Volume 29 (November 23, 2022)

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, Commissioner. Jeff Leon, Commission Counsel. This morning, we're going to shift gears and focus on what has been a very important part of this Commission's work, that is, the views of the Canadian public. It's our pleasure to present to you an overview summary of the results of our public submission process. As you know, shortly after your appointment, you committed to providing an opportunity for members of the public to participate in the work of the Commission. That's essential to have a full and complete picture for the Commission's deliberations. The public submission process was launched in August. At that time, you again commented on the importance of the Commission receiving, and I quote: "...meaningful public input from a wide range of Canadians, not just those individuals and entities who have been granted standing. This is in keeping with my commitment to conduct an open and transparent public inquiry that provides an opportunity for involvement by all Canadians." (As read) The public submission process ran until October 31st, and I am pleased to report that it was a success. The Commission received almost 9,500 submissions from a broad cross-section of Canadians. In terms of age, respondents self- identified as being from all age groups, but primarily 25 to 44 and 45 to 64, which is consistent with Canadian statistics as being representative of the Canadian population. In terms of location, we heard from respondents in nine provinces or territories across Canada, primarily British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, which again is consistent with the fact that these provinces contain the largest concentrations of population in Canada. In terms of those who were -- responded, we heard from those involved in the protests, community members affected by the protests, and members of the public, who wanted to tell the Commission about their views in terms of the work that the Commission has undertaken. Indeed, the Commission undertook to review all these submissions, a final report is being prepared, and this presentation will be a summary of the matters to be covered in that report. You will see that we have been successful in collecting, indeed, a wide variety of views, observations, ideas, and experiences of Canadians on all aspects of the Commission's mandate, including the circumstances that led to the declaration of a Public Order Emergency, and the measures taken for dealing with the declared emergency in February of 2022. We received submissions in three ways: through an online questionnaire, email, and mail. Overall, these submissions have been of great assistance to the Commission in appreciating how the matters being considered affected and impacted Canadians. They provide background and context for the Commission to inform its deliberations in this Inquiry, which, after all, is a public inquiry. I note that this overview that we will now present is not evidence. Like some of the other background presentations that have been tabled, it will be posted on the Commission's website. On behalf of the Commission, we extend our thanks to the many Canadians who generously took time and made the effort to assist in the Commission's process. You have performed an important service as Canadians. I will now ask my colleague, Sajeda Hedaraly, to present the summary, after which I will share with you excerpts from a few of the actual submissions we received to give a first-hand flavour of the breadth and quality of these submissions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 8 29-008-11

Sajeda Hedaraly, Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. For the record, I'm Sajeda Hedaraly, Commission Counsel. As mentioned by Mr. Leon, this presentation is a summary of the comments that the Commission received from the public. It would be impossible to attempt to convey every point made in the over 9,000 submissions we received in this presentation, but we hope to convey important parts of what was shared with us. As you will see, we have organised the presentation around various themes that were collated from the comments that we received. La présentation de ce matin sera bilingue. Les personnes qui ont besoin d’un casque d’écoute devraient les garder à portée de main. So first... If we can go to the next slide, please, Mr. Clerk. D’abord, parlons du contexte de la pandémie de COVID-19 qui a été exprimé par plusieurs membres du public. Plusieurs personnes ont discuté d’un sentiment d’exclusion et d’isolement qui était dû ou bien de leur statut vaccinal ou de leurs opinions contre les mesures sanitaires. Si on pouvait aller à la prochaine diapositive, s’il vous plait. Selon ces personnes, ces commentaires que nous avons reçus, les mesures sanitaires ont été en place pendant trop longtemps et ceci a aggravé les difficultés que ces personnes éprouvaient dans les autres sphères de la société — par exemple le travail, les évènements sociaux, et cetera — et ils sentaient une certaine discrimination due à la politisation des questions entourant le statut vaccinal. We also heard from people who felt pride in the convoy. For them, the convoy brought a sense of belonging among people who shared similar views on the pandemic. These people had a sense of obligation to participate in these protests to defend the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Some of those people also acknowledged the impact on the Ottawa residents of the protests, but in their view the Nation's Capital belonged to all Canadians and they were still justified to be there. They were proud to have been part of an important grassroots movement. Ces mêmes personnes avaient généralement une vision pacifique des manifestations. Par exemple, nous avons ici une citation d’un manifestant qui nous dit qu’il a été touché par la gentillesse et le respect dont ont fait preuve ses concitoyens canadiens pendant les manifestations. Plusieurs personnes nous ont fait part du fait que les trois semaines de manifestation à Ottawa ont été absentes de violence, de vandalisme, de misogynie, de racisme et de haine. Les écarts qu’on pouvait voir de haine, comme des pancartes sur lesquelles on voyait des injures, étaient les exceptions. Au contraire, ce qui émanait des manifestations pour ces personnes était des bonnes actions de la part des manifestants, la distribution de nourriture, le nettoyage de rues, le pelletage de neige, et cetera. We also received comments from community members who were affected by the protests. Many people expressed that their mental health was impacted by the protests. Some felt trapped in their homes. Next slide, please, Mr. Clerk. The continuous honking was disturbing to them. They also had difficulty breathing and headaches due to the diesel emissions from stationary truck engines. They also talked about the impact of road closures and limited public transport. For example, various appointments had to be rescheduled for health services. They also reported lack of mental health support. Ces personnes craignaient également pour leur sécurité. Ils trouvaient qu’ils n’avaient jamais vu autant de personnes commettre des crimes et mettre les autres en danger pour des opinions politiques. Ces personnes avaient une expérience régulière d’anxiété, de stress, de colère et de peur face aux évènements. Certains nous ont également parlé du harcèlement et du comportement agressif qu’ils ont vus de la part de manifestants ou qu’ils ont vécus. Certains, par exemple, ont été ciblés et interpelés pour avoir porté des masques dans des espaces publics et — si nous allons à la prochaine diapositive, s’il vous plait — certains avaient l’impression que des manifestants s’étaient donné pour mission personnelle d’intimider les personnes masquées à Ottawa. Certains groupes avaient peur de quitter leur domicile spécifiquement parce qu’ils trouvaient qu’ils avaient un risque accru de faire l’objet d’un discours haineux et plusieurs personnes ont également estimé que la police ne les protégeaient pas parce qu’ils signalaient des incidents, mais que ceux-ci ne faisaient pas l’objet d’enquêtes et ils trouvaient que les lois et les règlements n’étaient pas appliqués. We’ve also heard a lot about disruption to daily life. We have here a quote: “I’m a 65-year-old retired high school teacher, who relies on my volunteering shifts at the museum to remain active, both physically and mentally. The prolonged COVID shutdown of the museum was difficult for me, and the ensuing protest exacerbated the personal impact.” (As read) These personal impacts included deprivation of peace, quiet, and sleep. Many people also reported being unable to work effectively or work at all. And as mentioned earlier, many residents had to make drastic changes to their schedules. There were also impacts on non-governmental organizations and charity who had to adjust their services and could not serve the community in the way that they would have hoped to. There were also impacts on local businesses and services. Residents reported difficulties obtaining various services or getting groceries, for example, and some downtown businesses also had to close, which resulted in an important loss of income which was particularly important to them because of the previous COVID-19 measures that had been imposed. Les membres du public qui s’opposaient aux manifestations nous disent qu’ils soutiennent la liberté d’expression, mais que les limites étaient dépassées ici. Lorsque la liberté d’une personne à s’exprimer empiétait sur leurs droits, ils trouvaient que ça allait trop loin; même s’ils supportaient la liberté d’expression, ils pensaient qu’il y avait des limites qui devaient être imposées. Un membre du public nous a dit : « Les manifestants parlaient de liberté, mais pas de leurs responsabilités en tant que citoyens. » Pour ces personnes, les manifestations portaient atteinte à la démocratie canadienne — nous y reviendrons un peu plus tard dans la présentation. Ces personnes qui s’opposaient aux manifestations avaient un sentiment de colère du fait que les manifestants prétendaient s’exprimer au nom de tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes alors que ce n’était pas le cas. Pour plusieurs personnes, les manifestations n’étaient plutôt qu’une opportunité pour des individus frustrés de participer à un évènement unique et de bruler un excès d’énergie au nom de la liberté, mais sans plus. Let’s now turn to media coverage of the protests. We’ve heard several comments on misrepresentation and excessive media coverage. We have a comment here: “Media lied about all of it. They wanted people not in Ottawa to think the protesters were a bunch of redneck hooligans causing mayhem.” (As read) This is fairly representative of many comments that we received, which expressed low levels of trust for mainstream media compared to new media such as YouTube or other social media. In their view, mainstream media was misrepresenting the facts surrounding the protests, and in their view that was often because these organizations receive subsidies from the States and therefore are mouthpieces for the government. Many people also expressed that excessive media coverage of the exceptions in Ottawa, who displayed signs with profanity or historical symbols -- historical hate symbols, were being represented excessively and didn’t actually represent the people who were at the protests, and these people expressed emotional distress at being associated with these hateful symbols. On nous a également parlé du discours du gouvernement fédéral par rapport aux manifestants et manifestantes et que celui-ci visait à diviser la population. Pour plusieurs personnes, les représentants et représentantes politiques au fédéral cherchaient à discréditer le mouvement du convoi, ils ne cherchaient qu’à alimenter, selon eux, la trame narrative selon laquelle les manifestants ne représentaient qu’une minorité. Ce discours a affecté négativement l’opinion du public à l’égard des manifestants et ceux-ci, tel que mentionné plus tôt, se sentaient ostracisés et avaient de la détresse émotionnelle à ce sujet. Indeed, for those people the government used a double standard when it dealt with protests. It perceived that the federal government had different standards when it came to different types of protests. They expressed that in recent years there had been numerous protests of a violent nature in Canada that led to various blockades, for example, led by different groups with different interests than theirs, and yet the Act had never been invoked to deal with these excesses; and, indeed, the Prime Minister had met with most of these groups. Those people found that the invocation of the Act not only was disproportionate but was also vindictive toward protesters with whom the government did not share values. Plusieurs nous ont dit que les manifestations auraient pu être résolues de manière pacifique si seulement des négociations avaient eu lieu. Tout ce qu’il y avait à faire, comme nous dit ce manifestant, « tout ce qu’il y avait à faire était de s’entretenir avec les camionneurs et résoudre le problème, mais au lieu de cela, on a choisi d’appeler les personnes ‘a small fringe minority with unacceptable views’ ». Ce que les manifestants voulaient, ils nous disent dans leurs soumissions publiques, c’était une forme de dialogue, une conversation, ils voulaient simplement que leurs opinions soient prises en compte, mais, pour eux, il y avait un manque de volonté de la part du gouvernement fédéral d’entendre d’autres points de vue et de résoudre la situation de manière pacifique. Certains ajoutent même qu’en signe de bonne volonté, des camions avaient été déplacés et qu’on s’attendait à ce que cette action conduise à de nouvelles négociations avec des représentants du gouvernement et ça n’a pas fonctionné, et on nous a exprimé que c’était similaire… l’utilisation de la Loi suite à ce geste de bonne volonté équivalait à un abus de pouvoir. On nous a notamment mentionné que les blocages à Coutts et à Windsor avaient été levés avant l’invocation de la Loi, ce qui, à leurs yeux, justifiait… justifie leur opinion que l’invocation de la Loi était un abus. We have heard of many different kinds of frustrations against politicians. This time, in this slide, expresses frustrations towards politicians who supported the protests, rather than those who didn’t meet with the protesters. So some people expressed that extra frustration because some politicians chose to support the protesters for what seemed to be merely political gain, and for them the invocation of the Act was the only possible outcome to clear the occupation, and all political debates and discussions between different political parties were unnecessary and non- collaborative and not in the best interest of residents, especially in Ottawa. Ce sentiment d’abandon nous a été exprimé par plusieurs personnes qui nous ont aussi parlé de leur perte de confiance envers les autorités. Ce sentiment d’abandon était également étendu à la police en raison de son inaction dans l’application des lois et plusieurs se demandaient comment trois forces policières à Ottawa n’ont pas pu contenir une manifestation qui était pourtant prévisible et ils nous ont mentionné que la Loi n’aurait peut-être pas été nécessaire si la police avait été mieux organisée et agi plus tôt. On se demandait également les raisons pour lesquelles des outils règlementaires n’avaient pas été utilisés, tels que des contraventions. Une personne nous a également dit que l’inaction de la police a incité des résidents et résidentes à se rassembler pour empêcher l’accès à plus de camions au centre- ville et le counter-protest dont nous avons entendu parler préalablement. This leads to the next point. Some people told us the Act might not have been necessary if law enforcement had acted earlier. People spoke of failures by multiple levels of government. For the City of Ottawa, they said that the City should have limited truck access to designated zones throughout the city, which would have avoided the blockade, what they call a blockade. They also say that the Ottawa Police remained inactive, despite various complaints that they received of harassment and intimidation by residents of Ottawa. We were also told that -- we also received criticisms concerning the Province of Ontario, that only took action once the economic impacts of the border blockade in Windsor became apparent. And these people told us that Ontario could have dealt with the crisis, but instead passed on responsibility to the Federal Government. And of course, we also received criticism from the Federal Government -- about the Federal Government’s actions, pardon. Je vais maintenant me tourner plus spécifi… plus généralement à des commentaires sur l’invocation de la Loi. Je vous parlerai d’abord de ceux qui trouvaient l’invocation de la Loi nécessaire avant de discuter de ceux qui la trouvaient injustifiée. Pour ceux qui la trouvaient nécessaire, l’invocation de la Loi a apporté un soulagement. Les résultats qui ont suivi l’invocation de la Loi, pour ces personnes, ont montré sa nécessité, le fait que c’est ce qui a permis de dégager les foules et d'ouvrir les routes. La Loi a permis aux résidents d’Ottawa de retrouver un semblant de vie normale et un sentiment de sécurité et, pour plusieurs personnes, de regagner leur domicile parce qu’ils l’avaient quitté. Pour ces personnes, l’invocation de la Loi est une réponse tout à fait appropriée, mesurée et ciblée pour mettre fins aux manifestations. Ces personnes nous ont également parlé du fait que les éléments extrémistes et violents du convoi présentaient un danger pour les Canadiens et pour la démocratie. Pour eux, toutes les autres options avaient été épuisées, il s’agissait effectivement d’un dernier recours. Le gouvernement fédéral avait la responsabilité d’agir afin de protéger la population, et ce, par tous les moyens possibles. We’ve also heard from others that the invocation of the Act was unjustified and inappropriate. For those people, the protests in Ottawa were peaceful and did not meet the requirements needed to invoke the Act. There was no serious or immediate danger to the lives, health, or safety of Canadians. The Act was invoked while all other options had not been exhausted, and that led to violent confrontations between police and protestors. These people also told us that existing laws should have been enforced by local and provincial authorities, the Criminal Code, notably, other laws, and bylaws, could have been sufficient to manage any illegal behaviour. For them, the decision to use the Act was a political one by frustrated federal officials who had no sympathy for the protestors. On nous a parlé de craintes au moment de la déclaration de la situation de crise. Une personne par exemple nous a dit, une fois que la Loi a été adoptée, il se posait des questions : « Mon compte bancaire serait-il gelé parce que j’avais partagé des vidéos du convoi sur mes réseaux sociaux? Je suis allé à la banque et j’ai vidé mon compte. » « Serai-je arrêté pour avoir été présent au convoi à Ottawa? J’ai décidé de ne pas attendre et de voir ce qui était pour se passer. J’ai fui le pays. » Et plus tard, il me dit : « Lorsque la Loi a été invoquée, on m’a montré qu’aucune loi, constitution ou charte n’est au-dessus d’eux — du gouvernement — et que la Loi ne m’offre aucune protection. » Ces craintes étaient multiples : il y a eu des craintes de violence physique par la police, une peur à la vue de gaz lacrymogènes, peur à la vue de la force utilisée pour déplacer et remorquer des camions, la peur de faire l’objet d’une enquête et d’être arrêté pour des activités antérieures à l’invocation de la Loi, la crainte de répercussions pour avoir appuyer en ligne les manifestants, une crainte que ses comptes bancaires soient gelés et d’ainsi perdre ses moyens de subsistance, et certains ont quitté ou ont considéré quitter le pays. Ça nous amène aux impacts directs de la Loi sur la vie des manifestants et des gens qui les ont appuyés. Some people reported that they suffered physical injury from the use of cayenne pepper, batons, and anti-riot gear. Many found themselves in a precarious situation because of their inability to access their bank accounts for various periods of time, and many questioned their trust in banking institutions. Cette perte de confiance est également étendue envers le gouvernement et les institutions, notamment la police et les banques. Pour certaines personnes, l’invocation de la Loi a créé un précédent risqué, elle était perçue comme une attaque contre tout groupe qui a des opinions opposées à celles du gouvernement. Certaines personnes nous ont également dit qu’elles ne feraient plus de dons à des organismes de bienfaisance parce qu’elles auraient peur de ce qui arriverait à leur compte bancaire si ces organismes s’opposaient au gouvernement au pouvoir dans l’avenir. Pour ces personnes, leurs droits liés à la liberté d’expression et à la manifestation ont été détruits. This lost of trust for some also led to persistent fear of the government and of institutions. Some people expressed that they were now anxious to participate in general political discourse because of the repercussions it might have in their lives. They were scared of being monitored for their political view, and they also are now scared in the presence of police and are scared of being arrested for their political views. D’autres personnes nous ont également invoqué un sentiment de peur pour des raisons différentes. Nous avons ici quelqu’un qui nous dit : « Au fur et à mesure que les manifestations se poursuivaient, j’ai commencé à réaliser qu’elles étaient plus antigouvernementales qu’antivaccins. C’est à ce moment-là que j’ai commencé à avoir peur. Ces gens réclamaient le renversement du gouvernement et, au fil des semaines, personne ne les arrêtait. J’ai commencé à avoir peur pour notre pays. » En effet, ces personnes avaient une anxiété par rapport à la chute des systèmes démocratiques au Canada. Pour eux, le cynisme… ils avaient du cynisme relativement à l’affichage continu de rhétoriques anti-gouvernementales, ils soulignaient qu’il s’agissait là d’un nouveau phénomène qui était plutôt inquiétant. Ils exhortent… ces personnes exhortent les institutions à prendre au sérieux les menaces envers le système démocratique au pays; ce type de mouvement peut ressurgir à tout moment et ces personnes voyaient les manifestations de janvier-février dernier comme un signal d’alerte pour ce qui pourrait se reproduire à l’avenir. We have also heard about the damage and changing perception to Canadian symbols. We have heard of people who are now anxious when they see Canadian flags, while they used to be proud of being Canadians. A community member told us, “I want my flag back, quite simply.” For these people, the image of the Canadian flag has changed, its symbolism has been tainted, and they were heartbroken by the use of Canadian symbols by the protestors. They now associate these symbols with the protests, with hate speech, and with intolerance. And they were -- these people do not understand the casual behaviour of the authorities. The use of the flag for political purposes, and also the symbolic gesture of flying it upside altered people’s attachments to the Canadian flag and their sense of pride, and they now have a sense of distrust when they see cars flying a Canadian flag. On nous a également exprimé une inquiétude par rapport à la réputation du Canada à l’international, et ce, de tous bords tous côtés. Certaines personnes ont exprimé un sentiment de honte à l’égard de la gestion de la manifestation par les autorités et, pour ces personnes, c’est l’inaction du gouvernement face aux manifestations et l’attention médiatique qui a été accordée qui a atteint la réputation du Canada. Pour d’autres, c’est l’invocation de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence qui était injustifiée et qui a nui à la réputation du Canada en tant que société démocratique qui ne laissait pas les gens exprimer leurs opinions. Donc, d’abord, la perte de fierté dans l’identité canadienne — un peu comme on a discuté tantôt avec le drapeau — en raison de l’association du convoi avec des éléments extrémistes; pour ces personnes, avait également un impact sur la réputation du Canada à l’international. Et des gens nous ont également exprimé une inquiétude par rapport à la relation entre le Canada et les États-Unis, notamment des blocages aux postes frontaliers. Cet impact, pour ces personnes, a un impact tant symbolique, économique, que diplomatique sur les relations du Canada avec le reste du monde. Et d’autres personnes, tel que mentionné plus tôt, se sentent au contraire moins en sécurité relativement à leur capacité à faire des affaires au Canada, par exemple en raison du gel de leurs comptes bancaires. We have also heard some concerns over foreign influence. There was a perception that the online donations allowed foreign donors to interfere in a domestic issue, and people -- many people believed that the convoy was inspired by the events of January 6th, 2021, in the United States Capitol. There was a widespread belief that far right ideologies and anti-government rhetoric is growing and spreading, and that that was reinforced by actors in the United States during the protests. Passons maintenant aux recommandations du public. D’abord, les recommandations du public relativement à la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence spécifiquement et ensuite nous irons à des recommandations plus générales par le public. Par rapport à la Loi, plusieurs personnes nous ont dit qu’il ne devrait pas être possible d’invoquer la Loi par simple majorité au Parlement. Le seuil pour invoquer la Loi devrait être plus restrictif, et on nous a donné plusieurs suggestions sur les façons avec lesquelles ça pourrait être plus restrictif. On nous a également dit que le pouvoir d’invoquer la Loi devrait faire preuve d’une plus grande surveillance de la part d’autres institutions gouvernementales. Et enfin, on nous a dit que les termes et le langage dans la Loi devraient être mieux définis. On nous a dit que la Loi avait eu pour effet de permettre aux forces de l’ordre de travailler ensemble à Ottawa et de supprimer des frontières juridictionnelles, et donc, on nous a dit qu’à l’avenir la Loi devrait être revue pour que les différents niveaux d’intervention soient ajustés en fonction de la gravité de la situation. Spécifiquement par rapport à la région de la Capitale nationale, on nous a dit que la Loi devrait tenir compte des compétences… des problèmes de compétences uniques auxquels est confrontée la région d’Ottawa et que plus de clarté était nécessaire concernant le rôle des différents corps policiers dans le maintien de l’ordre à Ottawa. I'm sorry, can you go back to the previous slide. Thank you. Plusieurs personnes nous ont dit que le seuil pour invoquer la Loi doit rester élevé pour s’assurer que son utilisation n’est pas disproportionnée par rapport à la gravité de la situation. Finally, let's turn to general recommendations from the public. Many people told us that future protests should always require a permit and that the use of motorised vehicles in a protest should be prohibited. We also heard that a by-law or a law to mitigate engine idling should be adopted. In times of crisis, various legal entities and government bodies must coordinate with one another to resolve jurisdictional disputes. And we were told that that should be clarified. We also were told that there should be more consequences, more legal consequences for people who deliberately spread lies, misinformation and hate, and that social media platforms that host mis-information and dis-information should also be targeted by such laws. We were told that the use of the Confederate flag and other hate symbols in Canada should be banned, and that the government must do better to educate and prevent the radicalisation of Canadians. Laws that curtail foreign funding of anti-democratic group and movements within Canada should be enacted. There should be a firmer application of standard behaviour in police forces and in military forces, and screening practices for hiring these personnel is necessary. And finally, we were told that there should be better support for the press and journalists, given their essential function in countering mis-information and dis-information. I will now pass the baton back to Mr. Leon, who will conclude with a few quotations from the comments that we have received. Encore une fois, merci à tous ceux et celles qui ont participé au processus de soumissions publiques. Your input is very much appreciated by the Commission.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 10 29-010-27

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Commissioner, Jeff Leon, Commission Counsel. Having heard this summary, which is of necessity, given the large number of submissions, is at a high level, it will be helpful to understand in the respondents' own words their views and how the events under consideration impacted them. You will hear a variety of views from across Canada, which is reflective of the diverse reaction of Canadians to the issues before this Commission. First: "I live in Victoria, B.C., in the neighbourhood behind the provincial legislature, James Bay to be exact. At the height of the Freedom Convoy, I worked part-time for a small, family- run retail establishment located in Victoria. We were forced to close the shop early three Saturdays in a row due to the constant honking, some of it amplified over loudspeakers. The constant honking was anxiety-inducing. Customers who did come in did not stay. I do not know how much revenue was lost, but winter is our busiest season, Saturday the busiest day. The owners were kind and gracious enough to pay us. I felt bad taking the money. This is only part of how the convoy affected me. I walk to work, so the entire way home constant horns blasting could be heard blocks away. It is a half-hour walk. Once I reached my neighbourhood, protesters were also on foot. They were loud, in some cases inebriated and menacing, they exhibited behaviour as a group I am sure they would not attempt individually. This behaviour continued daily for months. Elderly were scared to leave their homes. I was most distressed that it took as long as it did to invoke the Emergency Act." Second: "The convoy protest in Winnipeg impacted our mental health significantly. We live near the legislature where the convoy honked, blocked streets, emergency vehicles forced to take longer routes, waved offensive signs, harassed locals for wearing masks at a bus, or in local food or coffee shops, parked on streets, blocking locals. The loud honking for hours, long vehicle parade with flags was an assault. Our mental health was severely impacted, and any complaints to police were seen as a few complainers repeating and therefore of no real consequence. Our police did nothing. Plus the abuse of the Canada flag caused us not to put up our flag on July 1st. We felt helpless. We had to get away to a hotel for several days to keep our sanity. We felt on the edge of sanity. Until the Emergency Act finally came in, and suddenly things happened. With that, our police would not have ended this as quick. We kept hoping the Federal Government would enact that step because this protest should never, ever, ever have gotten away with this outright lawlessness and disregard for fellow citizens. This lack of action has forever changed our country for the worse, shaken our confidence in protection. The Emergency Act was absolutely necessary. We also believe it was ended quickly, showing there was no intent to abuse its power. It was the reason we finally got some relief, even here in Winnipeg. As a lasting impact, we are attempting to find a way to move out of this area, because even now, any significant honking on Broadway hits with a fear the protestors are back. Hours of honking past our apartment block change dour life because no one stopped it until the Emergency Act came in and Ottawa was being cleaned up, and then, and only then, did our police act. We were shattered.” (As read) Third. “I am a hospital pharmacist in Windsor, Ontario. Our border was blocked by protestors connected to the Ottawa protest. I did not personally need to cross the border during that time, but I did experience shortages of some food and commodities that are transported through the border. I am also angry that my city had to use tax payer’s money to deal with these circumstances. I resent the fact that money could have been used constructively to improve the city, was instead used to manage and contain the protestors. As a health care worker, I literally risked my life to go into the hospital where I work and care for sick people who required our services. If a protestor was one of the people needing my skills, I would provide it with the same diligence and empathy as with any other patient. In contrast, the protestors seem not to respect the needs of community members, at best inconvenienced, and at worst, terrorized by their occupation. Everyone has a right to protest, but they do not have the right to prevent others from carrying out daily activities, having access to food, or supplies, or simply feeling safe in their neighbourhoods.” (As read) Number four. “I am writing to express my sincerest opinions and experiences regarding the Freedom Convoy protest and the implementation of the Emergencies Act. This letter will provide what I hope to be a useful recount of a working-class Canadian citizen who believes in freedom and the Charter of guaranteed right to democratic protest. In the months of January and February of 2022, I made the long drive to Ottawa from Scarborough to peacefully protest in the Freedom Convoy. As a COVID-19 unvaccinated Canadian, I had already been facing discrimination, oppression, and hate for two years as a direct result of the Federal Government’s politicization of the vaccine. I am a young, active, healthy woman who had no medical need or personal desire to take an experimental vaccine. I was ridiculed by my peers and strangers alike, banned from leaving and re-entering my own country, public transit, sports leagues, restaurants, and shopping centres, to name a few. My decision to maintain medical and bodily autonomy nearly cost me my job. These vaccine mandates were systematically being imposed sector by sector, leaving hard working Canadians to be either coerced into sacrificing bodily autonomy or stripped of their livelihoods. Many of my COVID-19 unvaccinated family and friends were horrified and panicked at the very real possibility of having to flee our own country, a country which has stood for freedom and equality for over 150 years, until the truckers stopped them. The Freedom Convoy was a beacon of hope for millions of Canadians, millions of Canadians who faced threats, job suspension, and getting cancelled online as a result of expressing dissent. Through propaganda and polarization of the media, myself and many others were made to believe that there was nobody else out there who held the same perspective. We were made to believe that we had no ground to stand on and that if we spoke up, there would be no one there to back us up. And then came the news of the trucker convoy bound for our Nation’s capital, and inviting anyone and everyone to join. Here was finally a place where we could take a stand and show our government that we did not agree. The Freedom Convoy protests represent a new marker in Canadian history. They brought Canadians together. They brought the world together, inspiring protests in countries all over the world. The repercussions of the convoy spread far beyond what we could have ever imagined. Citizens of other countries waved Canadian flags, snag the Canadian National Anthem, and messaged and commented on social media in support of the Canadians. We became the pinnacle of a peaceful protest. I would like the Commission to take a moment to process what that must have felt like, to have spent hours, even days, waving a Canadian flag, singing O’Canada shoulder to shoulder with strangers, inviting our government to engage in a discussion about our democratic rights, and instead being labeled and criticized so harshly. Please imagine enduring the extreme cold temperatures holding a sign above your head just so you can finally have your voice heard and your life back. Imagine seeing people laughing together and dancing and standing guard on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Imagining just wanting your freedom back. Not more, nothing demanding. Just what you already had before. Then you come home, watch the news, and see yourself labeled as a domestic terrorist, as someone who does not represent the views of Canadians.” (As read) Five. “I supported the trucker convoy for many reasons and in many ways. I have truckers in my family and they were coerced into taking the vaccines and one family member was out of a job. The mandates and vaccine policies in this country have affected my children, myself, and my family in so many ways. They have created a huge divide amongst us: those who opted to take the vaccine and those who abstained. My family will never get back to where we were before covid. So when the trucks rolled out on their way to Ottawa, I supported them however I could. I donated to the GoFundMe page and then doubled my portion to GiveSendGo when GoFundMe shut down. I have yet to see my money back from GiveSendGo. I sent my kids out to the bridge overpass to wave on the trucks as they rolled down the highway towards Ottawa. The second weekend of the protest, I took the seven-hour car ride to Ottawa to see for myself what was happening downtown. I have never in my life seen such selfless people giving their time and energy to support such a noble cause. It was crowded and noisy due to the trucks running in the streets, and honking, and the immense amount of people there made noise. But it was music to my ears. It was a reuniting of Canadian people. It was the Canada I knew from 25 years ago when I travelled abroad. People from all provinces had gathered to become family. All nationalities were represented. It was wonderful. It was the best Canada Day celebrations I have ever participated in. It gave me such pride for Canada again. Such joy to be a part of the waving Canadian flags, the happy people singing, dancing, and yes, there were bouncy castles for the little people. There was food in the streets to feed armies. It was unbelievable. The joy I felt watching the videos of the trucks rolling down the highway for this reunification of our people who had been so isolated and trapped for two years, and then seeing it set up in Ottawa to be able to partake in was phenomenal. There was no violence and the police were literally standing around everywhere trying to keep warm, but in reality, had nothing to do in the areas that I walked around downtown. There was nothing to fear and people were kind and loving all weekend. Two weeks later, I took the trip to Ottawa again. unfortunately, this trip was much less enjoyable, because the police had already blocked the downtown entrances, and we heard of the violence that had already occurred with regard to the trucks, the vandalism, the tear gas. I made it to Coventry and heard from the trucks that got out just in time. They described the violence they had already experienced and witnessed. One trucker described as having been teargassed, his eyes were still itchy. I ran into a reporter who had been physically harmed by officers during covering the story. It got ugly due to the officers. It wasn't the supporting protesters causing this. I met many of the helpers at Coventry who had been there since day one and the stories we were able to share with one another about the purpose of this protest were beautiful." (As read) Number six, "Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on this polarizing issue in our country. I believe that evoking the Emergencies Act was the correct thing to do, and if anything, I would like to have seen a more forceful dispersion of protesters and others who engaged in these reckless and irresponsible actions. I was not a protester myself, nor was I in the capital city at the time of this event. However, I can attest to the broad reach of this group's influence and the effects it had on other provinces besides Ontario. These individuals threatened the entire country with their negligence by attacking our already frail food chain supply through the use of blockades. Living in Newfoundland, a large concern has always been if we will have enough food shipped onto the island to make sure everyone can get by. Although this group was unsuccessful with completely stunting the food supply chain, it did -- still did a number on our ability to get needed goods. Walking into the grocery store for some time was a stressful experience, as you would just have to hope that enough of what you needed made it to our isolated province. This in turn created a greater pressure on truckers who were continuing to do their job to the best of their ability while having to make unnecessarily long routes to avoid the blockades." (As read) Seven, "I lived in the red zone during the convoy occupation of Ottawa, six blocks from Parliament. The abuse and harassment from the convoy was constant and unacceptable. The 18 hours of honking day in, day out was torment. Implements such as the air horns used for commercial trains were employed, which were designed for announcing presence in a wide space at high speeds. When used in a dense, urban setting, they resonate off all the buildings and penetrate walls. The idling of trucks was also dangerous and destructive. The air quality at street level with the 24/7 generation of diesel fumes being trapped by cold air made breathing difficult for me as someone with asthma. I live in an apartment on the third floor of my building. And even if the trucks hadn't been honking incessantly, I would still have needed to keep all my windows shut and not use my balcony because I could taste the diesel fumes in the air on my balcony. Having people shout at me when I went for groceries was frustrating as well. For all the generalizations people like to make about what it's like to live downtown, the reality is, I've never felt unsafe or harassed on the street. And aside from the occasional event promoter on street corners, I've never been accosted on the streets. The convoy people made it very clear that I, by virtue of wearing a mask in public, was their enemy. On multiple nights, convoy people shot off commercial grade fireworks from the street in the middle of the night. These were the kind of fireworks that have spread -- have a spread of greater than 25 meters being fired from 2-lane, 1-way streets directly adjacent to apartment buildings with open balconies. The sleep disruption of having fireworks go off at midnight literally outside my building was infuriating, but the fire hazard this presented was completely unacceptable. Police were called multiple times every time and their response was always that they're keeping an eye on it. Their standing policy appeared to be being ready to call the fire department just in case, with no intent to intervene otherwise. As an addendum to all this, seeing people openly flying swastikas outside my home did not make me feel remotely safe. I am Jewish, and to see a symbol which unambiguously advocates for the systematic murder of myself and my family being displayed with impunity sends the message genocide is not something the public deems a concern. The general media response to this further seemed to convey a tone of what are you going to do, it's a couple of swastikas, that happens, but neglected to consider the presence of the swastika in isolation is very different from when it's owned by a group of hundreds, if not thousands of people, with large vehicles who have surrounded your living space while actively intimidating you. While I'm no stranger to discrimination, I have never at any other point in my life felt surrounded by people who wished me dead. It's abhorrent that I am expected to view this kind of behaviour in my community as just how life is when it very much is not." (As read) Eight, I am a 73-year-old Ottawa resident of Sandy Hill, just across the canal from the area occupied by the protesters. I am writing not because I am important, but because I am not. What happened to us happened to tens of thousands in Ottawa from January 28 until the Emergencies Act was enforced. Centretown residents had it much worse. Within three days of the occupiers setting up, we were stymied. My regular trip on the O-Train was disrupted by anti-maskers who aggressively jeered at the masked around them, getting right into their faces. I had to transfer at the Rideau Centre to a street-level bus, and twice had white, middle-aged men snatch at my mask while demanding freedom from mandates. Returning, I witnessed a large crowd of people near the bus stop, harassing passers by, making an extraordinary amount of noise, blocking traffic, pissing on the street, and generally being obnoxious. I can't say they impressed me, but like many, I thought they'd go home after the weekend. Instead, their continued presence shut down our food stores, pharmacy, bank, medical clinic for all but telephone consultations. The disruption of O-Train and bus service meant we could not access anything in Centretown or North Leeds. We could not get cabs because drivers would not risk crossing Centretown, as several had apparently been attacked by occupiers who objected to the colour of their skin and/or to their face mask or both. Gig drivers were also refusing to come to the area. We were prisoners in the few blocks in which we lived, due to the threat of illness or violence from people who refused to leave and were able to intimidate the local authorities into acquiescing. Only by shopping at a supermarket a little farther out and early in the day, as the occupiers appeared to be late risers, we were able to get food. The pharmacist at our officially closed pharmacy actually had to sneak in to fill urgent prescriptions for regular customers and arrange back-door pickup by phone. Like many during the siege, he risked himself and his business to help others. We had to cancel medical appointments and tests, one of which was to ascertain if a lump on my husband's head was a tumour, and if so, whether it was cancerous. Answer received weeks later, yes, it was a tumour, no, it was not cancerous. I had to suspend ongoing treatment for a non-fatal intestinal issue and start over when the Emergency Act took hold. Sleep was hard to come by as pickups and SUVs drove around our area blasting horns and a couple of airhorns. Sleep is pretty basic to human health and function. (As read) Nine, In living in the Gladstone Bay area, Centretown, there was no disruption to my life whatsoever by the protest. I could not hear the trucks or their horns at this location, and my freedom of movement on foot or by car was not affected at all. My access to the 417 was entirely unaffected by the protest. I passed through the protest a number of times, usually went out for a run, sometimes went out for a walk, and a couple of times to see the protest itself. I did not experience any harassment on any of these occasions. In terms of signage, I did not personally see anything resembling a swastika or a Confederate flag. I did not wear a mask, but when observing people wearing masks within the protest, I did not see them being harassed. Framing the issue as one where people, such as myself, who live in the City core, were held hostage by the protest, is, in my case, incorrect and unwanted. The protest in no way affected me negatively. How many people were actually affected, and to what extent, remains an open question for me. Trucks were parked north/south, from Wellington to Slater, and east/west from Lyon to Elgin. Most of the buildings in this area are office buildings, the workers of which were still working from home due to prior government actions. There are some street level businesses, most of which had been required to shut down for extended periods over the previous two years. Those that wanted to stay open during the protest were able to do so. For those who were living there, I have no doubt that the protest was incredibly annoying. The problem for me is that the concerns of a group of protesters, who possibly outnumbered the residents in the affected, were ignored, dismissed, and vilified, while the inconvenience of a small number of people was made to appear as if all of us living in Ottawa were being held hostage in our homes. I found and find the lack of balance disturbing." And then finally: "I would like to express my experience with the illegal occupation of Ottawa that was brought to end by the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I am a secondary teacher, I work in Ottawa, and I live in Quebec. My route to work was made longer and more complicated by the illegal occupation. After nearly two years of trying to support my students through the demands of COVID crisis, I really did not need the added strain that was created by the so-called 'convoy'. More importantly, my students did not need even more stress. I teach students who were affected by the noise of the constant honking, and the odour from the vehicles that idled in Ottawa's core. As well, it was certainly disheartening to see the behaviour of adults as they danced in the streets, while so many young people, that had sacrificed so much so that we could follow protocols as safely as possible, students who missed music, dance, theatre, sports and graduation ceremonies, still followed the protocols, while some adults acted as if our public health crisis was a hoax. Finally, it was deeply troubling to see the racist, violent, and threatening message coming from these occupiers. I was most incensed when one organiser threatened to roll schools. He did not organise a roll past my school, but my understanding is that the elementary school down the street was targeted. On my route to work and back, not only was I delayed, I also felt intimidated by the vehicles with flags of various kinds driving aggressively to and from their camp. The most drastic impact that the illegal occupation had on my life was that I was unable to visit my mother on the last weekend she was alive. My mother was grieving for the loss of her son, and after my brother's death in 2019, her quality of life changed radically. While my sister, an essential worker, and her husband were primary caregivers, I tried to visit my mother every weekend. You are probably aware that those of us who live in the Ottawa/Gatineau Region experience our communities as more unified than separated. For me to take two trips to Orleans on a weekend was not at all unusual until the convoy. On both the Saturday and the Sunday of the last weekend in January, I tried to get across the bridge from Wakefield to Orleans to see my mom. I was not successful either day. The police had closed the route. While I had just seen her on the Tuesday prior to that, I felt she was slipping away and I was concerned. So these people have taken something from me that I can never get back. My mom was a dedicated educator; she was my role model. The illegal occupation of Ottawa stole my mom from me -- stole from me the last moments of my mother's life. I am grateful that the Federal Government stepped in to end it when local and provincial authorities could not." Commissioner, I believe that reflects the, as I said, the diverse submissions that we received from the public. Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 27 29-027-25

Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)

Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. Eric Brousseau, Commission Counsel. Just very briefly before we get going with the next witness. I'm just going to formally bulk enter a number of documents that were on lists in several categories. The first being 28 documents, which were the subject of objections, which were worked out amongst counsel. They are HRF, OPP, OPS, City of Ottawa, and several Commission documents. The second is a list of largely, but not exclusively, Federal Government documents, which was circulated to the parties on November 9th. And objections were dealt with, were removed, and that's a total of 1,766 documents. The third is a list, again, of largely Federal Government documents, but as well as a number of others, which was sent on November 14th. Objections were removed and dealt with, and that's another 819 documents. And the fourth, as the parties were advised this morning, is the affidavit of Superintendent Bernier, which was circulated by counsel for OPS on Monday. No objections were received, no parties sought leave to cross-examine on it, and the parties were advised that it was being admitted today. And with that done, I'll let Mr. Cameron take the floor.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 51 29-051-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. It's Gordon Cameron for Commission Counsel. And my friend for the Attorney General has a statement she would like to make with respect to the evidence of this witness before I commence my questioning.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 52 29-052-08

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner. It's Andrea Gonsalves, counsel for the Government of Canada. The next witness will be Minister of Justice, David Lametti. In addition to being Minister of Justice, of course, the Minister is the Attorney General of Canada, the lawyer to the Government of Canada. And I wanted to put on the record that the Government of Canada continues to assert and maintain all of its claims of solicitor/client privilege in respect of all legal advice and opinions. Mr. Lametti's attendance here as a witness is not a waiver of any claims of privilege by the Government of Canada, which he has an obligation to protect. We will be objecting to and Minister Lametti will be refusing to answer all questions that would delve into areas of solicitor/client privilege. So I just wanted to put that on the record at the front end, and hopefully examinations can be appropriately tailored to keep the objections to a minimum.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 52 29-052-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Again, Commissioner, Gordon Cameron for Commission Counsel. And good morning, Minister Lametti.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I will begin with some housekeeping and ask you to cast your mind back to September 6th of this year when I interviewed you along with some of my colleagues from Commission Counsel, and we prepared a summary of that interview. And for the record, in case anybody's looking for the number, it is WTS6077. Minister Lametti, did you have an opportunity to review that summary for accuracy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And can you confirm it's accurate and that you adopt it as a part of your evidence in this proceeding?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 54 29-054-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now if we can begin, I suppose, with the basics, I think a lot of what we would describe as your position and your responsibilities are already familiar to many of the parties here, but just so that those for whom it isn't familiar and for members of the public, could you describe your office? And since I'm going to be taking you to some particulars, but also if you could give us an overview of the dual role you play as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and just describe how that plays out in the context of the work you do in conjunction with the Government and Cabinet?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 54 29-054-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And thank you for referencing the report of the Honourable Anne McLellan, and I'm going to make a few references to it because I think they help -- as you might remember, she had some compact and forcible ways of describing the two roles, and I'm going to ask that that be put up on the screen, just so that we can look at it and I'll ask you to see if you -- if they accord with your understanding of your role. And, Mr. Clerk, the document number is COM, C-O-M 00000952. And if you can get that up on the screen, I'll ask you to go to page 6 at the top. We don't need to know, for my purposes at least, Minister Lametti, the background to Anne McLellan's report, but ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 56 29-056-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I imagine you read it very, very carefully when it came out, but we're just -- she was reviewing the roles of the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice, and she had things to say about it in other context, but I'm just going to talk about her introductory comments where she describes in an overview way, I think in most cases quoting from Professor Edwards about the roles as they're known in our constitutional system of government. So the first one, if -- I'm trying to get the top of page 6, Mr. Clerk, and that doesn't look like it to me. It might be that it's a different PDF number. The top says "Introduction". There we go. And the sentence I'll read is the second one, "The Attorney General of Canada has a unique and profoundly important role. They stand at the heart of accountable government as the person responsible for defending the rule of law by ensuring that all government action is in accordance with the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." And I take it from your earlier description that you would agree with her description of that part of your role?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 56 29-056-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And then if we go over, Mr. Clerk, to page 10, if we're working with the same page numbers, it is the page that has the heading "The Attorney General of Canada". There we go. And I'll just read this historical introduction here. The sentence I wanted to concentrate on was the second one, "For that reason, the Attorney General is often referred to as the Chief Law Officer of the Crown." And you're probably familiar with that phrase. Again, I think if not invented by, certainly most written about by Professor Edwards in his work. And then two paragraphs down there, the paragraph that begins "In their role..." "In their role of Chief Law Officer of the Crown, the Attorney General is not accountable to a particular government. They are required to act according to the law and the broader public interest, not according to personal or partisan interests." And again, as I understand your introductory comments, you'd agree with those observations of Anne McLellan as well?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 57 29-057-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And then if we can go over a page, perhaps two pages, Mr. Clerk, to the page that has at the top of it "The Minister of Justice". And here we have the description of the other role, and we'll just do this as compactly as possible, with the first sentence, "Under the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is the legal advisor to the Governor General, which means, in practice, that they are the legal advisor to Cabinet." And again, that would accord with your understanding of your role?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 58 29-058-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. I'd like to take you to some of the documents. These were produced fairly recently to us, and so they aren't organized in my papers, or at least to the extent Commission Counsel has been able to organize them relative to the way they were filed. And I know just from some emails that have come in as we've been preparing for this morning's appearance by you, other parties might have struggled with this as well, so I'll try to help parties along with the way I've organized them at least. And the first one, Mr. Clerk, if you could call up SSM.CAN.00007845. And, Minister Lametti, we're all going to -- you and I and I think the people following are going to have to struggle with two things here. One is how one reads a text conversation when it gets printed out like this, especially when it's broken up into multiple pages, who is speaking in which bubble as we go down. So I’ll ask you to help me with that. I believe that the first bubble there, “Do we have a contingency,” that is you speaking; am I correct there?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 59 29-059-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. The date here is Sunday, January 30th, which would be, you might remember, the Sunday of the first weekend of the convoy arrival in Ottawa.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 59 29-059-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And can you explain -- by the way, if I understand it correctly, and just look down a bit, this is a text exchange you’re having with your -- with Alex Steinhouse, who I believe is your Chief of Staff?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 59 29-059-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 60 29-060-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And as near as I can follow it, you’re in grey and he’s in blue ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 60 29-060-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- for this page, and that gets tricky because it switches around as we go between -- depending on whose phone the message is from. Anyway, if we look at the first paragraph there: “Do we have a contingency for these trucks to be removed tomorrow or Tuesday? (If they were black of indigenous...)” And I was wondering if you can help explain what point you were making to your Chief of Staff when you added the parenthetical comment to the initial statement.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 60 29-060-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And so if I understand that answer, the point you’re making in your parenthetical comment to your Chief of Staff is we must approach this situation mindful of the potential for systemic racism and careful that we don’t ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

That’s well put. So I’ll move on to the next paragraph: “What normative authority do we have or is some order needed? EA?” And there’s been an evolution in the language, and in particular the use of the word, “Normative”. So could you just help us with what you meant by its use there?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay, so we can ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

If we can just put, “What existing authority” in there if “Normative” is giving us pause.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So you’re in the old school with me, okay. But the end of the sentence is interesting, “EA, I’m sure is a reference to the Emergencies Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And this is the -- depending on how you count it, it’s the second day of the first weekend, maybe the third day of the protest if we count Friday as a day. So the second or third day of the protest, and your mind goes straight to the Emergencies Act in the first text we get produced in these proceedings. Can you explain why that came so quickly to your mind?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Hmm?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

That’s helpful, thank you. And we’ll go to another one of these texts next. This is, Mr. Clerk, the one with the same preceding numbers but the last four digits 7850. Now, again, trying to follow the bubbles here. The blue is now you, or Mr. Steinhouse?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 63 29-063-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And I think actually the first bubble there doesn’t sound like you talking, it sounds like someone talking to you about what your Deputy has told you, that you’re being invited to a meeting about the convoy. And if it matters, we can look at the PCO’s chronology to confirm that there was, indeed, a briefing on the convoy on that date. But the part that interests me here is your Chief of Staff in the second bubble says -- and here he’s talking -- before you were talking about your initial thoughts on first encountering the convoy. We’re now at Wednesday, February 2nd, so fourth, fifth day, perhaps, in.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 63 29-063-22

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

I apologize for interrupting, ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Go ahead.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-07

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

--- but it’s February the 4th where those bubbles appear, not Wednesday the 2nd.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Sorry. Sorry; thank you. Yes, Friday, February 4th. And the comments your Chief of Staff makes is: “I believe the angle is incoming the emergencies act.” Now, we’ll have to -- can you help us with “Incoming” or does it just mean what we would infer it, as a sort of slang way of saying the introduction of or the ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Understood, and that’s helpful. Thank you. And do you recollect the meeting and what was discussed at it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 65 29-065-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Well, if -- it sounds a bit early for an SS meeting to me, but I guess the point is that, as near as you can recollect, it is exactly as you described it; a meeting to get ready.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 65 29-065-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. The next text I’d like to take you to is really leading up to a discussion about how you and Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino talked about the situation that Ottawa was facing, and to some extent, the country was facing, even at this early date. And so, Mr. Clerk, if you could turn up the document that is the same prefix, but with the number 7852? And if I’m reading the dates correctly, we are still on Friday, February 4th, as in the last exchange, but that was with your Chief of Staff, I think. This, if I’m understanding correctly, and you can confirm this for me, please, is an exchange between you and Minister Mendicino?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 65 29-065-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And which words do you claim?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. So Minister Mendicino says to you: “[The] [p]olice have all the legal authority to they need to enforce the law They just need to exercise it, and do their job” You might -- if you’ve been following the evidence of Minister Blair and others who’ve made similar comments?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Understood. And then you make a comment, again, perhaps not unique to yourself, but expressed very, very frankly here: “I was stunned by the lack of a multilayered plan” Now, we’ve heard other expressions like “contingency plan”, but not multilayered. Can you -- is that -- are they the same thing? Is that what you mean here?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I’ll just interrupt you to see if I can anticipate what you’re going to say. you’re actually thinking of a plan to deal with the protest, but by now, by February 4th, you’re stunned by the absence of a plan?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

The Ottawa Police not having a plan ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- by that Friday? And you make again, in stark terms, the observation: “Sloly is incompetent” And the words speak for themselves, but was that an observation you were making specific to the situation you were looking at, or was that an opinion that you had developed from some other ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you for that. Now, for a second, I’d like us to revert to the comments we talked about at the beginning, where your role was described as, and you acknowledged as being the Chief Law Officer of the Crown in your capacity as Attorney General, and effectively Cabinet’s lawyer, and your capacity as Minister of Justice. And is it fair to say that you would expect your Cabinet colleagues to place considerable weight on your views of the legal issues that were facing the government as it encountered the convoy, the protests, and indeed the policing situation that you just opined on in your note about Chief Sloly?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 68 29-068-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Well let’s see how that plays out with respect to the particular point that has come under discussion by a number of senior officials, a number of police officials, indeed the two witnesses at least who have preceded you, Minister Mendicino and Minister Blair, and that is the line between I think it was perhaps first Commissioner Lucki who called it the line between church and state but it’s generally understood as the appropriate role for governance or oversight of police forces and that it not tread too far into the realm of directing the police and their activities. So that is -- I take it that is a topic on which you, as the Attorney General of the country, would have and would be expected by your colleagues to have fairly well- developed views. Is that fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 69 29-069-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let’s look at these texts, then we’ll come back to exactly that question of where you were relative to the line. Mr. Clerk, could we call up 7851? Again, same prefix, but with the last four letters 7851? The date, if I’m following this correctly, is February 2nd. So the Wednesday of the first week of the convoy’s presence in Ottawa. And again, if I’m following the bubbles correctly, you are having a text conversation with Minister Mendicino and you are in blue and he is in grey? Have I got that right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 69 29-069-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And the comment you make at the top of the first bubble, and again, though we’ll take your caveat that you are texting here and not submitting a memo to Minister Mendicino, you’re sending him a text, but time is short, events are unfolding quickly, and you are entering into, if not already a crisis. And your first comment is you -- you, Marco: “…need to get the police to move.” Right? And then if we look at another text, again, I apologize for the way these -- these are just not filed in order, so I have to go through various documents. The next one I talk to you about is -- Mr. Clerk, it is again same prefix, 7854. So we’re going to go from: “You need to get the police to move.” And again, this is the Attorney General of Canada talking to the Minister of Public Safety of Canada. Now, at this time, I think you’re aware, but correct me if I’m wrong, Minister Lametti, that Minister Mendicino has become, in effect, the interface between the Federal Government, and the City of Ottawa, the Mayor, and the OPS; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 70 29-070-13

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes. But here you’re speaking to the Minister of Public Safety, whom you know is the Government's interface with the Ottawa force and city, and you say to him ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 71 29-071-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

You might not have known it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 71 29-071-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

If I remind you that he actually had the discussion with the Mayor in respect to the Mayor of Ottawa in respect of additional resources being provided by the Federal Government and confirmed to Cabinet that he had authorised that ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 71 29-071-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And that's a fair qualification. But with that in mind, again, the Attorney General speaking to the Minister of Public Safety, who is the liaison to the Mayor of Ottawa, and this is what you say at the bottom of this text. If you can just scroll down a bit more. Thank you. "Spoke to Doug Downey", and here, again, you are speaking these words to Minister Mendicino, "Need Sloly to be quick, quick, quick." Now, I guess the question I would pose is this: Do you think that the question of whether Chief Sloly should be dealing with the Ottawa protesters "quick, quick, quick" or wait until he believes he has the resources to perform the operation safely, do you think the decision between those two options is an Operational decision for Chief Sloly or a decision that should be influenced by you and Minister Mendicino?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And happily for the point that you've just made, Minister Lametti, you do get sort of air time for that point in the texts that were filed. And so I'll ask the Clerk to call up, same prefix, 7853. And I believe this is an extract of a text between you and Doug Downey. Is that right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 73 29-073-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Can you remind us of who Doug Downey is?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 73 29-073-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And the words that are on the screen read for themselves. It's the second bubble that I am interested in, and I think at the end of the second bubble you make roughly the point that you were just making to me unprompted. You say: "We can't make operational decisions, but sol Gen can make government priorities clear in these situations, as per Ipperwash Report." And so I'm going to -- I think you've made the point already, and I just wanted to, in fairness to you, point out that you had indeed been adopting that position at the time in your own words, although maybe, even though this is a text will elevate them to the level of seriousness, because you've actually incorporated reference to a Commission of Inquiry report. And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 73 29-073-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 74 29-074-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Understood. And on that point, you've -- we've heard from a couple of your colleagues and a number of senior officials, including police officials at all levels of government, police at the RCMP, OPP and municipal levels, about this question of the topics discussed in the Ipperwash Report in Justice Linden's report and in the Morden Report with respect to the G20 protests in Toronto, and your colleagues, who have spoken before you, have expressed an opinion on this very point you make here in your text: "We can't make operational decisions, but sol Gen can make government priorities clear in these situations, as per Ipperwash Report." Now, I think the Commissioner has set the precedent here that I have to give spoiler alerts in fairness to you, but this question was put by me by Minister Blair about whether it would be appropriate in the case of competing problems in different parts of the province, say, if it would be appropriate for Government or the Solicitor General in Ontario to advise the Commissioner of the OPP, if we take that jurisdiction, though, presumably, it could also apply in other contexts, to advise the Commissioner that among the two public order situations facing the province, the government of the day or the Solicitor General, in particular, considers City X to be the priority situation. The example might be as between Ottawa and Windsor. Windsor is causing huge impacts on the national economy, and so the Province considers that the priority objective for a public order getting public order back under control. Leaving it to the police to decide if they want to do anything about that input, and if so, how they would do about it. They might decide that they can't address that priority question, but the question is, is it fair that that priority be, perhaps even appropriate and necessary that that priority be expressed to the police. And Minister Blair seemed to think not. That that would be going too far even to express a priority. I think we're seeing from your text here that you're going to differ, but again, spoiler alert, Minister Mendicino also had a view on it, though I think his view covered the spectrum from all the way at no to all the way at yes, depending on which part of his answer you focussed on, so you don't have to worry about disagreeing with him. So what would you say about that scenario, where there are competing priorities, and put it at the federal level if that's something that you can identify with more appropriately, where the Federal Government is facing public order issues, perhaps not public order, perhaps environmental issues, that have caused the need for policing resources, but in one way or another a view is expressed or could be expressed by the Government about its priorities, do you think that would be appropriate to communicate that to the police of jurisdiction?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 74 29-074-21

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

That's the premise of the question ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 77 29-077-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- not just an inference.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 77 29-077-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Again, to be fair, there were parts of Mr. Blair's answer where one could draw the inference that the police of jurisdiction and the police who might be able to help from out of jurisdiction would have welcomed some input on this point. For example, you might imagine the OPP saying, "We've got lots of Public Order Units. We can deploy them where the government considers it most appropriate. Operationally, they're roughly equivalent to us. What is your priority? Help us decide." If you got that type of request, it sounds to me like you'd feel comfortable answering the question.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 77 29-077-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Well, we're hoping that the Commissioner might be able to add something to the Ipperwash report by his observations on the events here, so we'd really benefit from more than just ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 78 29-078-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- punch to Ipperwash, if you could give some ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 78 29-078-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Thank you for that. I'm going to take you to another series of texts, and this does get messy, so I'm not going to bother with a whole bunch of document numbers. I'll just -- I'm just going to read these in, Mr. Commissioner, and if parties want to try to follow, just because I figured out the sequence of them and it helps follow the -- there's a series of texts between you, Minister Lametti, and your Chief of Staff, and you have to jump back and forth between his set of texts and yours to get the sequence right. So I won't ask you, Mr. Clerk, to call these all up. I'm just going to read them in and then I'll ask you if you can remember what I'm talking about, Minister Lametti. They are 7861, and 7864, and 7863 and 7860, and that takes us through a series of texts between you and your Chief of Staff on ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 79 29-079-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Not at all. Let's ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 79 29-079-19

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. That's a fair point. And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 79 29-079-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- certainly the first one, and because I think that will twig what we're talking about here. Mr. Clerk, could you call up 7861? Now it's the morning of Sunday the 13th, so this is leading up to the IRG meeting at which serious consideration is going to be given and ultimately conclude with the decision being given ad referendum to the Prime Minister. And you -- am I correct that you're in the grey there? Have I got the ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 79 29-079-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. So you observed that we, by which I assume you mean the government, "...are on an inexplorable march to the EA. Not enough happening in Windsor." And then I will, just again, to help you because I can appreciate that you want to be accurate on this, just I'll mention that this is a series of texts in which you are anxious to know the status of two things, whether the Windsor Bridge, the Ambassador Bridge is getting cleared and whether the plan, the Ottawa Police plan to clear the city of the protesters is coming to maturity. And you appear to want in this morning of the 13th the most up-to-date information you can get on those two points. So, Mr. Clerk, if you could ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Sure.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let's see ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

--- let's see -- we'll skip ahead to 7863, Mr. Clerk, if you can bring that up, because there you state it quite clearly. And then just scroll down to the "Thanks Alex". Take a second to read that, Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And do you take -- do you understand now what I was talking about that am I correct to say you are anxious to get as -- the most up-to-date and clearest information you can on those two points?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 81 29-081-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Fair enough. And I take it that's because the status of these two points will be at least among the most important points you will want to brief the IRG on, or at least be competent to talk to the IRG about when you have your meeting?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 81 29-081-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I see.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 81 29-081-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. In the interest of time, I'm going to move on to another topic, and thank you very much for helping us understand those texts because they -- as you can appreciate, when you see just the little snippets like that, it's hard to understand the context and you've been very helpful in giving that to us.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes, indeed, it would be perfect, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I'll resume the questioning. Just before I move to my new topic, I think it would be a good time just to put on the record, and by all means, Minister Lametti, I'm going to put the Ipperwash report on the record. If it occurs to you to make any reference to it, please feel free. But that would be COM C-O-M 00000828. I don't need it called up, Mr. Clerk, unless the Minister wants to make reference to it, but we'll just put it on the record so it's there in case any other -- so that it's an exhibit on this examination in case any other party wants to have access to it. Now, Minister, history that you and I lived through in our early law careers, and that was the invention or the development of the CSIS Act out of the MacDonald Commission report in the early '80s. If you weren't familiar with that before you took your current role, you're probably pretty familiar with it by now; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And you're aware that the CSIS Act was borne out of a very long royal commission of inquiry and longer, I think, in its product than even this Commission will be able to produce in terms of the volume and scope of its recommendations, one of which was the invention of Canada's first secret intelligence agency, first national security agency as an independent entity. You remember that and the evolution through the McDonald Commission Report, then a separate Senate Inquiry into even further restrictions on the scope of CSIS powers and the ultimate emergence in 1984 of the CSIS Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 83 29-083-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And I think you’ll either remember at the time or you’ll have learned since that the reason the CSIS Act was so highly contentious -- and indeed, I’ll just make a parenthetical comment here. We heard a comment by the CCLA, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that they were instrumental in the evolution of the Emergencies Act, and as a matter of fact, they were probably as or more active in the development of the CSIS Act, and Alan Borovoy was lead counsel for the input to the McDonald Commission. And the reason that he was there, and the reason people were so concerned was that it is the development of a secret intelligence agency in a democracy is something that Parliament wants to do very carefully; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 83 29-083-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Fair enough. And the points of contention, even if you weren’t following it at the time, you can see from the terms of the Act, now one of the major points of contention was to make sure that the scope of investigation that CSIS was permitted to engage in would be very tightly defined; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 84 29-084-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. Now then along came, a few years later, Parliament and its interest in another new development, and that was the creation of a new Emergencies Act to replace the War Measures Act. And you’ll agree with me that again Parliament was faced with the challenge that it was about to create, in this case a power, rather than an institution, that had to be treated very carefully in a constitutional democracy; right? That is, the power that the Emergencies Act would give to Cabinet to create extraordinary authorities in advance of their approval by Parliament; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 84 29-084-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And you’ll agree with me that Parliament could have gone pretty much anywhere it wanted to find the threshold that it thought appropriate before Cabinet was able to exercise that power?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And what it went to, we now know, was the CSIS Act, where they had just had a similar situation of wanting to make sure that extraordinary powers were appropriately controlled; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And the way they did that in the Emergencies Act was to make part of the threshold for the declaration of a public order emergency the existence of a threat to the security of Canada, as that term is defined in the CSIS Act; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And indeed, the thing you’ve -- I don’t know how much of your -- we’ve all become -- to the extent we weren’t experts on the Emergencies Act before, we’ve all had a very fast education of it in this hearing process, and probably you know more about it now than you did a couple of years ago. But one thing we’ve learned is that when Parliament enacted the Emergencies Act, they didn’t simply repeat the definition. They didn’t extract it and reprint it in the Emergencies Act. They actually stipulated that in the Emergencies Act, the expression “threat to the security of Canada”, has the meaning assigned to it by the CSIS Act; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And we’ve tried to find compact ways, just for the purposes of these examinations, to describe the relevant part for a public order disturbance as it’s typically likely to arise in the case of a declaration of a public order emergency, a compact way of describing the subsection (c) of the definition of threat to the security of Canada, sometimes called the terrorism section. It’s the section that you’re probably now as familiar as the rest of us with that talks about activities directed towards, in support of, a threat of et cetera, et cetera, serious violence, and I’m going to paraphrase here, with an ideological, religious, et cetera motivation. So they, in effect, said that in addition to whatever, I’ll call them downstream requirements one might have to also find, cabinet might also have to find, the starting point would be a threat to the security of Canada as that expression is -- with the meaning assigned to that expression in the CSIS Act; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 86 29-086-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And the starting point, assuming you get there, is you add on to that the features of the situation facing Cabinet that cause it to be a national emergency and not just an isolated threat to the security of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 87 29-087-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Fully understood.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 87 29-087-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And we appreciate ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 87 29-087-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. I want to back you up a little bit. You’re familiar, I think, probably from your academic work, as well as your work as a lawyer, with a strawman argument?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 88 29-088-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Has any ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Has anyone suggested that the Emergencies Act delegates to CSIS the decision as to whether Cabinet can invoke the Emergencies Act or declare a public order emergency?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-05

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Sorry, I just want to be clear. When you say “Has anybody suggested,” we have to be concerned about Cabinet confidence, as well as solicitor/client privilege. So when you say "anybody", it would be helpful if you specify who you're asking about.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Has anybody who is a party to this proceeding, let me put it that way, advanced the argument, you just purported, to debunk that Parliament had delegated the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to CSIS?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

The substantive standard contained in the CSIS Act is the one that Parliament said is assigned to the meaning of that standard in the Emergencies Act. That's not CSIS, that's not Cabinet, that's Parliament, what it did in 1985; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

For a second there, I thought you were arguing my case because you were trying to tell me how important the threshold was in the CSIS Act before Parliament would let a secret intelligence agency investigate Canadians in a democracy.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 90 29-090-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

We totally agree on that. And then a few years later, Parliament adopted that definition as the threshold for the invocation of the Act. It set the very same threshold; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 90 29-090-21

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 91 29-091-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let me see if I can approach it this way: Again, just as we -- I won't ask you opinions on legal matters, I just want to see if you agree with me for the purposes of this discussion. That what section 16 of the Emergencies Act, 16 and 17, require is a -- is what lawyers sometimes refer to as a combined subjective, an objective test. That is, Cabinet has to have had a belief that the threshold was met, that there was a threat to the security of Canada, and the belief has to have been on reasonable grounds. Right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 91 29-091-12

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, I am concerned that we're going down the road of arguing the case. Minister Lametti is here as a fact witness. There will be a stage to come after this evidentiary portion of the hearing where legal arguments are submitted. The Government of Canada will be submitting detailed legal arguments. And I am concerned that having Minister Lametti on the stand is not the opportunity to be arguing the case.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 91 29-091-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Mr. Commissioner, I think I can approach it in a way that addresses my friend's concern. Though, to his credit, Minister Lametti was fully able to answer my question and answered it the way I'd have expected him to. But to address my friend's concern, I'll simply read section 17 of the Act to him and then use that as the preface for my point: "When the Governor in Council believes..." And we'll just stop here to say that if we speak compactly and effectively we're talking about when Cabinet believes. Can we work with that premise? Yes? You're nodding.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 92 29-092-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thanks: "When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists..." So this is why I say that lawyers, especially so highly qualified lawyers as you, see that the Governor in Council has to "believe", it doesn't just have to have reasonable grounds, it has to believe, and that belief has to be on reasonable grounds. So it's -- now, mind you, I don't want to -- your -- if this is pushing the level where you're comfortable talking about it, but that you can see those are two additive things. One, they have to have believed it, and that belief has to have been on reasonable grounds. And I'm just reading the words of the Act. Can you follow me that far?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 92 29-092-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And then the other thing that the Act requires in section 58 is, and again, I'm just -- I'm not asking for opinions, I'm just going to read the Act to the Minister, that you filed a -- what we called a section 58 explanation, and it's all over the place in the record of this proceeding, and that has, and I'm just reading from the Act: "...an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration..." Okay? So would you agree with me this far, what your section 58 explanation has in it are the grounds upon which Cabinet formed its reasonable belief that a Public Order Emergency existed; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 93 29-093-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, if you were asked to, could you -- the -- or, sorry, I'm going to back up a little further. The section 58 explanation, that is an -- that's not an ex post facto justification of the invocation is it? The Act says that it is to stipulate the reasons that the emergency was in fact declared; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 93 29-093-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And that section 58 explanation, then, is where the Commission, and parties to the extent they're exploring the issue, can find all of the facts on which Cabinet relied to come to its conclusion that it had reasonable grounds to believe. That it has formed a belief, and that that belief was on reasonable grounds; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 93 29-093-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Now, that section 58 explanation is going to include other material, isn't it, because it's going to include the material on which -- because the threat to the security of Canada is the starting point. And then what arises from, again, to use the words of the Act, the threat to the security of Canada is an emergency of such a scope that it's a national emergency. Again, I'm just trying to follow the framework of the Act, I'm not asking for opinions. But you -- as I'm saying, that's why there'll be more in the section 58 explanation than just the threat to the security of Canada; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 94 29-094-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And probably in the section 58 explanation you would have included the reasons why existing authorities weren't adequate to deal with the situation; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 94 29-094-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 94 29-094-22

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let's -- I'll just see if I can -- just see if I can move you a bit by taking you back to section 58 of the Act. It is in your section 58 explanation that you are supposed to have the reasons for issuing the declaration. So I was just following through the three things that one might expect to find in the section 58 explanation: The grounds for the threat to the security of Canada, the reasons that that -- that arising out of that threat we had a national emergency, and the reasons why existing authorities were inadequate or insufficient to deal with it. I'm not trying to be technical here, but those would be the three topic areas. If you're not comfortable going along with me there, what I'm just trying to find ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 94 29-094-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Is that because you consider it too subtle or complicated? Because the Act sort of lays it out so formulaically about the process by which Cabinet comes to this decision, finds a threat to security of Canada, out of which or from which arises a national emergency and existing authorities are inadequate; that’s sort of exactly what you’d expect. And, frankly, when you read your section 58 explanation that looks like what you’re trying to do. So I’m pausing by -- if there’s some way we can move ahead with this, that you’re more comfortable with.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 95 29-095-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 96 29-096-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And I’m going to respect your decision to rely on it. What I’m going to ask you is, again, I think a factual question, in a sense. Presumably, you could -- you could have by now or you could in final submissions -- or one could, the parties could -- identify in the section 58 explanation those facts on which Cabinet relied to conclude that there was a threat to the security of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 96 29-096-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And I hope my question didn’t ask you to go as far as actually doing it. What I was asking you was if you could confirm that it should be possible for your counsel; frankly, could have been possible before we started this whole thing, but it’s at least possible now, for them to go into the section 58 explanation and tell the Commissioner, perhaps in their final submissions, where in that section 58 explanation one finds the grounds on which Cabinet formed its reasonable belief that there was a threat to the security of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-01

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, the section 58 report is there; it’s in the record, certainly will feature in closing submissions. I’m not sure there’s much to be done about what is or isn’t in the report. It speaks for itself.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. But can we at least agree on this, Minister; if there are, or to the extent there were -- to the extent Cabinet did have reasonable grounds to believe that there was a threat to the security of Canada, the Commission will find them in that section 58 explanation, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

In?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And with that answer, which was helpful, thank you, Minister. With that answer, Commissioner, I will end my examination of the witness.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Good morning, sir.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

For the record, my name is Brendan Miller; I’m counsel for Freedom Corp., which is the entity representing the protesters that were in Ottawa in January and February ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

--- 2022. First, Professor Lametti, it’s actually an honour to meet you. I’ve used some of your articles in my litigation practice, so I’m a fan.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

In any event, sir, we’ll just get right into this. As the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice, your powers and duties come from the Department of Justice Act; that’s correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-20

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And under section 4 of that Act, your powers and duties include that you shall: “...see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law;” Is that correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And under (b) it also has you as: “...the superintendence of all matters [coming within] the administration of justice...[federally]...” Is that fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And then under section 5(d), you: “...shall have the regulation and conduct of all litigation for or against the Crown or any department,...” Is that right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And that, of course, includes the Department of Justice, including the legal team here today?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yes. And you might have -- I’m sure you’ve got it that in a ruling yesterday, Commissioner Rouleau ruled that the Department of Justice and all the parties were able to produce any legal authorities for the DOJ to redact records on the basis of Parliamentary privilege. Are you aware of that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-26

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

So what Justice Rouleau ruled was that there’s just no authority for redacting documents on the basis of a Parliamentary privilege. So I’m wondering if under your powers under section 5(d) of the Department of Justice Act if you can direct that the Department of Justice release all the records that they’ve provided in this proceeding, with the redactions for Parliamentary privilege unredacted.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 100 29-100-08

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner I don’t think that’s an appropriate question. It doesn’t suit the purposes -- fall within the purposes for which Minister Lametti is here to testify. My friend is well aware that you have made a ruling, and this is something to be dealt with through the normal Commission processes, and not through a witness.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 100 29-100-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Very well. And from being a lawyer and a law professor and Attorney General, I take it you have an intimate understanding of solicitor/client privilege; is that correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 100 29-100-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And of course you also have an understanding of section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and Cabinet confidence; is that fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Now, one of the documents produced by DOJ in the record -- and I’m assuming it was just produced to prove it was done -- is the redacted legal opinion. It’s just the document itself that was given to Cabinet; it’s fully redacted. But, of course, you agree that Cabinet received a legal opinion about the Emergencies Act; is that fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-06

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, I’m going o object to this question. It gets into areas of solicitor/client privilege.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Now, we have evidence in this proceeding from the Privy Council Office and Ms. Jody Thomas that the Government of Canada’s position is that -- of course, as you’ve said, that section 2 of the CSIS Act has a different meaning and that is has a different scope based in its reference in the Emergencies Act, that’s right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-17

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And you’ve testified to the same thing; that you’re going to leave it to counsel. And I take it that as a lawyer, in preparing your testimony here today, you reviewed all the relevant records and documents that you had access to and in your possession and power to obtain; fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 102 29-102-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah. In the record in the proceedings and in the documents that you reviewed, and the ones that we have available unredacted, can you point to me of a document, of a record in this proceeding that existed prior to he invocation of the Emergencies Act where there's any recording whatsoever or discussion that there is a broader scope of section 2 of the CSIS Act when it is applied to the Emergencies Act? Can you point me to a document that says that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 102 29-102-15

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, I think that’s an inappropriate question. There are thousands and thousands of documents in the record. It’s just -- it’s unfair to the witness.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 102 29-102-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I’ll, then, narrow it down. Was there any such document, that you reviewed in preparing for your testimony here today, that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, that it was discussed -- that isn’t subject to solicitor-client privilege -- that it was discussed that there was a broader scope of Section 2 as it applied in the Evidence Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 102 29-102-28

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I know.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I know.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-14

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-18

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Well, I understand, sir. And so, again, I just -- I would like the question answered. Did you see any documents that talked about this interpretation that you’re discussing that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And, sir, as the Attorney General of the country, of course, you have ultimate authority both to and to advise on when to waive solicitor-client privilege; do you not?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, but you advise on that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Well, I’m not going to ask you that question again, but I take it, you know, as an eminent law professor, an academic, with the many publications you have, that between February 13th and 14th, when you were considering this decision, you didn’t personally -- personally -- believe that Section 2 of the CSIS Act was any different in the Emergencies Act, did you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-25

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Well, I’m asking ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-06

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-09

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

No, I understand, but I’m -- no, I’m asking you what you personally believe as a member of cabinet.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I understand. But, sir, we all know, as lawyers, that sometimes we give advice and it’s not followed. And I’m not asking you to tell me what you advised. I’m asking you, as a member of cabinet, was it your personal belief that -- on February 13th or 14th, did you personally believe that Section 2 of the CSIS Act had a different scope in the Emergencies Act, as you -- is now being argued? Was that your personal belief?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-19

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, the problem here is that asking that personal belief of the Attorney General of Canada inherently gets into matters of solicitor- client privilege. I object to the question.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Sir, I’m asking his personal belief as he’s also a member of cabinet.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-03

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

But again, you understand, under Section 4 of the Department of Justice Act, it’s your duty to see that the administration of public affairs is carried out in accordance with the law?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-11

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right. And I don’t want to know about what you would give as an attorney but -- with respect to what you actually gave -- but when you’re advising on whether to waive solicitor-client privilege, what factors do you consider?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-23

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

But you can agree that it’s been waived in the past by the government?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Now, just one last -- -

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-08

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Yeah, I am. And just, dealing with Section 39 of the Evidence Act -- we just had that. I had mentioned that -- you understand that, of course, Section 39 of the Evidence Act applies to cabinet confidences?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

It’s ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-19

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. No, it’s ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I don’t have the ability to show it to you but Section 39, it speaks to confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council; can we agree about that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-01

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Can you agree with me that it’s your understanding that a cabinet confidence is something - - or a record that’s a cabinet confidence or has a cabinet confidence in it is something that cabinet would have knowledge of, that someone within cabinet would have knowledge of the contents of the document?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. And so with the Section 39 redactions that are in all the correspondence between staffers, everything the staffers say, cabinet would have knowledge of that, then?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Thank you very much, sir. It’s been a pleasure.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-23

Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)

Happy news again, Mr. Commissioner. Alyssa Tomkins for the City of Ottawa. We will not be using our time today. I have ceded it to the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-28

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Good afternoon, Minister Lametti.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-16

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

My name’s Christine Johnson. I’m counsel for the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-19

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

I only have a few moments with you here today -- or a few minutes, I should say, and I’m going to use it to just ask some questions about your own experience of the situation in Ottawa. You’ve testified today that you were personally impacted by these events and -- as a part-time resident of Ottawa and, in fact, you felt forced to leave Ottawa to go spend time in Montreal; that’s fair to say?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-23

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And can you tell us what it was specifically that made you feel like you both needed to change where you were living in Ottawa and then go to spend time in Montreal?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 110 29-110-06

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Right. And you mentioned about concerns for your staff, and I think earlier you told us about concerns specifically for female staff, that they were concerns for their safety to you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 110 29-110-23

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Mr. Clerk, if we could pull up, please, document SSM.CAN.000007840. And while this is coming up, Minister Lametti, I can tell you that this document is a series of text messages between yourself and Minister Anand, where it looks to be that you're discussing the situation of threats to your staff. Unfortunately, we don’t see a date on these texts, but if you take a moment to review it, I'm going to ask you whether you can confirm for me that you are the blue bubbles?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 110 29-110-28

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And you say: "Had a tough week in Ottawa. Team members harassed. Back in Montreal and will do virtual to spare my team." And further down, you tell Minister Anand: "Even worse, it is the women who feel unsafe. Got my driver to drive them when I could."

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 111 29-111-11

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And just to be clear, you were hearing firsthand stories or concerns reported by your staff?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 111 29-111-20

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

That’s right. And you know, we've heard that you were able to residences in Ottawa and then go to Montreal, but you would obviously be aware that there were many residents of downtown Ottawa who unfortunately didn’t have that luxury or the means to move elsewhere and were stuck in the midst of this convoy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 111 29-111-24

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

And is it fair to say then that you didn’t need government intelligence to tell you whether the convoy was causing harm to people and businesses in downtown Ottawa, that you saw this in fact for yourself with your own eyes?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-05

Christine Johnson, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Thank you. Those are my questions. And Commissioner, I think I have one minute left and I would cede that to the CTLA.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-16

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Good morning, Commissioner. Chris Diana for the OPP. I have no questions, sorry, Justice Minister. I will be ceding my time to the CCLA as well, and next time I'm going to drive a harder bargain.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-23

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Mr. Tom Curry for the former chief. Pleased to meet you. Towards the end of your evidence to my friend Mr. Cameron's -- in response to my friend Mr. Cameron's question, you describe the circumstances of Cabinet towards the period of time when it was deliberating, I suppose, about the Emergencies Act invocation, I think you've said it was rapidly -- a rapidly- evolving situation?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-03

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

You had imperfect information?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-12

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

You described the circumstances as unprecedented?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-14

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And that you were, as a Cabinet, I think you said, trying to do your best to get information upon which you could make decisions and take action?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-17

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

A complex issue?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-21

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And do you accept that it was a complicated and complex unprecedented issue for the Ottawa Police Service?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-23

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And for Chief Sloly, of course?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-27

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And that that very same things that you experienced as a Cabinet at the -- you know, in and around the last meetings that you had prior to the invocation were the very same circumstances in which the Ottawa Police Service and Chief Sloly found themselves at the beginning?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-01

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Yes. Now, you've not -- if -- I don’t know enough about your background to be 100 percent sure, but I'm pretty confident you never served in a police service?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-09

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And in your role as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, you have no interaction with police services?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-13

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Sorry, of course. Apart from your personal security detail, you don’t have interactions in your role as the Minister of Justice or Attorney General in police -- with police services, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-18

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Different thing. You've not -- you're talking about why a police service member of the Ottawa Police Service stood idly by while a jerry can was by.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-24

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood. You're not criticizing them for decisions that they may have made about whether to intercept a particular protester, for example, owing to whether they had the resources to do it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-02

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. The reason I ask, of course, is because you did, in the messages that my friend Mr. Cameron showed you, describe him as incompetent.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-08

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-16

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Understood, and I think all of us understand the heat of the heat of the moment, the text message, and so on. But in this particular case, accepting as you have that it was an expression to a -- really, to a friend, happens to be a Cabinet colleague -- but this was to a friend -- -

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-19

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

--- you did not imagine that -- and no one should take your words as expressing a view of the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of Canada?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-27

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. Because you can understand how when such a thing is made public that not only Canadians but the eyes and ears of Canadians through the media take the words to be the weight of your office.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-04

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And they oughtn't take those words to be the weight of your office?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-09

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Equally, am I right that in the other expressions that you made as a Cabinet colleague, the same thing is true, that those words were expressed as a -- as no doubt, as a human experiencing these traumatic events as you've described them, but not expressions of the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-12

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Well, some of the other -- I won't go through them; I don’t have the time -- but some of the other text messages that expressed what might have been -- I think you may have described or Mr. Cameron described as "bad humour" or -- about Chief Sloly's surname. "Sloly in relation to quick, quick, quick." That was an attempt at a humorous remark, not spoken as Attorney General or ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-20

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Understood. But as from the chief's perspective, you can appreciate at the time, if your Cabinet colleagues form the view that they should have less confidence in him, that that was neither your intention, nor would it be fair? Is that fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-01

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. And of course, the issue becomes trying to separate a remark made ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-07

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Yes. Although of course, you're not entitled to review an operational plan as the Minister of Justice or as the Attorney General.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-13

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Yes. And as to that, just in the time I have remaining, I take it that you didn’t know what -- no one was providing you with information about what the OPS had as a plan or didn’t have as a plan at the Cabinet table, correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-18

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-23

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-26

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And do you now appreciate that some of the information that you received from the Commissioner up through the Commissioner of the RCMP was not accurate?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-01

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. Suffice it to say that you were relying on what was told to you about what resources were available and whether there were plans at certain dates, but you can't vouch for any of that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-06

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. Last thing, please, if I may, just as to resources. You sent a note to the attorney general, your opposite number now, Attorney General Downey, in Ontario, to urge him to speak to the solicitor general about priorities, Windsor and Ottawa?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-11

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-21

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

And I share your -- for what it's worth, I share your view that that is the role of government, to set priorities and for police to make decisions afterwards. But just as to that, did you have an appreciation in Cabinet that there was a kind of unfortunate "After you, Alphonse" moment between the Federal Government and the Ontario Government as to who was the first -- which government was the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service to receive resources?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-27

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Right. Did you appreciate that Ontario took the opposite view?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-11

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Okay. I'm out of time. Thank you, Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-15

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Good afternoon, Minister Lametti. My name is Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, and I'm counsel for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-21

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

This Inquiry is, among other things, considering the extent to which state emergency powers or exceptional policing powers should be used when there is a Public Order event. For Indigenous peoples, it's often been the case that they must assemble and organise into a social movement to seek attention to the denial of their rights or even advance the recognition of their rights. Sometimes the response of police and the Government of Canada has been to target or punish Indigenous peoples for organising or speaking up for their rights or upholding their traditional laws, and treating these events as emergency events. Should the approach to Public Order events, specifically when it's Indigenous peoples involved in defending their rights, take into account their distinct and unique contexts as Indigenous peoples, including the long history of government denial of their rights, and as you mentioned earlier in your testimony today, the reality of racism and anti- Indigenous discrimination in policing and our justice system?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-25

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay, thank you. As Minister of Justice, you brought forward Bill C-15 to implement the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous peoples, also known as UNDRIP, and this was a major shift in affirming the recognition of Indigenous rights, and now there's a process to prepare a federal action plan. Under this legislation, at section 5, the Government of Canada is mandated to take all measures necessary to align the laws of Canada with the requirements and minimum standards embedded in UNDRIP. Can you describe how Justice Canada is meeting this obligation, and considering we only have a little bit of time, if you could keep it specific to policing and public order events that would be helpful.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 121 29-121-12

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Okay, thank you very much for your time today. Those are all of our questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 122 29-122-09

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

Yes. Good afternoon, sir. Can you hear me okay?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 122 29-122-16

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

All right. So my name is Janani Shanmuganathan, and I am counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. And the issue I would like to talk to you about today is the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the Emergencies Act. Okay? So we know that section 16 of the Emergencies Act refers to the definition in the CSIS Act, and says: "...threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act." Now, we heard from Mr. Vigneault earlier this week, and he's the Director of CSIS, and he told us that CSIS has a very clear understanding of what threats to security of Canada means in the CSIS Act based on legal interpretation, jurisprudence and Federal Court rulings. And we also heard from him that as far as CSIS was concerned in terms of what was going on during the convoy, the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the CSIS Act had not been met. Now, are you aware of this evidence on this point?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 122 29-122-19

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

So you'll agree that as far as CSIS was concerned the definition under the CSIS Act had not been met.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 123 29-123-15

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

And all I want to confirm, sir, is that as far as CSIS was concerned, using their interpretation of threats to the security of Canada, that definition was not met under the CSIS Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 124 29-124-15

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

All right. And now, you know, we've also heard that Mr. Vigneault was provided a legal opinion that explained the separate interpretation of this definition under the Emergencies Act. And I take it if I asked you anything about the substance of that opinion you'd say it's covered by solicitor/client privilege?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 124 29-124-21

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

All right. And now, I just want to understand, who is the client in the solicitor/client privilege? And the reason why I ask is who is the person that we need to approach to waive this privilege so that Canadians can understand how the Government arrived at this different interpretation of threats to the security of Canada. Who is this client?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 124 29-124-28

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

All right. So I want to now shift and take you back in time to look at what Minister Beatty, the Minister of National Defence, who was a sponsor of Bill C-77, the Emergencies Act, said about the definition in the Emergencies Act when the legislation was introduced. So if I can ask to bring up POE.CCF0000003? And just for context, this is a speech that Minister Beatty gave to the House of Commons debates during Bill -- when Bill C-77 was debated. And specifically, I’d like to go to page 5, please. Is that page 5? Perfect. So I just want to take you to the highlighted portion. Perhaps if we could make it bigger so that Minister Lametti can see it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 125 29-125-11

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

So just want to take you to ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 125 29-125-27

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

So the highlighted portion where it says “Likewise,” what Minister Beatty says is: “Likewise, it has been said that probably the most contentious clause in this Bill is the one that deals with public order emergencies. This is the type of situation which gave rise to the use of the War Measures Act in 1970. This clause takes its definition of threat from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service[s] Act. This fact alone should make us very cautious because of the difficulties already encountered with CSIS in determining what is subversion and what is legitimate dissent. That was one view of the legislation.” He goes on to say: “I would remind Members of this House that the definition of ‘threats to the security of Canada’ received exhaustive scrutiny by Parliament in 1983 during deliberations on the CSIS Act. The language in this definition has, therefore, already received Parliament’s blessing.” So I pause here to note that what Minister Beatty is saying is, you know, we are specifically incorporating the definition that’s found in the CSIS Act, because this is a definition that Parliament has already blessed. Is that fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 126 29-126-03

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Commissioner, again, going to Hansards is something that is frequently done in the course of legal argument to interpret a statute. It’s my submission this is not a matter of fact evidence. This is a matter of argument, which will be done at the end of the case and it’s not a proper line of questioning for this witness.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 127 29-127-03

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

So I would say in response that, you know, this is something that I’m asking Minister Lametti to explain about how -- you know, he’s offered an explanation for why there’s a different interpretation under the Emergencies Act, because the purpose for that definition is different, or determining the purpose is different. And what I say is, well, I’d like to look to see what was described as the purpose under the Emergencies Act and why they use that particular definition. So I would say that it is an appropriate line of questioning.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 127 29-127-09

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-06

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

And sorry, Justice Rouleau, or Commissioner Rouleau, you know, Minister Lametti has referred to the following passage in the highlighted portion and if I could, I just want to go to the next passage so I can ask him a couple of questions about it, because he’s now commented on that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-13

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

All right. So you -- -

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-20

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

Thank you. So Minister Lametti, you referred to the fact that: “…must be read in conjunction with the definition of national emergency…” So when you move to the next page, to page 6, what the entire paragraphs says is: “I would also remind the House that the definitions at the head of each of the four major parts of this Bill, including the definition of ‘threats to the security of Canada’ do not stand alone. They must be read in conjunction with the definition of a national emergency in the preamble of the Bill and in conjunction with other restriction provisions. In other words, before the Government can declare a public order emergency under Part II, the emergency situation must correspond to the definition of a national emergency as stated in the preamble.” They go on to say: “I am told that this double test, as it is called, will be used by the courts to assess the Government’s compliance with the deliberate constraints and safeguards that have been built into the definitions of this Bill.” So what I’m saying Minister Beatty is saying here is that you have to, one, meet the threats to the security of Canada, that’s the first part, but also meet the definition of a national emergency under their preamble? That’s what he’s referring to as this double test?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-23

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

All right. And is it fair to say that they’re not saying here that the interpretation of threats to the security of Canada changes because you’re looking at it through the lens of a national emergency? They’re talking about this two-part test, a double test.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-01

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Again, Mr. Commissioner, my friend’s question is calling upon the witness to interpret what we see in the Hansard. The Hansard is what it is, and beyond that, we’re getting into legal argument on the interpretation of the legislation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-07

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

Okay. Those are all my questions on that. thank you very much.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-16

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Good afternoon, Minister. My name's Alan Honner. I'm a lawyer at the Democracy Fund. We share status with the JCCF and Citizens for Freedom. Can we please pull up SSM.CAN.00002665? Minister, while we're waiting for that, you will recall that on February the 14th at or around 4:30 p.m., you held a press conference with the Prime Minister as well as other Ministers, and at that press conference, Prime Minister announced the invocation of the Emergencies Act. If we could scroll down to the bottom of this document, about halfway down the fourth page -- no, I think we have the wrong document. 2665. That's it. If we can scroll down to the bottom of the document?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 131 29-131-12

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. At the bottom of the document, we see that this is an email from Emily Kanter of the PMO's office and it's dated February the 13th, 2022, and it is sent to David Taylor, among others. Can you confirm for me that David Taylor was your Director of Communications?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-01

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Thank you. And this email is referring to a noon press conference happening on the 14th with the Prime Minister and a number of Ministers, and it says ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-08

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

That's right, but you can see it in front of you; right? And it says the press conference, "...is to provide an update on the federal government response to the Blockade as well as the Ukraine."

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-14

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And that ended up being the press conference at which you and the Prime Minister announced that the Emergencies Act was being invoked?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-21

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So let's just scroll up to the top -- sorry, the bottom of the second page. That's great. And if we can just scroll down a little bit, so we can see this entire email. That's good. Thank you. Here we have an email from Vanessa Hage-Moussa at the PMO's office saying, "Presser tracking for 4pm. This is not to be shared publicly until [First Minister's Meeting] over and PM updated itinerary is out..." Do you see that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-26

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And, Minister, I put it to you that the reason this press conference was not to be shared publicly until after the First Minister's meeting is because the Prime Minister and Cabinet had already decided to invoke the Emergencies Act before the First Minister's meeting took place and it would not look right if the press conference, which would ultimately announce the Emergencies Act was scheduled before the end of that First Minister's meeting.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 133 29-133-09

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Well ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 133 29-133-19

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Oh ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 133 29-133-27

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Yeah.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-02

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

But, sir, I just want ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-04

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- you to read this ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-06

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Yeah.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-10

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Thank you, sir.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-14

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I only have five minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-16

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

If I could just continue with this email.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-18

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

No, I don't want the context.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-22

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I just want ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-24

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- I just wanted to ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-26

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- put it to you to see if you agree with it or not, and you ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-01

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- disagree.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-04

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I can move on.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-06

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Thank you, sir.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-09

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Then if you disagree, I would like to take you to another part of this email. You'll see that this email that we're looking at right now is at 11:05, and obviously, from the context here, the First Minister's meeting has not yet finished. You can agree with that, yes?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-11

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, but from the context, it says this is not to be shared publicly until the First Minister's meeting is over. So from the context, the First Minister's meeting is not over at the time this email is written; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-18

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir, you can agree ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-27

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-03

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- you cannot ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-05

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I just want to know if you agree with me that the First Minister's meeting had not taken place yet.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-07

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-12

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So, sir ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-16

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- if we can continue here, this email says, "As discussed with you, [Minister] Lametti will also have brief remarks." And if we look up the page, there's a response to this email from David Taylor, your Communication's Director, saying that he is drafting your remarks. Do you see that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-18

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And the timing of that email is 11:06. That's exactly one email -- one minute after the email we just read.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-26

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And so, sir, what we see here is that David Taylor is drafting remarks, your remarks for the 4:30 meeting at which the invocation of the Emergencies Act was announced, and he's drafting those remarks before the end of the First Minister's meeting.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-02

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, I put it to you, sir ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-09

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sure, then I put it to you ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-13

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir, I put it to you ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-20

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Commissioner, may I have two more minutes?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-24

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir, I put it to you, you'll agree with me that the remarks you did make at 4:30 were, in fact, though, the invoking the Emergencies Act? And I will not put it -- I will not call it up, but it's in the record, it's OTT00007224-0001. That is what happened at 4:30 that day on the 14th?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-27

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Can we please pull up SSM.CAN.00008737? Sir, this is a text message exchange between you and Greg Fergus, and if we can just stop for a moment, he says, "Marco is talking, talking, talking at the meeting with..." And we can't see it because it's covered up by the date, which is February 13th. It says "caucus". And if we just go down a little bit ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 138 29-138-07

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- you talk a little bit about that -- it's you in the purple, "Our only other legal option is the emergencies act." Mr. Fergus says, "That['s] exactly where people are at. It is where I am at." You respond, "And me. And Marco, but he is being a good soldier." If we can scroll down, now we have Mr. Fergus say at 1:28 p.m. on the 13th, "Consensus from our call: 1. Use [the] Emergencies Act." He goes through a couple of other criteria, but let's just scroll down a little bit. And you don't contradict him; do you? You don't contradict him at any point that that was the consensus coming out of your call on the 13th.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 138 29-138-16

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

M'hm.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-03

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-07

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, let's go through the text message then.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-11

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

M'hm.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-16

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir, the text messages in evidence, we’ll leave it for submissions, if I can just put one more document to you, and this is SSM.CAN.00008754. Sir, I started off this examination by talking to you about the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Now I just want to talk to you very briefly, for about 30 seconds, about its revocation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-25

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

This is another email exchange between you and Greg Fergus, and he says on February 23rd: "I am glad we ended the EA, but it would have been more appropriate if we waited until Friday? Forty-four (44) after the vote seems unseemly." And your response is: "No, we needed to stay ahead of the NDP and the senators were saying that they would vote against based on their view that there was no longer an emergency." That is your text message with Mr. Fergus?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 140 29-140-04

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And this my last question. I put it to you that this text message shows that, in fact, you would have kept the Emergencies Act in place for longer had it not been for the fact that you were concerned that the NDP would withdraw their support and that the senators would vote against.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 140 29-140-28

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

We’ll leave that to submissions. Thank you very much, Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-08

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Good afternoon, Minister Lametti. My name is Cara Zwibel. I’m counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Assocation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-14

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

I’m no Alan Borovoy, but I am big fan.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-18

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

So I’m going to -- and I do have some time. I want to thank my friends from the OPP and the Ottawa Coalition for giving me some of their time. Mr. Cameron took to the McLennan Report and there was some discussion about your roles. Would you agree with me that you’re not only the chief advisor, legal advisor to the government, you are also considered as Attorney General, the guardian of the rule of law and of the constitution?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-21

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And in your witness statement -- and we can pull it up if we need but I don’t think I’m misstating it here -- you noted that the decision as to whether there was a national emergency was a political one; do you agree with that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-02

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And do you agree, thought, that although it’s a political decision, your role -- one of your roles was to assess the legality or the constitutionality of both the decision to involve and the orders that were ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-14

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Sure. Can we get witness summary WTS00000077? And it’s on page 4, the bottom of page 4. It’s under the heading “Existence of a National Emergency”. And of you scroll down to the last paragraph, it says: "Minister Lametti further explained that the determination as to the existence of a national emergency was a political one. It was formed of the basis of factual inputs from implicated government departments including PCO and legal opinions provided by the DOJ."

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-22

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Understood.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 143 29-143-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. You talked with some my friends about the different -- the different possible, I guess, interpretations of threats to the security of Canada as set out in the CSIS Act versus the Emergencies Act -- and I don’t want to get into and I’m not asking about your legal advice here -- would you agree with me that in the CSIS Act what we’re talking about is whether, for example, CSIS can wiretap an individual?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 143 29-143-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And with the Emergencies Act, what we’re talking about is whether the government can put in place orders that have the potential to restrict the rights of every person across the country?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 143 29-143-26

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. We’re going to get to the charter. The -- I want to talk a bit about the communication around the invocation of the Act. We can pull it up if we need to. Actually, it’s SSM.CAN.00004415. These are technical briefing notes, I think, that would have been prepared for you by someone in your -- in your office around potential questions that you might get about the Emergencies Act. And if we can go to page 3 -- sorry, you can see the beginning of the document there.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 144 29-144-06

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Page 3, the CSIS threat definition is discussed, and the second question is: "On what basis does the Governor-in- Council determine that the ongoing protest situation reaches the level of threats to the security of Canada?" And it says: "As defined in Section 16 of the Emergencies Act, given the meaning assigned in Section of the CSIS Act, threats to the security of Canada includes…" And it lists those four things. Do you see that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 144 29-144-16

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. I can take you to it if you want, but are you aware that in the CSIS Act, threats to the security of Canada means those four things? It doesn’t include them, it means them. And I’m sure, as a law professor, you know the statutory interpretation difference between those two things.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-02

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. So would you -- do you need me to take you to the CSIS Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-09

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-14

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

No.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

No, thank you. And I know now -- we’ve heard over the course of the Commission’s time that, in terms of the CSIS Act, it’s Section C that the government was relying on here.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-19

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. But here we have all four, potentially, laid out. There’s also a news release that was put out when the Act was invoked, and that’s COM00000657. And you know what, I’m not sure I have a page number written down here. Let’s just take a look, if we can scroll down further. So it lists the measures that we will be put in place, and here it’s describing what has to happen in order to declare a public order emergency. Sorry, stop right there, thank you, Mr. Clerk. It says: "Threats to the security of Canada may include the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property." So again they were using discretionary language instead of sort of the mandatory language that’s in the Act; do you agree?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-24

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Understood.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-13

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Understood. This is what’s communicating to the public about why the government is doing what it’s doing.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-16

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-21

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. Let’s talk about the charter. I know that when the Emergencies Act was invoked -- and I think we’ve seen some documents -- there’s concern that some people think that the Emergencies Act suspends the operation of the charter, and I take it that that is something that you are concerned about and that you want to provide people assurances that that’s not, in fact, what the Emergencies Act does?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-25

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And you said, I think, in a couple of your statements publicly when the Act was invoked that lawful protest was permitted?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 147 29-147-06

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Now, were you getting a sense by this point that maybe people that were participating in these protests did not have a clear understanding of what a lawful protest was?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 147 29-147-10

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 147 29-147-28

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

When Minister Mendicino was here yesterday, he said that he believes that although the -- he would characterize, I think, it the same way, that the protest was illegal, that there were thousands of people who were aiming to protest lawfully and thousands of people who were, so not people who were blocking trucks, people who were simply on the streets on their feet protesting peacefully.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-04

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And the orders that were put in place under the Emergencies Act required those people to leave the area as well?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-13

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. I want to talk about the financial measures that were put in place, and if we can go to SSM.CAN00004423? Would you agree that the financial measures gave both police and financial institutions discretion to freeze assets of individuals who were engaged in unlawful activity as it was defined under the emergency orders?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-26

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

You don’t know any cases where people's assets were frozen?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 149 29-149-11

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Oh, okay. Well, we did hear from police, for example, that even though the orders captured insurance companies, for example, they didn’t provide any information to insurance companies. It sounds like they partly didn’t have time to get to that, but also, they were concerned that if insurance policies were suspended, trucks would not be able to leave the area. So that’s one example of where some discretion appears ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 149 29-149-15

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. This is an email from you to some of your staff, and it's actually further down that we're interested in, if we can just scroll a bit. So this is one of your staffers is telling you that there is a part of your interview -- I think this is with Evan Solomon -- that’s circulating on Twitter with clickbait- style captions saying that people who have donated to a pro- Trump cause, any pro-Trump cause, could face legal, financial consequences. Matt Gurney has seen this being circulated, has asked for clarification, and they've got a little statement that they are asking you to approve.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 149 29-149-27

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

And it says: "We always ask our police forces as well as our prosecutors to act reasonably where they're going to work with the banks to ensure that they act reasonably. Obviously, there are going to be judgement calls that will be made and serious contributors will be treated more seriously, but as always, we're going to leave it to law enforcement to work with the banks as they already do in other areas that already exist such as in anti-terrorism financing and in others areas through FINTRAC." And further down in this email is the transcript from your interview with Evan Solomon, and he's asking you about the possibility of donors being targeted by these measures. And if you can scroll down to the third page, the bit that’s highlighted, this is the bit that sort of led to the confusion, but would you agree with me that here, you're not saying that someone who's donated couldn't have their assets frozen? That is contemplated by the orders?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 150 29-150-11

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 151 29-151-12

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

And then this will be my final bit. This is -- I guess we've heard about CSIS 101. I want to talk about Oakes 101. Talked about the proportionality, the need for all of the measures under the Act to be proportional. And would you agree with me that proportionality is assessed in context? So when a court is looking at whether a government action or measure is proportional, it assesses it against the objective that the government is trying to achieve?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 151 29-151-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And the -- by invoking the Emergencies Act, the objective is to address a national emergency, a threat to the security of Canada under the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-09

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Would you agree that but for the invocation of the Act, the orders that were in place would be unlikely to withstand Constitutional scrutiny?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-14

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, I don't think that that’s a fair question. It's a hypothetical and it's seeking a legal opinion.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-17

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

I think the Minister's indicated by his nod that he might agree with me, but I'll leave it there. Thank you, Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-20

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Thank you, Commissioner.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-25

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Good afternoon ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-01

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

--- Minister Lametti. My name is Jennifer King. I am legal counsel to the City of Windsor.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-03

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Mr. Clerk, I would like to show Minister Lametti WIN00000932, and if you could go to page 8, I'll explain to the minister what this is. Minister Lametti, you are aware that the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association supported by Windsor and Ontario successfully sought an injunction to end the blockade of the Windsor Bridge -- or the Ambassador Bridge. Were you aware of that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-07

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

So the first injunction was effective Friday, February the 11th. Windsor Police and the OPP, together with their policing partners, safely cleared the bridge over that weekend, and then although the bridge was reopened to traffic just after midnight the morning of February the 14th, the City of Windsor sought to continue the injunction. You're aware of this?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-16

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. So the chief justice granted this extension on February the 18th. This is the Chief Justice of Ontario's decision regarding the extension. Have you seen it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-24

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Great. So I'm just going to ask you some questions about the findings that the chief justice made on the evidence that was before him on February the 18th. "The chief justice found that the City had established a prima facie case, that protesters had breached multiple bylaws, and continued to do so after the order came into effect." Are you aware of this?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 154 29-154-02

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. The court also found that protesters breached the February the 11th order as evidenced by multiple arrests under the Criminal Code for breach of an order.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 154 29-154-12

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Did you share the chief justice's concern that protesters would continue to breach the law?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 154 29-154-18

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Right. So the Chief Justice also found in this paragraph 47 of the decision which is before you, it shows that the Chief Justice also found based on the evidence that was presented to him on that day, that there was a risk that protestors would reassert presence on the roadways to block access to the bridge. Minister Lametti, were you also concerned at that time about the risk that protestors would return and block the bridge again?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 154 29-154-24

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Right. And that was all before the Chief Justice on February 18th when he heard the continuation of the injunction?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 155 29-155-13

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Mr. Clerk, if you could please go to page 10, paragraph 59. In considering whether a permanent injunction was appropriate to enforce municipal by-laws, the Chief Justice used strong words about the importance of the rule of law. And he says in paragraph 59: “The rule of law requires that everyone obey the law. Significant, organized, deliberate and persistent defiance of the law and court orders is a serious threat to the rule of law, which is one of the foundations of a functioning democracy.” Minister, in your view did the protests and border blockades in particular, threaten the rule of law?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 155 29-155-17

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

And can you tell the Commission, in your view, what are the consequences of these threats you saw to the rule of law?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 156 29-156-08

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Mr. Lametti, the next paragraph we see that the Democracy Fund, which is a party here before this Commission, attended at that hearing as an intervenor friend of the court and argued that an injunction was not warranted as there were other enforcement remedies to address the unlawful conduct, including the Emergencies Act. Because as we know the Emergencies Act was already invoked at that time. And I just wanted to point out for you, I’m not sure if you knew the decision in detail, but that argument was rejected on the basis that the test for a statutory injunction under the Municipal Act does not require consideration of the availability of other enforcement remedies.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 156 29-156-21

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Oh you did?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 157 29-157-06

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Right. So in paragraph 68, I have one more question, Minister Lametti, although perhaps your answer may take more time than I have. At paragraph 68 the Chief Justice concluded by repeating a statement from his Reasons on the initial injunction, and he says: “Simply put, freedom of expression does not extend to the point that the protestor’s activities can result in the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms to all those detrimentally effected by the blockade.” Could you just – I know we don’t have much time, but can you unpack this balancing of rights for us, just briefly. Does the extent of an individual right or freedom under the Charter have to be measured against its effect on other members of the community and their rights and freedoms?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 157 29-157-09

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Thank you, those are my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 158 29-158-15

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Good afternoon, Minister Lametti; can you hear me okay?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 158 29-158-21

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay, wonderful. My name is Heather Paterson and I’m the lawyer for the Windsor Police Service. I just have a couple of questions for you today. You said several times this morning that Government cannot direct operational decisions of police; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 158 29-158-25

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

And that extends to the police decision of how to allocate news resources; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-03

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Right. And you said that, you referenced the Ipperwash a couple of times this morning.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-10

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

And that sort of non- directional would also apply to the police operational decision on the timing of actioning their plans; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-13

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Right. And you’d agree that any enforcement operation by police needs to be planned and methodical and properly resourced?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-19

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

And that it should be peaceful as possible and in line with protecting protestor rights and Charter rights?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-23

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay. And my friend just took you to it, but I just want to confirm, you were aware that enforcement actions were underway in Windsor on February 12th and the 13th and that the bridge was reopened just after midnight on the 13th or morning of the 14th; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-27

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay. And prior to those enforcement actions on the 12th and 13th you weren’t provided with a copy of the operational plan; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-08

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

And you’re not receiving regular briefings by Windsor Police Service on the operations; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-12

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

And you’re not ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-16

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay. And you also were not being – receiving regular briefings from the OPP as the enforcement action took place in Windsor; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-20

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

So was the source of the information you were receiving about the enforcement action at the Ambassador Bridge on February 12th and 13th, was that mostly from say television or news reports?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-24

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay. And just to be clear, because I actually don’t remember. So February 12th and 13th was a weekend and it was actually Super Bowl weekend; was there Cabinet meetings happening over the course of that weekend?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 161 29-161-05

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay. So I just want to take you –- we’ve looked at a lot of your text this mornings so I’m just going to bring this particular one up. If we could have SSM.CAN.00007861. So when you said at 10:30 in the morning that not enough was happening in Windsor, that wasn’t based on any situational awareness as the plans were undergoing in Windsor that morning; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 161 29-161-11

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay, thank you. Those are my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 161 29-161-22

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Good afternoon, sir.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 161 29-161-27

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

I’m Mitch McAdam, one of the lawyers for the Government of Saskatchewan. And I want to ask you a few questions about something that you said during your interview with Commission counsel. So I would ask the clerk to please pull up the interview summary. It’s WTS00000077. And if we could go to the top of page 5, please. Sir, in the second paragraph from the top of that page, you referred to the non-use of provincial legislation by provincial governments as being a factor that informed Cabinet’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. My question is, were you referring to Ontario’s delays in declaring a provincial emergency under their Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 162 29-162-01

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. Sir, were you also referring to the fact that laws like Ottawa City by-laws or Ontario’s Highway Traffic laws were not being enforced in downtown Ottawa?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 162 29-162-20

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. So that possibly was a factor that was being taken into account?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-01

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. Thank you, sir. And we’ve heard a lot of evidence at this Commission about various reasons why laws aren’t enforced, such as the safety of police officers and the public, the lack of resources, the lack of plans. So you're aware that there could be very good reasons why provincial laws are not being enforced?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-05

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. And we’ve also heard this morning in your testimony about what’s been called the separation of church and state and the fact that governments, whether they’re municipal, provincial, or federal don’t interfere with the operational decisions of police. Do you recall that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-12

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. I believe we’re having a fire alarm in our building but I'm just going to plow ahead and continue. I’m not sure if you can hear the beeping in the background. I’m curious, Minister, how does the federal government assess whether the non-use of provincial legislation warrants invoking the Emergencies Act. You're reviewing the operational decisions of police, aren’t you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-19

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. But you will agree with me, sir, that it’s a very different thing to be identifying gaps in existing laws so that new tools can be provided, as opposed to reviewing how existing tools are being employed. Those are quite different things, aren’t they?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 164 29-164-12

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. And you'll also agree with me, sir, that to the extent it is a provincial decision as opposed to an operational decision by police, so with respect does something like a province’s decision to invoke its own Emergencies legislation -- that’s ordinarily a matter that falls within exclusive provincial jurisdiction, correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 164 29-164-21

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. And sir, you also talked about looking at the existence of effective laws and looking for gaps in the laws. And I take it that could be gaps in wither federal laws of provincial laws, correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 165 29-165-14

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Yeah. And you would agree with me again that in the ordinary course the decision about whether to enact laws to fill gaps in provincial laws is a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; isn’t it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 165 29-165-19

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. So just so that I'm clear then, it’s your position and the federal government’s position that when there is a national emergency, the federal government can review what provincial laws exist and how those laws are being applied and if it thinks it’s necessary, can step in and deal with those matters by orders and regulations under the Emergencies Act even though those matters would ordinarily fall under provincial jurisdiction, correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 165 29-165-27

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

I just want to say, when it comes to the position, for the purposes of legal argument, that we’ll leave the matter of submissions at the end of the case.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-07

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Okay. And can you tell me what part of what I've said you disagree with?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-13

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

But you would agree with me that under section 19 of the Emergencies Act, the federal government can make orders and regulations that deal with matters that in ordinary times would come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-18

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Thank you, sir. Those are all of my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-25

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

I’m hoping it’s a false alarm. Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-01

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

Yes, I know.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-06

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Thank you, Commissioner. And I am advised that the minister needs to go and vote by 3:15. I expect to be done well before that, but just so we’re all keeping an eye on the clock.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-09

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Okay, thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-16

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Let’s start with SSM.CAN.00007845. Minister, just to remind you, in a text message to your chief of staff on January 30th, which we’ll put on the screen to refresh your memory, you raised a question about the Emergencies Act. Do you see that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-18

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And your testimony in response to questions from Commission counsel was that you're raising it as a matter of prudence. This is the Sunday evening on the first weekend of the protest. Do you start thinking about the Emergencies Act every time there is a protest?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-25

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And on January 30th your testifying that it’s a matter of prudence. On what date or at what stage did consideration of the Emergencies Act move from a matter of prudence and a mere possibility to a step that was being given serious consideration by Cabinet?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 168 29-168-07

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Okay. Let's go to SSM.CAN.00007851. And this was a text message exchange with Minister Mendicino that you were taken to by Commission Counsel. You'll recall that Mr. Cameron asked you about your first sentence there, "You need to get the police to move." The exchange goes on to talk -- you say, "And the CAF if necessary." Mr. Mendicino writes, "How many tanks are you asking for I just wanna ask Anita how many we've got on hand" You respond, "I reckon one will do!!" On February 2nd or at any other point were you seriously suggesting that CAF be brought in or that there be tanks brought in to Ottawa to deal with the situation?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 168 29-168-17

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Okay. You recall questions from Mr. Honner on behalf of the Democracy Fund about the timing of revocation. Let's please put up SSM.CAN.00007902. And, Minister, he put to you the suggestion that but for some concern about getting ahead of the NDP, your government would have continued the Emergencies Act. Do you recall those questions?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 169 29-169-10

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And you mentioned in your evidence that there were other text messages. This is the text message between yourself and Eric Antoine, February 23rd. Who is Mr. Antoine?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 169 29-169-18

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Sorry, I just want to be clear, who is Mr. Antoine?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 169 29-169-26

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Okay. And in his text message he says on February 23rd, "Our count as of right before the announcement..." That's the announcement of revocation?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-02

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

"...was 51 declared yes, 22 declared against and 18 undecided..." Was that the text message you were ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-06

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

--- referring to?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-10

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And SSM.CAN.00007903. Just to continue -- it just continues where the bottom is that says, "Yea we worked our ass off, but the right and proper thing to do was to revoke as soon as the..."

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-12

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Oh, if you recall it being emergency was over ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-19

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And your evidence is that that's the timing that the government chose for revocation is when the emergency was over?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-23

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Okay. And you testified in response to questions from Commission Counsel and Ms. Johnson for the Coalition of Ottawa Businesses and Residents about some of your own observations and experiences in the City of Ottawa during the protests, during the occupation. You call that evidence?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 171 29-171-06

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

I want to take you to some online incidents that I understand were directed toward you. And seeing the time available, how many I can come to, SSM.CAN.00007896. And this reads, "You're the fucking real terrorist bud. Too bad this wasn't a few decades ago because you'd already be hanging from a light pole downtown Ottawa for your treasonous crimes against Canadians." And it goes on from there. Is that a direct message that you received over social media after the Government of Canada announced the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 171 29-171-13

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Okay. Let's go to SSM.CAN.00007897. And while we're pulling that up, just to be clear, the Government of Canada did introduce invocation for a vote in the House of Commons?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 171 29-171-26

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And you spoke to that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 172 29-172-04

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And we see a photo of you in the Commons. There's a caption "motion for confirmation of the declaration of emergency," and there's a response to that, "hashtag assassinate Lametti". And this is another social media message that you became aware of?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 172 29-172-06

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

SSM.CAN.00007899.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 172 29-172-12

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

This one says, "You and your support structure of corrupt officials need to be drug out into the street and stoned... I think that day is coming for you sooner than you think..." You also received this message over Instagram around the time that the Emergency Act was invoked?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 172 29-172-15

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And last one SSM.CAN.00007900. This is a Facebook message. I won't read it all, but, "Time to die David Lametti for peace and security of mankind..." There's a line here, "You[r] death date is overdue udas with bullet to your head, rope around your neck, guts cut open and bled out on the ground..." And then it continues from there. Minister Lametti, were all of these threats reported to the RCMP?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 172 29-172-24

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And I don't think we have time to pull it up, but there is an email to that effect, SSM.CAN.00008683. And, Minister, we'll just go to one last document TS.NSC.CAN.001.00000183. Minister Lametti, you have been a Member of Parliament since 2015 I understand?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 173 29-173-11

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

And the sorts of threats that we just walked through, there was one more, we don't need to pull it up, but it was a photo of a noose, SSM.CAN.00007898, have you ever experienced anything like that in your years as an MP prior to the events of January and February 2022?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 173 29-173-18

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

So on this screen it's an ITAC report of February 22nd, Threats to Canadian Political Figures and Government Locations in the Context of Protests and Emergency Response Measures. Could we please go, Mr. Clerk, to page 2? And there's a heading "Increased Threats to Elected Officials During Protests". And the second paragraph after the redaction observes, "There has been a noticeable increase in threatening behaviour towards members of Parliament and incidents at constituency offices since the beginning of the protests, including a recent fire believed to be an arson and a few minor physical altercations with staff. This threatening behaviour has been primarily focussed on vaccine mandates and the Government's enacting of the Emergencies Act and has been directed at members of all political parties." (As read) Minister Lametti, is that consistent with your experience?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 174 29-174-04

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Thank you, those are my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

There is, and will try to get it in before the division bells call the witness to ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Mr. Chairman, one of the parties, in particular the CCF, the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, and a number of parties by implication indirectly, raised the point that was before you on Monday when the CSIS panel was us, and so I’m going to ask this witness some questions about the evidence that Mr. Vigneault gave and see if he can help us at all with the basis on which Mr. Vigneault that it was appropriate for him to give an opinion to the prime minister about invoking the Act even though he had an opinion as the Director of CSIS that the threshold of 2.c had not been met. So with that in mind, let me ask you, Minister Lametti, if you followed that -- either live or in preparing for the hearing, that exchange in which the Director of CSIS, Mr. Vigneault, had said in a closed session, which go summarized into an open session, that based on assurances he had received, he thought it was appropriate to give an opinion to the prime minister on whether or not the Act should be invoked independently of his view on the fact that 2.c had not been met? Did you follow that issue?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Well, that helps us. When the matter came up -- and I -- Mr. Clerk, are you able to pull up the transcript of the 21st for us just in case Minister Lametti want to see the way that Director Vigneault put it? And I’m looking at page 58 of the transcript. Let me -- while it’s coming up on the screen, Minister Lametti, I’ll -- you’ve read the transcript, but just to put some context from the question, I’ll you about it. I’m at the top of page of the transcript and -- oh, it looks like we might get it up -- 58. And yes, if you could just zoom in so we can get that “So when…”. Okay. And this Director Vigneault speaking: "So when that was first brought up, the fact that the Emergencies Act was using the same words as the CSIS Act to define the threat, so imported into the Emergencies Act, I needed to understand for myself and for, you know, the course of this, what was the implication of that. And that's when I was assured that, you know, they were - - it was a separate understanding. You know, the confines of the CSIS Act, the same words, based on legal interpretation, jurisprudence, Federal Court rulings and so on, there was a very clear understanding of what those words meant in the confines of the CSIS Act, and what I was reassured by is that there was, you know, in the context of the Emergencies Act there was to be a separate interpretation based on the confines of that Act" And so my question to you, Minister Lametti is, what assurance had Mr. Vigneault received that allowed him come to that conclusion that there were different interpretations of the -- of the test under the CSIS Act and under the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 176 29-176-07

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Commissioner, I need to object to that question on the grounds that it may get into areas of solicitor-client privilege.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 177 29-177-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Commissioner, the Commission counsel are in a conundrum here, as I think are the parties who have tried to pursue this issue with Director Vigneault, with Minister Lametti, and with others as the hearing has proceeded. We recognize, though, that solicitor-client privilege poses a special challenge for the Commission, not only because of issues of the extent to which you’re able to adjudicate on those issues, but also because the time it takes to resolve them, especially if the matter ends up getting referred to a Court of Superior jurisdiction would be frankly fatal to the timetable that you’re obliged to work by. And so, Commission counsel are not going to call on you to make a ruling on this issue. We would observe that we have, throughout -- that is, from the beginning of this proceeding though until now -- attempted to find a way to lift the veil that has made such a black box of what has turned out to be a central issue before the hearing. Now, if we believed that that prevented you from assessing the basis on which the government came to its conclusion, we would ask you for a ruling on it, but we are confident that there are other ways that we can get the same information on the record or get the same result through legal arguments, and so we’re not pressing you for an issue, we just regret that it ends up being an absence of transparency on the part of the government in this proceeding.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 177 29-177-22

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Commissioner, I apologize for interrupting, but the Minister does need to go and vote now, I understand.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 178 29-178-19

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Perhaps my friend and I can -- we can continue to deal with this issue in his absence.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 178 29-178-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Good afternoon again, Mr. Commissioner. Gordon Cameron for Commission Counsel. We have to testify now Minister Anita Anand, the Minister of National Defence. And she will be sworn, and she has her own religious book.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 186 29-186-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

If I may begin, Minister Anand, by thanking you very much for being here today. I know it was a special challenge for you to fit in and we had hoped it to be like a puzzle piece in you schedule and ours, and unfortunately one thing led to another and that didn’t quite happen. But fortunately, it won’t be one of the longest exams we’ve had before the Commission. Let me begin by just doing some housekeeping, and in particular I’m going to ask you to cast your mind back to September of this year when you were interviewed by me and some of my colleagues and then a summary of that interview was prepared. And for the record –- I don’t need this called up, Mr. Clerk, but I’ll just put it on the record –- the summary of Minister Anand’s interview is WTS.00000076. And did you have a chance to review that summary for accuracy, Minister Anand?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 186 29-186-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And can you firm that it’s accurate to the best of your information and belief and that you adopt it as part of your evidence for the Commission?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 187 29-187-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And also the Department of National Defence filed an institutional report. For the record, that’s DOJ.IR00000012. And, again, Minister Anand, can you confirm that that was filed by the Department of National Defence as part of its evidence in this hearing?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 187 29-187-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you very much. Now, even though we won’t be having a lot of questions for you, they are very, very important questions that have come up before the Commission and been raised by the parties in two areas that I’m going to concentrate Commission Counsel’s questions on. And I’ll just begin by headlining those two areas. One is, the role that the Department of National Defence plays when a province makes a request for assistance to the Federal Government for assistance that is potentially or perhaps best provided by the Canadian Forces. And the second area is, your views as the Minister of National Defence, of the times, if ever, and the circumstances in which it would or would not be appropriate for personnel and equipment of the Canadian Armed Forces to be used in an otherwise civil public order incident. So with that said, I will just ask you to describe a little bit about your position. I’ll begin by asking you to confirm that you were appointed as the Minister of National Defence in October of 2021; is that correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 187 29-187-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And as Minister of National Defence you’re responsible for both the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 188 29-188-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Please, you can almost certainly do better than I could on that one.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 188 29-188-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, we’ve heard a fair bit of evidence about the role that the Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and the Department of Public Safety play in the initial receipt, processing, consideration et cetera of request for assistance from provinces. At a high level can you describe the role that the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National plays in that process?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 188 29-188-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Your institutional report, which is –- again, Mr. Clerk, I don’t need it called up, but the one that you adopted early in your evidence refers to two main mechanisms under the National Defence Act by which the Canadian Armed Forces can be called on to support civil authorities, again at a high level. Can you just describe those briefly?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 189 29-189-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I’ll tell you what I can do, is I can repeat it. Your institutional report outlines two main mechanisms by which –- under the National Defence Act, the Canadian Armed Forces can be called on to support civil authorities.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 189 29-189-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Can you describe again –- we have heard evidence from Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness about this. You’re actually probably in the best position to look from the top down at the process and describe how you would expect a request from a province to arrive at the Federal Government and make its way through the system and ultimately come to your desk.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 190 29-190-25

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, we've heard some evidence about and your -- both your institutional report and your interview summary give some description of the two requests for assistance, the two RFAs for a logistical support from the Canadian Armed Forces that did come through in the early days of the convoy protest blockades, as the name might be appropriate in each context. One was for the Cartier Drill Hall and the other was for some rations, if that’s the right term, for the use on Parliament Hill. And can you just give, again, a thumbnail sketch of each of those RFAs?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 191 29-191-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. Now, the next topic, I'm, as Commission counsel, just going to ask you to speak on at a relatively high level -- and to the extent parties want to provide the Commission with more information through you, they will pursue it -- but it appears from the evidence we've heard from Emergency Preparedness in particular and to some extent, Public Safety that what gets called in this proceeding the Alberta RFA, the request by the Province of Alberta for assistance from the CAF, didn’t follow the same process to what you call the triumvirate or ultimately to your desk as the first two that you described it. Can you again, at a high level, describe how that process was different from what was ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 192 29-192-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Fair enough. I hadn’t meant to say “followed a different process”; I guess I meant “came to a different conclusion. So can you tell us what -- and I will caution you. You might remember that there’s a limit on the details with which you can describe the difficulty of this machinery being applicable to the context in which it was hoped to be used that your documents ended up getting redacted on some fine points there. So speak at a high level. What was it in general terms that you were told about -- by your Armed Forces personnel about the suitability of the tow trucks that were otherwise based in the same general area, about their suitability for the task that they were being asked for?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 193 29-193-26

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 195 29-195-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

That’s a perfect segue to the second category that is of interest to the Commission and to the parties which is the propriety of the Canadian Armed Forces being deployed for the purposes of dealing with civil unrest or law and order issues. And you've just touched on one that intersects the two points and if I understood your answer correctly -- and I’ll just put it in my own terms -- the mere appearance of Canadian Armed Forces tow trucks at what is otherwise a public order disturbance, you and your chief of defence staff would worry could be a provocation because the equipment would be immediately recognizable as Army equipment. Is that hypothetical?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 195 29-195-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let me see if I can break that out into at least two parts. One point, which you were quite eloquent on, and frankly, certainly wasn’t evident to Commission Counsel until we interviewed you back in September on this point, is that there is -- it’s probably very evident to all of the parties who are representing police forces, but the training of a soldier, I will say no longer, because I think it might once have, but no longer includes the type of training that public order units in law enforcement would get in terms of crowd management and the dynamics of that situation, so they simply don’t know what to do when they encounter the crowd. At least, they haven’t been trained to deal with crowds as part of their basic training. Is that the functional point?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 196 29-196-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Well put. And so let me -- I think implicit in what you’re saying, especially with the eloquence with which you put it, is in addition to being not well trained to engage in a law enforcement context, especially a public order disturbance context, there could be an element of escalation and provocation merely by the appearance of uniformed soldiers appearing in what is otherwise a situation of civil unrest? Is that part of your concern?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 197 29-197-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 197 29-197-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

That’s very clear. And let me see if I can bring this close to the end by asking you whether, at the time the Government began contemplating invocation of the Emergencies Act, there was any sense in which your department or the Canadian Armed Forces developed contingency plans or were ready for the possibility that circumstances might degrade to the point where your assistance as the last, the very last resort, might be required?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 198 29-198-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you very much. Commissioner, those are the questions of Commission Counsel. I think some parties might want to drill down a little further than I have, but that puts the information on the record that we thought was important.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 198 29-198-26

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Sorry, I’m trying to get -- there we go. I was trying to get my video to work. I don’t know if you can see me, Minister Anand?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 199 29-199-06

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Perfect. Good afternoon, Minister. My name is Ewa Krajewska and I’m counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. And I doubt I’m going to take the entire time that I’ve been allotted to ask you questions this evening. Minister Anand, my first question really relates to going back to your personal experience of the demonstrations in Ottawa. I understand that you weren’t in Ottawa the first weekend of the demonstrations; correct? You were away?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 199 29-199-10

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Right. And would it be fair to say that the crisis that was happening in Ottawa, this was not just something that you were consuming in the media or through social media, but it was also something that you and your staff were experiencing personally in Ottawa? Would that be fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-03

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

And I think -- I’m not sure if you watched Minister Lametti’s earlier examination, but he was taken to some text messages that he exchanged with you earlier today. Did you have a chance to see that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-10

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Right. And I think the text message that you exchanged with him was that either you or him allowed your driver to take some of your staff home during some of the demonstrations; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-18

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-26

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

And I think that was the case for Minister Lametti as well. He said that he decided to leave Ottawa and spend some of his time in Montreal. Do you recall that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-28

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

And I understand that there was also -- some of the text messages that have been produced from you were also you exchanging text messages about one of Matthew Gurney’s articles. It was entitled “Dispatch from the Ottawa Front: Sloly is telling you all he's in trouble. Who's listening?” Do you remember that article from Mr. Gurney?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 201 29-201-06

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

And that article kind of summarized that there may be a more serious threat coming from the protestors than maybe what was being reported at the time. Do you recall that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 201 29-201-14

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay, well, you are getting to where I’m going with this, Minister Anand. And what I was trying to ask is, how do you place what you are consuming personally and in the media alongside the advice that you may be receiving from the RCMP, or CSIS, or other professional advisors? And just, before I ask you about that, just, would you agree that, kind of, the review of intelligence, the review of information is something that is best kind of understood through the lens of the experts who are providing that information?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 201 29-201-25

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Right. And so, for example, if someone posts a threat on social media, it would often be -- and it got one like, it would often be helpful to hear from CSIS or the RCMP whether that is a serious threat that the government should take into account or whether it is something that is not as significant? I mean you would normally rely on expert advice as to how to contextualize that type of information?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 202 29-202-15

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Right. And in terms of the IRG meetings and the cabinet meetings, I assume, based on what you’ve said, that the information that you would have received from both the RCMP and CSIS would have significantly informed your own decision-making process at those table?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 203 29-203-04

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay, but with respect to the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and the Governor-in- Council’s decision, you would have been part of that decision- making process both at the IRG and cabinet; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 203 29-203-19

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

And at those tables, you would have received information and advice from the RCMP and CSIS as well?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 203 29-203-24

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay. And that -- I wasn’t suggesting that they were reporting to you directly, but when they are speaking at either the IRG or the cabinet meetings, you are listening to that advice as part of -- and you are a decision-maker at those tables; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-03

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Okay, so I think you agree with my question that you would have been listening to their advice and any other advice that you would have received at those tables as part of your decision-making process.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-13

Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)

Thank you, Minister. Those are all my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-18

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Commissioner, I believe we’ve been ceded 10 minutes by the Convoy Organizers, so that tacks me up to 15 minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-23

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

All right, thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-28

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Minister Anand, I’m ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-02

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

We’re a bit loosey-goosey. Minister Anand, I’m Rob Kittredge, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and we share standing at these hearing with the Democracy Fund and Citizens for Freedom. I take it you’d agree with me that the public order emergency declaration earlier this year did not meet the requirements for such a declaration set out in the Emergencies Act, wouldn’t you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-07

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

You don’t agree. There’d be no particular reason for you to remember but the last time we saw each other you were Professor Anand and I was working on a B- in Business Associations, just figured I’d drop that in there. And I guess I’d like to start out with a bit of a chat about the principle of cabinet solidarity. As Minister of National Defence, you’re a member of cabinet and the Privy Council; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-15

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And on November -- and somewhere around November of 2019 when you were sworn in, you took the Oath of the Members of the Privy Council; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-24

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And can we pull that up? It’s POE.JCF00000001.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-28

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Do you? Okay, perfect. And all of the cabinet ministers appearing before this Commission took the same oath; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-04

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I’m sure. And the prime minister takes that oath as well; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-10

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

You swore to speak your mind and express your opinions on issues before cabinet freely and fully in private meetings, debates, and conversations with your cabinet colleagues; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-13

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. And that -- that -- the principle of cabinet confidence is in there, where you swore your oath to secrecy and -- or you’re swearing yourself to secrecy in there. That’s the principle of cabinet confidence; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-21

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. And you’re anticipating some of my questions here, and the next one certainly, because -- and that’s because once cabinet policy is presented to the public, those -- that policy is the agreed collective decision of all members of the cabinet; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-02

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. In fact, from a constitutional perspective, cabinet decisions are, in effect, your decisions, aren’t they?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-09

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And you -- wouldn’t say they’re “your” decisions but you’re certainly party to the decisions?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-15

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

All right. The invocation of the Emergencies Act this year was a cabinet decision; wasn’t it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-20