Volume 22 (November 14, 2022)

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. Nusra Khan, Commission counsel. I’ll just wait for the PowerPoint to be pulled up on the screen there. Okay, perfect. So I’ll be presenting the overview report titled “Federal Government Entities Involved in the Decision to Invoke the Emergencies Act”. This overview report is now available to the parties om the party database and will be posted on the Commission’s web site for the public very shortly. The document ID for this report is COM.OR00000008. Next slide, please. By way of introduction, this presentation focuses on the mandates of three key federal entities, that is, the Federal Executive, the Prime Minister, Cabinet and the Governor in Council, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. Of course, there were many other departments and agencies implicated in the decision to declare a Public Order emergency, and the Commissioner will hear from evidence -- will hear evidence from these witnesses in the coming two weeks. The purpose of this overview report is to contextualize and frame the anticipate evidence for the benefit of the parties, the public and, of course, the Commissioner. Next slide, please. So we’ll begin with the definition. Section 17(1) of the Emergencies Act designs the formal authority to declare the existence of a Public Order emergency to the Governor in Council. The term “Governor in Council” refers to the Governor-General of Canada acting on the advice of the King’s Privy Council for Canada. The King’s Privy Council, in turn, is a technical term that describes the full group of people who have the authority to advise the sovereign or the Governor-General acting as the representative of the sovereign. In practical terms, however, references to the King’s Privy Council are references to the Federal Cabinet. The Federal Cabinet is a committee of the Privy Council and is effectively its only operative branch. And by constitutional convention, the Governor- General is required to follow the advice given by Cabinet. This is, of course, a fundamental part of our system of responsible government. Next slide, please. So here we have an organizational chart depicting the structure of the Federal Executive Branch. You’ll see that while the formal authority to govern is vested in the Governor- General, that authority is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In turn, Prime Minister and Cabinet are supported by two central offices: the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office. So to put it into context, the four Orders in Council that were issued by the Governor in Council in the context of the Public Order emergency were issued on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Next slide. Thanks. The Federal Cabinet is a political decision- making body that consists of all Federal Ministers as well as the Prime Minister. The Cabinet is sometimes referred to as the Federal Ministry. Cabinet is the forum wherein the government of the day sets its priorities and decides how to advance these priorities. The Prime Minister sets the agenda and will lead Ministers to agreement in making Cabinet decisions, but the final and ultimate decision-making authority rests with the Prime Minister. Cabinet members are governed by two related conventions, Cabinet solidarity and Cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet solidarity requires that Ministers as a group be held accountable to Parliament for their government’s actions. Cabinet confidentiality requires that Ministers not disclose the substance of their Cabinet discussions to the public. The two principles are, of course, intertwined because Cabinet confidentiality allows Ministers to frankly and vigorously discuss their views with their colleagues in private while remaining united in their decisions to the public. Ministers are also individually responsible for the federal departments they oversee. The powers and duties in respect of their departments are set out in their departmental statutes. In practice, however, the day-to-day operations of a federal department or agency are carried out by the Deputy Minister and civil servants. A Deputy Minister is the senior-most member of the professional non-partisan public service. Finally, every Minister is supported by a Ministerial Office consisting of a political staff in carrying out their duties as members of Parliament. Political staff are sometimes referred to as exempt staff because they are not bound by the strict impartiality rules that apply to the public service and are, instead, temporary political appointees. So there’s a clear separation between political staff and the public servants who work with in federal departments in that political staff do not have the authority to give direction or instruction to public servants. Next slide, please. So here we have another organizational chart that depicts the work of Cabinet and Cabinet committees. The work of the government is also carried out by several Cabinet committees. The protests and the government’s response to the protests were discussed by two Cabinet committees in particular. The first was the Cabinet Committee on Safety, Security and Emergencies, or SSE, which was chaired by the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. The SSE met on February 3rd, 6th and 8th. The second Cabinet committee was the Incident Response Group, or IRG. The IRG took over the management of the issue after February 8th and was chaired by the Prime Minister and, therefore, had decision-making authority. The IRG met on February 10th, 12th and 13th, and then daily thereafter between February 16th and February 23rd. I will also add that there were two full Cabinet meetings at which the protests and the invocation of the Emergencies Act was discussed. These meetings took place on February 3rd and February 15th. Turning now to the Prime Minister’s Office, the PMO is a central political agency supporting the Prime Minister in his three roles as the head of government, the leader of a political party and a Member of Parliament. PMO staff advise the Prime Minister on policy issues, communications and Parliamentary affairs, and PMP is led by a Chief of Staff who reports directly to the Prime Minister and is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Like the staff at Ministerial offices, all staff at the PMO are exempt staff in that they are temporary political appointees. The PMO operates as a critical link between the partisan interests and agenda of the Prime Minister and the general workings of government. For instance, PMO maintains close relationships with political staff at Ministers’ offices as well as with officials at the Privy Council Office, and PMO officials often attend Cabinet meetings. The Privy Council Office, or PCO, is the central coordinating agency within the federal government. And in contrast to PMO, the PCO provides non-partisan advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet and ensures that the government’s agenda is implemented across all federal departments and agencies. And for this reason, PCO is sometimes referred to as the Prime Minister’s Department. PCO is led by the clerk of the Privy Council. The clerk holds the additional titles of the Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister, the Secretary to Cabinet and the Head of the Public Service. And as a Secretary to Cabinet, the clerk is responsible for the smooth operation of Cabinet business, including the preparation of Cabinet memoranda and the keeping of Cabinet confidences. In addition to its primary role as the central coordinating agency, PCO also serves as the department for some Ministers. This includes the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is supported by the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, as well as the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, who is supported the Emergency Preparedness and COVID-19 Recovery Secretariat. Another important PCO actor is the National Security and Intelligence Advisor, or the NSIA. The NSIA holds the title of Deputy Secretary to Cabinet and provides national security advice and intelligence briefings to the Prime Minister, as well as to Cabinet. The Office of the NSIA plays a coordinating and convening function amongst national security agencies and the Office of the NSIA itself consists of four secretariats and is responsible for convening two standing committees of senior civil servants. The NSIA also acts as the Secretary to the Incident Response Group. So this chart depicts the relationship between the Privy Council Office, federal departments and agencies, and the various secretariats within PCO. It should be noted that there is no legislation governing the role of the NSAI or PCO, as these entities are meant to play only an advisory, secretarial, and coordination function to Cabinet. The NSAI chairs the Deputy Minister’s Operations and Coordination Committee, or DMOCC, and the Assistant Secretary to Cabinet Security and Intelligence cochairs the Assistant Deputy Minister’s Committee on National Security and Operations, or ADMNSOPs. Both the ADMNSOPs and DMOCC met frequently, in fact almost daily, in late January and throughout February 2022 to discuss the government’s response to the protests. Finally, the departments and agencies listed on this slide were also involved in the Federal Government’s response to the protests and blockades and the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. And as I mentioned earlier, witnesses from each of these departments are expected to testify in the coming weeks, and I would invite the parties to consult the Institutional Reports prepared by each department for a fuller explanation of the Department’s mandate and involvement. So that concludes the presentation on this overview report. But before I go, I would also like to enter three additional overview reports prepared by Commission Counsel and that I understand the parties have had the chance to review. First, Commission Counsel are entering a ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 8 22-008-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Commission Counsel are entering a report summarizing the proceedings commenced in response to the protests in January and February 2022, including judicial review proceedings commenced to challenge the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The document ID for this report is COM.OR00000001. The second report that Commission Counsel are entering is a report summarizing the protests that occurred at six international ports of entry in January and February 2022. The document ID for this report is COM.OR0000006. And the final overview report that Commission Counsel are entering is a report summarizing the oversight responsibilities of Parliament and the Parliamentary Review Committee under the Emergencies Act. The document ID for this report is COM.OR00000007. And with that, that concludes my comments. Thank you.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 15 22-015-12

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. My name is Shantona Chaudhury, co-lead Commission Counsel. I’d like to call Mr. Rob Stewart and Mr. Dominic Rochon to the stand.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 16 22-016-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, Mr. Stewart. Good morning, Mr. Rochon. Nice to see you again. I’ll just start by introducing your witness summary. So you’ll recall sitting for an interview with Commission Counsel on September 1st, 2022? Mr. Clerk, I’ll ask you to pull up WTS.0000066. Okay. So Mr. Stewart and Mr. Rochon, you’ll recall that some of your colleagues were not with us today, were not called to testify, also sat for that interview, namely Mr. Talal Dakalbab. I’m not sure I’m pronouncing that right.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 17 22-017-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Pardon me?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 17 22-017-22

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Dakalbab. Thank you. Mr. Deryck Treheame also participated in that interview. I’ll just ask you to confirm that you’ve reviewed the summary of the interview, and if you have no changes to make, confirm that insofar as it contains your information, you adopt it, and insofar -- and it’s accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief insofar as it contains the information of your colleagues, and you believe them to have accepted it as accurate.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 17 22-017-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Mr. Stewart, at the time of the Freedom Convoy events in January and February, you were the Deputy Minister of Public Safety? Is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 18 22-018-08

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And you’ve since moved on to become the Deputy Minister of International Trade?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 18 22-018-13

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And when was that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 18 22-018-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

The 17th of October? Okay. Mr. Rochon, at the time of the events, you were the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety’s National and Cyber Security Branch? Is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 18 22-018-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And you’ve also since left Public Safety to take another position? Is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 18 22-018-25

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Associate Deputy Minister of Transport?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 18 22-018-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And when was that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 19 22-019-03

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So also very recent. The next thing I’ll just ask you to introduce the Public Safety’s Institutional Report, despite the fact that neither of you are currently with Public Safety. Mr. Clerk, that’s DOJIR0000008. Okay. So, Mr. Stewart, you’ll recall that Public Safety Canada prepared and filed with the Commission this Institutional Report. Have you reviewed it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 19 22-019-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And is it accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 19 22-019-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And can you confirm that it’s been filed with the Commission as part of Public Safety’s evidence?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 19 22-019-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Okay. With those introductions out of the way, I’ll just ask you to start by giving an overview of the structure of Public Safety. It’s a slightly complicated department. As we know, it’s the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. So Mr. Stewart, can you walk us through Public Safety writ large?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 19 22-019-23

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. But the three that you mentioned are the ones that were most implicated in the events of the convoy? Is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 20 22-020-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And Mr. Rochon, I understand the National and Cyber Security Branch manages five directorates. Can you tell us about that? And if you’d like to have the reference for your notes, it’s DOJIR at page 8, paragraphs 25 and 26. So we can just pull that up.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 20 22-020-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And if we can just scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk. Under Critical Infrastructure and Strategic Coordination, it says: “This Directorate supports the Ministers in leading the national effort to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure against a variety of hazards.” Do those hazards include protest?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 20 22-020-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 21 22-021-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, getting to your own individual roles and responsibilities, Mr. Stewart, can you tell us, first of all, a little bit about your general role as a Deputy Minister of Public Safety and then describe at a very high level your role with respect to the events of the convoy.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 22 22-022-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Sorry, go on.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 23 22-023-17

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

I think we’re going to hear a lot more about that shortly, and thank you for speaking without acronyms. It’s appreciated. On the first day of federal government evidence, we’re still getting used to all the acronyms. I think CSIS we can handle, and probably CBSA, but when it gets deeper than that it’s going to be a struggle. Okay. Mr. Rochon, can you tell us at a high level, first of all, your role at the time and your role in the convoy?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 23 22-023-22

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. I certainly do want you to elaborate on that. First of all, who was your PCO colleague?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 25 22-025-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Well, you’ve anticipated essentially my next question because the first sort of broad topic that I think we’re going to cover here is public safety’s preparation for the convoy, and that feeds into, Mr. Rochon, what you were telling us about public safety’s intelligence role. So at this point I’ll ask you to, I guess, please explain that and explain how it was -- how it fed into public safety’s preparation.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 25 22-025-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And in your interview -- we're going to go back to some of that as we go along, but you explained that prior to the convoy's arrival -- this is taking you up on your last point -- NCSB, so the National Cyber Security Branch, wasn't gathering or dissemination intelligence about the convoy because, at that point, there was no indication that the events would be a national security threat. So can you explain and elaborate on that a little bit, what that threshold is and when, if at all, NCSB did start doing that and why?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 27 22-027-17

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And when you say he would have called, you mean he did call?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 29 22-029-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

That actually happened? Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 29 22-029-09

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And so I understand the GOC started monitoring this, as you said, around January 19th and it started producing 2 types of reports. One is called "Key Points on Potential Impacts to Critical Infrastructure" and the other is "Daily Operations Briefs." So these were being produced as of around January 25th, January 28th. Is there any difference, a marked or noticeable difference between those types of reports?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 29 22-029-12

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

No? Okay. And who receives those reports? Who are they disseminated to?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 29 22-029-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And I appreciate that it's your colleague, Mr. Trehearne, who was in charge of the GOC, so he's the person with the best knowledge on this but ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 29 22-029-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Of course.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 30 22-030-05

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So maybe you could help us here a little bit to understand this -- oh, sorry -- the distinction between information and intelligence. Who wants to tackle that one?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 30 22-030-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And appreciating that Public Safety is a consumer, and neither a collector or a gatherer of intelligence, and the fact that we are going to be hearing from both CSIS and ITAC next week, I won't spend too much more time on this, but there was one thing I did want to raise with you. Mr. Clerk, could you please pull up TRN0000011? So this is an excerpt from a transcript of Commissioner Carrique's evidence from a couple of weeks ago. I'll set the context for you and then I'll ask you to maybe elaborate a bit on what he was discussing. So the reference is page 90, and just pull that up. So the context here is Commissioner Carrique was being questioned by my colleague Mr. Brousseau about a reference in an OPP Hendon report, and I'll just stop there. In the interview -- the Commission's heard quite a bit of evidence about Project Hendon and OPP's Hendon reports. And in the interview that we had in September, you told us that neither of you had heard of Project Hendon at the time specifically and that the Project Hendon reports hadn't been fed up to you. And I take it that that goes to your point of provincial law enforcement intelligence would likely not be directly fed up to you, but I'm wondering if you can -- or if it did, it would be through the RCMP. But I'm wondering if you could just explain, elaborate on that a little bit?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 31 22-031-09

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So if I can just summarize that; if the RCMP was privy to anything from Project Hendon that was relevant, you would expect to have knowledge of that through them?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 33 22-033-03

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Thank you, that’s helpful. So just getting back to this little transcript excerpt here. So Comm. Carrique is being asked about a reference in an OPP Hendon report to a potential threat to Canada’s sovereignty and national security; that’s around line 19, I believe?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 33 22-033-08

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And if we can just scroll down now to the next page, page 91.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 33 22-033-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Ninety-one (91).

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 33 22-033-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

No problem. Okay. So I’m just going to read through the first few paragraphs here. Comm. Carrique says: “What is required is further analysis of that threat, Hendon...did have those conversations with the appropriate security partners...to see if that potential threat rose to the point that would warrant them enacting their mandates for the items...they’re responsible for. And...as we know, [slow down]... It in the CSIS Act, it says [threat to the secure -- or] it says ‘the security of Canada.’ doesn’t actually say national security. Public Safety Canada goes to a much broader context when describing national security, and one of the items in national security, if you look at the national security strategy and how it’s described by Public Safety Canada, actually includes impact to economy, activities at critical infrastructures, international border crossings.” So Mr. Rochon or Mr. Stewart, whoever’s best placed to answer this, can you explain and elaborate a little bit on what Comm. Carrique is referring to here; Public Safety Canada’s national security strategy and definition?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 33 22-033-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So from Public Safety’s perspective then, or its -- in its modus operandi, there’s a distinction between national security and threat to the security of Canada, as defined in the CSIS Act; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 36 22-036-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Okay. Moving on from there, I just want to situate us in time here. With the information that Public Safety was receiving prior to the arrival of the convoy; so the information that it was receiving from its various sources -- and Mr. Clerk, I’ll just ask you to pull up, at this point, PBCAN00000703; this is the GOC key points from January 27. But as that’s being pulled up, feel free to already start in describing what your state of knowledge was at that point, and what you anticipated happening when the convoy arrived.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 36 22-036-17

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Of course ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 37 22-037-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we can just scroll up, I guess, or down; sorry. Keep scrolling, keep scrolling, keep scrolling. So as you’ve mentioned, convoys coming from several directions. Keep scrolling. Mr. Stewart, I think you covered most of this in your introduction. Keep scrolling. Okay, stop around there. So we see: “Ottawa Police are planning for around 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles...” The Convoy is going to be directed to Sir John A. The second-to-last or third-to-last bullet there: “Near Vanier, old Jetform park will be used to park trucks and passenger vehicles with cabs and LRT available for demonstrators to get downtown,...” So we’ve heard a lot of evidence on the Commission -- at the Commission already about what the plans may or may not have been, but I understand this reflects the notion that protesters would be -- would park at, I think what’s now referred to as, in common parlance, as Coventry Road, and then be bused in from there, or from various locations. And then if we just scroll down here to “Assessment”: “Ottawa police assessment determines [there’s] no need for people to stay home or for businesses to close....OPP is advising motorists to avoid travel...[because of the] delays....Ottawa Police, OPP...RCMP as well as the City of Ottawa, are...coordinating a response....disruption to government activities...expected to be minor...” Because most employees are at home: “INTERSECT is indicating...this will be a significant and extremely fluid event that could go on for a prolonged period.” It’s anticipated to be peaceful. Does that reflect, essentially, the information that you had at the time and your expectations?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 37 22-037-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So is it fair to say you anticipated that it would be -- well actually, I’ll just ask it open ended. How long did you think it would ask? What were you expecting to happen when the convoy arrived?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 39 22-039-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Mr. Rochon, was that your expectation?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 39 22-039-23

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Is there anything in particular you’d like to highlight about what was going on across the country at that time?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 40 22-040-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Please do.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 40 22-040-23

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So one eye open that this could develop into something, but essentially, with respect to Ottawa at least, the expectation was that it would end after the weekend. And as we know now, that didn’t happen. And it didn’t end after the weekend. Some trucks stayed. Many protestors stayed. So the next sort of topic I want to address is, very broadly, how did the Federal Government respond? Let’s start by talking -- we know that there were a variety of committees struck and calls and meetings taking place. So Mr. Stewart, I’ll ask you to walk us through that, starting with the internal Federal Government response.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 41 22-041-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So DMOCC is another acronym ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 42 22-042-25

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

--- that we’re going to have to get used to pretty quickly. No, no, no. That’s one that’s going to come up a lot over the next couple of weeks, so we’ll learn it now. Deputy Minister Operations Committee, the DMOCC. Who attended the DMOCC? Who participated in it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 42 22-042-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

CBSA?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 43 22-043-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And so you referred just now to the Communications Security Establishment. Can you just explain what that is?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 43 22-043-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Signals intelligence. Can you explain what signals intelligence is?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 43 22-043-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Stewart, sorry about that. A little interlude. So there was the DMOCC and then you said there was these daily ministerial briefings. And at a high level, can you explain what those daily ministerial briefings were about?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 44 22-044-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And you mentioned that the principal briefer was often Commissioner Lucki from the RCMP?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 44 22-044-26

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Why was that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 45 22-045-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So these two things that we’re talking about, the DMOCC and the Ministerial Briefings, these are entirely internal to the Federal Government?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 45 22-045-17

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

It’s exactly right. Okay. And before we move on to external, Mr. Rochon, just ask you to explain, you touched on this before, but what the ADMNSOPs was doing at the time?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 45 22-045-22

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So would it be fair to say that the information chain would sort of be ADMNSOPs up to DMOC and then from DMOC up to Cabinet where warranted?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 46 22-046-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

The Ministerial level. Okay, Mr. Stewart, now I’ll ask you about the meetings that were happening that included actors external to the federal government.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 46 22-046-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And that’s what’s referred to as the FPTCPCC, I think?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 46 22-046-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

CPPC.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 46 22-046-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Mr. Clerk, can I ask you to pull up ONT00000159? These are notes that we received from Ontario from a meeting on February 6th, which I understand was one of the situation in Ottawa meetings that you describe, Mr. Stewart. And as you said, I believe you convened these meetings in order to have some input on what was going on in Ottawa and assist with that situation. Okay. So I just want to take you to the various things that you’re reported to have said in this meeting, so the first thing is you convened the meeting and you were looking to get a sense of what the -- what was going on on the ground in Ottawa and steps to resolving the situation. First thing is you noted that some of your federal Ministers were concerned and wanted a quick resolution to the matter. In addition, there continues to be concern from the federal Ministers about coordination of activities federally and with other partners. Can you just elaborate on what you were reporting there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 47 22-047-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And just moving down, if we can scroll down to the next time you see Rob Stewart. There we go. Just keeping scrolling down a little bit, Mr. Clerk, so we can see. Rob Stewart posed the following question to Chief Peter Sloly, “What is the nature of the support that Ottawa is likely going to ask for?”. And it says here: “Note Rob Stewart was trying to understand in unsaid terms whether the OPS will directly request non-law enforcement assistance.” Can you tell us a little bit about what was going on there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 49 22-049-04

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And the next bullet point is what are the obvious and visible successes that Ministers could be told and can also see? What were you referring to there or what were you asking Chief Sloly about?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 50 22-050-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And that, I suppose, reflects the fact that these meetings are information sharing and aimed at -- sorry, information sharing and attempting to sort of brainstorm solutions. Would that be fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 51 22-051-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, if we can just keep scrolling down. Sorry. Just stop right there. No, keep going until you see Jodie Thomas, National Security Advisor. And scroll down a little bit more, please. Okay. There we go. So Mr. Stewart, I just want to ask you a little bit here about these meetings were meetings at the official's level largely; is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 51 22-051-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And there was participation from Ontario, Mr. Di Tommaso ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 51 22-051-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

--- would participate in these meetings, and we heard from Mr. Di Tommaso last week. And you'll see that quote that's attributed to Jody Thomas, who is the National Security Advisor, and you've already told us that the National Security Advisor is an official at PCO ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 51 22-051-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

--- who was involved in I think both chairing the DMOC and coordinating federal government response here. So Ms. Thomas is said to have said -- she noted that it was a positive meeting and regrets to end on this point, but would the Province be looking to the Federal Government if this protest was happening outside the City of Ottawa, e.g., happening in other places like Kingston? Mr. Di Tommaso when he was here last week, the transcript reference for this is TRN0000021, page 262, testified that he understood this comment to mean that Ms. Thomas was trying to have the federal government wanting -- or this comment indicated that the federal government was wanting to wash its hands of the entire thing. And I was wondering if you could comment on that? Was that your understanding of Ms. Thomas's comment here?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 52 22-052-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And that leads into something I want to ask you about more specifically. I think you've already introduced it here, but which is Ontario's general position and attitude towards the Ottawa protests and what was going on in late January, early February. Mr. Clerk, can I just ask you to pull up WTS0000066? This is your witness summary. I'd like to refer directly to some of the things you said in our interview. Okay. If we can go to page 17? There we go. So in the interview you said, "...it was never clear whether the Government of Ontario was willing to assist Ottawa." And you noted the Mayor of Ottawa, in your recollection, was frustrated. And then you added, "...there was a question about how quickly the provincial government would endorse the OPP and whether it would put its weight behind the OPP..." And then I think you just answered that the OPP was fully behind this. But then you noted, "There is a misconception that in the normal course, protests in Ottawa are not a provincial issue, but rather [they're] dealt with by a combination of federal and local police. As he explained it, [he being you,] they were treating Ottawa as Washington, DC" Can you explain what you meant by that, they were treating Ottawa as Washington, DC, and sort of walk us through what your viewpoint was in the early days in February of attempting to deal with the situation on behalf of the federal government and the response you were getting from Ontario.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 53 22-053-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

When you say according to the law they should go first to the OPP, what law are you talking about there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 55 22-055-26

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

I believe that was the Police Services Act.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 56 22-056-03

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So in addition to the meetings that we've already talked about then, the DMOC meetings and the Ministerial briefings, there were also a series of tripartites convened. Can you tell us a bit about those?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 56 22-056-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And you noted that those calls were not attended by any political -- any politicians from Ontario?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 56 22-056-23

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Who convened the tripartites?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 56 22-056-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And did you attend all of the tripartites?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 57 22-057-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And I believe the dates of those would be February 7th, February 8th, and February 10th?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 57 22-057-09

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Before we leave this document, your witness summary here, the other statement I wanted to ask you about was the one where you say the provincial government was more engaged in Windsor because the Ambassador Bridge blockade impacted the Ontario economy. I realize we haven't talked about Ambassador Bridge in Windsor here yet this morning, but we heard several days of evidence about it last week, so we're aware of what happened in Windsor. Can you speak to a little bit that viewpoint that you held or hold that the Ontario was more engaged in Windsor than it was in Ottawa?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 57 22-057-13

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. The next series of meetings that I'd like you to tell us a bit about you've already referred to. The acronym is FPTCPPC, so Federal Provincial Territorial Crime Prevention Policing Committee. Mr. Clerk, can I ask you to pull up PB.NSC.CAN.0000005 -- 000000005. I see you nodding, so you know better than I do. Okay. Can we just scroll down? So these are -- this is a read out of the FPT -- actually, this is a FPT DMs ad hoc meeting on February 7th. Do you recall this meeting, Mr. Stewart?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 58 22-058-13

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Perfect. So here's the read out. And the first comment I want to take you to is just at the, sort of the end of that first paragraph where it says, "Intel. There [has been -- there] has not been significant element of violent extremism. We've discussed this before, can set up another meeting with CSIS and how monitoring threats to democracy. For now there is no planning going on [...] no degree of violent extremism going on, not saying this will happen." Can you just tell us a bit about what you were saying there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 58 22-058-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And actually, can I just ask you to tell us who attended this particular meeting? What was this meeting?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 59 22-059-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So would these be all Public Safety Deputy Ministers or ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 59 22-059-22

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Fair enough.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 59 22-059-26

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And we will be hearing from CSIS directly next week, but I think it might be useful, Mr. Rochon, you can just elaborate briefly on what CSIS can and cannot do and what it was and was not monitoring here, following what Mr. Stewart said.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 60 22-060-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. That's helpful in understanding that. So the second bullet point then, to go back to Mr. Stewart, on people protesting in accordance with the law, "In Ottawa, the law has been disregarded. The norms of behaviour and laws.” You talk about what’s going on in downtown Ottawa: “Police have not been able to control. Have heard comments made to federal ministers: do something. CBSA, Transport and PS [that’s Public Safety] officials have heard from our Ministers. Roles of police and govt, have not tried to get involved in enforcement but staying in touch with police. Police including rcmp and outside of Ottawa have supported […] Have strayed [I think that’s probably stayed] in close touch. Political layer is engaged.” And then the last line is: “Strong desire [not to] engage protestors and to let enforcement take tis course.” Do you recall what that referred to? In particular that last line?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 63 22-063-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So this was -- to situate us in time, this was on February 7th and at that point, that was the position being taken?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 64 22-064-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Mr. Clerk, we can take that document down. And the next one to pull up is SSM.NSC.CAN00000246. So these are the NSIA’s talking points on February 8th, and it looks like they’re for a Cabinet briefing. We’re going to get into the specific Cabinet meetings in a bit. But for now, if we can go to page 4 of that document, Mr. Clerk? There’s just a couple of specific points I’d like to ask you about. Oh, sorry, up a bit. “Yesterday an FPT table of FM of Public Safety and [Transport] met to discuss a national and coordinated strategy […] that is built upon ‘maximum and strategic enforcement’ using any and all tools available at all 3 levels of government, and need to align all communications to protestors about ‘maximum enforcement’ and the consequences. General support for approach - more to come.” So the first question is, is that FPT table that happened the day before, is that the call that we just looked at?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 64 22-064-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, I think we’re going to hear a lot more about this in detail when you colleague, Deputy Minister Keenan from Transport Canada testifies, which is on Wednesday, but can you briefly explain to us what this idea of a maximum strategic enforcement strategy was?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 65 22-065-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And if we scroll down a little bit more to page 5: “Departments have developed a rolodex of ‘creative alternatives’ to be explored in addressing this matter.” So that refers to -- that’s what you were just talking about? This idea of trying to come up with alternatives or ideas. And can you give us some examples of what those -- that rolodex would have contained?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 66 22-066-05

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Well, again, I think Deputy Minister Keenan will be taking us through this in great detail. But sort of skipping to the conclusion, what happened with the idea of the maximum enforcement strategy? Did that ever materialize? Were steps taken by the provinces to -- or municipal authorities to actually implement some of these?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 66 22-066-20

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Before we get there, there’s another topic I’d like to ask you about, which is requests for federal assistance. So this again falls within the rubric of what was going on between the provinces, municipalities, and the Federal Government at the time. So request for federal assistance. I understand that that’s a responsibility that falls to the GOC. So can I ask you -- to an extent, at least -- be processed through the GOC, if I can put it that way. Can you explain, Deputy Minister Stewart, how that process works?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 67 22-067-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Sure. And maybe, actually, at this point, it would be helpful to bring up the document. It’s PB.CAN00000718. So this the RFA, Request for Federal Assistance, from Minister McIver to Minister Blair. And the request here is for tow trucks and personnel, described largely. So I believe, Mr. Stewart, you were in the process of telling us how that RFA was dealt with in Public Safety?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 68 22-068-23

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So just to make sure I understand that, on the one hand, it was determined that the Canadian Armed Forces did not have the appropriate equipment, that was not suited to task, and on the other hand, Alberta did have in its own powers the ability to compel tow trucks under its Critical Infrastructures Act?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 70 22-070-08

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. The next topic I'd like to address briefly is the engagement between Public Safety and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I understand there were a couple of calls around February 10th, February 11th. Are you able to speak to those at all and tell us a bit about what you were hearing from Homeland Security?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 70 22-070-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

What was her name?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 71 22-071-09

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 71 22-071-12

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Were they expressing concern about various convoys happening through the U.S. as well?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 72 22-072-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

The next topic I want to get into is the inputs that you were providing to Cabinet over the course of the convoy. So, Mr. Commissioner, I don't know if you'd like me to start now or if this would be a good time for the break?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 72 22-072-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Oh, it's a good time for me.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 72 22-072-26

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So as I mentioned before the break, the next topic I'd like to address with you is the various inputs that you were providing to Cabinet over the course of the convoy. So, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask you to pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00000292. These are minutes from a Cabinet Committee on Safety, Security and Emergencies on February 3rd. So, Mr. Stewart, the first thing I'll ask you to do is can you tell us what the Committee on Safety, Security and Emergencies or SSE is?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 73 22-073-13

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And I understand that the SSE Committee met three times in relation to the convoy and this was the first meeting that addressed the events of the convoy; is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 74 22-074-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. If we can just scroll down to page 5, Mr. Clerk? We'll see about halfway down that page the Deputy -- there we go. Deputy Minister of Public Safety. So, Mr. Stewart, I'll read this slowly, for the benefit of the interpreters. "The Deputy Minister of Public Safety provided an overview of engagements to date with the City of Ottawa, and the province of Ontario. The Deputy Minister stated that the view of the Ottawa Police is that they will not be able to bring the protest to a conclusion without the assistance of the federal government due to concerns for public safety. There is a risk that increased enforcement will provoke some protesters. There is work being done by the city on an injunction however, there is no timing on if and when it could be issued. Finally, Ottawa may seek compensation for policing costs and consideration for compensating the businesses and people impacted..." So if I understand correctly, what you were putting forth to Cabinet at that point was the result of all of the various conversations you were having both within the federal government and with counterparts from Ottawa, Ontario, et cetera. So this was the state of the situation that you were reporting on February 3rd; is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 74 22-074-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So a couple of specifics in here. The view that the Ottawa -- the view of the Ottawa Police is that they will not be able to bring the protest to an end without the assistance of the federal government. Can you tell us where that view that you're expressing comes from?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 75 22-075-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And more generally, what was he expressing and also, was he -- you say specifically here without the assistance of the federal government. Was it federal specifically or was it both provincial and federal? So essentially, just convey to us what Chief Sloly had conveyed to you and what you were bringing up to Cabinet here?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 75 22-075-20

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

But what you’re conveying essentially is that at this point, he’d formed the conclusion that the OPS couldn’t do this alone, they needed help?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 76 22-076-09

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. That’s enough of that document. Can we go, Mr. Clerk, to SSM.NSC.CAN00000293? So this is the next SSE meeting, which was on February 6th. These are the minutes from that. And again, at page 5, please. There we go. Paragraph 3 there: “The Deputy Minister of Public Safety provided an overview of engagements to date with the City of Ottawa, and the province of Ontario. The Deputy Minister stated that there is a clear indication that the City of Ottawa will declare a state of emergency. An emergency council meeting is planned for Monday to identify options which will likely result in a request to the Government of Canada for police support. The Deputy Minister indicated that the Ottawa Police Services view the dismantling of structures at Confederation Park [as] a success and will continue to enforce further. The Deputy Minister reiterated the views of provincial colleagues that negotiation is the ongoing preferred option for resolution at this time”. So can you tell us what essentially in, not these words, but your own words now, where that information was coming from and what you were attempting to convey here?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 76 22-076-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now I want to take you to something specifically that actually arose in the last extract and was sort of alluded to here as well. But the law enforcement response in Ottawa generally. So what happened in Ottawa, the OPS’ reaction and response to the protests as they happened. And I’ll take us away from the minutes for a second to pull your interview summary up again. So Mr. Clerk, that’s WTS0000066. Can you go to page 12, please, Mr. Clerk? Okay. So this is a topic, Mr. Stewart, that we canvassed fairly in depth at your interview. And you’re starting here, I think, from the very initial reaction of the OPS to the protests. And you say from the beginning -- well you’re actually conveying Commissioner Lucki’s words here, or her views: “She reported that from the beginning, the OPS were on their heels. The volume of people exceeded their ability to do policing and they made a mistake in allowing trucks to come into the downtown core and park on the street. Commissioner Lucki also reported […] that the NCRCC was not working particularly well because there were personality issues involved. [Deputy Minister] Stewart explained that he got the sense that as time went on, the OPS pulled it together and the OPP got involved.” So I’ll just stop there and ask you to describe, in general terms, what you were hearing about the OPS response and what views you formed about it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 77 22-077-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And if we could just scroll down a little bit here to page 13? Paragraph 3. So just scroll down a little bit. So here you’re adding: “…it was difficult to get people to come to an agreement about a plan because there were personality issues in the mix.” And then you go on to talk about that. So that probably refers to what you were just saying about chemistry at the NCRCC? Can you elaborate a little bit on the personality issues that you were hearing about?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 79 22-079-20

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And then just scroll up again, sorry. The previous page. There we go. “The RCMP’s position was that the OPS should have asked the OPP more resources and it was the OPP’s responsibility to come and serve. He explained [this is you explaining] that the RCMP felt pressed by the OPS, but that the OPP was the force that OPS should look to pursuant to legislation…” So that’s what you were telling us about according -- so that information is information that you were being given by the RCMP, “We’re not the right people. The OPP are the first, sort of, call to action here.” Is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 80 22-080-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 81 22-081-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

That’s fair. I was sort of talking about the order as opposed to willingness, so that’s a fair response. Thank you. And just the next issue I want to raise here is the issue of swearing in. So if we can just scroll down a little bit. There we go. So there’s also the obstacle, you say, of swearing in RCMP officers so they would have the jurisdiction to enforce municipal and provincial laws. We’ve heard again evidence about this already in the Commission. Mr. Clerk, if you can just scroll to page 13. Now, I appreciate here that it was your colleague, not you, speaking. But can you speak to the swearing-in process at all and how that may have played into difficulties on the ground?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 81 22-081-22

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So that was a concern that had been raised.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 82 22-082-26

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Mr. Clerk, can we pick up the February 6th minutes again, so SSM.NSC.CAN.00000293? Page 5. So Mr. Stewart, the last line of that little blurb of what you were saying says: “The Deputy Minister reiterated the views of provincial colleagues that negotiation is the ongoing preferred option for resolution at this time.” What were you referring to there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 83 22-083-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So this -- in time, we’re in February 6th here and this was a view that you say you held from your own experience and was being expressed by Mr. Di Tommaso from his policing experience. Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we now bring up February 8th minutes, which is SSM.NSC.CAN00000295. Page 10, please. There we go. Paragraph 8. So here the Deputy Minister provided an update on engagement with Ottawa, confirming that since the injunction has been in place, there have been no horns used in Ottawa by the protestors. “The OPS is reporting that their staff are tired and need enforcements. It is evident that the protest is well organized and that the blockade at Ambassador Bridge is designed to divide the attention of the Ontario Provincial Policy. The Deputy Minister confirmed that Ottawa has developed a plan that is being reviewed by the OPP and the RCMP, which includes four key elements: reliance on negotiation; ongoing enforcement; containing the demonstrations once an area’s cleared, and gathering intelligence of various trucking companies.” Okay. So a couple of things I want to ask you about here. First of all, just to situate us in time, this is now February 8th and the blockade at Ambassador Bridge has happened and sort of coalesced on February 7th. So one thing you note is that there’s -- the Ambassador Bridge blockade is designed to divide the attention of the OPP and that this is evidence that the protest is well organized. Can you comment on that and whether -- where that observation came from and...?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 84 22-084-13

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And I’m going to ask you to tell us a little bit about that keeping in mind that we’re going to be hearing directly from CBSA, Canada Border Services Agency, and from Transport Canada, who will have a lot to say about the specifics of what was going on at various ports of entry and places across the country. Would you be able to give us sort of a high level overview of what you were seeing and what you were being informed about around this time across the country?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 86 22-086-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So essentially, as you've said, you in your position as DM Public Safety, were looking at not just what was happening in Ottawa, but what was happening across the country and ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 87 22-087-17

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Can you tell us a bit about that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 88 22-088-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

That was happening in Canada?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 88 22-088-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now let's go to now the February 10th minutes, so this is SSM.NSC.CAN.00000209. So these are now minutes from a different Cabinet Committee called the Incident Response Group. And we will be hearing from PCO later in the week of the details of what that is and how that transpired, but again, can you just give us a very brief definition of what the Incident Response Group is?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 88 22-088-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Fair enough.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 88 22-088-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So and an IRG, that's the acronym that we'll come to know and love over the next couple of weeks, the IRG was convened on February 10th, so this is the first meeting of the IRG; is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 88 22-088-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Can we go to page 6, please? Scroll down a little bit until you see Public Safety Canada. There we go. Okay. "Public Safety Canada reported on a conversation with the lead negotiator (OPP) who noted that in Ottawa, approximately 80 [percent] of protesters had a weak connection to the cause, 5 [percent] had a strong devotion to it, and 15 [percent] were a swing factor. The negotiator suggested that the leaders of the protest could potentially be encouraged to leave and denounce the blockade in exchange for a commitment to register their message with the Government." Okay. Mr. Stewart, first question is, is the lead negotiator OPP you were speaking about there, who is that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 89 22-089-04

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Marcel Beaudin. So we've heard Mr. Beaudin come and testify here. Can you start off by just telling us a little bit what you were reporting here to Cabinet at this time?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 89 22-089-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Engagement as a steppingstone to enforcement. I just want to unpack that a little bit. So you said -- at this point, the engagement that was being contemplated would not -- was not something that would lead to an end to the protest in and of itself.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 91 22-091-25

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So the intention would have been ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 92 22-092-03

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

--- to shrink it. To shrink the footprint, as they say in the lingo that we've learned. Okay. And we know what ultimately comes of this, or at least part of what comes of this is something that's come to be known as the engagement proposal. Can you tell us how that proposal came to be?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 92 22-092-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. You noted that there were some colleagues from PCO involved. Do you recall who was involved ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 93 22-093-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So but Mr. Hutchinson's role there was essentially ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 93 22-093-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

--- observer. Okay. And I understand there was some back and forth that you had with the RCMP and with Inspector Beaudin about the proposal itself. So, Mr. Clerk, if we can just pull up OPP00000150? Excuse me. So this is an email that is not sent to you, so you may not have seen it before, but this is Commissioner Lucki speaking to Commissioner Carrique and Inspector Beaudin, I believe. So she attaches a draft of the engagement proposal and then says, "I am not the SME [-- SME we know stands for subject matter expert --] in this area, but my folks are a bit worried on a few items and need[...] to get your thoughts." Do you know what Commissioner Lucki's concerns were at that time? And I'll just say two things. One, we're going to hear from her directly, so we can ask her that question; and, two, in the course of our interview, you mentioned that one of Commissioner Lucki's concerns may have been around the issue of police independence, so just to situate a little bit -- you a little bit.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 93 22-093-17

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So I think the line we've heard expressed is there may have been some concern that it crossed the line between church and state. That would be the ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 94 22-094-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. One thing you noted when we were speaking in your interview is that the government could benefit from some clarity around where that line is in police independence. Is there anything you'd like to add or share about that in this context?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 95 22-095-01

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Sorry, you just said recent experience?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 95 22-095-09

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And what would those be?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 95 22-095-12

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we bring up OPP00000171? So, Mr. Stewart, as you've noted, this is something that evolved over the course of the one or two days, and we're just trying to put together the chronology of how things evolved. So if we can scroll down, top of page 3 I believe? Okay. So in this email, you're raising some concerns about the engagement proposal, but to the very last bit of the email now. Sorry. "If I can manage to work through this process, and the RCMP Commissioner will be privy to the discussion, I think I can assure you that the federal government's commitment will be solid. But we have to get there first! Thanks" So at this point in time, and this is Saturday, February 12th at 11:23 in the morning, what was your understanding of what level of support there was in the government for this notion and where it came from?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 95 22-095-18

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And the next document then that we want to look at is SSM.NSC.CAN.00002958. So this is a text between Minister Mendocino and Katie Telford, who's the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and I believe this is on the evening of February 11th. And Minister Mendocino expresses here that he's just learning about the engagement proposal, so do I understand that, at this point, while this was playing out, you hadn't yet had the opportunity to brief Mr. Mendocino on this; is that right or ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 96 22-096-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So it was the OPP as opposed to Mr. Di Tommaso, you think, who you were speaking to about it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 97 22-097-08

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And so when you communicated to him that you couldn't get the federal government to sign on to Windsor, that was a matter of timing as opposed to a position being conveyed?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 98 22-098-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 98 22-098-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And there was also, we've heard evidence about another potential sort of engagement possibility, which was the Mayor of Ottawa's sort of deal that was happening to potentially move some trucks up to Wellington Street, et cetera. That was playing around -- been around the same time. What was your awareness of that at the time?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 98 22-098-18

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So would it be fair to say that there’s sort of these different branches of potential engagement going on with not perfect sight over all of the ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 99 22-099-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

No coordination at all. Okay. And what ended up ultimately happening to the engagement proposal? Where did it go?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 99 22-099-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 99 22-099-12

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So it was brought to Cabinet, or to the IRG, rather?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 99 22-099-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

On February 12th. But it was not taken up. So with the benefit of hindsight, and this I’m going to ask you, although it’s completely speculative, but what effect, if any, do you think that that might have had? The engagement proposal.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 99 22-099-18

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So would it be fair to - - it’s an option worth considering, but not a deus ex machina?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 100 22-100-08

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. I now want to move to the invocation of the Emergencies Act itself. And appreciating that we’ll be hearing from a lot of people on this topic, I’m going to target my questions quite specifically. You mentioned in our interview that the Emergencies Act started to be seriously considered around February 11th. Is that about right in your recollection?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 100 22-100-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Well why don’t you just tell us your recollection of how it sort of came on the radar?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 100 22-100-20

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And I understand that Public Safety was asked to provide its input on potential measures that could be helpful under the Emergencies Act. Is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 101 22-101-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So this would have been a topic of discussion at the DMOCCs happening around that time?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 101 22-101-23

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we pull up SSM.CAN00000399, please? So this is an email, and you weren’t on this email, so -- but it reports something that you said. It’s from Mike Keenan, who is the Deputy Minister of Transport, to Kevin Brosseau, ADM of Transport. And it’s reporting on the February 13th DMOCC. And you’ll see: “Emergencies Act is fast -- don’t need to pass anything Rob and I argued [Rob being you here, I believe?]…”

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 101 22-101-26

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

“… that [the] Emergencies Act can backfired in building more energy.” What did you mean by that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 102 22-102-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So essentially it might do more harm than good by inciting, rather than calming?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 102 22-102-24

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Another document, related topic, PB.CAN00001147, please. Okay. Scroll down a little bit, pleased, until we see something that says “these are okay”. An email from Mr. Stewart. Page 5, please. Okay. There we go. So this is forward a bit in time, but it’s on the same topic. This is in preparation for, as it says, some technical briefing remarks that Mr. Rochon was due to give on February 15th about the Emergencies Act once it had been invoked. And Mr. Stewart, your comments here are: “These are ok, but will be duplicative, I expect, of what Justice will say and rather short of substance. If possible, we need to weave in a few more ‘for instances’ that suggest how law enforcement authorities (and the CBSA, as relevant) will deploy the new powers, e.g. intercept and turn away attempted blockades from critical infrastructure, facilitate synthesis of local police and the RCMP…” And then you say: “(I’m afraid I don’t have a lot of great ideas because there aren’t a lot of significant benefits, but we have to try to PS portfolio specifics as much as we can).” So can you tell us what you were expressing her vis a vie the measures that were being implemented?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 102 22-102-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Sure. February 14th, 11:12 p.m.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 104 22-104-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Can you actually explain what that technical briefing is?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 104 22-104-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So they're essentially explanatory brief meetings, sort of an explanatory this is how -- what it is, this is how it works kind of briefing?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 105 22-105-04

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 105 22-105-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Thanks. That's helpful. So just to take you back then, Mr. Stewart, to what you were saying, would it be fair to say that, at the time, so shortly before and immediately after the Act was invoked, you had some hesitancy about it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 105 22-105-14

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And then you said that in hindsight, you think you underestimated the utility of the Emergencies Act. Can you tell us a bit more about why that is? Not why you underestimated, but why you say that it was an underestimate?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 105 22-105-21

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And you're speaking there not just of Ottawa but of the situation across the country?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 106 22-106-06

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Another topic I want to touch on briefly, and I appreciate the time is short, is something you noted in your interview was the consultation with the provinces. You said some of the consultation was discounted because it wasn't premised on whether the government was going to decide to invoke the Act. What did you mean by that comment? I could pull up the reference if it's helpful.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 106 22-106-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So when Mr. Di Tommaso testified last week, I can bring up the references if we need them, but he noted that you spoke to him on February 13th and essentially gave him a heads up, if I can put it that way, told him or advised him that the federal government was considering invoking the Emergencies Act. Do you recall that conversation?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 107 22-107-01

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Another thing -- and I'll come back to that in a second, but another thing he noted you said was that the provincial declaration of emergency that had come in on February 11th "had more teeth" than the provisions in the Federal Emergency Act. Do you recall that and what you were speaking about then?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 107 22-107-11

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So the reference to had more teeth was specifically in reference to the penalties?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 108 22-108-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Are you aware of any other discussions with provincial officials on the 13th or before the invocation of the Emergencies Act in which they were notified that the Act was under consideration?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 108 22-108-10

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So the other thing that Mr. Di Tommaso mentioned was that you had a call with him the following morning, I believe, on February 14th. And on that call, he inquired as to whether the Act was going to be -- the Emergencies Act was going to be invoked that day. And his comment on the notes was "silence!" So I'm gathering that you said nothing at that point about whether it was going to be invoked. Can you just explain a little bit how that conversation went?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 108 22-108-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. We'll fast forward now to the issue of revocation. So, Mr. Clerk, if I can ask you to pull up SSM.CAN.00000429? Okay. So just to situate us a little bit, you told us in the interview that between invocation and revocation, the government was tracking developments across the country, at the ports of entry and receiving input from the RCMP as to what powers were being used, whether they were necessary. Mr. Clerk, can we just scroll down a bit here until we get to an email from Rob Stewart? So we'll see this email probably a couple of times over the course of the next couple of weeks, but this is a discussion that's happening between officials, including yourself, Jody Thomas, the NSIA, several officials from PCO, Mike Keenan at Transport and others, about what considerations should go into revocation and when the Act should be revoked. And your comment here is -- your quick comment, "My quick comment is that, while these are [probably] all worthy considerations, they focus[...] too much on the utility of the Act and not its proportionality. In other words, we need to assess the threat in terms of serious violence, not in terms of whether the truckers are hanging around." What were you attempting to convey here to your colleagues?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 109 22-109-07

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So essentially, bring revocation right back to invocation, coming full circle.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 110 22-110-16

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. That takes us to, essentially, the end of our time together today. But I'll just before leaving completely ask you, is there anything that we haven't covered in the last two-and-a-half that you think we should have, or anything else you would like to say about the events.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 110 22-110-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Of course.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 110 22-110-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

So sort of a -- can you elaborate on what was lacking, essentially?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 111 22-111-15

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

And that was a result of inability to gather that information or was it at the gathering level or the sharing level or ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 111 22-111-19

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So maybe some lessons to be learned in the information gathering, sharing and line of sight.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 111 22-111-28

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Mr. Commissioner, those are my questions.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 112 22-112-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Good morning. For the record, my name’s Brendan Miller. I’m counsel to Freedom Corp, which is the organization that represents the protestors that were in Ottawa in January and February of 2022. Thank you for coming here today and testifying. First, before I begin, sir, I am going to be referring to one document that I believe I need leave before I do so. It has been referred to in the notice I gave already, but because it is a witness statement with a witness who’s not yet testified, but it’s relevant to this, it’s WTS00000060. It’s the statement from the CSIS panel. The relevance and materiality of that is that these gentlemen were the -- essentially the consumers of information and there is a lot of statements in there with respect to what the government was told and when, and I’m intending to put that to them. So I would ask for leave to be able to refer to that document through my examination.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 112 22-112-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you, sir. So just to begin, Deputy Minister Stewart, you’ve been the Deputy Minister of Public Safety since December of 2019. Is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 113 22-113-02

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Until just recently. All right. And when you took over that portfolio, I take it that you had familiarized yourself with the process of law enforcement and the intelligence agencies with respect to investigations. Is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 113 22-113-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

You learned on the job, right. And -- because prior to that, you were with Finance. Is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 113 22-113-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And prior to your appointment into the portfolio of Public Safety, is it fair to say that other than financial intelligence, that you had not worked in the area of law enforcement or the intelligence field. Is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 113 22-113-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Not entirely?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 113 22-113-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Exactly. So financial intelligence within the criminal sphere of the Ministry of Finance.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 114 22-114-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, right. And so in your evidence here today already, you’ve spoken about the thresholds for investigations in your chief, and I want to discuss that for a moment. Okay? So you understand, I take it, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Canada, the threshold that you’re speaking of with respect to opening an investigation, it’s referred to in Canada as reasonable suspicion. Are you familiar with that term?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 114 22-114-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah. So there’s -- and we’ll get into that. And you can agree with me that that’s a pretty low threshold, is it not, in law enforcement terms?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 114 22-114-17

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And you’re aware that the law recognizes, though, that reasonable suspicion essentially requires more than a mere suspicion, but something less than a belief based on reasonable grounds. Is that your understanding?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 114 22-114-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so reasonable grounds to suspect is different than reasonable grounds generally. You understand that; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 115 22-115-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. So you don’t know the difference between reasonable grounds and reasonable grounds to suspect.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 115 22-115-05

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So there’s two -- there’s two thresholds in Canada with respect to investigations criminally and in intelligence. We have the lower threshold of reasonable suspicion, which you call reasonable grounds to suspect, and then reasonable grounds, which is also called reasonable and probable grounds. Reasonable and probable grounds is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion. You understand that.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 115 22-115-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Pardon me?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 115 22-115-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So your understanding is that reasonable suspicion is a higher threshold than reasonable grounds.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 115 22-115-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And it’s the same thing with reasonable grounds; right? You would also have a particular act in mind. Can you agree that reasonable grounds requires some reliable information that there was a reasonable to believe a person or group could have committed an offence or pose a threat to the security of Canada? Can you agree with that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 115 22-115-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. So whereas reasonable suspicion, it just requires a reasonable suspicion; right? It’s a lesser threshold than reasonable grounds. Can you -- can you agree? And you know that.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 116 22-116-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And so can you agree, though, that it is CSIS who is the main agency that administers the CSIS Act?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 116 22-116-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And they’re the agency that’s primarily responsible for assessing if there’s a section 2 CSIS Act threat to the security of Canada; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 116 22-116-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And under section 12 of the CSIS Act, CSIS is only required to have a reasonable suspicion that there is a section 2 CSIS Act threat to open an investigation. Is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 116 22-116-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And they’re not required to meet the higher threshold of reasonable grounds to open an investigation.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 117 22-117-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

For section 12, and that’s reasonable suspicion. That’s what it says.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 117 22-117-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 117 22-117-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So can I bring up WTS00000060, please? And can we scroll down to page 5? Okay. And can we scroll down to the heading “Intelligence”? And just the first paragraph, I’ll give you a moment to read that. Would you help me with the pronunciation of Minister David’s last name? We’ve all been debating about how to pronounce it properly.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 117 22-117-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Vigneault. All right. So David Vigneault, he stated that at no point did the service, being CSIS, assess the protests in Ottawa or elsewhere, those referred to as the Freedom Convoy and related protests and blockades in January and February 2022, constituted a threat to the security of Canada as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act, and that CSIS cannot investigate activities constituting a lawful protest. And I take it you were advised of this; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 117 22-117-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And can we scroll down, then, to page 7? And go to the heading “Foreign Influence”. So Director Vigneault explained that the use of the term “foreign influence” under section 2 of the CSIS Act refers to a foreign state interference as the term is used within the national security community ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 118 22-118-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. “CSIS assessed there was no indication of foreign state interference occurring in the course of the protest. CSIS did not assess that any foreign state supported the protest through funding, that foreign states deployed covert or overt disinformation techniques, or that any foreign state actors attempted to enter into Canada to support the protest.” (As read) And I take it that you were advised of that by CSIS and Director Vigneault; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 118 22-118-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And if we can go down to page number 8, and the heading, “Recommendation to Cabinet”? There, Director Vigneault states that he learned that the EA reference, the threat definition set out in section 2 of the CSIS Act, once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the EA between February 10th and 13th. He requested that the service prepare a threat assessment under risks associated with the invocation of the EA. He felt an obligation to clearly convey the Service’s position that there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the Service’s legal mandate. The threat assessment prepared by the Service was that the invocation of the Emergencies legislation risked further inflaming IMV rhetoric and individuals holding accelerationists or antigovernment views. You were told that; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 119 22-119-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. So can we now please bring up document number TS.NSC.CAN.00100000206_REL_0001. So in this document, which is already actually in evidence -- I just want to scroll down to page 5, please. So there again: “On February 3rd, CSIS assessed [there’s no indications] that known IMVE actors were planning to engage in violence.” And it’s on February 13th, I believe, that this is the document that Director Vigneault is referring to that states that, you know, it could’ve been a risk if you invoke the Emergencies Act to making things worse; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 119 22-119-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And you knew about that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 120 22-120-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so did Cabinet; they knew about all of this; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 120 22-120-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Okay, if I could bring up the next document, which is going to be TSNSC.CAN.001.00000160_REL_0001. Now, before I get into this, you can agree that it was clear to both you and Cabinet that CSIS did not have reasonable suspicion that there existed a section 2 CSIS Act threat during the protest; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 120 22-120-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 120 22-120-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And I also understand that the Canadian Security Establishment, the CSE, they never advised you or the government or Cabinet that they had identified a section 2 CSIS Act threat either; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 120 22-120-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And both the RCMP and the OPP, from at least their evidence and things we’ve seen today, they never identified or advised the government that there was a section 2 CSIS Act threat, right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 120 22-120-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And so the entire intelligence apparatus and law enforcement apparatus within Canada, tells the Cabinet and the government that there is no section 2 CSIS Act threat, is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 121 22-121-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So what intelligence bureau or agency or law enforcement agency told the government, “Here’s the evidence of reasonable and probable grounds, of reasonable grounds, of a section 3 CSIS Act threat”? And you know, I take it now, ‘cause it’s advised to you, that that’s required to invoke the Emergencies Act, it’s in the documents; you were advised of that.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 121 22-121-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. So what agency gave you the evidence and the intelligence that said, “Hey, we have reasonable grounds of a section 2 CSIS Act threat? There wasn’t one, was there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 121 22-121-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And I understand that. But you understand that when Ministers or administrative agencies et cetera, are entitled to make a statutory decision, whether or not a statutory requisite is met, they do so based on the evidence that is before them and the submissions before them; you know that.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 122 22-122-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And you have the RCMP, you have CSIS, you have the entire intelligence apparatus in the federal government, and none of them said that this threshold was met, did they?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 122 22-122-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So -- and with respect to the Ministers making the decision, when you’re talking about Ministers, you’re talking about the elected executive; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 122 22-122-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. So the Prime Minister.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 122 22-122-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. To your knowledge, what training in national security and law enforcement does the Prime Minister have?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 122 22-122-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes. Can you agree with me that he doesn’t have any, to your knowledge?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And what about Minister Mendicino? He, I understand, has training as a Crown prosecutor at least, is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And Minister Blair, he was the Chief of Police for the Toronto Police Service.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And when did Minister Blair first tell you that he was thinking about invoking the Emergencies Act?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

There’s a record not yet in evidence that states that Minister’s Blair’s strategy was from February 4th on to invoke the Emergencies Act; were you aware of that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Can you please bring up the next document which is -- oh, we have the input, and I’ll just ask you about these. These are the -- if you can scroll up to the top, please? I take it that this is the input that CSIS gave to your Ministry, Public Safety, with respect to the key messages they thought should be put out with respect to the convoy, is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 123 22-123-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So I’m just going to go through it with you, then.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 124 22-124-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. I’ll be quick. This document, you agree that none of the messaging from this document was actually incorporated into the messaging from Public Safety, was it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 124 22-124-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And I have to be quick so, I just want to bring up one last document. And that’s SSM.CAN.00001079_REL.0001. No, that’s not the correct document. It’s okay. I’ll deal with it with another witness. So thank you very much for answering my questions.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 124 22-124-23

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

I’m content to either do it now or after lunch. I think we will need our 10 minutes, and there’s a chance -- there’s a better chance we get right under the 10 minutes’ mark if we have the lunch break to shorten it up and tighten it up Commissioner.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 125 22-125-07

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

But I am content to go now if that’s your preference.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 125 22-125-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 126 22-126-01

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Just a small clarification coming out of the overview report that was presented this morning. The first Cabinet meeting of full Cabinet in relation to the convoy was held on February 13th and not February 3rd. Thanks.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 126 22-126-04

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Good afternoon. My name's Anne Tardif. I'm one of the lawyers for the City of Ottawa. Can I ask Mr. Clerk to pull up PB.NSC.CAN.00009542? And this is an email chain, and if we could -- well, you're not on it, gentlemen, but Mr. Dakalbab? Have I got that correct? Thank you. You're both nodding. Is on the chain, and I understand he was interviewed along with you and some of your other colleagues by the Commission in this case; right? And we'll need an audible answer, sorry.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 126 22-126-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And he is at Public Safety as well; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 126 22-126-26

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And if we scroll down to the top of page 2, Mr. Clerk, and actually, just scroll up a little bit, just so we get that email? Up a little bit higher. There we go. This is an email from an individual with the Solicitor General's office in Ontario to your colleague, Mr. Trehearne, among others, at Public Safety; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 127 22-127-01

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And he says, "Hi, Trevor and Deryck [your colleagues,] I was hoping for some clarity on a few RFA [meeting requests for assistance,] process-related item based on some references I have been seeing in recent media coverage for Ottawa." Scrolling down to number two, which is the one that interests me, it's titled "Request for Law Enforcement Support Under Ontario Police Services Act." "this article [and there's a link that we can't access] says that the feds approved a request from Ottawa for RCMP support. I would have assumed such a request would have required a provincial Minister request. But clearly it didn't [as in did not]. I am fine with that but want to check on process. Was that a political decision that by-passed process or this type of request could be made by either a municipal or provincial police service?" So scrolling back up, Mr. Clerk, this is a question, as we've seen, that the Solicitor General's office is putting to your colleagues, and I believe the date is February 4th. If we could scroll up, Mr. Clerk? Yeah, February 4th. And if we scroll all the way up to the top, you'll see there's an internal email chain within Public Safety and your colleague Mr. Dakalbab says, "This is far from being solved. Still discussions on their way to clarify [Question] 2" Which is the one I just read. You see that there? Yes? So fair to say that at least as at February 4th, within Public Safety, there were still discussions in terms of the process for OPS for Ottawa requesting law enforcement resources from the RCMP; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 127 22-127-09

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Now, Mr. Stewart, I heard you say in your testimony that almost right from the beginning, right after that first weekend, Chief Sloly was adamant that he needed more resources than he had at his disposal to dismantle the occupation; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 128 22-128-21

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And you're aware that on February 7th, I won't turn it up, the Mayor of Ottawa and Ms. Deans, who was then the Chair of the Police Services Board, wrote a letter to the federal government asking for 1800 additional officers to support the OPS: correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 128 22-128-27

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. So I'd like to go -- that was on February 7th. I'd like to now turn to a read out of the SSE Committee of Cabinet, which I take it is a committee that deals with safety, security and emergencies?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 129 22-129-05

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Have I got the acronym right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 129 22-129-10

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. And, Mr. Clerk, it's SSM.CAN.NSC.00002661. And this should be a February 9th meeting of the SSE Committee of Cabinet. It's a read out. And you'll see there the date February 9th; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 129 22-129-12

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. So the Committee meeting was on the 8th. The read out is being circulated on the 9th; fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 129 22-129-19

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Can we go to the bottom of page 1, please? Right there. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Do you see it says, "RCMP resources deployed"? Are you with me, Mr. Stewart?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 129 22-129-23

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

"340 members on duty every day within RCMP mandate." And that would be in part the protective mandate that you described earlier; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 129 22-129-27

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

So to protect federal assets and people?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 130 22-130-04

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

"Increase in protective posture associated with RCMP mandate." And then this is what I wanted to draw your attention to. It says, "50 uniformed resources in support of OPS mandates since last weekend." So from January 31st to February 8th, roughly 50 uniformed RCMP officers in Ottawa; fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 130 22-130-07

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Under OPS command, I should say; fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 130 22-130-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And then it says, "Working to deploy another 200 people on new plan with OPS and partners." Right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 130 22-130-19

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And then finally it says, "OPP setting up integrated planning cell to review OPS plan." And that was going to include "2 RCMP members" as well; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 130 22-130-24

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

If we can scroll to page 3, please, the second bullet at the top of the page? There we go. Again, we see that the plan, and this is the OPS plan, is going to be "subject to review and verification by OPP [and] others", presumably the RCMP; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 131 22-131-02

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And that had to happen before additional resources were committed to Ottawa by the RCMP; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 131 22-131-08

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Let's keep going then. So I'd like to turn then to the first meeting of the IRG, which I understood occurred on February 10th?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 131 22-131-12

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Right. And that's day 13 of the convoy or occupation here in Ottawa; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 131 22-131-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Mr. Clerk, if we could turn to SSM.NSC.CAN.00000209, please? Okay. And if we could turn then to page 5, please, halfway through the first complete paragraph. Yeah. So you'll see there it says, "The RCMP" -- it's about six lines down; do you see that? Thank you, Mr. Clerk. "The RCMP has provided all [recourses] requested by the OPS." Do you see that there?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 131 22-131-19

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

But I think we can agree that the 1800 or any significant portion thereof requested on February 7th was not yet in Ottawa by this date February 10th; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 132 22-132-01

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Right. And then if we scroll to page 6, please, halfway through the page, right there, "The Commissioner of the RCMP"; do you see that, Mr. Stewart?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 132 22-132-06

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

"...indicated that Windsor remains the number one priority." I don't think that's quite contentious. This is February 10th, but that was what the Commissioner indicated on that date; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 132 22-132-10

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I put it to you that that's the reason that the IRG was not convened until this date, that is, until Windsor had occurred, the blockade at Windsor?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 132 22-132-16

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. And then why did it take 13 days for the situation in Ottawa before the IRG to be convened?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 132 22-132-20

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Will do. Okay. So I guess we'll jump ahead now to the second IRG meeting. I only have a few minutes left. We can turn it up. It's SSM.NSC.CAN.00000214, Mr. Clerk. If we can go to page 6, please, at the bottom. And the last two sentences. "There continue to be challenges..." and I should say the date. It's February 12th. This is the second meeting of the IRG. "There continue to be challenges working with the Integrated Planning Team in Ottawa around communication and [I think that word should be decisiveness] of the OPS Chief. Every request made by the OPS has been fulfilled with RCMP personnel exceeding the 250 agreed upon in the MOU.” And maybe this comes back to what you were saying earlier, Mr. Stewart, that you thought more had been provided than that 200, even before the plan had been finalized. But I take it we can agree that the large number requested, the number that was eventually needed in order to dismantle the occupation, was still not in Ottawa by this date on February 12th?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 133 22-133-01

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Right. And that was the number that had been requested on February 7th; correct? The 1,800 from both levels of government. That’s not here yet at this point in time; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 133 22-133-25

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Right. And you mention -- pardon me, Commissioner. If I could just have one minute? I think I’m out, but I’m wrapping up. Thank you. You said earlier that it took several weeks ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-02

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. Understood. I heard you say earlier, Mr. Stewart, that it took several weeks for the right chemistry to be achieved at the Integrated Command Centre. Recall saying that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-08

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I take it the ICC established unified command over the operation to dismantle the convoy; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-13

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Between all three police forces? OPS, OPP, and RCMP; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-17

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And you described Chief Sloly as a strong personality; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-20

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

You’d heard it was challenging to get him to relinquish his authority?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-23

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I expect we will hear evidence that Commissioner Lucki of the RCMP told her counterpart at the OPP on February 5th, so during that first week, that the Federal Government was either losing or had lost confidence in the OPS? Did you share that view?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 134 22-134-26

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Did you hear of any such concerns, either from the Commissioner or from Ministers?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 135 22-135-04

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Now, you’ve said that the OPS should look to the -- should have looked to the OPP first, right, to fulfil its needs?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 135 22-135-08

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Fair enough. I think you also said the RCMP was always ready and willing to assist?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 135 22-135-14

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And I appreciate there were logistical concerns, paperwork, swearing them in, getting them to Ottawa if they’re deployed elsewhere; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 135 22-135-17

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

But fair to say, the real issue was what was perceived at least as the OPS lack of a plan; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 135 22-135-21

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And what you understood to be Chief Sloly’s reticence to relinquish authority, because he was controlling the approval of the plan? That’s what you understood?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 135 22-135-25

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Okay. The relationship between the two, you can’t put together?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 136 22-136-05

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

And the reason I put to you that the OPS, or that the Government of Canada wanted the OPS to look to the OPP first was that it hoped the OPP could resolve the issues around leadership and the plan?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 136 22-136-08

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Thank you.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 136 22-136-13

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Good afternoon to you both. My name is Jessica Barrow and I’m one of the counsel to the Ottawa Police Service. My questions will be directed to you, Mr. Stewart. I just want to start by discussing some of the information that was known to Public Safety prior to the arrival of the convoy, and I know you went through some of that already with Commission Counsel, but I wanted to clarify a couple of things. So you indicated in your witness statement that there were challenges in obtaining information in relation to the convoy because the novelty of the events made it difficult to distinguish between things seen on social media that were credible versus not credible. Is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 136 22-136-17

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And in fact, you testified this morning that because of the organic nature of the events, it was difficult to obtain what you referred to as “good intel”? Correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 137 22-137-05

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you would agree with me that these would have been challenges that all law enforcement agencies would have been facing as well; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 137 22-137-10

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

So Commission Counsel took you to one of the key points documents, and I want to take you toa couple as well. I’ll start with January 26. And Mr. Clerk, the number is PB.CAN.701. And if we could scroll down to page 2 towards the bottom of the page? In the third to bottom bullet, it says: “Some supporters suggested they would not leave Ottawa until vaccine mandates for public servants, Canadian travelers and cross-border truckers are lifted.” Do you recall seeing that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 137 22-137-14

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so this suggests that there was at least information available to you and others to the effect that some protestors may not leave Ottawa; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 137 22-137-26

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

But again, as you’ve indicated, with open-source information, it’s difficult to know whether that information was credible or not; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 138 22-138-02

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And the RCMP was presumably privy to this same information as well?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 138 22-138-09

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you indicated in your witness statement, at page 10, and I’m happy to turn it up if necessary, but I suspect you’ll recall saying this, that if the RCMP had intelligence that the convoy was planning on becoming entrenched in Ottawa and failed to report that information up to Public Safety, that you would have considered that to be problematic; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 138 22-138-12

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And notwithstanding the fact that we see that there’s at least some information to suggest that protestors might stay, the RCMP was similarly not raising any kind of alarm bells around that; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 138 22-138-20

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if we scroll to the top of the document, if you go down a -- yes. The first sentence there: “The following relates to a planned peaceful demonstration in Ottawa on 28-29 [January].” So even with that information in mind, you’re still planning for, you know, a couple of days; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 138 22-138-25

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. So I want to turn back to the one on the 27th, which you did speak about briefly with Commission Counsel. That number, Mr. Clerk, is PB.CAN703. And if we could go to page 3, please? That’s perfect. Thank you. My friend took you to one of the bullets in the bolded section that we see here, but I want to turn to some of the bullets that precede that one bullet. So what we can see here is a number of directions that appear to have been provided by OPS in relation to where the trucks could park when they arrive; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 139 22-139-06

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And is it your understanding that this information was coming from INTERSECT?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 139 22-139-18

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And so what we see is a number of different options. The first one we see is from the west, they’re being directed to Sir John A. MacDonald Parkway; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 139 22-139-22

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And then following this, Kent and Metcalfe exits can be used, the George-Étienne Parkway can be used, and then ultimately we see in the third bullet there that Wellington will be closed, but there will be three lanes dedicated to the demonstration; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 139 22-139-27

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so you were provided information prior to the convoy’s arrival that the OPS plan was to allow at least some of the truckers to park downtown; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 140 22-140-05

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I’m just going to bring you to the INTERSECT document. That one is PB.CAN1234. If you could scroll down a little bit, please? So this is presumably then the INTERSECT information that ultimately we see coming through that key points document? Is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 140 22-140-10

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

and so again, we see here that there is information to suggest that OPS’ plan involved having some truckers park on Wellington; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 140 22-140-18

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so again, this didn’t raise any kind of alarm bells from your perspective, that this was the plan for OPS; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 140 22-140-22

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And again, this information would have been available to RCMP?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 140 22-140-26

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And similarly, RCMP didn’t raise any concerns with you in relation to the plan?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 141 22-141-01

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And you understood at this point, and I’m happy to turn back to the previous document if necessary, but I think you would agree that this was a group at this point that was cooperative, and from your perspective, was exercising their democratic right to peaceful protest; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 141 22-141-04

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Mr. Clerk, could we turn to SAS12, please? So these appear to be the minutes or notes from a deputy minister's call on February 7th. Do you recall that meeting?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 141 22-141-10

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so I just want to take you through a couple of the comments that you've made in here on February 7th. The first bullet references, "A protest of significant proportions we have not seen before." Do you recall saying that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 141 22-141-16

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And if we can go down to the third bullet point, please? And in there, we see, "Setting a standard to worry about. Setting a standard for behaviour. How to go above the norms and laws." So I take it you agree that you made those comments?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 141 22-141-23

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And what you meant by this comment was that what Ottawa was doing was unlike any protests that any city in Canada had ever seen before; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 142 22-142-02

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And specifically, you were saying that the behaviour of these protesters was unlike anything seen in previous protests?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 142 22-142-06

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Right, as well as the honking, some of the harassment that we saw exhibited by ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 142 22-142-13

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

The behaviours of some of the protesters ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 142 22-142-17

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

--- as well as the trucks, I take it you're saying. And so the protesters were prepared, from your perspective, to disregard the laws as well as the social norms of behaviour that we had come to expect in a city and other places as well with respect to the behaviour of protesters; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 142 22-142-20

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And when we walked through - - I took you to two of the key points documents, and I take it you would agree with me that the specific references to this idea of honking or lawlessness or the departure from social norms, there wasn’t really any indication that the protesters were going to engage in that type of behaviour; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 142 22-142-28

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And in fact, as far as you're aware, they weren’t engaging in that type of behaviour before they arrived in Ottawa?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 143 22-143-07

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Fair enough. And so you would agree with me then that the behaviour was unexpected?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 143 22-143-13

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And I don’t need to pull it up, I don't think, but please correct me if that’s not the case, but on page 12 of your witness statement, you indicated that the other cities that subsequently had similar events were able to learn from what was seen in Ottawa. Do you recall saying that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 143 22-143-16

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so you would agree with me that it's because of what happened in Ottawa that other cities may have been able to prepare in a different way?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 143 22-143-22

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I just have one last issue I want to raise, and that’s in relation to the engagement proposal that you went through with Commission counsel earlier. And so I wonder if we could pull up OPP142, Mr. Clerk? And if we could scroll down to page 2, we'll see an email between yourself and Inspector Beaudin, and that’s setting out some considerations in relation to the proposal. If we can -- I think it might be up a little bit. Yes, there. Do you recall seeing this email with all the considerations?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 143 22-143-26

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And what we see from Inspector Beaudin is that he was of the view that this could constitute a win of sorts for protesters in terms of providing an exit strategy; is that -- do you recall that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 144 22-144-11

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And would you agree with me that the comments that come from Inspector Beaudin involve an advocacy for a measured approach consistent with the national framework rather than simply resorting first to enforcement?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 144 22-144-16

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And in your witness statement, you indicated at page 18 that there were particular difficulties, actually, to enforcement operations in Ottawa. Do you recall saying that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 144 22-144-21

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And that was because the protesters were very entrenched and they were aggressive towards the police?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 144 22-144-26

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

And so the proposal was presumably aimed at trying to change that posture; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 145 22-145-02

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. And you indicated in your witness statement that you did not share the proposal with OPS; is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 145 22-145-05

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Okay. I just ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 145 22-145-13

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

You did not consult them. So maybe we'll just bring up one last document. I'm almost completed, Mr. Commissioner. OPP633, just to provide some clarity on this point.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 145 22-145-15

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

If you wouldn't mind.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 145 22-145-22

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Thank you very much. And so it's just that first email we see from Inspector Beaudin, and he's indicating that it's the opinion of Deputy Chief Ferguson that the letter go to her and she will ensure the letter is disseminated to the proper people. So you would agree with me that Deputy Chief Ferguson was both aware and approved this, correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 145 22-145-25

Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Yes. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions, and thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 146 22-146-05

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Thank you, Commissioner. I'm Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly. Thank you. I just have a few questions. My colleagues have covered some of the things I was going to ask you about, so the -- Mr. Stewart, you said just a minute ago in response to one of my friends that you don’t go by the book in a situation like this. Do you recall saying that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 146 22-146-10

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And does that capture the idea that what you were dealing with during the time that we are speaking about with protests in different locations across the country was completely without precedent, and there is therefore no playbook that you can follow?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 146 22-146-18

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

One of the things that you have spoken to us about in your statement and today was the role of various of the federal government entities that concern national security. You recall that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 146 22-146-26

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And did this -- did the events, in your opinion, reach -- become a national security threat?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-03

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

But was that your own view?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-07

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Mr. Rochon?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-10

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Same opinion?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-12

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And as a consequence of -- and of course, as you've described to, I think, one of my friends, it was not thought to be a national security threat at the time that the convoys began to organize and come to Ottawa?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-14

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Do you agree?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-19

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

I'm going to ask you, if I can, about the -- one more thing, and I think you've probably covered this, but former Chief Sloly has described these events as representing a paradigm shift in protests in Canada, probably for the reasons that you've given, Mr. Stewart, concerning the use of heavy vehicles. You share that view?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-21

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Mr. Rochon?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 147 22-147-28

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Now, the -- you've spoken to my friends about Chief Sloly's consistent requests for the need for additional resources. Do you agree that those came in two forms? First, there was a request for resources to maintain the safety of the citizens, the protesters, and police service members who were policing the areas on Ottawa that were the subject of the protest?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 148 22-148-02

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And second, of course, that a greater need for resources in the event that a dismantling of the occupation was required?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 148 22-148-10

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Two very separate ways of thinking of resources; do you agree?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 148 22-148-14

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Do you also agree that the second, that is the -- an effort to bring public order and to dismantle an occupation requires the greater number of resources that you were eventually speaking about?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 148 22-148-17

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And everyone understood, didn’t they, that the OPS itself did not have the resources needed to do the second thing?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 148 22-148-22

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And it's true also, of course, they didn’t even have the resources to do the first thing because their own members were stretched so thin, I think you said?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 148 22-148-26

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Now, this was, of course, the same thing that occurred, in a sense, in both Windsor and Coutts and probably other places in terms of the under-resourcing of police services trying to manage those situations. Is that true?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 149 22-149-03

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Understood. I suppose that it wasn’t -- we know, don’t we, that the protest in Coutts, the blockade in Coutts, was not prevented or able to be prevented by RCMP officers on the ground there.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 149 22-149-14

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And then once it did, once they were -- the protesters were there, the vehicles were on the road, and stopped, then enforcement became very challenging, correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 149 22-149-20

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And I think in fact one of the lessons that was learned in Coutts 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, February 1st?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 149 22-149-25

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

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.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 150 22-150-03

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Now, 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 150 22-150-07

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 150 22-150-14

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

In the absence of a plan?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 150 22-150-18

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 150 22-150-20

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Now, of the protests across the country, do you agree that Ottawa was the most complex and the most challenging?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 150 22-150-26

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Fair enough. In terms of the, as you say the physical sense, or if one thought about it as a security issue, it was the more volatile. It had the most vehicles and the most protesters across a larger area; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 151 22-151-03

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Now, the -- 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 151 22-151-09

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

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.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 151 22-151-18

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And yet the ministers -- the federal government ministers with whom you were interacting were demanding some kind of action. Is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 151 22-151-26

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And the same was true, to your observation, of municipal officials here in Ottawa?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-04

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And of course, the community, the residents?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-07

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

A high level of impatience and a high -- it was a highly challenging situation for the police service and for Chief Sloly.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-10

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

You observed, and I'm sure you felt that 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-14

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Mr. Rochon?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-19

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And you observed it across the spectrum of police services and other government agencies; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-21

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Do you agree that Chief Sloly, during the time that you were dealing with him, was a passionate defender of the city’s residents and of the Police Service in trying to find a solution?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 152 22-152-25

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And acted in good faith in the performance of his duties?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 153 22-153-02

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Now, one last area, if I may. Chief Sloly has described options that were other than enforcement and do you agree that Commissioner Lucki also expressed a preference for even the effort of an interlocutor to try to negotiate something with protesters? Do you recall that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 153 22-153-05

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

May I just show you, please, a document then and see if you can assist us because I think you received it. You're a member of the -- one of the acronyms -- the Deputy Minister’s Committee on Operational Coordination?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 153 22-153-11

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

True? DMOC? Could I please show the witness the interview summary from -- oh now, I won’t need to go to that. Let me show you the document, PBCAN00000750. See if this assists your recollection if you would, please, Mr. Stewart. There’s a suffix on that, REL.001. I don’t know if that’s important, 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.?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 153 22-153-16

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

All right. Can you conform for the Commissioner, for this Commissioner, that you were at this meeting?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 154 22-154-01

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Could you please just scroll down if you would, please, Mr. Registrar, to an expression that begins, “I will be honest…” the second page. 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 Lucki raised this concern that there may not be a solution through -- only through enforcement and there may be other solutions including an interlocutor?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 154 22-154-05

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And that she said that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 154 22-154-22

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

All right. I’m out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 154 22-154-25

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 155 22-155-02

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Mr. Stewart, M. Rochon, my name is Emilie Taman. 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. M. 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 155 22-155-04

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And you indicated this morning that the government has determined -- had determined prior even to the Freedom Convoy that there is a need for a refresh of the National Security Strategy. Is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 155 22-155-14

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Okay. And the current strategy, I believe you said, dates back to 2004?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 155 22-155-25

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 156 22-156-01

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Okay. And so in pursuing a refresh or in continually 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 156 22-156-08

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Okay. And you testified this morning that in the leadup to the Freedom Convoy's occupation of Ottawa, there was no reason to see the convoy as a national security threat; right? Based on the intelligence that had been produced for you?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 156 22-156-27

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But ultimately, a national security threat was, as Mr. Stewart 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 157 22-157-05

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So 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, OPS, OPP, RCMP, CSIS?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 157 22-157-11

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 158 22-158-01

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Right.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 158 22-158-08

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Right. So we heard from former Chief Peter Sloly that he believes that there is a double standard that exists in how national security threats are identified and communicated, and that 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 158 22-158-11

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 159 22-159-01

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 159 22-159-08

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 159 22-159-14

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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 Mendocino 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 160 22-160-07

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But no one within Public Safety at that time, on February 3rd, was considering invoking the Emergencies Act at that point; were they?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 160 22-160-16

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 160 22-160-21

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But no one within Public Safety at that time was considering invoking the Emergencies Act; right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 160 22-160-27

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And you've indicated that it did become an active consideration around February 11th; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 161 22-161-04

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 161 22-161-08

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Okay. But a significant part of the consideration with respect to economic harm had to do with international trade; didn't it?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 161 22-161-17

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Yeah. So had it not been for the border blockades, would, in your assessment, residents of Ottawa have been -- continued to have been left to deal with the effects of the convoy despite the tremendous social and economic harm they were experiencing?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 161 22-161-22

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Right.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 162 22-162-01

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But specifically with respect to the Emergencies Act, would you, you know, 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 162 22-162-05

Emilie Taman, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 162 22-162-19

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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 WTS66? And while that's coming up, I expect that most of my questions will be directed to Mr. Stewart through Mr. Rochon. If you have some insight or some information, then please chime in. All right. So this is your witness summary. 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. 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 a fair characterization of the summary?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 162 22-162-24

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And so my question arising from that is, which law enforcement agencies were consulted about the use of the Act.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 163 22-163-21

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. And so my question is, which agencies were asked whether they needed more tools?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 163 22-163-28

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. Do you have any knowledge on how that consultation took place?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 164 22-164-04

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. Because Commissioner Carrique, 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 the Federal Government; do you have any reason to dispute his testimony in that regard?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 164 22-164-08

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 164 22-164-17

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Or other law enforcement agencies?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 164 22-164-23

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. Because we were talking about tools which in terms of law enforcement agencies, is what I am referring to. And so do you have any direct knowledge of other law enforcement agencies that were consulted about those tools?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 164 22-164-27

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. Now at the time of course you would agree that the OPP had a very prominent role within the province, both in Windsor, Ottawa and elsewhere in Ontario?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 165 22-165-05

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And you would agree that the OPP, considering its role and multiple scenarios would be in a good position to provide a meaningful response to a consultation request?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 165 22-165-10

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And indeed the OPP would have a different perspective in the RCMP because they have different jurisdiction; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 165 22-165-16

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. And do you know if there is a written record of consultation with law enforcement agencies on the Emergencies Act?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 165 22-165-21

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Considering the extraordinary nature of the Emergencies Act do you agree that perhaps there should be a written consultation record for accountability purposes?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 165 22-165-25

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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 is 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 166 22-166-06

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 166 22-166-15

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Did you have any direct involvement with consulting law enforcement? I think you said you did not; is that fair?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 166 22-166-20

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. If we can turn up document PB.NSC.CAN.000003256.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 166 22-166-25

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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 Lucki and Mike Jones. Do you recognize this email?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 167 22-167-04

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Now Patrick Vezina is counsel, I believe; who are Alison Whelan and Dennis Daly?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 167 22-167-10

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Okay. Did you see this document at the time that it was generated or around the time it was generated?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 167 22-167-14

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Now Mike Jones as I understand it, was Chief of Staff for Minister Mendicino; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 167 22-167-19

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And if you scroll down to the bottom, it starts with an email request made on February 13th from Mike Jones to Brenda Lucki. 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 Lucki -- stop there. Commissioner Lucki kind of gives a list of some tools that she might find useful; is that your understanding of this email?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 167 22-167-23

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Now, I note that this exchange ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 168 22-168-05

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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, comes from the Chief of Staff rather than from your office, from the Deputy Minister’s Office?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 168 22-168-10

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Because typically, and I know the way it works provincially of course, because that’s my area, but Commissioner Carrique 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.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 168 22-168-18

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And so it’s more common then for the political side to engage directly with the Commissioner of the RCMP?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 168 22-168-26

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And I wanted to follow up on a comment, because this is an opportunity for us to look at all these issues, all of these kind of broader systemic issues because you raised 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 could be improved from where it’s at now?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 169 22-169-02

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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 would at least be copied on it for your information or awareness?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 169 22-169-19

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 169 22-169-26

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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. Rochon, 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. Do you have any recommendations on how those lines should be drawn?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 170 22-170-01

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Do you have any thoughts, Mr. Rochon?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 170 22-170-12

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 170 22-170-15

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

But you only know what’s provided to you; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 170 22-170-22

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 170 22-170-25

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

So really, you wouldn’t be in a position, especially at the time, to know whether you would have reviewed all the intelligence, or whether what had been provided to you was an accurate reflection of what was out there; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 171 22-171-02

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And so if the RCMP or whoever is 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 171 22-171-18

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Thank you, gentlemen. Much appreciated.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 172 22-172-05

Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. This is Tom McRae for Windsor Police Service. I have no questions.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 172 22-172-09

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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 Institution Report? That’s document DOJ.IR.00000008. 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 172 22-172-15

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 173 22-173-01

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 173 22-173-06

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Is this ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 173 22-173-22

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Okay. There is a mention of personnel in the RFA. I’ll just take you to that as well. That’s Document PB.CAN.00000718. And I’ll take it you’ve seen the RFA from Minister McIver before? Is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 173 22-173-25

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Okay. And then if we look at paragraph 5 -- or sorry, paragraph 4, within that paragraph, we see: “To support this approach, I am 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.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 174 22-174-03

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 174 22-174-22

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

All right. Now can we please take a look at Document PB.CAN.00001514? And this is an email from Mr. Dakalbab 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 their request to access Reservists with operational skills needed to drive towing trucks was not accepted (this part of the request is news to us and we committed to follow up on this specific point).” Do you know if there was any follow up on that point?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 174 22-174-27

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

All right. Now ultimately, the Government of Canada was going to deny Alberta’s request for assistance; correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 175 22-175-17

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Okay. Now I’d like to take you to some draft letters that were in Canada’s production for this. Beginning with PB.NSC.CAN00009547. 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 wilfully 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 Defence Act of Alberta.” And this letter is unsigned. Do you know why it was unsigned and unsent at this time?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 176 22-176-02

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 176 22-176-26

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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.NSC00002745. And this is a memorandum for the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I understand, if you scroll down to page 2, that you digitally signed this memorandum on February 9th? Do you see that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 177 22-177-05

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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; is that correct?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 177 22-177-14

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Well, in the enclosed correspondence on this one is actually redacted, but if we look at the body of the memorandum and we see the reasons for refusing, on page 2, 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 177 22-177-20

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

And then if we turn now to SSM.NSC.CAN00003115, this is a series of emails from February 11th. And in the email from Radey Barrack to Minister Bill Blair, it says, "Here is the latest draft in reply to Alberta's RFA." And again, going to page 2, 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 178 22-178-04

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 178 22-178-17

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 178 22-178-21

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Do you know the level of provincial official you told or the meeting in which you told them that?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 178 22-178-24

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 179 22-179-03

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

And then I'm going to take you to one last draft, and that is on PB.CAN.NSC00000690. 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. 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 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 179 22-179-09

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Now ---

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 179 22-179-26

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Can I just have one minute to clarify which Act that power comes under, Mr. Commissioner?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 180 22-180-01

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

So -- 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 an 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 confusion about which Act that power falls under, it doesn’t change the position that Canada -- of Canada's response to Alberta's RFA; would you agree?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 180 22-180-04

Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

Okay. Thank you, that’s my only question -- those are my only questions today.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 180 22-180-19

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Good afternoon. Can you see and hear me okay?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 180 22-180-24

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

My name is Cara Zwibel. I am counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I wonder if we could pull up Document PB.CAN.00001584, and this -- just while it's getting pulled up, I believe is an email chain related to the technical briefing that you mentioned earlier that -- I guess there 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 needed to be a follow up, a second -- I think here, we're talking about a media briefing; is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 180 22-180-27

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

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 more, 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 181 22-181-12

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay, thank you. And can we now go to Document SSM.CAN.00002668? 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 3. 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, at broad and clear authority to protect public safety, ensure out 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 at 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 -- it probably speaks a little bit to that question of avoiding the swearing in and some of that red tape. And then it's this last next paragraph that I want to ask about. So it says: “It’s important to underscore that invoking the Emergencies Act does not give the federal government the authority to direct the Police Services in any other jurisdiction.” So two questions, I guess, but the first is -- is that statement, that 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 182 22-182-12

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

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 granted -- sorry, can you just answer that.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 183 22-183-26

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

That’s okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 184 22-184-07

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 184 22-184-13

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And ultimately police authorities that will decide how they will exercise their discretion, this notion of police discretion as an important piece of this; would you agree?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 184 22-184-18

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And you would agree that these orders under the Emergencies Act provided all police across the country with the authority to enforce these new measures?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 184 22-184-23

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And although the federal government was no 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 were looking to you to enforce?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 184 22-184-28

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 185 22-185-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 185 22-185-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

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. That the engagement proposal was not really an alternative to enforcement; it was something that would be used to try to shrink the footprint, as we’ve heard. And sort of lay a path to eventual enforcement. And I think you said that enforcement was only a matter of time.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 185 22-185-20

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

And I think you also told my friend, Ms. Taman, there was always going to be a police action to dismantle what was going on in Ottawa. It was a question of timing.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 186 22-186-01

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And 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 have 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?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 186 22-186-06

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

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 -- enacted by the federal government.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 186 22-186-15

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

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.

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 186 22-186-20

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And can we just go back to that PB.CAN00001584. This is the email chain again related to the technical briefing. And 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 were discussing sort of how to make the best use of everyone’s time. And it’s a very busy time. And you note there was better control in the first meeting because it was one that you were chairing. “Second (2nd) brief was bananas -- Justice is at fault.” Can you tell is a bit about that second briefing and what happened there in terms of the communications?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 186 22-186-27

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. So it’s more -- it’s a question of the procedure. Is that right?

Volume 22 (November 14, 2022), page 188 22-188-23