Volume 27 (November 21, 2022)

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. Gordon Cameron for Commission Counsel, and this morning we have a panel of three witnesses combined, two from CSIS and one from ITAC. If they could come forward and we’ll have them sworn. (SHORT PAUSE)

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 8 27-008-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, and this is now our third opportunity to see each other and go through the evidence that you’ll be giving to the Commission this morning. And what I’d like to do is begin with a little bit of housekeeping. I’ll remind -- Mr. Commissioner, I’ll remind parties through you that we have already had the interview summary of these three witnesses adopted during the closed session, which took place on November 5th. We also had the confidential and public versions of the Institutional Report adopted during that session, but the one item that has not yet been adopted is the summary that was posted yesterday of the closed session. And so witnesses, I would you ask each in turn to confirm that you reviewed that summary for accuracy and adopt it as part of the evidence of CSIS and ITAC before the Commission today. Can you each confirm that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 9 27-009-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And now to begin, for those to whom each of you is not already familiar to the public, if I could ask you, Mr. Vigneault, to begin by describing your role and function within the -- within CSIS.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 10 27-010-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let me, if I could ask the Clerk to call up -- just on that point because you’ve set out your mandate in your Institutional Report. Mr. Clerk, could you pull up DOJ.IR.00000001? And I’m inferring from the number of this document that CSIS was the first federal government institution to get its Institutional Report filed. And, witnesses, if we go to the second page -- Mr. Clerk, if you could scroll down just -- exactly there, thank you. And we see in the second sentence there, and I’ll read it and you can follow along with me, Mr. Vigneault: “CSIS’ core mandate is to investigate threats to the security of Canada and advise the Government of Canada on such threats.” See that there?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 10 27-010-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And you confirm that is the core mandate of CSIS?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 11 27-011-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, Ms. Tessier, you are the Deputy Director of Operations at CSIS; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 11 27-011-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And can you describe your role in that position?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 11 27-011-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

The way we’ve found it convenient to describe it to those who aren’t familiar with the bureaucracy of the Service is to describe you as the most senior intelligence officer in the Service; is that a fair description?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 11 27-011-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Ms. Chayer, you’re with ITAC. Could you tell us what your role is there, and in general terms, what ITAC is? We’ll go into a little more detail later but just for introductory purposes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 11 27-011-21

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And can you describe, in general terms, the relationship between ITAC and CSIS?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 12 27-012-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. You used a phrase there, and I’ll just take you to the words that are used in your materials, which is that ITAC operates under the authorities of the CSIS Act. Now, we don’t see ITAC mentioned in the CSIS Act; am I correct there?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 12 27-012-19

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So can you explain for the Commissioner why you would characterize ITAC as operating under the authorities of CSIS Act?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 12 27-012-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So you -- the institution put itself under the authority of the CSIS Act even though it's not mentioned there?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 13 27-013-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Nice move. Is -- when you say ITAC is responsible for determining the national terrorism threat level, can you explain how those determinations are made?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 13 27-013-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 13 27-013-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. But why don't you describe exactly that, the input that you have and then the role that the Director plays in that.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 13 27-013-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And just before we go over to you, Mr. Vigneault, as to your role in this, perhaps, Madam Chayer, you could explain whether there is any relationship between the definition we've seen a lot of in this hearing, that is, the 2(c) definition of threat to the security of Canada and the conclusion you and your organization makes on the national terrorism threat level.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 14 27-014-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

If I understand what you're saying, the recommendation that you make as to a threat level isn't a recommendation that a 2(c) threat has been found ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 15 27-015-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

These are independent concepts?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 15 27-015-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now over to you, Mr. Vigneault, when you receive the recommendation from ITAC, what's your role?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 15 27-015-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And tell me, is this sometimes a subject of dialogue between CSIS and ITAC where you receive a threat level recommendation and perhaps ask for more information, or query the conclusion, or give other feedback?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 15 27-015-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, witnesses, we are going to go through an exercise that we've colloquially, Commission Counsel have colloquially called CSIS 101, similar to some of the questions you got asked in your interview and in the closed session. Probably, Madam Tessier, these are mostly for you. This is your working, the concepts you work with every day, but other witnesses, please feel free to add or qualify as you think appropriate. And these questions, witnesses, will be about your core mandate, so your -- what soon we will come to call your section 12 mandate, but your mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada. And so let's start with section 12, and, Mr. Clerk, if you could call -- well, you might already have it on hand. It's the same document, the DOJ.IR.00000001, and page 2. You have in the second paragraph that begins pursuant, an extract from section 12, which I'll just read for the transcript. Pursuant -- and the first part is a lead in, and I'll mention when the quotation starts, "Pursuant to [section] 12 of the CSIS Act, CSIS..." And here the extract from the Act begins, "..."shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada and, in relation thereto, shall report to and advise the Government of Canada."" Now perhaps I'll put it over to you, Ms. Tessier, to describe the function that section 12 serves in the CSIS -- in the core mandate work of CSIS.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 16 27-016-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And we'll probably come back to this as we're discussing some of the other definitions, but is it fair to say that if we go to the second line there and the words "information and intelligence respecting activities", that activities is a central concept in section 12 and in your mandate?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 17 27-017-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 18 27-018-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And -- yeah, section 2 particularizes the types of activities that could form threats, but in particular, you're not investigating ideas. You're investigating activities; right? You're investigating when perhaps ideas motivate people to action.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 18 27-018-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And the standard which we've already seen talked about a fair bit in the hearing to date is in the third line there, that is to conduct an investigation, to have the authority to investigate these activities, the grounds of proof are described there as reasonable -- sorry, "activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats", so sometimes shortened to reasonable grounds to suspect, and that's the basic threshold that decides what -- I'm going to put it in my terms, when you go from being a sponge, just absorbing information and monitoring situations to actively collecting and investigating a target; is that a fair description?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 18 27-018-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Mr. Clerk, could we go over to page 6 of this same document, and at about three-quarters of the way down that page, there is the heading Targeting Authority, and the first sentence describes a standard for your operations. It's the second paragraph that I want to focus on for a minute here, and this is, if you were to ask the question, "Activities of whom or activities of what is it that you're investigating?" And so you would use the expression, if I can ask you to confirm this to make sure I've got it correct, Ms. Tessier, the activities of an individual, a group of persons or an organisation. Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 18 27-018-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And to follow through with the definition we've just worked with: "...whose activities are reasonably suspected of constituting a threat..." And then this is expanded in the second sentence of this same paragraph, which I'll read: "CSIS may also target issues or events to allow for an investigation of activities which are reasonably suspected of constituting a threat to the security of Canada that arise because of or are related to the issue or event..." And then parenthetically you give the example of: "...(Threats to Vancouver 2010 Olympics)." And perhaps you could -- the example, Threats to Vancouver 2010 Olympics, is helpful. Perhaps you could help us flesh out the concept of targeting issues or events with another example of an issue or event that might have come under the Service's attention for the purposes of an investigation of a threat?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 19 27-019-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And do you have an example of when an issue might be something that is constituting a threat?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 20 27-020-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. I got lazy there in my description. What you're talking about is an issue or an event in relation to which there could be activities that themselves constitute the threat; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 20 27-020-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And -- so if I can take you back to the question. Is there an example that comes to mind of where an issue might give rise to activities that constitute a threat?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 21 27-021-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Could -- in this context, could an issue be an ideology, like Islamic terrorism?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 21 27-021-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 21 27-021-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And -- so we've got, if I follow this correctly, looking at these -- at the listings in paragraph 2, we could have an individual, a group of persons or an organisation who could -- any of those could be involved in activities, or the target could be issues or events that allow for an investigation of activities that are suspected of constituting a threat because of or related to the issue or event. So it can be a permutation of those three categories of targets on their own or in conjunction with an issue or event?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 21 27-021-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, let's get to that more refined level of description of the threat activities, and and a good place to find that... Mr. Clerk, if you can go back to page 2, we'll see in the footnote to page 2 the extract of section 2 of the CSIS Act. And just, Ms. Tessier, to help put this in context, section 2 of the CSIS Act is the section that contains a long list of definitions, one of which is threats to the security of Canada; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 21 27-021-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I say that, because sometimes we talk almost exclusively about section 2 as if threats is all it is. But it's -- when we say 2(c), we actually mean the threat -- the definition of threat to the security of Canada, that is, the third of the subcategories of threats to the security of Canada; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 22 27-022-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And is it fair to say that for the purposes we are talking about in relation to the convoy, the blockades, the protests in January and February of this year, that certainly the concentration, and ultimately, I think, the exclusive area of interest for potential threats or for investigation of threats would be 2(c). Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 22 27-022-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And I'll just read that out again so it appears in the transcript: "...activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state..." And so that we don't have to keep repeating that, in your community you often refer to "threat-related activities" as a compact way of describing 2(c)?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 22 27-022-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 23 27-023-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Other phrases I have seen are "threats of serious violence" and we all build into that, we know it has to be all of those others words, including "ideologically motivated", et cetera. But if you hear me use that expression "threats of serious violence or activities directed towards serious violence" you'll know that I'm talking about a 2(c). We agree on that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 23 27-023-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I -- so you might want me to always add the words "for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective" to the end to complete?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 23 27-023-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

2(c) we'll know what you mean.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 24 27-024-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, assuming you meet your reasonable grounds to suspect threshold under section 12, then depending on the urgency and seriousness of the threat and the resources you have available, you could decide to open an investigation and then you have to decide what investigative tools you're going to use to pursue that investigation. Correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 24 27-024-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And where I'm going to take you here is that there are certain investigative tools you can use having only that reasonable grounds to suspect as the standard of certainty you have, that is, generally-speaking, we'll call them the "less intrusive investigative tools"; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 24 27-024-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Surveillance, collecting information from open sources, basically building a file, but not going so far into a level of intrusiveness that you would actually need a warrant; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 24 27-024-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. and then, if the circumstances, which might be the seriousness of the threat or the difficulty you have in collecting information on it, so indicated appropriate, you might then apply to a court to get more intrusive -- to get authorities, judicially granted authorities, for more intrusive investigative techniques; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 24 27-024-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. I'm going to try to break that up into smaller pieces and suggest that what you realize is that you need more investigative authorities than you have without a warrant, and then you see if you have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a threat to the security of Canada because you know you are going to have to satisfy a judge on that point before you will get the warrant; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 25 27-025-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And the reason I want to break it out there is I think you’ll agree, if we can make this observation, that the higher evidentiary threshold of reasonable grounds to believe there’s a threat to the security of Canada, that standard of certainty has to do with the fact that you are using more intrusive techniques. You always had the authority to investigate once you passed the reasonable grounds to suspect threshold; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 25 27-025-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So the higher threshold of reasonable grounds to believe isn’t what gives you the authority to investigate, it’s what gives you the authority to use more intrusive investigative techniques?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 25 27-025-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And in terms of resources, another factor that I would expect to play into this analysis you do is that you’ve only got so many intelligence officers, you’ve got a lot of information coming in, so there’s some proportionality and triaging, et cetera, that you do when you decide which threats that do plausibly meet the reasonable grounds to suspect threshold, you’re actually going to devote your resources to and how much resources you’ll devote to them?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 26 27-026-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, on that point, I’d like to make an -- or ask you to make an observation that we’ve seen in your interview summary, and it’s come out in the materials that the parties have already seen, and it has to do with the allocation of its counter terrorism resources that the service has devoted to, and here we’re going to introduce the acronym, I think almost everybody knows what it means now, but IMVE, ideologically motivated violent extremism. And so can you tell the Commissioner, relatively speaking, of the -- all of the resources of the service that are devoted to counter terrorism operations, what proportion of those resources are devoted to dealing with the IMVE threat?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 26 27-026-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And how does that relate, say, to the proportion that -- and I’m just going to ask you to make a rough approximation here, that would have applied 10 years ago, say?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 27 27-027-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So even with the -- where then to the extent there are still threats out there from organized terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda or other groups that hook so many of your resources back around the turn of the century, you are now devoting either half or more than half of your resources exclusively to responding to the IMVE threat? Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 27 27-027-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, at that point, I’m going to ask Ms. Khan to come up and expand some more on that threat and the way that the services handle it, and then I’ll come back afterwards with some questions that follow on that.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 27 27-027-22

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Good morning. It’s good to see you again. Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. For the record, I’m Nusra Khan, Commission Counsel. I think my questions are probably best placed to you, Ms. Tessier, but as Mr. Cameron said, please, if the other panelists feel able, jump in where you feel it’s appropriate. So I would like to go through the IMVE framework that the service has adopted with you. And I understand that this terminology and this framework is something that the service has adopted as a policy framework in recent years. Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 27 27-027-28

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So I’m going to pull up a placemat, which I think you’re no doubt familiar with. It’s COM00000946. And while that’s coming up, perhaps -- you’ve touched on this already a bit, Ms. Tessier, but perhaps you can explain what led to the adoption of this terminology and this framework?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 28 27-028-14

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so I understand you’re referring to the four criteria that are set out in this placemat there. So we see willingness to kill, attempting to affect societal change, ideological influence, and serious violence. So these are the criteria that would lead the service to determine that there is a threat under 2(c) in particular. Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 29 27-029-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So perhaps we can walk through the criteria in turn. So I’ll just note, actually, before we go there, a threat actor in this scenario is not somebody that the target -- that the service is investigating. Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 29 27-029-27

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So in order for somebody to move from being an actor into a target, ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 30 27-030-06

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

--- these -- they would have to meet these three criteria; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 30 27-030-09

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And an actor doesn’t necessarily need to be a person or an individual? Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 30 27-030-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And would that -- could that include cells, or platforms, or networks more broadly?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 30 27-030-17

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So perhaps let’s go to the first criteria, willingness to kill or inspire others to kill. So what would be sufficient to meet that criteria?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 30 27-030-23

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. So I just -- I want to pick up on something you just said there. You said it could be destruction to property as well, if it leads to loss of life. Is that a fair characterization?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 31 27-031-09

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So there has to be the potential for loss of life?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 31 27-031-14

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So if we zoom into this placemat on to Scenario 3 there, this is a scenario in which, presumably, there’s a threat to one of Canada’s 10 critical infrastructure sectors, and loss of life isn’t an objective, per se, but it’s a possible outcome, and that’s what would trigger this criteria.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 31 27-031-17

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So if we just scroll to the next page, please, Mr. Clerk? So I think there’s a definition up there about serious violence, and if we just zoom in a little bit more and scroll to the right. Serious violence in relation to the 10 Government of Canada critical infrastructures is defined as: “A threat actor who willfully destroys or damages property if such actions could endanger a person’s life.” (As read) And that’s what we were just referring to; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 31 27-031-23

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So, for example, a willingness to engage in just pure destruction of property if all the other criteria are met wouldn’t be sufficient to bring somebody up to the level of being a target; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 32 27-032-09

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And so would an example of this be somebody, for instance, who might want to tear down a statue for an ideological purpose and for a desire to affect societal change, but because the potential of loss of life isn’t made out, they wouldn’t rise to the level of being a threat; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 32 27-032-15

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And how might an actor demonstrate a willingness to kill or to inspire others to kill? So you mentioned inciting violence; would that be posting things online?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 32 27-032-23

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And would passive engagement or consumption of that content indicate a willingness to kill?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 33 27-033-02

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Perhaps somebody who’s engaging with violent content online.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 33 27-033-07

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Just looking at it, reading it, browsing it, would that be sufficient to meet this criteria?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 33 27-033-10

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So we’ll turn to the next criteria, which is desire to attempt societal change. If we can just zoom out, Mr. Clerk? And just go back up to the top page, please. So can you expand on what might meet this criteria, “Attempting to affect societal change”?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 33 27-033-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And so would somebody who’s protesting meet the criteria for attempting to affect societal change?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 34 27-034-04

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so protest alone, protest alone wouldn’t be sufficient to meet this criteria?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 34 27-034-11

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And so turning to the third criteria there, “Ideological Influence,” you’ve touched on this already in using the word, “Movement,” so I see in the top left corner of that placemat, if we zoom in just on the bubble that says, “Ideologically motivated,” I see there are four, I think, broad movements that the Service has identified as falling under this category. Can you speak to them, please?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 34 27-034-14

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So why does the Service use the lens of movements and not discrete groups?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 34 27-034-28

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so these are broad categories, broad networks, and participation in any one of them, of course, isn’t alone on its own because you’ve got the other criteria there.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 35 27-035-15

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So can you just explain to the Commission what the anti-public health measures movement is?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 35 27-035-24

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And that would fall under which of these categories?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 36 27-036-03

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so what would be -- what would be that anchor that brings it into the purview of the Service?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 36 27-036-14

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so that reference to serious violence is effectively what brings you back to 2C.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 36 27-036-22

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And you mentioned another word there, Ms. Tessier, accelerationism; can you expand on what that is?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 36 27-036-25

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so I understand from your Institutional Report and from your witness summaries that the Service has seen a rise in anti-public health measures content online. Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 37 27-037-09

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And has that posed a challenge at all for the Service?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 37 27-037-20

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Yes. So how does the Service go about distinguishing between credible threats of violence and something might just be a social media post that expresses anti- authority views?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 37 27-037-24

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. So -- please.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 38 27-038-16

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 38 27-038-24

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And this trade craft that ITAC applies would be, or the methodology, is distinct from these three or four criteria that the Service is applying. Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 39 27-039-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay, thank you. So I'm going to ask you to define two big concepts, and so I'll pose this question to the whole panel. One thing that the Services is struggling with, as I understand, is dealing with mis-information and dis-information as it navigates the challenges of determining between assessing credible threats online and online rhetoric. So can you explain to the Commission what mis-information and dis-information might mean and how that impacts your work in determining threats under section 2(c)?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 39 27-039-26

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So engaging -- where would engaging with mis-information or dis-information fall on these criteria? Sorry, can you just zoom out a little bit more, Mr. Clerk.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 40 27-040-18

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. So you're aware of the fact that there are things circulating online that might not be violent rhetoric or that might not reflect a desire to engage in violence, but you've got to keep a general awareness of that. Is that fair to say?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 41 27-041-11

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. I'd like to shift gears now... So we can just take that document down, Mr. Clerk. Thank you. ...and talk to you about the services, activities in respect of the convoy, in particular. So as I understand it, the Service was aware or had pre-existing targets and came to learn of the convoy through that activity. Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 42 27-042-06

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so the Service had pre-existing targets who might have been involved?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 42 27-042-16

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. But the Service was not investigating the anti public health measures movement broadly, for example, and it certainly wasn't investigating the convoy itself as a discrete topic.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 43 27-043-20

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 43 27-043-25

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so the Service's focus remained at all times on its targets and their participation or their involvement, as it may be, in those protests?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 44 27-044-06

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. So looking -- so would it be fair to say CSIS was looking at the protests in conjunction with its targets, as the Section 2(c) definition allows?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 45 27-045-11

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So looking for potential threats?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 45 27-045-19

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. I would like to pull up a document, TSNSCCAN00000165. So I’ll just -- I’ll take you through a few briefs that the Service prepared in the course of the protests, and we can discuss them. So do you recognize this document, Mr. Vigneault?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 45 27-045-22

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Can you explain to us what it is?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 46 27-046-01

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 46 27-046-08

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So this would’ve been a Ministerial briefing that you would have provided, is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 46 27-046-10

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. And so this is January 27th, around the time of the first ADMNSOPS meeting; is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 46 27-046-15

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So I just want to go through the content. If we can scroll down a bit, we have sort of the very first assessment prepared by the Service, I think, of the Freedom Convoy. And so there’s a bullet there that says: “CSIS in investigating IMVE activities and monitoring IMVE social media content. There has been online commentary calling for violence and storming Parliament Hill buildings.” And then the next bullet: “CSIS is tracking...engagement of [its] targets in relation to the convoy. Over the coming days, CSIS will be monitoring the involvement of these targets and other persons of [interest], in particular for any indications of mobilization to violence.” So what does -- what do those two bullets mean there? What does, “...CSIS will be monitoring the involvement of these targets and other persons of [interest], in particular for any indications of mobilization to violence” mean?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 46 27-046-20

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So is the assessment there that there is a possibility of a lone actor; correct? Is that it?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 48 27-048-09

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So a person that’s not known to the Service but that could ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 48 27-048-19

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

--- be radicalized. So at the bottom there we see the bullet: “CSIS is unaware, at this time, of any tangible plots or plans of serious violence.” And so at this stage there’s no risk of a threat materializing?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 48 27-048-22

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So we’ll go to the next brief, which is TSNSCCAN00100000166. So do you recognize this document?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 49 27-049-16

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And can you explain to us what it is?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 49 27-049-20

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Who would you have been sharing this brief with?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 50 27-050-06

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And that would ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 50 27-050-13

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

And would it have been shared with PCO?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 50 27-050-19

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Thank you. If we scroll down to page 3 here. If we see the assessment here: “Aside from individuals who specifically identified themselves as part of the convoy group, the Service is unaware of the presence of IMVE groups at this weekend’s protest.” Then if we scroll down all the way: “The presence of racist and bigoted flags appear to have been brought by individuals who would like others to believe that their cause [of] or belief is far greater and more organized than it actually is. CSIS assesses that these flags were not part of a broader group initiative.” So this is February 2nd, and the Service is still reporting there isn’t a threat under section 2 (c) arising from the protest itself; is that fair to say?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 50 27-050-22

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Right. So at this stage, we’re seeing indicators or symbols at the protest that might lead one to believe that there are extremist groups involved in the protest and the service is saying that’s not necessarily the case?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 52 27-052-01

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So I’ll take you to the last brief, and that’s TS.NSC.CAN.001.00000211, please. Okay. So if we can just zoom out a bit so we can see the entire page a bit, please? So I believe this brief is dated February 10th. Are you familiar with this document?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 52 27-052-15

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

I think it’s just at the bottom of the page there.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 52 27-052-23

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

So this is a brief, again, on the protests. If we just look at the title, it says: “Anti- Public Health Measures Movement, Grievances and the Freedom Convoy 2022”. So if we scroll to the bottom of page 2 we have the outlook prepared by the service. Sorry, if we scroll up a bit as well? So we see there, just before the redaction: “No formal organized plot of violence has been identified.” “CSIS assess that the Freedom Convoy 2022 is of interest to various subjects of investigation, especially those who hold anti-mandate […] or broader anti- government views.” And then just underneath “Outlook” there: “CSIS will continue to monitor the involvement of IMVE’s within the Freedom Convoy 2022 in order to better understand the […] public health measures movement.” So what is the assessment being shared here?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 52 27-052-26

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And so the last question that I’ll pose to you before I turn it back over to Mr. Cameron is, you know, we’ve heard -- the Commission has heard evidence about the distinction between lawful and unlawful protests. So in this period between January 27th up to February 10th, you know, you might have even formed the view, just as a personal opinion, that the protest might have gone from being a lawful one to an unlawful one. Would that have had any bearing on your assessments or on your work?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 53 27-053-24

Nusra Khan, Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 55 27-055-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Witnesses, what I’m going to do is pick up now with following on that helpful information you were able to give us about the IMVE space and how it fit in with your observations of the convoy and protest and blockade activities. I just want to run through, and this will all sound familiar, and indeed parties who have had a chance to read the summary of the closed session, this will be similar to a series of questions that you answered there, leading up to some context that I want to bring to the questions that follow. So what I’m going to do is just ask you about your involvement in the government and other law -- sorry, not other law enforcement, in the government, in the law enforcement, and other intelligence communities as you were all watching the protests and the blockades, et cetera, evolve. So first of all, as the materials indicate, I think you’ll agree that CSIS attended -- had a representative attending and participating in the ADMNSOPs meetings. And I think we know that acronym now, so I won’t bother spelling it out. Can you confirm that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 55 27-055-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes. And a CSIS representative attended the DMOC meetings in relation to the convoy and blockade events?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 55 27-055-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And you had regular interaction with the NSIA about the convoy and blockade events?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 56 27-056-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And you were a member, when it was formed, of the Combined Intelligence Group that was set up so that all the intelligence collected by the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies could be shared among the parties involved in the convoy and blockade events?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 56 27-056-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And CSIS was a member, or at least had a representative at INTERSECT meetings that a broader group of law enforcement and first responder personnel involved in major events such as the convoy posed for Ottawa?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 56 27-056-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And indeed, if we step back to before the actual formation of the Combined Intelligence Group, it looks, from the documentation, that CSIS was receiving intelligence such as the Hendon Reports that were generated by the OPP and other information that once they became involved, the OPS was also generating with respect to intelligence on the convoy?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 56 27-056-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And if we could call up the -- again, Mr. Clerk, please, the information -- sorry, the Institutional Report, 00000001, and go to page 13? At about halfway down. Now here’s, I think, exactly where we were picking up, Ms. Tessier, with your comment about the dynamic nature of the events that were unfolding in front of you and putting it in a context of what I was just describing about your many faceted interrelations with the intelligence and law enforcement community. It says here, "CSIS continually monitored streams of intelligence and shared information with domestic and foreign partners, including through the One Vision processes with the RCMP and police of jurisdiction to assess threats of serious violence in relation to the Convoy." And here I'm going to ask you to remember and see if you can provide for me in this open forum that your classified institutional report contained an actual itemization of all of the agencies. And I don't need you to be more specific than you want to be, but it was tens or dozens of agencies that you were collecting and sharing information with; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 56 27-056-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. So the extent that there was intelligence or information available in relation to potential threats to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act, it was received and considered by the Service?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 57 27-057-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now if we can look at one other -- where you were giving input, we looked at where you were getting and sharing intelligence stuff, where you were giving input to government. If we go to page 13 again, just a little bit higher -- well, I guess immediately above where we just were. Cabinet meetings. You and -- was that, Mr. Vigneault, you were attending mostly the SSE and the IRG meetings?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 57 27-057-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Where your role was, and I -- and quoting here at the end of the paragraph, "...to provide updates on national security threats that may arise and answer questions." So that was your role at those Cabinet meetings; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 58 27-058-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yeah. Now if we can go to, Mr. Clerk, the witness summary, which is -- the interview summary, which is WTS.00000060, 60, so 6 0s and then 60. And -- thank you. If you can go to page 5, about two-thirds of the way down? And this is -- just to situate you, this is a paragraph from the summary of the interview we had when we were meeting with you earlier in the year. And it reads in the first paragraph under the word -- under the heading "Intelligence." "Mr. Vigneault stated that at no point did the Service assess that the protests in Ottawa or elsewhere..." And then there's a parenthetical definition of what that refers to. "...constituted a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the CSIS Act, and that CSIS cannot investigate activity constituting lawful protest." And I'm going to ask you to hold these thoughts in your mind, but I'll just, on that point, you recollect telling us that during the interview, Mr. Vigneault?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 58 27-058-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes. And if we go to page 8 of the same document, about halfway down, under the heading "Recommendation to Cabinet", the first line there is, "Mr. Vigneault learned that the EA..." Which would be the Emergencies Act, "...referenced the threat definition set out in section 2 of the CSIS Act once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the [Emergencies Act]..." And then there's the parenthetical date bracket there between the 10th and 13th of February. And you, "...requested that the Service prepare a threat assessment on the risks associated with the invocation of the [Act]." And then the last sentence is the one I was going to link to the earlier one you made, which is, "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." And again, you recollect telling us that during the interview?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 59 27-059-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And your legal mandate, as we saw it -- I don't think we need to call it up because you can probably recite it from heart and thus recognize it when I put it to you. That legal mandate that you're describing when you say "as defined by the Service's legal mandate", is to investigate threats to the security of Canada and advise the Government of Canada on such threats; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 60 27-060-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

If we can go now to, Mr. Clerk, WTS00000079, this is the public summary of the closed session we had on November 5th. And the bottom of page 5 of that. And I'll read there, "Mr. Vigneault explained that the advice and the assessments they would be giving to government, is taken in conjunction by the decision maker with all of the other different pieces of analysis, for the..." And, Mr. Clerk, if you can scroll down to follow with me? "...different pieces of analysis, for the decision maker to make a determination in the end if this is a threat to national security or not. When CSIS looks at national security, in this case, their assessment was that this was not a threat to national security, within the confines of the CSIS Act." And do you remember saying that, Mr. Vigneault?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 60 27-060-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And then if we -- sticking with you, Mr. Vigneault, for one more over at the top of page 6 -- sorry, the bottom of page 6 over to the top of 7, "Mr. Vigneault confirmed a statement from the Commission's interview with CSIS..." And you might recognize this as the one we started out with, "...[the] interview with CSIS and ITAC to the effect that at no point did the Service assess that the protests in Ottawa or elsewhere ([defined as] the "Freedom Convoy") constituted a threat to the security of Canada under section 2 of the CSIS Act, and that CSIS cannot [sorry, cannot] investigate activity constituting lawful protest unless conducted in conjunction with a threat- related activity." And then you conclude that paragraph, "Mr. Vigneault confirmed that, to the extent that he was able to give input on this topic at Cabinet and IRG meetings, this was the view [...] he expressed." And again, do you recall making those statements?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 61 27-061-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now over to you, Ms. Tessier, at the top of page 10 of the open summary, sorry the public summary of the closed session, we have your description, and I'll read it out, "Ms. Tessier explained that the Service's determination that the convoy and related protests did not constitute a threat to the security of Canada was not made by a singular analyst or executive. Rather, strategic analysts provided multiple assessments throughout the relevant period, which were approved at higher levels before they were disseminated. Mr. Vigneault explained that the assessment process is not a binary one, but an ongoing, dynamic consideration of whether the information collected was rising to the level of a threat to national security." So I think, Ms. Tessier, you can agree with both the first and second part of that statement. That is, you can agree with Mr. Vigneault, because that's your point about the dynamic nature of the assessment; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 62 27-062-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And, Mr. Vigneault, you remember adding that to Ms. Tessier's thought there?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 63 27-063-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now I'd like to take you to page 8 of the open summary -- sorry, the public summary of the closed session. And moving to the bottom of that page, the "Advice to Cabinet" heading, and here, in the open -- sorry, Mr. Clerk, I've confused you. Just for a second, if I could ask you to go to the very top just so we can situate ourselves. Here we've started in the closed ex parte session, the examination by Counsel for the Government of Canada. So if you can scroll back down to the bottom again. And here, Mr. Vigneault, I will read the paragraph that the preceding paragraphs are leading up to, the preceding ones I've cited to you: "Mr. Vigneault stated that at the end of the February 13 IRG meeting, following the discussion of the Emergencies Act, he was asked by the Prime Minister to provide an opinion as to whether he supported the invocation of the Emergency Act. Mr. Vigneault explained that based on both his understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of threat to the security of Canada was broader than the CSIS Act, as well as based on his opinion of everything he had seen to that point, he advised the Prime Minister of his belief that it was indeed required to invoke the Act." And again, you remember saying that during the closed session?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 63 27-063-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And if I can just break that out a bit. If I understand what you're saying there, you have an understanding, and we might find out later in the week where you got that understanding, but that'll -- I'll let you keep that as an mystery for now, you had an understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of threats to the security of Canada was broader than the CSIS Act definition; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 64 27-064-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you for that elaboration. Now, if we can go back to that sentence at the bottom of page 8, I understand -- I think the words do speak for themselves, but I want to make sure I understand your sense of them, that based on your understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of threats to the security of Canada was broader than the CSIS Act, then it says: "...as well as based on his opinion if everything he had seen to that point..." So if I'm understanding the way you've put those two together, that if you take a broader definition and then look more broadly you come up with the advice you gave to the Prime Minister of your belief that it was required to invoke the Act.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 65 27-065-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, I want to sort of insert a parentheses or come back to an observation. And Mr. Clerk, can you call up SSM.NSC.CAN.00000216. These are IRG meeting minutes for the February 13th meeting, and at page 12, we'll find the report to government that you commissioned, Mr. Vigneault, when you learned that the Government was considering the invocation of the Act. And you've mentioned elsewhere in your evidence, I think it's now well understood by the Commission and the parties, that as you learned that the Government was considering the invocation of the Emergencies Act, a concern that you had because of your understanding of the IMVE space, and feel free to join in, Ms. Tessier, if you want to add here, the concern was that the invocation of the Act actually had the potential to, I think the word "inflame" is used, but to raise the temperature and actually increase the risk of the threat of serious violence. Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 66 27-066-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. So if I understand the purpose of this report, it was to alert the Government to a potential movement in the threat environment, and by that -- I'll tell you what I'm trying to get at. You weren't, by offering this assessment or deciding to do the assessment, concluding that the Government itself was, by invoking the Act, engaging in activities that posed a threat to the security of Canada?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 67 27-067-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And this document, perhaps also in the spirit of things we see in your annual reports or some of your reports to Parliament, CSIS sometimes repairs -- prepares reports to Government related to threats to the security of Canada that aren't actually premised on the commencement of an investigation based on reasonable grounds that the activity poses a threat, but it's simply advice to the Government, a report to the Government on threat-related issues. Correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 68 27-068-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And if we can go back, then, Mr. Clerk, to the Public Summary. That's WTS00000079, and just wrap up the chronology, and indeed this examination, by going to page 7 of that summary. We're now at the stage where the Act has been invoked, and the point I understand you to be making in the paragraph that begins "Mr. Vigneault explained", the point being that after revocation you continued to provide input, both to partner agencies and to Cabinet, through the IRG, about the evolution of the protests, the blockades, et cetera, the convoy. So you're continuing to give input proactively, but you weren't actually asked the question, "Should we revoke the Act?"

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 68 27-068-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And with that, Mr. Commissioner, I will conclude I think a few minutes early.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 69 27-069-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Before we begin, I’d just like to ask leave to use a certain document. I believe your counsel’s been advised of this. I’ve put together an examination aid for the purpose to save time. The documents in the examination aid I will be tendering into evidence, however, not the examination aid itself. The purpose of the examination aid so that I don’t have to wait to go through each and every document one by one by one and waste the 15 minutes I have. I’ve compiled the records into a Word and PDF document that I’m referring to with the footnotes of each and every one that have been assigned the numbers in the database system and I would like leave to be able to refer to that document while I’m doing my examination, sir.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 69 27-069-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes, sir.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 70 27-070-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

For the most part I had to because I am somewhat inept when it comes to using Microsoft Word. I had to take screenshots of a couple in order to actually put them in, but they are in in full.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 70 27-070-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 70 27-070-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Correct.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 70 27-070-26

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Robert MacKinnon, Government of Canada. My friend is looking to put in, it looks like, parts of an affidavit attachments or affidavit itself as part of this. If it’s just a document that has an ID number already on it, and that’s it, that’s fine. So as long as it’s not just an excerpt of an affidavit that’s been filed in this proceeding or the motion itself, not argument, and it’s just the document. As long as there’s no commentary.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 70 27-070-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

No, it’s just there is a couple of things summarizing the facts. If we want, I can delete every single one of them.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 71 27-071-09

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

We have no objection to a document that’s been filed in Relativity, but as the Commission knows, this is still being in play for response to the motion, so it would be improper to have comments associated with that motion put as part of the document. As long as it’s just the document itself with nothing more, that’s fine.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 71 27-071-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And what we can do, sir, is that if my friend -- if he has the document, if there’s issues as they arise before I move to the next page of each one, I will check with my friend to make sure that he feels it’s fair.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 71 27-071-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

There’s no ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 71 27-071-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

There -- it was documents, but I state the fact and the document for putting -- it’s not anything other than the fact, but as I said, I can delete that if the Court would like. And if you give me five minutes before I start, I’ll delete all of that and just send the documents with the date, if that works for the Court -- or for the Commission.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 71 27-071-28

John Mather, Counsel (POEC)

So Mr. Commissioner, I’m just reviewing the document and without -- avoiding any debates about what commentary is, there are statements for some of the documents that aren’t necessarily reflective of the documents since this is the first time this photograph appeared. So again, not getting into what commentary is, Commission Counsel does have concern about that sort of statement being put in in this format. I think Commission Counsel’s view is the documents themselves, if they can be organized in a fashion where it’s just reflecting what’s in the document, that’s fine.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 72 27-072-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I can do that, sir. If I can have simply two minutes, I think, I can do that and send it around to everybody, and it will just have the date at the top.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 72 27-072-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 72 27-072-25

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Good morning. My name is Chris Diana. I’m counsel to the OPP and I have some questions and I may be asking all of you, at some point, for your thoughts. The area that I’d like to start with is about information flow, so Mr. Vigneault, maybe I’ll start with you as the Head of CSIS, because you can speak to your role in advising kind of up the line. But as I understand it, and my friend has taken you through the definition of CSIS, but the mandate of CSIS is to investigate threats to the security of Canada? Is that correct? Is your mic on? Can you try again? Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 73 27-073-06

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Sorry, I didn’t hear you. That’s all. And part of your role is to share the appropriate information with senior decision makers in the federal public service, including the National Security Advisor and Minister of Public Safety? Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 73 27-073-19

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Yes. And so that’s how it worked. We know in the federal sphere there are a number of law enforcement type relationships that work in a similar way, in that they’ll collect information and they’ll share it with senior level decision makers. Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 74 27-074-01

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

So such as CBSA, RCMP, and there are a number of others?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 74 27-074-07

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And obviously you would agree that it’s crucial that those senior level decision makers have all the information they need to make informed decisions?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 74 27-074-10

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And so when we’re thinking about information flow and we think about things that can go wrong in that process, there are a couple of things -- well, there were a number of things, but a couple of kind of main things that can go wrong in terms of what you do in advising decision makers. The first may be that CSIS may fail to identify certain information on potential national security threats. In other words, you might just miss on the intelligence side?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 74 27-074-16

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And if you don’t know, you can’t advise; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 75 27-075-02

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

The second, the information may be available, but it may not be properly communicated up the chain? That could happen; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 75 27-075-05

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And it’s a human process, so you might have some information that may come into certain offices, regional offices, and then it has to go up, and then it be reviewed, and go up again, from your level, to senior decision maker, and whether it be inadvertence, or maybe not realizing its significance, there’s always a possibility that something important may be missed; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 75 27-075-17

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

That’s right. And that’s for all law ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 75 27-075-28

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

--- and federal law enforcement type agencies; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 76 27-076-03

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And obviously sometimes you may not be aware -- when I say you, it could be CSIS, it could be another law enforcement agency, may not be aware of the potential significance of a certain fact and it may just be missed?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 76 27-076-09

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Okay. I would like to ask about Project Hendon briefly. And maybe, Ms. Tessier, because you were kind of the lead on the actual intelligence side, as I understand it, the operational side, we do have evidence, of course, that CSIS did receive the Hendon Report, it went to a number of recipients? That’s correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 76 27-076-16

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And of course, your interest in these reports would relate to the mandate of CSIS? You would be reviewing them with the CSIS mandate in mind? Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 76 27-076-24

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And presumably other federal law enforcement agencies would be looking at those reports in relation to their own respective mandates? Fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 77 27-077-03

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And I believe in the witness summary, it was stated that it was unknown if the information in the Hendon Reports was actually used in reporting? Can you confirm whether that information was used?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 77 27-077-08

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And important information would have been communicated by those regional people up to your level; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 77 27-077-20

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Okay. Now according to OPP Supt. Pat Morris, and I don’t know if you heard his evidence some time ago, but he testified that the OPP works very closely with CSIS. Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 77 27-077-24

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

In particular, I think the Provincial Anti-Terrorism Section works closely with CSIS?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 78 27-078-01

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And OPP is also embedded with INSET? The Integrated National Security Enforcement Team?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 78 27-078-04

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And you would agree the OPP is a valuable law enforcement partner?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 78 27-078-07

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And that while the Hendon -- Project Hendon and the reports were a new product, but they still provided a valuable source of information; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 78 27-078-10

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

I also want to ask about the conflict of information silos, which is always, I think, somewhat of a challenge in the intelligence field. It’s an obvious proposition, of course, that different federal agencies have different mandates. We’ve looked at that before. One of the concerns, potentially, in the federal sphere, is that one agency may not know or have access to information from another agency? Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 78 27-078-15

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And so efforts have been made to get around the silo issue, and you would agree that one of the best ways to get around is to ensure a broad distribution of intelligence; fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 79 27-079-07

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Because we don't want the third party rule to kind of get in the way of broad information- sharing; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 79 27-079-27

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Yes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 80 27-080-18

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And so as far as Project Hendon is concerned, and you may not be aware, but it had a very broad distribution list. It went to all federal law enforcement related agencies. And that works to break down silos; fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 80 27-080-24

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

All right. And the final topic is on social media. We've heard a lot in this Inquiry about social media. Anyone can go on -- fire up the Twitter machine and you can find lots of vile content and threats and things of that nature on social media. Fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 81 27-081-03

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And I believe it was mentioned in your witness summary that it's very difficult to assess the intent and impact of violent online rhetoric. That's fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 81 27-081-09

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

You would agree that useful intelligence requires a lot more than simply scrolling through Twitter; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 81 27-081-14

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

And Ms. Chayer, you spoke about this in your evidence not that long ago, that it really requires a trained analyst to review what's there on social media and pass it through an appropriate intelligent lens, trade craft, as you put it, before you can have a useful product. Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 81 27-081-19

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Right. And that is in fact what OPP did with Project Hendon; correct? They took information and they passed through their lens and then produced it out to its partner agencies.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 82 27-082-01

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Okay. And my last question, Mr. Commissioner, I know I'm probably up against the clock. And the point I'm trying to make here is that analysing social media to identify risks is something that should be done by subject matter experts or those trained to do so. Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 82 27-082-08

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Sure. But from an intelligence perspective, you need an analyst to really give proper intelligence?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 82 27-082-24

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 82 27-082-28

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. For the record, Paul Champ, counsel for the Ottawa Coalition and Residents and Businesses.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 83 27-083-06

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Thank you for coming today, panel. I just want to ask a question, I guess Ms. Tessier, perhaps. There's a statement in one of the documents when you've testified that the protest, the convoy protest at no time posed a threat to Canada's national security. But at the same time, isn't it true CSIS advised Cabinet that invoking the Emergencies Act itself could further inflame extreme anti-government rhetoric? Is that not the case?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 83 27-083-10

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

My apologies. Maybe it was Mr. Vigneault, the Director. That was the advice you provided to Cabinet, was it not, sir?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 83 27-083-23

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Yeah. And by security of Canada, we're talking about 2(c) violence associated with ideologically motivated objectives; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 84 27-084-04

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But Mr. Vigneault, if there was a concern that -- and it was also your advice that invoking the Emergencies Act could further inflame that kind of rhetoric; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 84 27-084-09

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So there was a concern. That's what I was kind of getting at, is if the situation or some of the rhetoric was so volatile and extreme that invoking the Emergencies Act could lead to some kind of violent reaction, was that not a concern?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 84 27-084-19

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And -- so here's a question for Ms. Tessier. I want to understand, there were some subjects of investigation present at the convoy protests; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 85 27-085-03

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So just so we're clear, these were individuals for which CSIS had obtained targeting authority?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 85 27-085-07

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And you had obtained or CSIS had obtained those targeting authorities prior to the protests. So there were individuals who were of concern prior to the Freedom Convoy protests?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 85 27-085-11

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And so that means that CSIS had reasonable grounds to suspect that these individuals could engage in threat related activity?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 85 27-085-16

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And we also know that there were many violent threats against public officials in Ottawa. You -- CSIS was aware of that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 85 27-085-20

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Not only federal officials but also municipal officials?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 85 27-085-24

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Right. The Mayor testified that there was an individual coming from New Brunswick who was arrested who had apparently firearms in his truck. We also heard evidence from a City Councillor, Mathieu Fleury, who had to leave with his family from his home because people were coming to his house. Was CSIS following those kinds of threats against municipal officials?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 86 27-086-02

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But Ms. Tessier, just to be clear, like if someone's making a threat against a public government official, whether it's federal or municipal or provincial, isn't that inherently falling under 2(c)? If someone's threatening a public official because they want some type of different political decision, a policy choice, isn't that inherently falling under 2(c)?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 86 27-086-16

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But Mr. Vigneault, let’s just be clear that if someone’s making a threat against a public official because they’re trying to influence that public official, that inherently falls under 2(c), does it not? Now, it may be that you don’t view the threat as credible, but if it was a credible threat, it would inherently fall under 2(c), would it not?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 87 27-087-22

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Sir, please, I’d like to give you lots of -- normally I’d like to give witnesses full time to answer, but I only have a limited time. I’m just trying to get an answer because I believe I’ve asked it a few times here. If someone is threatening a public official because they want to influence that public official to take some policy choice, does that not inherently fall under 2(c); yes or no?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 88 27-088-12

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So if someone’s threatening to kill a Mayor or a Premier because they want them to drop a public health measure, that does not necessarily fall under 2(c). Is that your testimony, sir?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 88 27-088-23

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And so did ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 88 27-088-28

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Yes, sir, I understand that. And we’re needing a lot of time just to get an easy answer to what I thought was an easy question. I thought your response was going to be, with all due respect, that yes, a threat to a public official to influence that public official would fall into 2(c), but in most cases we have not used these threats as credible or valid because, you know, it’s just online. I think in one of the CSIS documents I saw “shit posting” or something like that. But if you viewed a threat to a public official as credible, would it not fall under 2(c)?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 89 27-089-14

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Could I have an answer, please?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 89 27-089-28

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Okay, well, fine. I’ll move on. Thank you. So now, did CSIS look into any of those threats in the context of the convoy protest, any nexus to the convoy protest?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 90 27-090-02

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

But -- so did -- so you did look at those threats. And did any of those threats to public officials emanate from anyone with a nexus with the convoy protests?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 90 27-090-12

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So is your answer to me, then, that you may or may not have investigated those threats to public officials with individuals -- with threats emanating from individuals with a nexus to the convoy protests but you can’t tell us because of section 38?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 90 27-090-23

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So I’m done with my time, sir, but I just want to make sure I understand. I apologize. I’ve heard your answer a couple times and perhaps I’m missing, is that yes, CSIS did look into those individuals or you cannot tell us?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 91 27-091-09

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

So that’s yes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 91 27-091-21

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 91 27-091-24

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Good afternoon. I’m Hatim Kheir, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. So to begin, Ms. Chayer, the national terrorist threat level has been at medium since October 2014; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 92 27-092-02

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And it didn’t change during the protests?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 92 27-092-08

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

But it never left medium.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 92 27-092-14

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Vigneault, the CSIS Act is the home statute of your organization, so is it fair to say that CSIS has expertise in applying the statute?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 92 27-092-16

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And the -- so section 12 requires that CSIS investigate wherever there are reasonable grounds to suspect there’s a threat to the security of Canada as defined in section 2; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 92 27-092-21

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And so that just -- it doesn’t require certainty. It doesn’t require reasonable grounds to believe. It’s reasonable -- it’s just reasonable suspicion; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 92 27-092-26

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Yeah. Okay. And that’s an assessment that CSIS does day in and day out?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 93 27-093-04

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Now, as someone whose father was monitored by your organization for over 10 years until it was determined an investigation wasn’t actually necessary, my personal experience is that it seems that your organization is very thorough. Is that a fair assessment, that CSIS is rigorous in executing its duties?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 93 27-093-08

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. Because -- I mean, a big reason that your agency’s members have to be thorough is that if CSIS incorrectly determines something is not a threat and then chooses not to investigate, that could lead to harms down the road; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 93 27-093-17

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. So you said something earlier and I was just trying to write it down as you said it, but something to the effect that CSIS mobilized whatever resources it could in order to try and understand the Freedom Convoy protest? Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 94 27-094-01

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So you’ve talked a bit about the potential for a lone wolf threat. Now, am I correct in thinking that that’s not based off of particular intelligence; it’s more of a conclusion from general principles about this kind of an event?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 94 27-094-08

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So there was -- you were just asked questions about the potential that people were present at the protests that CSIS was already monitoring. But basically, your organization was keeping tabs on them; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 94 27-094-24

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Now but just to go back to the general point, the idea is that this is a large gathering. It could be used as an opportunity by someone to commit -- to engage in some sort of a threat. But that kind of threat is present at other big events like a G7 protest; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 95 27-095-08

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 95 27-095-27

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we could please pull up COM00000935? And if you can go to the 8th page in the file. There's a three at the bottom though. It's how it's numbered. While that's being pulled up, we've heard a bit about how the definition for threats to the security of Canada doesn't include -- it doesn't include protest. Am I right in thinking that the basic idea here is that if there's a protest where one of the four factors aren't present you don't investigate, and if there's a protest where the four factors are present, you would investigate; right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 96 27-096-11

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. So the fact that it's a protest isn't a barrier to an investigation if one of these things is present?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 97 27-097-01

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Mr. Vigneault, so looking -- let's look at -- we can look at (a) first. Based on the Service's assessment, there was no espionage or sabotage associated with the protest; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 97 27-097-14

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So the 2(a) definition wasn't met?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 97 27-097-19

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And there was no foreign interference?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 97 27-097-22

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So 2(b) wasn't met?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 98 27-098-01

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Thank you. And there wasn't any serious violence associated with the protests?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 98 27-098-03

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Or a credible threat of serious violence?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 98 27-098-06

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. I'll be more specific then. There were no activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada; correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 98 27-098-15

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So 2(c) wasn't met?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 98 27-098-23

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And just quickly, there was no credible threat to overthrowing our established system of government?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 98 27-098-25

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you. So not only was there no section 2 threat present, but there wasn't even reasonable grounds to suspect a section 2 threat was present?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 99 27-099-02

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

If I could just have an indulgence to sort of hit the last point I've been working up to? I'll try to be very quick.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 99 27-099-15

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. So -- sorry, that threat that you're speaking about is with respect to individuals, but the protest itself did not pose a section 2 threat to the security of Canada?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 99 27-099-21

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And yet you still advised the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 99 27-099-28

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And you did that not because you thought that there was -- the protest posed the threat to the security of Canada as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act, but because you were reassured the threat to the security of Canada had a different meaning under the -- in the context of the Emergencies Act?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 100 27-100-03

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And when you say that information that you had received, you're referring to your earlier comment that you were reassured that that definition had a broader meaning under the Emergencies Act?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 100 27-100-16

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So just my final question.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 100 27-100-24

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

The very last question. The -- this determination then that the Emergencies Act standard is a -- the definition is broader under the Emergencies Act than with respect to under the CSIS Act, that was not the product of you reading the Emergencies Act and developing your own assessment. That was something -- that was advice that you had received?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 100 27-100-28

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you very much, and thank you for the indulgence, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 101 27-101-08

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Good morning. My name is Cara Zwibel. I am Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I just maybe want to pick up where my friend just left off. And maybe we could pull up the summary of -- the public version of the summary of the hearing that took place, the in-camera hearing, which is WTS.00000079, please? And I think it’s page 8 that we want to go to. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And you can just scroll down to the bottom. So this statement, Mr. Vigneault, and I’m going to direct my questions to you, but if your colleagues have things they’d like to add, please do. This statement that your: “…understanding that the Emergencies Act definition of threat to the security of Canada was broader than the CSIS Act, …” Where did you get that understanding? I know Mr. Cameron said maybe we’d hear about it later, but I’d like to hear about it now.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 101 27-101-13

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. You asked the Department of Justice?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 102 27-102-07

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. Thank you. Now, I just want to -- if we could scroll down a little bit more? This is maybe a grammar or a language point that I want to understand. It says: “…he advised the Prime Minister of his belief that it was indeed required to invoke the Act.” Is that “it” referring to the Government? That the Government was required to invoke the Act? Or that the Prime Minister? Or?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 102 27-102-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 102 27-102-21

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

But your view was that ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 102 27-102-23

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

--- based on this broader understanding ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 102 27-102-25

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

--- of threats to the security of Canada, the Act should be invoked?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 102 27-102-28

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. So I just want to go through -- and Mr. Cameron went through some of the timeline here. You had an interview with Commission Counsel on, I believe it was August 29th? And in that interview, you noted that you had only learned that the Emergencies Act referred to the CSIS definition of threats to the security of Canada when the Government started to explore the possibility of invoking the Act? Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 103 27-103-03

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And then Commission Counsel prepared a summary of that meeting, that interview, with you and your colleagues. We’ve seen that and that was produced earlier. And then you had this in-camera proceeding that took place. And I understand that again you confirmed that it was CSIS’ view that the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the CSIS Act was not met during the convoy?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 103 27-103-12

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And then under examination from the Government of Canada, this information that you advised the Prime Minister of your view that the Act should be invoked was disclosed for the first time? Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 103 27-103-21

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

So you said in your initial witness statement that you felt it was important to communicate at the IRG and to Cabinet that under CSIS’ analysis, there wasn’t a section 2 threat?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 103 27-103-26

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. I guess -- I mean, you understand that the purpose -- one of the purposes of this Commission is to assess whether the Act was properly invoked? Sorry, can you just answer audibly?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 104 27-104-15

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Thank you. And I guess I’m wondering why you didn’t think it was relevant when you met with Commission Counsel in August to note that you had in fact advised the Prime Minister that you believed the Act should be invoked?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 104 27-104-20

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. But when you met with Commission Counsel in August, you felt that -- you didn’t feel that Cabinet confidence prevented you from advising that you had advised Cabinet and the IRG that you did not believe there was a threat within the meaning of the CSIS Act?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 105 27-105-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. Because I would put to you that those two pieces of information are really two sides of the same coin, that if one is not subject to Cabinet confidentiality, the other one also would not be?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 105 27-105-24

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. Thank you. I don’t know if you had an opportunity to review the testimony given by Ms. Thomas? The National Security and Intelligence Advisor?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 106 27-106-08

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. So one of the things that Ms. Thomas said was that the CSIS definition of threats to the security of Canada is quite narrow. Do you agree with that? That it’s a narrow definition?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 106 27-106-13

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. So and I mean, you understand, of course, why, and I think you’ve alluded to this in other statements that you’ve made here today and in your witness statement, that there should be a high threshold before our intelligence services start surveilling or targeting Canadians? Would you agree with that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 107 27-107-03

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. The holding or expressing of unpopular political views should not be enough to engage CSIS’ mandate?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 107 27-107-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And do you understand why -- now, I know you take the view that the definition in the Emergencies Act is broader, but would you agree that the threshold to invoke the use of the Emergencies Act should also be a high one?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 107 27-107-20

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. But you understand that the Emergencies Act allows the government to rule by executive order for a period of time?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-01

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And that the Public Order Emergency Section of the Emergencies Act allows those orders to let the Government assume control of public utilities, for example?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-05

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

And it allows the government to direct individuals to render certain services, like was done in this case with the tow trucks.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And you understand that it can prohibit travel to, from, or within any specified area; that’s one of the things that the Public Order Emergency section allows?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-16

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-22

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Oh. Thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-25

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Just one last question. The placement that you were taken to by Ms. Khan that talked about the IMVE, the nature of ideologically motivated violent extremism, two of those of elements were willingness to kill or willingness to engage in serious violence. Would you agree with me that without those two elements, you just have people who care a lot about something and want to make a change?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 108 27-108-27

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 109 27-109-11

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Robert MacKinnon, Government of Canada. We just received what I think my friend is going to put up on the screen, and it is not what had been agreed to. It has commentary; it has statements, along with the document. If that’s what is going to be put up, at least -- it was just sent around by the Freedom Corp. just a few minutes ago.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 109 27-109-17

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Lesser version of the one we sent earlier and took out everything except simple facts. There’s some documents that are such that I can’t just copy and paste them into a document, they’re PDFs and things, so I had to type them out, but they’re verbatim. So if my friend wants me to refer to each and every document, which I’ve now made it simple as well, I’ve had all of them uploaded in one PDF; the Clerk has them on standby. As we go through, I have no problem deviating from this at all and going through the document, but I would like to finish the examination, at least, if I’m forced to do that, in order to get through these records. These records, there’s -- in my view, I would submit, as we go through, that there’s simply no issue with the facts stated herein.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 109 27-109-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I had that uploaded just now. So I got them -- all of them consolidated and put into one PDF so that I can stop wasting ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 110 27-110-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Well, we can if we want. It’s just going to have to -- I have to navigate it. So -- because it’s not exactly labelled completely great. So I guess we could -- can we use that? Yeah, we can use that, sure.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 110 27-110-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 110 27-110-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Great, okay. Time begin now?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 110 27-110-25

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-01

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Just -- Robert MacKinnon again. Sorry; last thing. Just as long as the documents that you’re referring to, you have I don’t know how many here ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-02

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

They’re all the ones that I -- document that I’ve given you already. The one that ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-06

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

So they’re all in relativity?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Pretty much, yeah.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-10

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

No, no.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All of those are in relativity because that document is in relativity. So if we could pull up the document, and I just don’t want to run out of time.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So if I can first -- Director, does CSIS have a concern with the current elected executive leaking information and CSIS information to the media? Do they have a current concern about that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

No, not specific. Does CSIS have a concern generally about the current political executive leaking information from CSIS to the media?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 111 27-111-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. So -- but I take it the unauthorized disclosure, it’s highly unlikely it’s actually coming from your agency; it’s not coming from them directly, is it?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 112 27-112-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. If we could go to the January 24th tweet of Mr. MacGregor? Or, sorry, the January 25th one of Althia Raj; 14, number 14.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 112 27-112-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes, I think the hyperlinks didn’t carry through when we uploaded; unfortunately, that happens sometimes. That’s why I wanted to use my sheet. Well, in any event, sir, I’m just going to ask you; I want to bring up, then, the document -- just a second. I’ll just bring it up on the normal document, relativity. And, sir, I’m going to have to ask for more time. I tried to get this dealt with, and if I was permitted to use the examination sheet that my friend’s trying to stop me from, I wouldn’t be in this position.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 112 27-112-22

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Mr. Commissioner, I do have a -- this is Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, counsel for Freedom Corp. I do have a number that I can give to the Clerk, if I may?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 113 27-113-04

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

The code for the Raj tweet is HRF00001621.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 113 27-113-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you. And that’s also at page 17 of the document that I had put up. So actually, if you want to bring -- you can do that. So sir, do you see that, that tweet there? It’s from the 25th, it’s retweeting the January 6th event narrative that had been released in the media prior to the convoy arrive?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 113 27-113-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah. Okay. Did you know that that tweet is what resulted in the political executive essentially becoming concerned with the convoy and having internal discussions about the narrative they were going to build; were you aware of that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 113 27-113-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So I’m going to take you to -- and, sir, I have them consolidated; they’re the text messages between Mary-Liz Power and the -- as well as Alexander Cohen. They’re verbatim in my examination aid; there’s nothing added. If I could bring up the examination aid, please, again, and I can use that, and we can just scroll to where it starts with Mary-Liz Power? (SHORT PAUSE)

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 113 27-113-28

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

If he’s going back to the same document...

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 114 27-114-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Well, then I’ll read it to him. Okay? Verbatim. So on January 25th at 9:22 a.m., Mary-Liz Power issues a policy advisory to the Office of the Prime Minister. They have a text message exchange with Alexander Cohen, the Director of Communications to the Minister of Public Safety, okay? And it begins when that tweet is sent. They send it out, all right? And Mary-Liz power sends that text to Alexander Cohen and states: “I’m sure you’ve seen this but flag it.” (As read) ... Alexander Cohen responds: “Yup. I’ve been encouraging journalists to take a closer look at who these people are [and where their 3 mil comes from]. Obviously, a light touch given the portfolio.” (As read) Then Mary-Liz Power states: “Hmm, do you know if there’s anything to be found in that GoFundMe?” (As read) And Alexander Cohen replies: “I think it’s worth looking into. I’ve put Mary Wolfe (phonetic) on it...” (As read) Highlighted -- well, it was highlighted: “...and she’s obsessed with this kind of stuff.” (As read) Mary-Liz Power replies: “Nice. I’ll look into what I can do.” (As read) Now, can you agree with me, from an intelligence perspective, that those are two staffers building a political narrative with respect to a national security issue?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 114 27-114-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. That’s fine. And then, later that day, at 12:02 p.m., Mary-Liz Power and Alexander Cohen exchange further text messages, all right? So Mary-Liz Power states: “Got a quick response. People are into it. LMK [meaning ‘let me know’] if your boss is too. Happy to help however I can. This is what I sent, though, by the way.” (As read) And this is the -- whoever she sent it to, with respect to the narrative: “Hi, I just had a chat with Alex at PS, who had a bit of an interesting idea. As you saw in the pod goal’s chats, the trucker convoy and some of their more extreme comments, [i.e. calling for a January 6-style insurrection] are getting more coverage in media. Alex was surveying where there’d be interest in his boss [that’s the Public Safety’s Minister] doing some media on this eventually. He was chatting with Mendicino about right before he went into the Cabinet retreat. I think there could be an opportunity in getting in on the narrative of the truckers, particularly with the research that the LRB is doing into their backers. My thoughts of framing here would be similar to what the PM and Blair said last year when January 6 occurred; our democracy is something we need to nurture and protect every day. We will always protect the right to peaceful protest. Some calls that organizers of these events are making are concerning and we’re taking them seriously [we’d need something to back this up]. Will continue to monitor the situation closely, and the fine line to walk would be to ensure we are not looking like we’re directing the police, which obviously is not the goal here. Hoping to canvas your thoughts. Alex said he’d come back to me with a proposal this aft when he gets to chat to Mendicino again, and obviously pending his boss in our interests in looking into this further.” (As read) Mr. Cohen responds: “Thanks. I had an initial chat with my boss and he’s supportive but wants to wait a day or two. There’s a danger that if we come down too hard they might push out the crazies.” (As read) Mary-Liz Power replies: “I think that’s fair. Apparently Global and others are working on stories. Maybe we see how those land.” (As read) Now, I’m going to ask the same question again. At that point, are there a bunch of political staffers essentially planning to create a national security issue, or make one look like it is?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 115 27-115-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 118 27-118-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So are you aware of the LRB, what it is? You are, aren’t you?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 118 27-118-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Liberal Research Bureau.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 118 27-118-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And so is it fair to say that it’s kind of strange that the political branch would have the Liberal Research Bureau doing research on protesters with respect to these concerns they’re raising, as opposed to yourselves who are the National Security Agency?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 118 27-118-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Can we go to document SSM.CAN.00006358_REL.0001? Okay. Can we just scroll to the bottom, to the first email, please? Okay. So this email is from January 27th, okay? And it’s an email between, again, more political staffers. It begins with Caroline Williams, she’s the Director of Parliamentary Affairs at the Privy Council; you’re aware of that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 119 27-119-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And what about Zita Astravas, the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, Bill Blair, do you know her?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 119 27-119-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And Annie Cullinan, she’s with the Privy Council as well; are you familiar with her?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 119 27-119-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So in this email -- and again it’s January 27th, 2022 at 4:21 p.m. -- you’re aware that the protesters in Ottawa hadn’t really even arrived at that time, right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 119 27-119-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 120 27-120-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So there it says to ML, that’s Mary-Liz: “[I] Wanted to reach out on the current [issue] lead [sic] situation for the convoy. Given how this is transitioning into a whole-of- government coordination response, I feel like...Emergency Preparedness we a are well-positioned office to provide more of [a] high-level messaging going forward. Public Safety of course has a major role to play when it comes to the RCMP, CSIS, and IMVE threats, but we have a helpful perspective on the whole-of-government coordination + collaboration with other levels of government. These are [the] lines we worked up earlier today. Any thoughts on if this is a helpful approach? Convoy - Emergency Preparedness.” Then it says: “Our government recognizes and respects that everyone in Canada has [the] right to safe and peaceful protest. Threatening acts of violence and inciting hatred, as we have seen from a select few in recent days, is unacceptable and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians. We condemn all such hateful and violent rhetoric in the strongest terms. As is common with any significant gathering with...potential impact[s] on government operations, such as the annual Canada Day [celebration], law enforcement and security agencies across all levels of government are engaged [in coordinating] to ensure a safe event.” Now, do you recognize the phrases and the sentences in the first three bullet points? Have you heard them somewhere before?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 120 27-120-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Can you -- do you recall the Prime Minister’s speech on January 31st? Do you recall him, when he was in isolation, he came out and gave a speech on January 31st about the protest; do you remember that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 121 27-121-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

That’s what he said.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 121 27-121-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So he said -- can you agree with me, that writing out a narrative like this, prior to the protest even arriving, and then on the January 31st, despite the fact -- and this is evidence -- there had been no real actual violence in Ottawa, he says these things; do you find that concerning?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 121 27-121-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

As an intelligence officer, as an intelligence agency; that there’s a narrative being built ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 122 27-122-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

--- for an emergency, before the purported thing creating the emergency has even taken place.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 122 27-122-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And let me ask you this; the biggest concern, it appeared, was over the first weekend of the protest. There was the appearances of Confederate flags and Nazi flags and Nazi symbols; right? Did you investigate those issues at all?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 122 27-122-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Yeah. If -- Mr. Clerk, if you could just go back to my examination aid. This shouldn't be an issue. It's at paragraph 16. Just scroll right down to it.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-06

John Mather, Counsel (POEC)

Sorry. Mr. Commissioner, just for your information, this is the document that the DOJ has an outstanding objection over.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes. And if we can go to paragraph 16.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-13

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, we've already objected to this document being put up.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I understand, but I'm going to ask for a ruling on the Commissioner to put this page to them. So let's deal with that if we can. So if we can put up page 16 again.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-17

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Well, just a second.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Or paragraph 16, is just the two pictures of the first post in time at 10:13 a.m. on January 28th, 2022 of the spotting of a Confederate flag. And so -- and there's also a licence plate number. If you'd like me to go through and bring up all of the documents I'm just trying to get this done quicker, sir.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 123 27-123-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I understand, but I'm ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

This is so important, sir, that I need more time to get through this area. It is extraordinarily important.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-05

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I understand. I understand.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-13

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-17

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I understand.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 124 27-124-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-02

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes, Commissioner.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-06

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

From my understanding, my -- Mr. Miller would like to first put up a -- the -- a tweet of Ariel Troster that shows the image of the licence ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-08

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

--- and then the -- -

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-13

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So we'll call up the number HRF -- so POE.HRF.00000021.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-16

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

But we have gone to page 16, with respect, and it's not just a picture.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

We're not putting up page 16.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-24

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

If it's just the picture that's fine.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 125 27-125-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So sir, this is my first understanding that this was the first post in time that I can find with respect to when a Confederate flag or a Nazi flag appeared, and it's at 10:13 a.m. on January 28th of 2022. And it's posted by Ariel Troster. Do you know who she is?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 126 27-126-05

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

She's -- you're not aware that she's the new councillor that replaced Councillor McKenney?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 126 27-126-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

All right. And so -- then, if I could just bring up the closer photo with respect to the licence plate, please, and that actually is at page 43 of the examination Book of Authorities. That'll just be easier for you, Mr. Clerk.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 126 27-126-15

Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes, Mr. Commissioner. The reference is POE.HRF.00000029.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 126 27-126-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So -- and it's been clear. So online that licence plate number is BL, then it's got a crown in the middle, is three, and I can literally tell you what it is, and people were trying to look it up. It's viewable. Did at any time CSIS do an investigation into who that licence plate holder was?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 126 27-126-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 127 27-127-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And so the next document, then, would be the -- one second please. The document is the one that comes after in the examination aid, and it is the January 29th, being POE.HRF.000000024.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 127 27-127-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 127 27-127-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 127 27-127-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I understand. So the next time a Nazi flag or a Swastika or what have you appears ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 127 27-127-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, right. The next time. So you knew about the situation where Conservative Party Member of Parliament Mr. Cooper, he was giving an interview and this upside down Canada flag with the Swastika appeared. Are you aware of that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 127 27-127-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Can I now bring up POE.HRF.000000026. Okay. So this is the post from a fella by the name of Uskippop (ph) unidentified on Reddit. He posted at 3:12 p.m. And it's, from my understanding, the first time that the Nazi flag photo appears. Are you aware of that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 128 27-128-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah, it's just the ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 128 27-128-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I'm just trying to get through it. And then there is the issue with respect to that that no one was able to identify this gentleman. And I believe there's a close-up photo of my friend. Ms. Van Den Berg?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 128 27-128-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Well, I'm just going to, if we are going to run out of time, is this: We're you aware that the first time that the picture of the gentleman all covered in Army fatigues, with a mask over his face, walking with a Confederate flag through a crowd, it first appeared in an opinion piece in the Toronto Star from someone who actually works for the Liberal Party of Canada? Were you aware of that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 128 27-128-24

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, my friend seems to be giving evidence now.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I'm asking if he's aware of it.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Right.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-10

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay, but there's a presupposition of a fact that's not in evidence.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah, because you keep interrupting me while I'm trying to ask questions and I'm running out of time.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-13

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-17

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Are you aware of a company called Enterprise Canada?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-21

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And have you identified the individual, the one that is -- there was -- he was all over the news, the gentleman that was carrying the Nazi flag? Have you identified him yet?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 129 27-129-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. So ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 130 27-130-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. Yeah.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 130 27-130-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And I take it, and I take it then, sir, that you know that that individual was Brian Fox from Enterprise Canada.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 130 27-130-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah, you haven't testified to it, but you know that to be true don't you?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 130 27-130-13

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Good afternoon. My name is Sujit Choudhry. I’m counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. I want to ask you a few questions about the legislative history of section 2(c) and the emergence of IMVE as a central focus for CSIS’ activities, if I may. Is it true that section 2(c) was amended in 2001 by the Anti-Terrorism Act to include a religious or ideological objective?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 130 27-130-24

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

And is it true that that amendment was -- ensured that the CSIS Act would align with the Criminal Code’s new definitions of terrorism?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 131 27-131-07

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Mr. Vigneault, you’re shaking your head.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 131 27-131-12

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. All right. Fair enough. And so I’d ask you to take my word for it that it was part of the same legislative package to get those two statutes in alignment. And so -- and then in 2019, there is a major initiative on the part of CSIS, is the development of a definition framework for ideologically motivated violent extremism? Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 131 27-131-15

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Good, and, sir, just so we’re clear, I believe that the first time CSIS reported out on this development and this thinking was in the 2019 Annual Report?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 132 27-132-05

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. Good. And is it true, in your interview summary, you stated that IMVE does not mirror the Criminal Code definition of terrorism?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 132 27-132-10

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Sure. So could we pull up Witness Summary 60, please? And could we go to the bottom of page 3? Thank you. Could we expand -- yes, very helpful. Thank you. Okay. So Mr. Vigneault, do you agree that you said here that the definition of IMVE does not mirror the Criminal Code definition of terrorism?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 132 27-132-15

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Yeah, it’s the last -- the start at the third line from the bottom, sir.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 132 27-132-24

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. And then if we could continue? If we could just continue, you said -- you gave them the example of Alexandre Bissonnette: “…who met the Service’s definition of an ideologically motivated extremist, but who was not charged with terrorism offences under the […] Code.” Did you say that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 132 27-132-27

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

And so is it reasonable to infer, from your evidence there, that the definition of IMVE is broader than the Criminal Code definition of terrorism?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 133 27-133-08

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

So does it follow, sir, from you’ve just said, that IMVE, or the notion of IMVE, gives CSIS broader tools to assess and respond to extremism than might be available under the Criminal Code?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 134 27-134-02

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

And sorry, ma’am, did you -- -

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 134 27-134-13

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. And would you say that it’s that CSIS over the last number of years has developed a lot of expertise on IMVE?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 134 27-134-17

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

And the analysis is done in the first instance by skilled, intelligence professionals?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 134 27-134-27

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

And you’re a learning organization, so you’re always trying to improve how you analyze IMVE?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 135 27-135-03

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. And so would it be far to say, if you can now look back to 2018 or 2019, and think about the world before then and the world after, in terms of CSIS’ function, do you think that the adoption of IMVE has broadened the scope of the activity CSIS investigates under 2(c)?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 135 27-135-08

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

So but you would agree that IMVE now occupies 50 percent or more of your -- of CSIS resources?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 135 27-135-26

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Mr. Commissioner, how much time do I have left?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 136 27-136-03

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. So I’d like to pivot, at the end, just to the issue of threats to government officials online, if I may, because my friend, Mr. Champ, raised it for you. And so it seems to me, and I ask you to agree with this, that it seems that the mere utterance of a threat online doesn’t necessarily, per se, cross the section 2(c) threshold. Is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 136 27-136-07

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Could you tell us when it would?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 136 27-136-17

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. Well Mr. Commissioner, I think we’re out of time. So thank you for your time.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 137 27-137-05

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Oh.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 137 27-137-10

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Good afternoon. My name is Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham and I'm Counsel for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. I will be directing our questions today to Mr. Vigneault, but I welcome the answers of any participant on the panel who may be able to supply additional information. Mr. Vigneault, are you familiar with Bill C15, which received royal assent and came into force as federal legislation on June 21st, 2021, to adopt and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, also knows as UNDRIP?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 138 27-138-01

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

So under that legislation, the Government of Canada is required by Parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are aligned with UNDRIP. How is CSIS meeting this obligation?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 138 27-138-14

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay. That's what I was going to ask next. We noticed in your mandate letter that you've been mandated to advise Minister Mendocino on deficiencies within the CSIS Act that require modernization. So I just wanted to confirm if a review of the CSIS Act for alignment with UNDRIP has been prepared within the agency.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 138 27-138-26

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay. Thank you. Does CSIS consider Indigenous rights in conducting its assessments and evaluations?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 139 27-139-15

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

I believe the document that Mr. Vigneault is looking for is TS.NSC.CAN.00200000225.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 139 27-139-22

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Has ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 139 27-139-24

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Oh, I'm going to make note of that document and I'll take a look at it, but I'd like to move on to the next question for ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 140 27-140-01

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay. Thank you. Branching off of that -- thank you for bringing that up -- has CSIS considered whether UNDRIP's implementation means that there should be distinct considerations on CSIS's ability to monitor non-violent and unarmed First Nation's people who engage in activism pertaining to their lawful rights, even in situations that are perceived to be public order emergency events that are allegedly unlawful?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 140 27-140-28

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay, thank you. I’m going to wrap up with just a few last questions. So, in your mandate letter in May 2022, Minister Mendicino mandated that CSIS must work to eliminate any systemic racism or unconscious bias in its operations. He specifically made reference to ensuring that “minority communities” are not subject to unfair scrutiny in the name of national security and that CSIS “ensured the intelligence and evidence used when making determinations are free of bias, prejudice, and up to date”. What work is CSIS doing or planning specifically to eliminate anti-Indigenous discrimination in its operations, monitoring, intelligence gathering, and analysis, or reporting to other government to other government branches or agencies specifically in the context of Indigenous rights defenders?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 142 27-142-01

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay. And last question, do you have any specific Indigenous officials working in those advisory positions, whether it be an advisory body, an internal committee, or just an advisor to advise on matters such as making sure, you know, surveillance of ideologically motivated activism doesn’t supress legitimate activism by Indigenous peoples regarding their rights?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 143 27-143-16

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay. Thank you so much for your time today. Those are all of our questions.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 144 27-144-17

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Yes, we have no questions, thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 144 27-144-21

Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Thank you, Commissioner. Rebecca Jones for Former Chief Sloly. We have no questions.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 144 27-144-25

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Yes, good afternoon. My name is Mike Morris. I’m counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan. I’d like to start out by discussing CSIS’ February 13th draft threat assessment, so I’m going to ask the registrar to pull up the document. It’s TS.NSC.CAN.001.00000172. Mr. Vigneault, just as we’re waiting, this document is entitled “Possible Implications of Emergencies Act Across the IMVE Space”. I gather you’re familiar with it; is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 145 27-145-02

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

The Clerk of the Privy Council mentioned last week that this document was available to attendees of the February 13th cabinet meeting. Do you recall it being distributed?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 145 27-145-12

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

You attended the cabinet meeting on February 13th, correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 145 27-145-23

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

I guess my question is, would expect to have received notice from the clerk that this document was being made available or distributed for that meeting, if it was?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 145 27-145-26

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Right. Would all attendees at cabinet have had the security clearance necessary to view this document?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 146 27-146-08

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay. To the best of your recollection, was the content of this document related fully and accurately at the cabinet meeting?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 146 27-146-16

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay. I’m going to quote you a statement that the Clerk of the Privy Council made in her evidence on Friday, so I want you to just listen closely. If we need to pull up the transcript, we can. The clerk stated: "Cabinet was aware that CSIS had not assessed a threat to the security of Canada necessary to trigger their authorities under the CSIS Act." (As read). Are you able to agree with that statement?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 146 27-146-21

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay, thank you, sir. I just -- I want to move on to discuss the ability of the federal government to sort of disclose CSIS’ bottom-line assessment to provincial governments, and premiers in particular, because we're aware that there was a First Minister's meeting on the morning of February 14th, and I'm interested in whether CSIS's bottom-line conclusions would have been able to be disclosed at that meeting. And I want to put two of those bottom-line conclusions to you, sir. One is that CSIS's assessment that the protests did not pose a threat to the security of Canada as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act, would the federal government have been at liberty to disclose that information on February 14th at the First Minister's meeting?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 147 27-147-13

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Well, if there was information of a threat, for example, in the Province of Saskatchewan, how would that information then be conveyed to the provincial government? Somebody must have the authority to release it. Is that fair?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 148 27-148-07

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay. I just have a couple more questions. We heard some evidence the other day that the NSIA asked the RCMP to produce a threat assessment for the use of the clerk of the Privy Council on February 14th. I'm wondering, was CSIS asked to prepare a similar threat assessment for the clerk of the Privy Council on February 14th?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 148 27-148-21

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay. I just have one final question. This one's more of sort of personal interest, and it's to Ms. Tessier. Ms. Tessier, you've had a lengthy career with CSIS, and I understand that you would have been employed with CSIS following the September 11th attacks; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 149 27-149-06

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

We've heard that CSIS's threat assessment remained at medium throughout the Freedom Convoy. Can you advise whether CSIS's threat assessment exceeded medium in the period immediately following the September 11th attacks?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 149 27-149-13

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 149 27-149-25

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Okay. Thank you for answering my questions.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 150 27-150-04

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Good afternoon. I am Robert MacKinnon for the Government of Canada. I just want to clarify first, the document that my friend put to you just a moment ago. It's actually an attachment to the Cabinet minutes in a different document ID. If you want to pull it up, you can see it. SSM.NSC.CAN 216 page 12. Is that the assessment that my friend just put to you?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 150 27-150-09

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And if you scroll up a little bit, you'll see it's part of the minutes of Cabinet meeting. So that would have been distributed as part of the Cabinet; is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 150 27-150-20

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

All right. On another question that Mr. Miller put to you, put to you questions suggesting that it was only on or after January 25 that there were concerns about threats and extreme ideologies in connection with the convoy; do you recall that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 150 27-150-25

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

You have also testified that CSIS was receiving the OPP's Project Hendon Reports and participated in the Joint Intelligence Group in relation to the convoy; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 151 27-151-03

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay. I'd ask that you pull up the document OPP00001606. This is a Project Hendon Report dated January 23rd. And if you go to the second page -- okay. Stop. If you look at the paragraph that starts the third: "We assess the commercial truck drivers participating in the Freedom Convoy are likely to be generally supportive of holding a lawful protest; however, convoy supporters may include individuals representing ideological movements who may view the protest as an opportunity to advance their own causes or beliefs. Some of these individuals may engage in activities that are not --- "

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 151 27-151-08

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Sorry.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 151 27-151-25

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay. Sure. "--- that are not sanctioned or supported by convoy organizers in order to achieve their own objectives. The post on the RISE UP DURHAM website referencing Ottawa being wild, which echoes the language used by former U.S. President Donald Trump prior the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol tends to support this hypothesis. If accurate, then this assessment could indicate the possibility for conflict between a larger group comprising commercial truck drivers and a smaller group of ideologically-driven opportunists." Do you see that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 151 27-151-28

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And you would have received or CSIS would have received in their regional offices and agencies these -- this Hendon Report of January 23rd; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 152 27-152-17

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

I'd also ask you to pull up OPP0001608. It's another Hendon Report dated January 24th. And just the first bullet point, if you can go up a little bit? Yes. You'll see it says: "Diagolon content has been posted or pinned on some social media sites promoting the freedom convoy. Some Diagolon adherents are indicating an intent to attend the event in Ottawa. We have not yet identified any comments from convoy organizers disassociating the convoy from Diagolon. Diagolon flags were also observed at a pro- convoy rally in Sudbury on January 22nd." And then if you go over the page to just above "Tactical Considerations": "The range of anti-authority movements supporting the convoy, the presence of Diagolon insignia on convoy social media sites and at the Sudbury protest, and the potential attendance of supporters from THE LINE at the protest in Ottawa, validate previous assessments that noted the use of the Freedom Convoy by actors who may be willing to engage in acts of public disorder and possibly violence." Do you see that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 152 27-152-22

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And that information, again, would have been received by the CSIS regional offices and all recipients of the Hendon Reports on January 24th; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 153 27-153-24

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And the last one, document I'll take you to, TS.NSC.CAN.001.156. This is an ITAC threat assessment of the possibility of IMVE driven violence on the margins of the truck convoy protest. So this one's dated January 26th, before the January 27th date in the email that my friend took you to. So if you look at the first -- the second paragraph, "While this is intended by the organizers to be a peaceful protest, open source reporting indicates that prominent ideologically motivated violent extremism [...] actors in Canada have seized upon this protest to advocate for their own ideological objectives and some have expressed interest in attending the protest in Ottawa this coming weekend." So, again, this would have been received by CSIS's regional offices and -- well, it's created from ITAC itself, so -- and that -- well, you can speak to that, Ms. Chayer; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 154 27-154-01

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

So all these reports, would they not indicate a concern about violent extremist elements attending or being part of this convoy?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 155 27-155-01

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay. That's -- I don't need that document anymore. This one's for Mr. Vigneault. You were asked a question earlier today and it's all -- you gave an answer that's also in your summary of the in-camera testimony when -- about your support for the invocation of this Act, the Emergencies Act. And you said based on your understanding of everything you had seen up until that point, do you recall that?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 155 27-155-13

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Can you detail what you had seen or been informed of that contributed to your opinion that it was necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 155 27-155-22

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay. Here's another question concerning the decision. Did the GIC have the same inputs that CSIS had when it made its decision and CSIS made its decision under its Act? Were -- are you aware whether they were exactly the same inputs?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 156 27-156-18

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Right. I'll take you to briefly your -- the summary of the in-camera proceeding that a couple of Counsel have taken you to, just to look at a couple other paragraphs. So if you could pull up WTS00000079, page 4? So where it says in the paragraph "Ms. Tessier explained..." That's right. "...that unlike RMVE, IMVE groups often do not have a command and control structure or organized membership." Now we've heard that said today. Could you just -- you mentioned networks, but perhaps one or other of you could just explain just quickly the difference.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 157 27-157-02

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

If I could ask you to turn to page 8? Under "Threat Assessment Concerning the Invoking the Emergencies Act", if you could look at the paragraph that starts, "Ms. Tessier explained that there was an initial increase in online rhetoric after the invocation, but, because it was announced at the same time as public health measures being lowered, the increase petered out." Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 158 27-158-05

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

So it didn't -- it wasn't as aggravated as perhaps the assessment first foresaw; is that - --

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 158 27-158-18

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay. And because I may not have time to take you to some of these ITAC assessments that are referred to in the next paragraph, can you just confirm that the summary there is accurate, that it says, "The panel were referred to several CSIS and ITAC assessments between 2020 to the period the convoy ended, describing threats to journalists and politicians. The panel agreed that since 2020, there has been an increase in IMVE online rhetoric and threat[...] to authority figures, including law enforcement, public and elected officials. Ms. Chayer explained that this rhetoric was mostly targeted towards politicians, including [as] against provincial officials and the Prime Minister." You see that? Do you have any sort of further comment on that threat environment from 2020 to today? Has it changed in any way, or has it remained the same?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 158 27-158-25

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And can online rhetoric translate into action in the real world?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 160 27-160-12

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Is it difficult to predict the point at which online violent rhetoric translates into action, violence?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 161 27-161-10

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And you had mentioned -- I’d heard the words “dynamic” and “fluid” and so forth. How would you describe that type of threat assessment? Is it done on a daily basis?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 161 27-161-15

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

All right. I have a question for Mr. Vigneault concerning questions that were put to you earlier. So you were asked a number of questions about the interpretation of the CSIS Act. And you’re aware that the Government of Canada has received legal advice generally on the Emergencies Act? Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 162 27-162-12

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And you’re aware that the Government of Canada has received legal advice generally on the Emergencies Act and has claimed solicitor/client privilege over that advice, are you not?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 162 27-162-20

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And you have not been given authority to waive any solicitor/client privilege over that advice? Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 162 27-162-25

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

And when you’ve answered questions regarding the interpretation of various statutes, you were expressing your own understanding? Is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-01

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

All right. I have a document to pull up, ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-05

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

All right. I would -- I don’t know if one of my friend’s who gave up their five minutes would cede me that time, but -- I see a nod. I feel like it’s - --

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-09

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

I’ll even cede him my five minutes.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-13

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

I just think that -- I’m not going to get through what I want to, but I think some of this is important, I thought.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-15

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Yes. I’ve got a document that I’m going to ask for your explanation of, Mr. Vigneault. It’s TS.CAN.001 -- well, several zeros, 001, then several zeros one again. So it’s entitled “Fabric of Society”. It’s a CSIS document. So it’s TS.CAN.001. a number of zeros, and then one.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-19

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

In case it assists, there are seven zeros before the one, TS.CAN.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-25

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

There we go. Mr. Vigneault, can you explain what this represents and how CSIS utilizes this?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 163 27-163-27

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Last question. Was there a concern by CSIS concerning this convoy, that others who have been radicalized in some form and were engaged in an online rhetoric would use the convoy as a vehicle to recruit?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 165 27-165-21

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Okay, thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 166 27-166-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, two brief points of clarification, I hope, though I see my friend, Mr. MacKinnon, rewrote the summary himself while delivering it to the witness so it might be that it’s had the salutary affect that we need here. I think this question is for you, Mr. Vigneault, and I’d that the summary of the closed session, which is WTS, zeros, 79, you brought up, and if we could to the top of page 9, maybe the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9. Thank you. And this passage has had some discussion a fair bit already today so I won’t repeat the whole thing but, Mr. Vigneault, I think what some people have expressed some puzzlement about is just the way you’ve phrased it. And you know that if I tried to say something in French, you would have to cover your ears, so I’m not faulting your English here; it’s just that sometimes we see Francophones express things this way and I want to see if I can offer you an alternative expression in English or, if you’d prefer, just ask you to say it in French. The way you’ve phrased the last eight or 10 words there allows for two meanings in English that I don’t think -- I think you intended only one them. So it says: "…he advised the prime minister of his belief that it was indeed required to invoke the Act." And some people are wondering if “it” has any meaning other than an article that is reflexive to invoke the Act. So one way of rewording that might be, “Advised the prime minister of his belief that the invocation of the Act was required,” or, “It was,” as Mr. MacKinnon put it, “necessary to invoke the Act.” Do either of those sound right to you? And if they don’t, please just say it in French and we’ll -- you’ll lose me but the Commissioner will be right on it.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 166 27-166-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay, I’m going to tell you that that leaves us with the same ambiguity, so do you want to try it in French?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 167 27-167-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 167 27-167-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I’ll try it again. Would you think it sounded right if you said, “He advised the prime minister of his belief that it was indeed necessary to invoke the Act”?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 167 27-167-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Then we’re there, thank you.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 168 27-168-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And then, on another point of clarification, probably this one for you, Ms. Tessier, not everybody followed the graphic about IMVE the way the graphic designer probably hoped everyone would follow it, which is quickly and easily. And we were going to try to walk you through that when we realized you’ve actually got it written out in words in your institutional report. So if you could -- Mr. Clerk, if you could call up DOJ.IR.00000001 and take us to page 7, about two-thirds of the way down. And Ms. Tessier, if this is a question for you, I’ll ask you to look at the verbal description of the placemat which is there and, in particular, if you can confirm that that’s an accurate description of what the placemat is trying to say, with us being especially interested in the paragraph afterwards, “If an actor only demonstrates…”, which the words, for us, seem much clearer than the placemat was able to describe. So if you can confirm that those words are accurate, that will resolve that for us.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 168 27-168-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay, thank you very much. And, Mr. Commissioner, those are my questions.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 168 27-168-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Commissioner. Gordon Cameron for Commission counsel, and the first witness in this category of ministers is Minister WILLIAM BLAIR, if he could take the stand, and he will be sworn.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 170 27-170-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Good afternoon, Minister Blair. I'll begin just with some housekeeping, some formalities, and in particular, what I'm going to ask you to do is recall that you had an interview with me and some of my colleagues on September 6th, and for the record, I'll note for parties that the summary of that interview is WTS000000048 Now, Minister Blair, have you had a chance to review this witness summary that was prepared following your interview?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 170 27-170-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And can you confirm that it's accurate and that you adopt it as part of your evidence before this proceeding?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 171 27-171-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, if we can just go through a little bit of background, for those who aren't already familiar with your role in the federal government recently and before that. You were the Minister of Public Safety from November 2019 to November -- to October 2021; is that correct?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 171 27-171-13

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And in October of 2021, you were appointed -- and this is a long title and it requires a bit of updating -- you were appointed as President of the Queen's Privy Council; now you will be the President of the King's Privy Council, I take it -- and also as the Minister of Emergency Preparedness; is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 171 27-171-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, in the prime minister's mandate letters, that is, the letters that the prime minister writes for each of his ministers to describe what he expects from them during their tenure, the prime minister assigned leadership responsibilities regarding public safety and emergency preparedness, both to you, Minister Blair, and to Minister Mendicino. And so the question is, can you help us understand how that division works under the umbrella of the Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Public Safety?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 171 27-171-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yeah, the scribes at the interview got lost after a few minutes of the interview. Now, if -- that’s a helpful description, Minister Blair, of the division between the two parts of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Here's something that’s more challenging for all of us is if you can describe for us your role as President of the King's Privy Council and how that -- what role you play there? I'll remind you just as what place to start that among other things, you chair the SSE committee, the Safety, Security, and Emergencies committee, but writ large, can you describe that office and what responsibilities come with it?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 173 27-173-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And something we'll come back to in a little bit of detail a little later in this examination, one of the functions of your office includes handling requests for assistance, what we've now learned to call RFAs where somebody from a level of government lower than the federal government asks for the assistance of the federal government in some particular sphere. Can you tell us just broadly speaking how that works? We'll come to the one specific to the convoy in a minute, but just broadly, how that process works.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 174 27-174-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And can you describe to me the level of formality that that process follows, and it's probably not the same in every case, but sometimes it's a phone call, perhaps followed up later by writing; sometimes writing followed up later by a phone call. But can you describe for the Commissioner just how the process tends to take place in the example of a typical flood or hurricane?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 175 27-175-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So if the hurricane's coming up the coast you don't wait until the letter arrives before you start mobilising a response to a request for instance?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 177 27-177-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And I assume that if you do act immediately before the paperwork arrives there will, nonetheless, be the requirement for the orderly administration and documentation of the RFA that the paperwork would eventually come through and then the request be properly documented?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 177 27-177-21

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, if you can describe, perhaps, well certainly atypically relative to most other government departments, you are lodged, so to speak, in the Privy Council Office and supported by people also in the Privy Council Office, and one of the people also there is the National Security Intelligence Advisor, Jody Thomas. If you could describe for us how you, as Minister of Emergency Preparedness, work with or relate with, interact with the National Security Intelligence Advisor?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 178 27-178-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, we've had, as you probably know, already testifying among senior government officials who testified last week, Jacqueline Bogden and Jeff Hutchinson. Maybe you could just remind us, now that you're here, where they fit in the scheme of your Department of Emergency Preparedness.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 179 27-179-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And a third name that we're going to encounter in some of the documents, and those who have been following will have seen already, Zita Astravas. Can you describe what her role is in your department?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 180 27-180-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, again, people who have been following this proceeding or following the original events will know that there's another part of your background that ended up assuming special significance as these events unfolded in January and February, and that was your first career as a police officer, and ultimately the Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service. First of all, can you describe in broad strokes what that experience was, and then I'll bring you back to the particular public order experience that you had in those roles?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 181 27-181-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. Now as I understand it, as you were coming up the ranks, you, in fact, served a term as an inspector of a public order unit itself, that is, the actual unit that goes out and deals with public order incidents ---

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 182 27-182-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- is that right?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 182 27-182-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now the one that often gets remembered because it was so newsworthy was the G20 event in Toronto, which ended up being a public order event as well as its political event on its own. And you played a role in that, but it would probably be helpful if you described what role you played, what role you didn't play and roughly how that -- what you learned from that experience.

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 182 27-182-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And as you mentioned, probably in the 30-odd year career, and especially 10 as Chief of Police, there were more than just the G20 event, and the one other perhaps event or series of events that was memorable during that period when you were Chief of Police were the Tamal protests in Toronto. And they -- I mention them because you might find some similarities with some of the events that happened around Ottawa, and if you could just tell us about those events and how they were resolved, at least as best as you can recollect it?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 183 27-183-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And if I recollect accounts of those events, one of the things you were able to accomplish with that demonstration was to move it from an arguably illegal demonstration in the sense that it was blocking University Avenue to a location nearby where the demonstration could continue but not be obstructing traffic and potentially breaking the law?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 185 27-185-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And as an incident commander or public order senior police officer, how do you factor in that particular attempted transition; that is, you encounter a public order incident, ideally, you're able to keep it legal from beginning to end, but when it starts to transition into illegality either because it's obstructing traffic or violating some other law, where in your ranking of objectives do you put turning what has become an unlawful protest into a lawful protest?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 186 27-186-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And you might not have monitored this part of the evidence, but we had a similar discussion with Deputy Commission Zablocki of the RCMP about this attempt that the RCMP took in and near Coutts, Alberta to find a legal way for the protest to continue. And let me ask you if you find -- if you found in those days when you were doing this the same tension, because the protesters want to be visible. They want, in effect, to cause at least enough of a nuisance that they're noticed and that they're able to make their point and be heard, and yet, you want them to be as little a nuisance as possible. And is that a tension that your forces and the people you have as your liaison team are trained to try and sort out?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 186 27-186-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. Now, coming to the events in question, as the matters were developing, there were -- there was a series of what end up getting called briefings on truckers’ convoy among Ministers and senior officials in the government. And it looks, from our account of the documentation, that you attended probably all of them, or almost all of them; is that your recollection?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 188 27-188-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes. There was one on January 28th, and I’m going to ask the Clerk to call up SSMNSCCAN00000251. And if you -- Mr. Clerk, if you can just scroll down, there’s a point where we have a number 18, and there; there we go. And these are the -- this is the notes of the readout, as it’s called, of that meeting. And do I understand the way this is laid out correctly, that beside the number 18 and your name are a series of points that you were making at the meeting?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 188 27-188-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

The one I’m going to ask you to talk about is c, “We need to keep the language down” And probably the people in the room knew what you were talking about, and you probably used more words than just that, so if you could flesh that out for us, what you were -- what message you were trying to get across during that briefing when you said, “We need to keep the language down”?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 188 27-188-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So minimize name-calling, and that kind of thing, as I understand it?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 189 27-189-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. But is that what you mean by keep the language down; keep the rhetoric moderate on the government side, on the protester side?

Volume 27 (November 21, 2022), page 189 27-189-12