledge of the specifics and more of the broader picture.
Is that fair?
That's right.
I mean, we would definitely, as a department, have information on, you know, sort of average daily trade on the scale of the trading relationship with the United States, trade flows, that kind of thing.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
We'll go back now to SSM and SCCAN 156.
Sorry.
Sorry.
We can scroll down to page two, please.
Keep scrolling.
Keep scrolling.
Okay, so we're talking now about what happened in Wellington being New Zealand, the Super Bowl.
Can you just give us a bit of an overview of those concerns?
Sure.
One of the things that we were monitoring is the extent to which the convoy protests and economic blockades in Canada were being copied, if you will, in other countries.
And I would say probably the largest...
Copycat protest that we saw was in Wellington, sort of quite similar phenomenon of large numbers of protests entrenching, protesters entrenching themselves around the parliamentary precinct in Wellington.
We also saw other protests of smaller scale in The Hague, in Paris.
There were some smaller ones, I think, in Rome, in Sweden.
So we were monitoring these protests.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
The next document I'd like to pull up is SSM NSC CAN 50703.
So this, again, is on the topic of concerns being heard from other countries.
This is an email sent by Ralph Goodale.
So can you just tell us what Mr. Goodale's position is?
Yes, Mr. Goodale is Canada's High Commissioner to London, England.
Okay.
And he was writing to a number of people at Global Affairs.
Can we scroll down, please, Mr. Clerk?
Two themes, he says.
There's disbelief that this is happening in Canada of all places, and no one wants this to become an unwelcome Canadian export as the protests spread elsewhere.
Are you familiar with this email?
Yes, I am.
Okay.
Can you tell us a little bit about what Mr. Goodale was saying?
You have it in front of you for your reference, but where this email came from and what was being expressed and why?
So we had asked a number of our missions abroad.
Well, I can't say exactly what Mr. Goodale was thinking when he wrote this.
My interpretation of this is that, you know, a lot of people that he was talking with were surprised that in Canada you would see protests like this where there was widespread violation of the law.
And that this wasn't the kind of protest that people would associate with Canada.
And I think also one of the things that we were talking about at the time was also the significant impact of disinformation on the climate here in Canada and abroad.
So that was how I interpreted his message.
Okay, and if we can just scroll down to the next page, please.
There.
That's the last paragraph, the concluding paragraph of Mr. Goodell's email.
He says, two consequences need to be watched very carefully.
The negative economic and reputational impacts from trade disruptions and the possible impression that Canadian police, security, and intelligence systems are incapable of responding effectively to blatant, large-scale illegal conduct.
Elaborate a bit on that concern.
So I talked about it a little bit earlier, but from a Canadian government perspective, we always need to ensure that we remain a country that is seen as welcoming.
To foreign investment, to international trade.
Those are really some of the foundations of our economic prosperity.
And one of the foundations of being able to have that kind of trade and investment environment is to have the rule of law.
And I think there were real concerns, as Mr. Goodale is expressing here in his email.
That perhaps Canada was not able to respond effectively to some of the illegal actions that we were seeing in the protests.
And then I think more broadly, it's not just about that trade and investment environment.
It's also the fact that Canada wants to protect its reputation more broadly as a country where there was rule of law alongside democracy.
Okay.
The last question I'll ask you in closing has to do specifically with the Section 58 explanation provided by the government.
It's one line.
We can pull it up if you'd like to have it in front of you or I can just read it to you.
Sure.
Okay.
uh com 50670 Okay, I think it's the bottom of page one.
Yeah, there we go.
Bullet number three references as part of the justification for the Emergencies Act, the adverse effects resulting from the impacts of the blockades on Canada's relationship with its trading partners, including the U.S., that are detrimental to the interests of Canada.
So the reference there is to its relationship with its trading partners in the plural.
Did you hear any concerns directly from trading partners other than the US?
Or was it primarily the US?
So, I think the overwhelming focus was the United States.
And, you know, in part that's because 75% of our trade is with the United States.
So, it's overwhelmingly our largest trading partner.
Also, the United States is overwhelmingly our largest investor.
About 50% of all foreign investment in Canada is from the U.S. So, it's not surprising that the U.S. would dominate that conversation.
That said, just to give an example, some of the key companies that were directly affected by the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge were actually not U.S. companies.
Korean and Japanese companies.
So both Toyota and Honda experienced immediate effects in Ontario as a result of the blockade and the inability to get parts.
So while we didn't hear directly from those countries, clearly those major foreign investors from other countries were directly affected.
And so we were concerned about the perceptions of other trading partners in terms of their view of Canada as a safe place to do business.
Thank you.
Those are my questions.
I'll turn it over to my colleague now.
Good afternoon.
For the record, I'm Dalia Zahibar with the Commission.
So I have some questions for you, Ms. Termas-Heysen, about the missions and embassies in Ottawa.
And so you mentioned earlier the Office of Protocol.
Can you just explain?
Speak a little bit.
Oh, sorry.
Yes.
Can you explain in a bit more detail what the Office of Protocol is?
Sure.
So within Global Affairs, we have an Office of Protocol that has a number of responsibilities.
One of its responsibilities is to support both incoming and outgoing high-level visits.
So the Office of Protocol supports visits in and outgoing that are related to the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, and the Ministers of Global Affairs Canada.
But it also has a specific responsibility with respect to the diplomatic corps in Canada.
So there are about 8,000 diplomats accredited to Canada.
They're across the country, but of course, given that Ottawa is the capital city, they are heavily concentrated in Ottawa and many of the embassies and consulates.
Located across the country would engage with us.
There's a whole range of things that we take care of for them.
We take care of their accreditation.
We provide advice, help with a lot of the documentation for them.
And we have, as I mentioned earlier to your colleague, a very specific responsibility to the diplomatic presence here in Canada under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relationship.
And that governs all of our obligations under international law with respect to diplomats here in Canada.
I understand that the office was receiving some complaints from missions during this period.
Can you elaborate on those?
That's correct.
So we have a mechanism whereby...
Embassies or any diplomatic presence or diplomat can lodge formal complaints or concerns with the Office of Protocol.
And we have on record a number of embassies based in Ottawa raising concerns about the impact of the convoy protests in Ottawa on their ability to function effectively.
I should also note that in addition to That formal channel with the Office of Protocol.
There are also informal channels of communication with our geographic branches in Global Affairs Canada.
So we have branches that are responsible for Europe and the Middle East, for Africa, for North America.
And for Asia Pacific.
And so there are daily conversations between missions and those parts of the department.
And we wouldn't necessarily have formal records, but we do understand that there were also complaints lodged through those more informal mechanisms.
So did they have any security concerns or what kind of concerns did they have in particular?
So we heard a range of concerns.
A lot of the concerns were around access.
It was very hard to get into the downtown core with any kind of vehicle, personal or otherwise.
There were a lot of concerns about noise, which I think were quite similar to what you heard about from Ottawa residents earlier on in the Commission's proceedings.
Also concerns about fumes.
And then we, of course, were also concerned about the ability of staff to access their offices and also for consular clients to access their offices.
And I believe you raised these concerns at the DMOC meetings.
Is that right?
Yes, I did.
I'd like to pull up SSM NSC CAN 50155.
So just for context, I believe the Office of Protocol sent three notices to missions during this period.
Yes, that's my understanding as well.
Yeah, so this is the third one from February 9th.
If we could just look at the part in red.
So if you scroll down a little bit.
Oh, it's not red on this situation.
Okay.
The paragraph starting in the RCMP.
So the RCMP has advised the Office of Protocol that it currently has no specific concerns for diplomatic missions in connection with its event for protective policing.
Can you slow down again?
Yeah, excuse me.
Sorry.
Has no specific concerns for diplomatic missions in connection with this event from a protective policing concern perspective.
So were you aware of this assessment from the RCMP?
Yes.
So maybe a couple of things to clarify.
And the RCMP can probably speak to this better than I can.
Usually the concerns of both embassies and consulates, and frankly our own protocol people, is around demonstrations that are focused on a particular embassy.
So you'll see protests because of a certain country's policies or activities, and there are demonstrations like that quite regularly.
And so we would count on the RCMP to provide...
Protective policing if those demonstrations were to the point that we were concerned about the security of that particular facility.
What was, I think, quite interesting about the convoy protests is they weren't directed at diplomatic missions at all.
In fact, we were obviously concerned about the safety of diplomatic premises, but we never had any indication that embassies or official residences of ambassadors were the target of any of the issues.
We were concerned about potential harassment because...
I think we had heard of many cases where that had happened with public servants, with Ottawa residents.
And so under international law, we have a particular responsibility to ensure the safety and security of diplomats.
And so it was that broader context that we were concerned about.
Would you say that Canada was unable to fulfill its obligations under the convention during this time?
I think it's fair to say that we were concerned that we would be unable.
To fulfill our responsibilities.
And I think as the convoy went on longer and there were more and more stories about assaults on the street, about unlawful conduct and unwillingness to comply with injunctions and so on, that concern just continued to rise over time.
So I'd like to switch to a different topic, which is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
So when did you become aware that it would be invoked?
I became aware of when it would be invoked.
I think it was the day of.
So was GAC providing any input on that or advice to invoke it?
So the input that we provided was through a number of different channels.
It was first of all through these DMOC committees, you know, each day We would do a tour de table and provide inputs from various departments' perspectives and share information.
So each day, I would provide inputs on what we were hearing from diplomatic missions, what we were hearing from trading partners, from businesses, and so on.
So that was one channel.
We also provided reporting into the Privy Council Office on issues under Global Affairs Canada's mandate.
And then we also provided information where appropriate to the Government Operations Centre.
For instance, our rapid response mechanism, which is referred to in some of our documents, provided its input through the government operations center.
So, in answer to your question, yes, we were providing input in through various channels that may have informed the decision making.
Since you mentioned RRM Canada, I actually had some questions about that.
Could you just explain what that is in general terms?
Sure.
So RRM stands for the Rapid Response Mechanism.
So this was something that was agreed to at the G7 leaders meeting in 2018 in Charlevoix when Canada was the host.
And the mandate of the RRM was really to...
Identify and respond to threats from foreign state actors on G7 democracies.
And we were particularly focused on threats oriented towards democratic institutions and processes, threats towards our media and our social media and online environment, and then also threats...
To the exercise of human rights and freedom.
So this was really, I want to stress, about foreign state actor threats to our democracy.
So I understand that RRM Canada produced several reports during this period.
I'd like to pull one up.
It's SSM NSC CAN 50169.
This is from February 14th.
If we look at the key findings, the first one says, RRM Canada has not seen evidence of significant foreign state-sponsored involvement in the online information space to date.
So were you seeing these reports at the time?
Yes, I was.
And was this, when they speak of significant foreign state-sponsored involvement, can you expand on that?
I think you've touched on it already.
What were they looking for?
So, because the mandate of the RRM is to really focus on foreign state-sponsored threats to democracy, that's really what the RRM looks at.
So, the RRM uses tools that would be publicly available to do analysis of social media.
And its focus is really on identifying, are there foreign state actors that are introducing disinformation?
Are they amplifying certain messages in order to mislead or deceive, etc.?
And were these reports shared with other departments during this time as well?
Yes.
So these reports were fed into the Government Operations Center.
And while I didn't share these reports in their...
Entirety with DMOC, I did provide some of the sort of top-line messaging from time to time at DMOC meetings.
So I'd like to return to just another few questions about the Emergencies Act itself.
And just when we looked at the Section 58 explanation before, it talks about the adverse effects on trade corridors, international border crossings, and Canada's relationship with its trading partners.
Can you comment on how the measures were designed to address those concerns?
I wasn't really involved in the design of the measures, so I don't really think I can speak to that question unless I'm misunderstanding the question.
No, that's okay.
How did they affect the concerns, I suppose?
Were they effective in the end, these measures?
So, and again, maybe Mr. Co-Martin will have additional...
I would say that the response from many of our, particularly U.S. interlocutors, was a sense of relief after those measures had been invoked.
Particularly the economic blockades at border crossings, and not just the Ambassador Bridge, but it was Emerson, it was Coots, it was the border crossing near Surrey in BC, and then concerns that some of these would reoccur.
And so I think the sense of relief was palpable amongst many of our interlocutors in the United States, at both the political level, also the business associations and amongst unions.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Comartin?
Did you hear from stakeholders?
Not so much at that immediate period of time, but subsequently over the next few weeks, even a few months.
The same point that my colleague has raised of that sense of relief and I think a conviction that Canada was not prepared to let this happen again to the extent that they would move to invoke that type of legislation.
So that messaging was fairly clear, but it sort of drifted in over a period of time.
It wasn't immediate.
And did the measures ultimately resolve the concerns that missions in Ottawa had as well?
Yes.
I mean, I think following the invocation of the Emergency Act and the enforcement action that happened, the convoy protests were cleared and missions could...
Go about their usual business and our concerns about being able to uphold our responsibilities under the Vienna Convention were allayed.
I think I'm just about out of time.
So just a general question.
Is there anything I haven't raised that you would like to raise for today?
I think maybe one thing I just want to add with respect to the point about the RRM.
While we did not see significant amounts of foreign interference or foreign state interference in the convoys, I think it's fair to say that there was a real underlying environment of disinformation that had been profoundly exacerbated during the two years of the COVID pandemic.
And in fact, during the COVID period, we saw extensive Yeah, environment was, I think, a really important factor for us in looking at and trying to understand what was happening around the convoys.
Thank you.
Anything you would like to add, Mr. Komartan?
maybe just to emphasize.
And again, I'm speaking particularly of my territory.
When the blockade hit, it hit at a really crucial time, both in terms of what was going on in the auto manufacturing sector, the types of development that's coming.
We're going to build a whole new supply chain in order to have the electric vehicles come online.
And Canada has the potential to play a great role in that.
That was jeopardized by this blockade.
I think we've been able to put most of it to bed now, but it was a high-risk period of time for that to occur, especially coming out of the pandemic when the manufacturing sector had been so hard hit.
It was just a very difficult time to be able to convince US partners that we were serious about being their partner.
On an ongoing basis as we have historically.
Thank you very much.
Those are my questions.
Okay.
So can we now go on with the cross-examinations for the convoy organizers?
You're up first.
Good evening.
My name is Brendan Miller.
I represent Freedom Corp, which is an entity that represents the protesters that were in Ottawa in January and February of 2022.
So I take it, given your positions with respect to international affairs and all of that, your focus in the protests was more dealing with the protests that were occurring at Essentially, border passings, etc., with respect to commercial trucks and vehicles being able to come in and leave Canada, correct?
I would say that Global Affairs Canada was particularly interested in the border crossings and the economic blockades that were happening there, but also in the convoy protests here in Ottawa, given the concerns we had with respect to diplomatic missions in the downtown core.
Right.
And I take it that, at least from viewing some of the records, etc., that the concern with the diplomatic missions was not that the protest was interfering with the missions, but that it inconvenienced some of the diplomats.
Is that fair?
No, I wouldn't agree with that characterization.
It wasn't just a matter of inconvenience.
As I mentioned to Commission Council, the Government of Canada has an obligation under the Vienna Convention to ensure the safety and security of diplomats here in Canada and to ensure that they are enabled to carry out their functions without undue.
So we were concerned about being able to fulfill that obligation.
And I think given the context in the downtown core, the concern was more than one of just inconvenience.
Right.
And it's fair to say that not a single diplomat from a foreign state was physically assaulted by a protester, correct?
I am not aware of physical assaults, but we were always concerned about that possibility given the reports that we had heard of quite a number of physical assaults during that period.
Well, this commission has heard evidence with respect to physical assaults during the period of the protest that there was a total of five charges in total.
So that's from the beginning of the protest until the end, and I understand you're concerned, but You have no evidence that any diplomat was physically assaulted by any of the protesters in Ottawa.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Thank you.
And I also understand that you have no evidence that any of the protesters in downtown Ottawa verbally threatened to harm any of the diplomats.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And it was always a concern that that might happen, and hence our concern about being able to live up to our Vienna Convention obligations.
Right.
And it's not like a situation, for example, in 1970, during the FLQ crisis, where a diplomat was murdered and another one kidnapped, where they actually invoked the War Measures Act.
That wasn't it.
You were concerned about maybe someone might threaten a diplomat.
We were concerned about being able to comply with our international legal obligations.
Under the Vienna Convention?
Correct.
Right.
Okay.
And I take it with respect to the, just turning your mind now to the border blockades, the information that you have, you said there was no actual report done with respect to the losses that were suffered with respect to...
The blockades causing those losses.
Is that fair?
The government has never done a full tally of what was the economic ramifications of The blockades.
Is that fair?
I never said that.
I only said that Global Affairs Canada did not do that analysis.
All right.
And is it fair that Stats Canada has and they concluded that all it did was inconvenience the truckers and, in fact, are the people crossing the borders and imports and they simply had to use other ports?
I haven't seen any StatsCan data.
What I would say is that there were multiple impacts, including factories having to close down.
And I think as my colleague and I have both mentioned, there were an enormous number of concerns about the...
economic impacts, particularly on the auto sector.
And there were long-term implications that we were very concerned about, about Canada's reputation as a trade and investment destination.
Does the undermining of Canada's reputation and protests in Canada, in your view, is that a security threat under Section 2 of the CSIS Act?
So, I'm not an expert on Section 2 of the CSIS Act.
Our primary interest from a Global Affairs Canada perspective when it comes to security is really thinking about our economic security.
And when you consider that the international trade and goods and services is valued at over 60% of our GDP, we were actually very concerned about the economic security of this country.
Right, and the country's reputation.
Yes.
Okay.
So how was the country's reputation when various ministers and the prime minister announced that there was foreign funding coming from the United States and that this was undermining Canadian democracy?
And I've seen in the disclosure and others that wasn't the United States some of sitting members of their government, including their ministries, weren't they a little upset about that when it was accused that the U.S. was financing?
this protest weren't they upset?
I understood they would uh I can't speak to the views of all members of the U.S. administration.
I can just say that there were a number of conversations that were had by Canadian government officials, including the Prime Minister, where there were actually concerns about U.S. funding through...
Right.
And you know, you can agree with me that there's nothing wrong with a Canadian donating to an American cause and an American donating to a Canadian cause with respect to funding protests or charities.
There's nothing illegal about that, is there?
I think the concern was that some of the activities of the protesters were illegal.
Right.
And you're saying that was illegal was...
The blockade, correct?
Yes, the blockades were illegal.
Right.
And the being in downtown Ottawa?
It wasn't a matter of being in downtown Ottawa that was illegal per se.
In fact, I think in this democracy, we fiercely protect the ability to peacefully and lawfully protest.
It was the matter of the illegal aspects that were a concern.
So what was the illegal aspect to you of the protests?
In downtown Ottawa, can you tell me what the illegal aspect it is that you're referring to?
I think that on matters of what particular aspects were illegal, it is probably better to speak to other witnesses.
We have, and I'm still confused.
So, what is your understanding, your personal understanding of what the illegal activities in downtown Ottawa were?
I think this is probably a question that is better directed to other witnesses.
So you were concerned about Canada's reputation due to illegal activity in downtown Ottawa, but you don't know what that activity is.
Is that correct?
It's not a matter of not knowing.
It is a matter of others being better placed to speak to this.
Right.
Thank you.
okay next the city of Windsor Good evening.
My name is Jennifer King.
I'm legal counsel to the City of Windsor.
Our questions have already been canvassed.
We have no further questions.
Thank you.
The Democracy Fund, JCCF.
Good afternoon.
I'm Hattam Kier, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Good afternoon.
In the interest of time, I'm going to focus my questions on you, Ms. Termersheisen.
So you said in your testimony in chief something to the effect that it's important that Canada be seen as welcoming to investment.
Would you agree with that statement?
Yes.
And maintaining that reputation involves being known as the kind of country where...
That has conditions that are favourable to investors?
That's correct.
Okay, so taking a step back from Canada specifically, would you agree that as a general principle, one of the things that investors look for is stability?
Yes.
That includes social stability?
Yes.
Economic stability?
Yes.
Legal and political stability?
Yes.
And that's true because in many countries, there's political instability that can affect people's legal rights, for example, their property rights, correct?
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I would say that, yes, there are countries where there is political or other instability, and that makes investments more risky.
Right.
And, you know, the kind of situation where the political instability in a country might, for example, affect...
The property interests of an investor would make that undesirable to the investor, right?
Well, I think, for instance, if you have a country where you're making a major, say, mining investment and you have significant instability and you maybe can't access that mine, this happens in some countries, that would be an example of the kind of stability you would be looking for.
Right.
And would you agree that investors would be hesitant to invest somewhere where their property might be subject to confiscation without judicial authorization, for example?
In terms of investors, yes, I would say so.
And the same would be true for seizure or freezing without judicial authorization?
For investments, yes.
Now, under the emergency economic measures, the bank accounts of protesters and donors could be frozen without prior judicial authorization.
Don't you think that that could affect their confidence in Canada as a place to make their investments?
I wouldn't say so.
I think that what you had was Illegal conduct by individuals and therefore actions taken in response to that illegal conduct.
That is not a corollary to a law-abiding investor.
But prior to the declaration of emergency, there wasn't a law that authorized the freezing of those bank accounts, right?
There was illegal conduct at the time.
So the emergency economic measure wasn't necessary to take that action then?
I think others are best placed.
That is not a Global Affairs Canada area of expertise, nor is it my area of expertise.
But don't you think that responding to a political protest by extrajudicially preventing people from accessing their own funds would deter people from wanting to place their money in the Canadian financial system?
I think that that is...
I couldn't really speak to that, but I think investors would be looking at much broader considerations in making decisions to invest in a particular country.
So you don't think that subjecting property rights and the financial system really as a whole to rules made without legislative deliberation or any sort of judicial pre-authorization system would concern a potential investor?
Again, I think the...
emergencies act is a very special consideration that to my knowledge is not applied to investors Now, one of the things you stated is that the Emergencies Act sent a message to investors that Canada was doing something about the protests.
But that same message could have been sent by other federal government action, couldn't it?
So...
I think that on the Emergencies Act, I can't really speak to what other measures you're referring to.
I think the reality is that there were a lot of concerns, particularly on the part of some of the U.S. entities that we spoke to, that, in fact, the economic blockades at border crossings were continuing,
and there was a tremendous amount of concern on the part of U.S. Officials, businesses, unions that there weren't effective measures being taken to end those blockades.
But successful police enforcement would have assuaged those concerns, wouldn't it?
Thank you.
I would simply say that it's kind of a counterfactual point.
The reality is that that hadn't been possible.
So, certainly in our conversations with U.S. interlocutors, there was a sense of relief once those blockades were ended.
Well, we've heard from police witnesses that the protests would have been cleared even had the Emergencies Act not been invoked.
And you have no reason to believe, for the purposes of global affairs responsibilities, that the Emergency Act would have been necessary for other reasons.
Do you?
I can only say that not being an expert on the Emergencies Act itself, that the clearance of the blockades was greeted with relief.
Right, but what I'm asking is that, given that we've heard from police or the experts in policing matters, that they've said that they could respond to the protests without the Emergencies Act, for the purposes of...
Matters directly under the concern of Global Affairs Canada, the Emergency Act wasn't necessary for something outside of policing the protests, correct?
I've already answered your question.
Okay, no further questions.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Next is the Ottawa Coalition.
Good evening, Commissioner.
We don't have any additional questions.
Thank you.
Emily Tamman, for the record.
Okay, next is the OPP.
Good evening, Commissioner Chris Diana for the OPP.
We also have no questions.
Thank you.
The Windsor Police Service.
Sorry, my video's not starting.
Tom McRae for the Windsor Police Service.
We have no questions.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next is the Government of Canada.
Thank you, Commissioner.
I'm Mr. Ko-Martin.
My name is Brendan Van Nienhuis and I'm counsel for the Government of Canada.
And I just wanted to follow up on a few of the items you were asked about by my friends.
First of all...
You suggested that others were likely to be better placed than you to answer questions from my friends for the Convoy Organiser Group and the JCCF about specific laws being breached and about whether the Emergencies Act was necessary.
Do you recall that?
Yes.
Was the perspective of threat to the reputation of Canada and to the economic security of Canada that you've spoken about Was that simply GAC's input into a broader consideration of that latter question?
Absolutely.
Global Affairs Canada has a certain mandate focused on a number of issues, and there are obviously a large number of players who fed into decisions around this matter.
I wonder if we could pull up pb.can.4016.
Actually, sorry, we don't need this reference.
Mr. Co-Martin, I think you'll probably recall this.
You described your call on February the 11th with Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan's 12th District.
And you recall that that was the day of the Windsor injunction being granted, right?
That's correct.
And what I will ask to call up, and we'll come to it in a moment, but I'll call it up now, is pb.can.401802.
And just coming back to your conversation with Representative Dingell, I believe you said that it was reassuring to her that either that this injunction was being pursued and would soon be decided or possibly that it had already been granted by the time that you spoke?
That's correct.
Awesome.
And why was that reassuring to her?
Again, going back to the comments she had made the night before and as it happens, she was obviously Concerned about the relationship and the long-term impact it would have, the blockade would have on that relationship.
And at that point in time, it was not at all clear that it was going to be resolved quickly.
So when I was speaking to her the following day, I was able to give her assurances.
In fact, it was going to be resolved quickly at that border crossing.
And I think it was also on the 11th, and you more specifically recalled when you testified earlier about it, that the injunction had been granted in Windsor by this time when you had a call with representatives of the OESA and MEMA.
Do you recall that?
That's correct.
And those are significant manufacturers, trade organizations?
They are, and they have a long history of working very closely with companies on the Canadian side.
And were they too relieved that the injunction had been granted in Windsor for the same reasons as Representative Dingell?
They were, but they were also concerned about reoccurrences, which was when the Emergency Act issue got raised by Ms. Frey.
Could we go then to that?
Multimedia file at pbcan1802 at the 222 mark, please.
Police reinforced tighter restrictions on access to the site, yet protesters were freely allowed to bring gasoline and other fuel back to their vehicles where they've been living and sleeping.
What's wrong with fueling up the vehicle?
Police told us they can't stop the resupply effort, so will those occupying the bridge follow a court order to leave?
Will they follow an injunction that is illegal?
Probably not.
I'm walking on the street.
I asked one protester whether an injunction would be followed.
Imagine, just like in any scenario, there might be someone who says, I don't like that, right?
Or someone who shakes their fist at the sky.
It doesn't mean violence.
And a question also likely being asked by police.
Do the police have anything to worry about from the perspective of pushback, fightback, guns, resistance?
The only thing the police have to worry about is God's judgment.
Late this afternoon, the city of Windsor and the automakers got their wish.
They got that court injunction requiring the protesters to leave tonight.
Did you hear the gentleman express the prediction or opinion that the protesters at the Windsor blockade would not, in fact, obey the injunction granted by Justice Morowitz?
I did.
And was that the case, sir?
Did the protesters there at the Windsor blockade Obey the injunction as of February the 11th?
Well, certainly, and we heard a lot of this evidence last week from both the OPP and the Windsor Police Services, that it took another 24 hours before it really began to permeate, and certainly by the end of the day, of the 48 hours, it was over.
So ultimately, it did.
The final group that was there was very small.
I think there were 30, 40, 50 people, maybe, as opposed to the hundreds that had been there before.
But by the end of the day, on the Sunday, the 13th, there were very few people left.
So I think both the injunction and the Emergency Act invocation by the province had its desired effect.
Now, when you speak of the Emergency Act, you're speaking of the federal act or the provincial?
The provincial act.
I see.
It was invoked on the Friday afternoon.
Shortly after the injunction was granted.
I believe that's what the evidence shows, that that was invoked as well on the 11th, I think at 9:30 in the morning.
But am I mistaken, sir, that the public order operation actually wasn't able to commence until the 12th and it took still 24 hours from there?
We did not know what the actual implementation of the...
Of the new rules under the Provincial Emergency Act would be until the following day.
Were you aware of concerns from your American counterparts at all with respect to a continued concern such as the one expressed by the OESA and MEMA about recurrence?
I think the one I can probably think of would be the Chief Legal Counsel for the Governor of Michigan.
He and I were having regular conversations on this and a number of other issues.
He certainly raised it about, you know, are we able to give them assurances that this was the actual end of it.
Ms. Termers-Heisen, you were asked and you spoke of what you called international copycat protests from time to time.
Do you recall those questions?
Yes.
And I'd like if we could take the same file, PB Cano 4-0-18-0-2, and play from the 14-second mark to 1:55.
So what does that tell you?
Echoes of Canadian protesters honking is now being heard in a growing number of countries like France, where the maple leaf was spotted Wednesday, waved by demonstrators who are against COVID restrictions.
All this coming on the same day, as WHO warns the pandemic is not over yet.
Motorcycles and cars, and a bicycle too, part of this convoy in southern France.
The group demanding an end to COVID restrictions as they gathered in Nice.
Some carrying Canadian flags as a nod to the demonstrations in Ottawa and beyond.
There are plans to bring this rally to Paris before heading to the European Union's headquarters in Brussels.
To New Zealand's capital, where protests inspired by Canadian unrest stretched into another day.
Only now, with a heavier police presence outside the country's parliament.
Some arrests here.
Demonstrators say they're planning to camp out until COVID measures are lifted.
New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Tuesday the protesters don't represent the majority.
And this march against vaccine mandates held Monday in New York.
The red and white once again on display.
There are reports of a larger truck convoy in the works in the U.S., similar to what's rolled out in Canada, that could make its way to Washington, D.C. Thank you.
Are those some examples of the sorts of copycats you had in mind?
Yes, they are.
And you noted that each appeared, as I saw it, to illustrate the use of the Canadian flag in the protests, right?
Yes.
I believe you said that the Canadian brand internationally was thereby being associated with defiance of the rule of law.
Yes.
Could you tell me, does Global Affairs Canada, aside from the damage that we've seen to the brand as you described it earlier, but does Global Affairs Canada have a sense or an assessment about the strength of the Canadian brand for being a peaceful and lawful society?
I think our brand for that is very strong, and we'd like to keep it that way.
Is it a concern to Global Affairs Canada, the effect that this has on the brand strength, not only of Canada as a lawful society, Yes, I think that's true.
Is that a sort of branding issue that Global Affairs assesses as being under deliberate attack by foreign states?
I mean, I think what we've seen in the data shows it that democracy worldwide is in a period of retreat.
We're seeing a rising number of authoritarian governments taking the place of democratic governments or democratic governments becoming less democratic.
So it's always something that...
That we keep a close eye on.
And at Global Affairs Canada, we do have a number of programs where we actually support other countries ensuring up their own democracies.
So I think we're very vigilant about our own.
Do you have a sense of what the intended audience are for attacks on brand reputation like that that affect democratic countries?
I think that certainly there are some foreign state actors that would be quite keen to see the democracies be under attack and be under threat.
So it's something that we're vigilant for.
Is that part of why RRM was established at the G7?
Absolutely.
I wonder if we could go briefly on the RRM point to ask you a few questions from a recent report issued.
It's pb.can.
If you go down the middle of the page, just that paragraph that starts "Disinformation thrived in the context of COVID-19" and I'll highlight here the What the report describes as a fertile ground for hostile state actors to manipulate the information environment.
Do you see that?
Yes, I do.
Is that something that you saw reflected in the events of the convoy?
I mean, I think this is what I was trying to refer to earlier, where, you know, the convoy...
From the RRM perspective, and I think from the perspective of many who looked at this, did not happen in a vacuum.
There was a long period, particularly during the pandemic, where we saw an enormous amount of manipulation of the information environment.
And what you saw is foreign state actors using disinformation or manipulating information to Undermine the reputation of democratic states and their approach to dealing with COVID, to undermine confidence in vaccines, particularly vaccines produced by Western countries.
So there was a whole series of very deliberate efforts that we could track through our social media analysis, showing, frankly, quite successful efforts by some key foreign state actors.
I think a real sense of mistrust in democratic governments and their approach to dealing with the pandemic.
Can we just move to page nine for a moment?
Just looking under the first heading there implications, if you just take a look at that first paragraph, it indicates that these trends, it demonstrate that foreign-sponsored disinformation online and offline, just one tool in the broader arsenal of hostile state activity, is increasingly transnational, multidimensional, and cross-platform, and that in this context, it's difficult to distinguish between Yes, I do.
that attribution is increasingly difficult to achieve with a high degree of certainty.
Yes.
And finally, that Measuring the real or potential impact of disinformation is challenging.
That's right.
Are those fair assessments at this point in time?
Yes.
I mean, this is very much what the RRM is finding.
And I should note that this report that you've...
Put up on the screen is a report that was done collectively by all of the members of the G7 RRM.
So this is an analysis that is shared across the G7, and it also includes input from the European Union and other partners.
So this is not just a Canadian RRM perspective.
Is RRM quite a young organization or collaboration of organizations, I take it?
It is a young collaboration.
I mean, the G7 version of the RRM was stood up in 2018, so it's been around for about four years.
And this annual report that you're referring to is the first annual report that the RRM G7 group as a whole has done.
So it's a very important analysis from our perspective of the disinformation environment that we see around us.
And has that disinformation environment, as you see it, and it led to the decision by the G7 collectively to establish this network called RRM, that's been going on for longer than since 2018, I take it, in your assessment?
Absolutely.
I mean, I think there's, you know, disinformation is a longstanding tool of governments well before the social media age.
I think social media has created an entirely new tool.
And so the RRM Canada is specifically focused on that social media environment and understanding it and understanding how disinformation plays in that environment and what its impact is on democratic states like Canada.
Okay, so is it fair to conclude that the RRM analyses, if we see RRM say it hasn't seen evidence of significant foreign state involvement relative to the convoy, that isn't to suggest that there's a complete lack of connection between the disinformation environment in the broader sense and those events.
Is that fair?
Yeah, I mean, some analysts have suggested that there really wasn't much of a need for foreign state actors to engage significantly in the convoy information environment because there was already such a high level of disinformation surrounding it.
What about, you've focused on the online environment, but do these...
At least as Global Affairs assesses it, do these operations, objectives, whatever you want to call them, on behalf of malign actors in the information space, include the discrediting of media and the reliability of the traditional media in reporting the truth?
Absolutely.
Could we go to pb.can.401800?
Commissioner, I'm just going to ask to play a short clip and I'll have one question and that will be my time if that's acceptable.
Okay.
When this is called up, would you play from 555 forward, please?
The protests now over code restrictions in Canada.
The protests now over code restrictions in Canada.
Workers here in Canada have brought part of the country's capital to a standstill right outside the National Parliament.
I was hired on at a job not too long ago for a transport company out of Whitby, Ontario.
And I was let go due to not willing to get the vaccines for my job.
And, I mean, that's not right for companies to be able to decide that and take away our right to earn money and support our livelihood.
And for you, why is it important for you to be here today?
Well, because...
Don't talk to them.
This is fake news.
But despite the fact that these people may be part of a minority in Canada, they are receiving a lot of support from conservatives and other right-wing figures in the United States.
We are now aware of a significant element from the United States that have been involved in the funding, the organizing, and the demonstrating.
The Canadian truckers are heroes.
They are patriots, and they are marching for your freedom and for my freedom.
This is very much a 21st century protest, playing out as much on the internet as it is on the streets.
Viral memes and sometimes false and highly offensive historical comparisons that circulate online are being repeated verbatim here, like this.
And because you're not vaccinated, is there business?
Is there stuff you can't do in Canada now?
Yeah, I'm like, well, basically, if you want to compare Canada to anything, it's like Hitler, Germany, and we're like the Jews, eh?
One of the goals is to simply, is to get a group of people you can get everybody angry with, and this case is the unvaccinated.
There's a lot of people here streaming live online.
I'm just going to follow you guys and make sure you tell the truth.
That's all right.
Documenting every moment on social media.
You take those cans off of that truck!
Is that your property?
In an effort to clear the protesters, police have begun confiscating gas canisters, resulting in encounters like this that clock up thousands of views online.
My name's Jim Kerr, and I give a shit about Canadians.
How do you feel?
Hi, my name's Jim Kerr, and I care about human beings, especially ones that are trying to keep themselves warm in a truck while fighting for the freedoms of Canadians.
How do you feel?
The main problem I have is all the censorship that's going on.
That's the main problem that I have.
There is censorship everywhere, yeah.
People's accounts get taken down, even Facebook, if you don't say the right thing.
Even this convoy, a lot of groups started, and people are even live-streaming, and all of a sudden, I heard yesterday in the restaurant, my feed was cut, my feed was cut.
Facebook shut down some groups on its platform supporting the truckers after the online outlet Grid News found that they were being administered by a hack And GoFundMe shut down a fundraiser for the truckers after police told them the protest had become an occupation.
But organizers here have still been able to raise millions of dollars through an alternative service, a self-described Christian fundraising platform.
Organizers say the money will help keep the truckers on the street.
I haven't seen my wife since January 28th and I've been here and she's supporting me 100%.
There are some groups with resources who are trying to help us, send us money so that we won't have to go bankrupt.
Truckers to know that we are with them all the way.
Trump indicating he is supportive of truckers descending on Washington, D.C., other American right-wing figures goading their audiences to act.
The question is, how long before protests like this come here?
Will we need our own trucker rally to end all of this insanity once and for all?
What is the main goal, the main objective of the truckers here?
Freedom.
Ms. Termers-Heisen, do these interactions...
What we saw on the screen between the CNN reporter, Mr. Sullivan, and convoy protesters in Ottawa illustrate the concerns that led to the establishment of RRM by the G7.
Well, I think when the RRM was established, of course, it was well before these protests took place.
But I think the RRM was broadly set up to ensure that we were vigilant about any kind of foreign interference in our democracies.
Thank you.
Those are my questions.
Any re-examination?
No re-examination.
Okay.
Well, thank you for coming and testifying.
We appreciate you taking the time to do so out of your schedules, and you're now free to go.
Thank you.
Sir, before we end for the day, I just wanted to raise a point, if I may.
You absolutely may, but maybe do we need the witness?
Can the witnesses leave?
No, we do not need the witnesses.
So you're free to go and you'll deal with the, I can deal with the issue.
Okay.
Okay, yes.
So, sir, for the record, Brendan Miller appearing as counsel for Freedom Corp.
Sir, there's been an issue with respect to disclosure from the Department of Justice for some time.
I just wanted to point out some things.
As per relativity, I've been told how to organize it with respect to uploads and when they were uploaded.
I can advise the Commission that since November 6th, the Department of Justice has dumped in about 1299 new records, and over the weekend alone, since we adjourned, 409.
Some of these documents are extraordinarily relevant, including entire team message chats with Brenda Luckey and the RCMP during the IRG meetings, commenting on what's going on.
They're not even in the Commission's list of documents for tomorrow because they probably don't know about them.
They're not labelled.
I found them by accident.
There is an issue at this juncture in my submission with a dump truck approach in my submission on behalf of the DOJ in order to providing disclosure late that is relevant material and should have been provided quite some time ago, and it's not even properly labeled.
For example, all of those, there's teams meetings with all the executive of the RCMP about what's happening.
It's very interesting.
I'm just finding it now.
But nobody seems to know about it because of late disclosure and because it's not properly labeled and because it's coming in in mass quantities.
So, sir, I wanted to raise that with you.
I would submit that this commission has jurisdiction to compel the DOJ to outline and properly label materials and provide them properly, outline what they are, and not simply name them random letters and numbers so that people don't see them.
I only spotted them today, a couple hours ago, because I got lucky.
It's a rather nonspecific complaint, and I don't take it my friend is seeking relief.
I can assure you, Commissioner, that a large number of people are working incredible hours and have been doing so for many months to assemble documents.
The Government of Canada is a large institution with many document sources and the items that are of keen relevance accordingly take a great deal of time to Identify, process and code.
If there's a specific complaint about a specific item that I can be of assistance in addressing, I think it would be more efficient to address that offline with my friend in terms of the concern or through Commission Council would be the appropriate route.
But in the absence of a specific request or a specific complaint, I don't think there's more I can say sitting here now.
I'm not prepared to speak to the issue at the moment in more particularity.
Sir, I'm simply asking if the Commission can direct the DOJ to properly label What the items are in relativity, who the parties are discussing matters in there with the proper date, as opposed to just it being dumped in with random numbers.
And then, you know, we're dealing with literally 1,299 documents, records, not pages, records that have been dumped in since November 6th.
And we're all here all day and then trying to find this stuff.
It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
And it's not something, for example, in a civil case, we call them affidavits of records back home.
I believe in Ontario they're called a statement of records.
I apologize.
I'm not from here.
But you're required to label the date, the actual record, and et cetera.
And that's how relativity is set up.
But I'm finding these extraordinarily compelling documents that not even the commission has in their list of documents for tomorrow.
And we're talking about...
Text messages and an iMessage system of sorts between Commissioner Lucky and all the executive of the RCMP during the IRG meetings and other things about what's going to be done.
And they're not labeled, and I found them by luck.
And in my submission, that's just not appropriate.
These things need to be labeled.
They need to actually say what they are.
They can't just be dumped into this system last minute in the hopes that one of us luckily finds them.
I don't know what else is in there in those 1,299 documents.
I'm trying to get through them, but it's impossible to assess it by just looking at the labels, etc.
in relativity when they're not actually labeled at all as to what they are.
So if I understand correctly, you'd like to have some sort of an index or some sort of an indication of what the documents are.
At this stage, I'm not in a position to...
I don't know if the government of Canada can respond, but it's...
Maybe you can provide information.
I think what I can say is if it's a complaint about the adequacy of the coding, we are all in the Council table here in the same boat.
If the Commission Council has a concern about the adequacy of the coding, we'll be happy to do our best to remedy that.
Obviously, these things take time, and if they take time, then that slows the process of getting things into the database, which is the whole purpose of the inquiry, so that they can be put into the public record as appropriate.
Commissioner, I think this is a concern that's probably best addressed offline.
Well, I think at this stage, certainly as I did at the outset, the Council are encouraged to raise issues with Commission Council as soon as they arise and to the degree possible they can be addressed that way.
If they can't be addressed and some relief is necessary, then you bring it to me.
I think your concern has been raised.
I think Commission Council will look into it.
I do want to cycle back and point out that I have acknowledged and continue to acknowledge that it is challenging for Council and certainly for Council for the Government of Canada, but also Council.
For all the parties and I think to the degree that you have frustration, I understand it and I think at one level it is totally understandable because of the way the compressed timeline that the Commission has to operate under.
So if it is possible to provide some relief in the way you describe, I think it is...
Highly desirable, but not if it's going to mean that we won't get access to documents.
And I know that's been a concern of mine, to make sure the record is as complete as possible.
If there is a real unfairness, that's something I will certainly entertain, because ultimately the objective of this commission is to be fair and as open.
In the context of the constraints we're operating under.
So I'd encourage you to speak to Commission Council if there's some way to alleviate, because I know the Government of Canada obviously is a very significant player in this, as are their witnesses.
So I want to be sure we do what we can to ensure the best possible analysis of their...
So, with that, I apologize for being a little preachy, but I do understand, and we'll see what we can do.
So, we'll adjourn until 9:30, and again, I expect it'll be a similar day tomorrow and probably similar days this week that will be fairly long.
▲
Export Selection