Volume 29 (November 23, 2022)

(jump to testimony)

Volume 29 has 289 pages of testimony. 30 people spoke before the Commission, including 3 witnesses.

Very important disclaimer: testimony from this site should not be taken as authoritative; check the relevant public hearing for verbatim quotes and consult the associated transcript for the original written text. For convenience, testimony includes links directly to the relevant page (where a speaker started a given intervention) in the original PDF transcripts.

The testimony below is converted from the PDF of the original transcript, prepared by Mitchell Kersys.

Speakers, by number of times they spoke:

  1. David Lametti, Minister - Finance / Government of Canada (GC-FIN) (spoke 385 times)
  2. Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 184 times)
  3. Omar Alghabra, Minister - Transport / Government of Canada (GC-TC) (spoke 143 times)
  4. Anita Anand, Minister - National Defence / Government of Canada (GC-DND) (spoke 120 times)
  5. Paul Rouleau, Commissioner - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 103 times)
  6. Rob Kittredge, Counsel - Democracy Fund / Citizens for Freedom / Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Coalition (DF / CfF / JCCF) (spoke 51 times)
  7. Alan Honner, Counsel - Democracy Fund / Citizens for Freedom / Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Coalition (DF / CfF / JCCF) (spoke 49 times)
  8. Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 45 times)
  9. Brendan Miller, Counsel - Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers (spoke 45 times)
  10. Jennifer L. King, Counsel - City of Windsor (Win) (spoke 40 times)
  11. Cara Zwibel, Counsel - Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (spoke 39 times)
  12. Hatim Kheir, Counsel - Democracy Fund / Citizens for Freedom / Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Coalition (DF / CfF / JCCF) (spoke 39 times)
  13. Mandy England, Counsel - Government of Alberta (AB) (spoke 36 times)
  14. Tom Curry, Counsel - Peter Sloly (spoke 35 times)
  15. Donnaree Nygard, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 25 times)
  16. The Registrar - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 19 times)
  17. Ewa Krajewska, Counsel - Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (spoke 17 times)
  18. Heather Paterson, Counsel - Windsor Police Service / City of Windsor (Win-WPS) (spoke 17 times)
  19. P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel - Government of Saskatchewan (SK) (spoke 17 times)
  20. Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel - Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) (spoke 16 times)
  21. Caroline Laverdière, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 14 times)
  22. Christine Johnson, Counsel - Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses (spoke 11 times)
  23. Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel - Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) (spoke 4 times)
  24. Christopher Diana, Counsel - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 2 times)
  25. Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 2 times)
  26. Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel - City of Ottawa (Ott) (spoke 1 time)
  27. Daniel Chomski, Counsel - City of Ottawa (Ott) (spoke 1 time)
  28. Eric Brousseau, Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 1 time)
  29. Nikolas De Stefano, Counsel - Peter Sloly (spoke 1 time)
  30. Sajeda Hedaraly, Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 1 time)

Upon commencing on Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

Order. À l'ordre. The Public Order Emergency Commission is now in session. La Commission sur l'état d'urgence est maintenant ouverte.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 8 29-008-03

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Good morning. Bonjour. So this morning we have a presentation, and then it'll be followed by three witnesses. So first, the presentation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 8 29-008-06

PRESENTATION: OVERVIEW SUMMARY BY MR. JEFFREY LEON

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Go ahead. allez-y.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 10 29-010-25

PRESENTATION: OVERVIEW SUMMARY BY MS. SAJEDA HEDARALY

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

PRESENTATION: OVERVIEW SUMMARY BY MR. JEFFREY LEON(cont’d)

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Diverse and somewhat divided. So thank you very much. So those -- that's the presentation of the public consultation results. I'm going to take a short break just to get our next witness in and come -- we can move to the next phase. So five minutes only to get the next witness in. Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 50 29-050-26

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is in recess for 5 minutes. la commission lever pour 5 minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 51 29-051-05

Upon recessing at 10:35 a.m.

Upon resuming at 10:44 a.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

Order. À l'ordre. The Commission has reconvened. La Commission reprend.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 51 29-051-09

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 52 29-052-07

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Well, it will be an interesting manoeuvre throughout the testimony, but I'm sure everyone will be on their guard. So with that, perhaps we can swear the witness.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-05

The Registrar (POEC)

Minister Lametti, will you swear on a religious document, or do you wish to affirm?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-09

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

On a Bible, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-11

The Registrar (POEC)

For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-12

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

David Lametti, D-A-V-I-D L-A-M-E-T-T-I.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 53 29-053-14

MINISTER DAVID LAMETTI, Sworn

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. GORDON CAMERON

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I confirm its accuracy.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 54 29-054-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Thank you. It's -- they are two complicated roles, and it is an important question. As Minister of Justice, I'm a member of Cabinet. I'm responsible for what one might call justice policy and the development of justice policy, the curation of the Criminal Code, various institutions, Human Rights Commission, for example, and Privacy Commission, other Commissions that are associated with justice policy writ large in Canada, so they fall under my purview. I do not -- I'll frame that, I'll come back to that when I talk about the Attorney General role. So in that role, I'm a member of Cabinet, I participate in Cabinet discussions, give my opinions, as would any other Cabinet Minister, and do the work reading my documents but also other documents from other Ministers in that regard and in giving informed opinions. The other role is Attorney General. I'm the government lawyer, also sit at the Cabinet table as Attorney General, and I give legal advice to the government. I receive legal advice from time to time through the Department of Justice, which has lawyers dedicated to giving legal advice in that Attorney General role. I'm the titular head on litigation, all litigation that the Government of Canada does. And I have a role in shaping that litigation, particularly as it approaches higher courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. And again, in that role, I will give advice to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister directly from time to time. On most pieces of legislation, for example, there will be opinions being given, although there are occasional mentions in the Justice Act of the Minister of Justice giving that role, so I will -- the lines are reasonably well demarcated. They certainly are well demarcated in my mind. We've had the Anne McLellan Report of a few years back, which helped in the framing of certain kinds of litigation to distinguish the roles. And certainly, I would say that in all of my interactions with colleagues, including informal interactions, I will always try to be clear which hat I am wearing as I'm speaking, and if that hat changes in the course of a conversation, I will give them a flag. And so I'm well aware of that two -- of those two roles. What I will also say -- this is the part that I had bracketed out before, is unlike the Attorney General of the United States, I do not lead investigations and prosecutions. We have an independent prosecution service, and there are other rules that guide my relationship with the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that's important to remember as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 54 29-054-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Again, completely.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 58 29-058-14

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That's right. I alluded to that in my opening remarks.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 58 29-058-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I believe that’s right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 59 29-059-19

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I believe so, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 59 29-059-28

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And I believe it’s a text exchange with him. I know he’s my Chief of Staff.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 60 29-060-02

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Certainly. There is evidence of systemic racism in our justice system. It’s in my mandate letter. I do my best to try to root it out with various policies. And certainly there was legitimate criticism being levelled at police authorities with respect to that weekend, that if it had been a Black Lives Matter protest or an Indigenous protest that perhaps the police reaction might have been different. This is a conversation between Mr. Steinhouse and myself, it’s not meant to be public; obviously, it’s in a text. But I am sensitive to claims of systemic racism in our policing. I’m sensitive to systemic racism in our criminal justice system, and I’m doing my best in the areas of my purview to identify and to weed it out.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 60 29-060-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I would interpret it more as, are the police moving in the same way that they would be, were the protesters Indigenous or Black?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-09

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

What kinds of laws, bylaws exist at the municipal level, at the provincial level, or at the federal level with respect to this kind of occupation, which already -- it was clear that when they didn’t leave it ceased being a protest and began being an occupation. What kind of authorities existed for the -- for the regulation or the ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-19

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay, so we can ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- safe removal of ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 61 29-061-26

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I meant legal rules by the word “Normative”. I’m an old academic as ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-01

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I was being prudent.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-15

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I was being prudent.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-17

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I had been through the pandemic with my Cabinet colleagues. It is no secret that we did discuss the Emergencies Act in the context of the pandemic, and I became quite familiar with the requirements for consultation and for the standards that would have to be met for different kinds of emergencies. And so I knew that we had to begin thinking about it, whether or not it was ever going to be an option. As was the case with the pandemic, we never actually used it. So it’s something that I prudently raised; this is -- there’s a question mark there, as we see. Something I’m prudently raising with my Chief of Staff to begin thinking about, to get the department to begin thinking about, in case we need it. Because the worst scenario would be something explodes, and we are not ready to use it because we haven’t done the kinds of consultations necessary or asked the appropriate questions to the appropriate people in order to get it done. So this is me being prudent, and it’s based on my experience and the work that I put in during the pandemic, again with the Emergencies Act and the possibility of using it in that context.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 62 29-062-19

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I don’t believe it’s me because I’m generally required to go to what’s called a “min dm” which is a ministerial, deputy ministerial meeting. So if anyone’s missing the meeting, it’s not me.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 63 29-063-18

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I would say the preparatory work for, ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-18

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- is what I understood by that. and certainly in the context of the previous bubble, but also in the context of other discussions. It was about preparing for the possibility. Not preparing for the -- not preparing in any way for the introduction of the Act, but rather doing our due diligence as lawyers within the Justice Department and in our Ministry in order to make sure that if we were to use it, we would be prepared.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 64 29-064-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

You’re going to have to help me with the dates. It could be referring -- it could be referring to the SSE Committee. I believe at that point, that’s what it would be. It could have been -- it could have been a Cabinet meeting; I’m not certain. You’ll have to help me with the dates.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 65 29-065-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah. There’s no -- I don’t believe there’s an extraordinary meeting yet, and so this is really about being ready for all eventualities.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 65 29-065-15

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I certainly believe it is. I certainly recognize my words there. But I -- and I believe the other would be Minister Mendicino.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-03

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

But I’m not 100 percent certain.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And which words do you claim?

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I claim the green.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Loosely. We do have other work to do while we’re here.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 66 29-066-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I don’t believe so. I believe it’s a structured plan in stages to get protestors to leave peacefully, get occupiers to leave peacefully, and if not peacefully, begin to move them out in an orderly fashion, in a safe fashion. So there are different layers to that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Right. And this is referring to local police, the police of jurisdiction.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-12

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

The Ottawa Police not having a plan ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s -- I’m a part time resident of Ottawa. I was a part time resident of Ottawa during this. I was forced out of my living arrangements in Ottawa because I felt that the place I was living was living was unsafe, given the protests. So I spent part of my time elsewhere in Ottawa and I spent part of my time in Montreal in order to escape Ottawa. So I was frustrated. I have to admit. This is a complete product of the heat of the moment. It is frank. I think I would soften it now with the benefit of hindsight, with respect to the former Ottawa Chief of Police. But it reflects, I think, the fact that my life had been altered by this, my staff was being harassed when they went into work, by convoy members who took issue with them wearing masks, particularly my female staff members on my Ministerial team. And I was quite frustrated. I will admit.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 67 29-067-24

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In these kinds of interactions, I’m interacting, first of all, with a colleague and a friend. So there will be banter. There will be occasional attempts at bad humour, on both of our parts, and with others as well. And there will be occasional movements of frustration, which you’ve seen here. I’m speaking here more as a Cabinet colleague, as a Minister. I’m not speaking as Attorney General. I will guard my comments when I’m giving legal advice to my Cabinet colleagues, and I do that often. In general, I think it’s fair to say that when I’m interacting on text messaging with my colleagues, I’m acting as one of their contemporaries as a Minister..

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Absolutely. And you’ll see that in these exchanges, I’m in no way saying we need to direct the police. The Ipperwash Inquiry was clear in that regard, although we identify, as a government, according to that Inquiry, priorities for us. But we can, in no way, make operational decisions for police of jurisdiction.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 69 29-069-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 70 29-070-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I believe so. And I would add I spoke to the Province of Ontario as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 71 29-071-07

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Actually, that I -- I'm not going to accept that. I know that he is interacting with Minister Blair, and I presume at this stage that Brenda Lucki is having a role in these interactions. So I'm in no way certain that he is directly interacting with the OPS. I know that he's interacting with the Ontario Government, I know that he's interacting with Minister Blair and Minister Lucki [sic], but it's not a fair presumption to say that I know he's got direct - --

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 71 29-071-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

With political actors, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-01

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I knew he was having those relationships. But you had mentioned the OPS ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-04

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- and that's quite different.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-07

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It's definitely an Operational decision. Remember, I'm interacting here as a colleague and Minister of Justice around the Cabinet table, I'm not interacting as Attorney General. Minister Mendicino and I have a close relationship, there's some banter here, there's some humour here. That's a reference to my favourite Christmas movie, the "quick, quick, quick" part, and so I think we could take the temperature down here. We, as the Government, according to the Ipperwash Report, can identify our priorities to police services, that's the role that a Minister of Public Safety has, in this case, possibly also the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, but we can't make Operational decisions, we know that. And remember, I'm not the one interacting with the police, and I'm assuming that Minister Mendicino is working with Cabinet colleagues on a level of principle.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 72 29-072-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

He's the Attorney General for Ontario.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 73 29-073-25

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

This is also a different conversation with a counterpart in Ontario ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 74 29-074-15

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- with whom I have a very productive working relationship, but this is not the banter that one has between friends with the same sense of humour.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 74 29-074-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In all cases. I mean, I think I'm probably, in most contexts, probably closer to Minister Blair in the answer that I'm going to give, although there will be some contexts where I might move towards a more flexible answer. In all cases, the Operational decisions will be made by the police of jurisdiction. In all cases. What I was referring to in the Ipperwash Report, and what the Ipperwash Report was referring to is legitimate for Government to say "We have an important public security situation here, we need to have something done about it." And then it ends there; right? And then it's up to the police of jurisdiction to take care of it. The scenario that you have given me is forcing me to choose or to articulate my priority as, in this case, a member of the Federal Government, to say "We need something done in X place or Y place", and I think the inference in your question is that there is a -- there may be a different priority elsewhere.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 76 29-076-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It's always going to be, first of all, the Solicitor General of Ontario in the jurisdiction that we're talking about right now who is going to articulate that priority. And then, again, the operational decisions were going to be made by the police. So we're an input into that decision-making process in the province. So I'm probably closer to Minister Blair on that, although there will be, I believe, situations that -- where we may have to say as a federal government, "Look, something is quite urgently happening here. We urge you to do something." But in all cases, it depends on the police of jurisdiction to make operational decisions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 77 29-077-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I guess what I would say is I would commend everyone to read the Ipperwash report, quite frankly, because it's nuanced and tries to deal with the variety of these kinds of situations.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 78 29-078-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, it's -- I'll be honest with you, it's hard for me to answer hypothetical questions. I am suggesting to my colleagues that we make our priorities known to the Solicitor General of Ontario in a situation where a number of people felt Ottawa was being neglected with respect to the occupation that was happening on Parliament Hill. I'd rather, to be honest, as a prudent Attorney General, I would rather avoid giving public legal opinions on hypothetical situations. But the nuance is there in the report. It isn't, I believe, a black or white answer, other than to say that operational decisions will always be made by the police of jurisdiction. The identification of priorities is a much more complex matter.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 78 29-078-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Counsel, do you mind if I see them? This is going to be ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 79 29-079-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Not at all. Let's ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- very difficult for me to ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 79 29-079-20

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I can see the first point. I'll wait and ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-21

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- on the second but -- -

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let's see ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- certainly ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 80 29-080-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That's right, and I'm giving my Chief of Staff a heads up that this is what I will be asking at a meeting, a Cabinet meeting later. So I'm asking him to send out appropriate feelers to people who can answer this question to -- so that we can have the most up-to-date information at a meeting that I'm going to participate in.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 81 29-081-09

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It's more that I want the people at the IRG to be able to answer those questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 81 29-081-20

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It bears repeating that this is a rapidly evolving situation with imperfect information. It's an unprecedented situation, and we are all doing our best to try to get the information that we need to make appropriate decisions under the circumstances. And I think this is what I'm doing. I work closely with my Chief of Staff in that regard and other members of my team and other members around the Cabinet table in order to do that.

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

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Is this a good time to take the morning break or ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

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

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. So we'll take 15 minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-13

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La commission est levée pour 15 minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-17

Upon recessing at 11:36 a.m.

Upon resuming at 11:50 a.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

Order. À l'ordre. The Commission is reconvened. La commission reprend.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 82 29-082-21

MINISTER DAVID LAMETTI, Resumed

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. GORDON CAMERON(cont’d)

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

To be honest, it’s vague, but you are reminding me.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 83 29-083-26

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s fair. I remember Mr. Borovoy’s work. Although, I must admit, I was following the Charter and the creation of the Charter more closely than I was following this.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 84 29-084-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I can only base -- I’ll take your word. I can only base what I see in the Act and the rules of thumb that we see from people from CSIS who have testified. So I think that’s right.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s right. The potential power was great, and therefore seemed to be very serious.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-09

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s fair.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 85 29-085-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct. It’s an incorporation by reference.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 86 29-086-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s right, but it is only the starting point.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 87 29-087-04

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, do you mind if I just interject one minute? What Parliament did not do with the creation of the Emergencies Act was delegate the decision making by CSIS. So there’s an incorporation by reference to the standard that’s contained, or the definition that’s contained in the CSIS Act. So there’s a conveyance of the magnitude, if you will, or the seriousness of the standard or the threshold, but they did not delegate the decision making, and again, I’m not -- I’m speaking here as a jurist. I’m not speaking in any way as the Attorney General giving advice to the Government. I’m just giving my ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 87 29-087-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Fully understood.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah. This is ---

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

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And we appreciate ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

So this is -- I’m just drawing my own inferences here. But there is -- there’s a magnitude or a seriousness conveyed in that. But the decision-making power is always in the hands of Cabinet, in the Governor-in-Council in the Emergencies Act, as well as other framing provisions that need to happen for the invocation of a national emergency. So there is a definition that is incorporated by reference. It’s moved into the Emergencies Act and the decision-making power remains with Cabinet. So there’s also a purpose change. What CSIS is doing is determining whether a threshold is met for the purposes of further investigations, generally clandestine, according to CSIS protocols, with warrants, et cetera, they’re all -- you’ve heard testimony already from the CSIS Director, as well as Madam Tessier, about the rules of thumb that CSIS uses for proceeding in their analysis under section 2. That isn’t incorporated in here because the decision maker is different. And the inputs can be much wider - - have to much wider when you’re a member of Cabinet, when you’re making a decision Governor-in-Council. There are other inputs that can go into the meeting of that definitional standard that CSIS wouldn’t normally use. And so that’s very, very important to underline, that it is -- while it is the same standard of the same magnitude, the interpretation of that standard is being done according to a wider set of criteria by a very different set of people with a different goal in mind, and that goal is given by the Emergencies Act and not the CSIS Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 87 29-087-25

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I try not to make them, but go right ahead.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Even if it -- delegation is one end of the extreme, but even if -- even using the same standard, or purporting that it be the same standard that is contained, the actual substantive standard that's contained in the CSIS Act is effectively doing the same thing.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No, not exactly, because there's been evolution of the Act. You've heard from CSIS, how they interpret that provision, and it's markedly different in terms of the goals that CSIS has in order to investigate Canadians and others on Canadian soil. And so there's a very serious, and you pointed it out yourself, sir, in the preparatory statements that you made about the CSIS Act and citing Mr. Borovoy. There's a very serious matter going on here when we are allowing a Canadian agency to investigate Canadians on Canadian soil. It is -- and the rules of thumb that they have developed since that time are very, very different, I think, I would suggest, than the kind of decision that we had to make under the Emergencies Act. And I would suggest that proper rules of statutory interpretation gets me to this conclusion.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 89 29-089-28

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

The threshold, as applied, as you've seen in testimony before this Commission, has evolved. The rules of thumb for interpreting that have evolved. The purpose of that Act is very different. So while the words were incorporated ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 90 29-090-25

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- and I would -- I have put to you the magnitude of importance was conveyed, and the kind of threat was conveyed, given a different decisionmaker, given a broader set of inputs, the very same words will have, not a wider meaning, but can be -- will have a wider area of interpretation, according to the very structure of the Emergencies Act. And I think that is the interpretation that I would put to you as the one that best bears out in practice and is correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 91 29-091-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It is true that there is more in that section 58.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 94 29-094-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Now, you're pushing me to an area where this may or may not have been covered by a legal opinion or -- but you're pushing me to a point where I am going to rely on solicitor/client privilege.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 94 29-094-18

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I'll leave the argument to be made by our lawyers.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, I'm actually not comfortable. I'm not sure I accept the premise of your organisation of this section 58 itself. I'm not sure -- I don't believe you've had experience drafting one, I think this was the first time. So I think what is important is what is in section 58, which are the facts upon which the Governor-in- Council based its decision. And for the rest, the legal argument and legal interpretation, I will leave that to my lawyers and rely on solicitor/client privilege.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 95 29-095-10

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think you’re -- I think the section 58 text speaks for itself, that we were -- as the law requires, we put out the reasons for which we arrived at the conclusions we arrived at, and the conclusions are there. As for the process that got us to those conclusions, I’m going to leave that to the final argument of my lawyers. That pushes me into an area where I can’t really answer the question without infringing on solicitor/client privilege. So you’re putting me in an awkward position, ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 96 29-096-02

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- and I’m going to -- I’m going to have to rely on that privilege.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 96 29-096-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In addition to this proceeding, there are other legal proceedings, upon judicial review, for example. So it would be derelict of my duties as Attorney General to pronounce on that here. I’m going to let lawyers in each particular context, whether it be here or whether it be in those other proceedings, I’m going to let them do that, as they should.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 96 29-096-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

The Commission will find the factual basis for it in the section 58 report.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-22

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

The factual basis will be in the section 58 report, and that is outlined there.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 97 29-097-25

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. So thank you. We can now go to the next phase, the cross- examinations. First are the convoy organizers, please. (SHORT PAUSE)

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-03

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRENDAN MILLER

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Good to meet you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-14

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And in part the common law, so the Department of Justice Act in particular with respect to the formal roles.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 98 29-098-24

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s fair. There are nuances in terms of how that plays out, but, yes, that’s fair.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 99 29-099-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I’m not particularly aware of that. Normally the Parliamentary privilege is dealt with by others, such as the Clerk, and that’s an ongoing discussion. So I’m not aware of the particulars of that ruling.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 100 29-100-04

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

A reasonably good one, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 100 29-100-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Again, reasonably good understanding.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-04

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I will not confirm or ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I will neither confirm nor deny that. I spoke giving an opinion based on the text of the Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-24

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That is, as I was careful to point out at the time, that that was neither a waiver nor a confirmation of any advice that was given based on that text and based on the facts that were given. I took great care to not link the two, and I have no comment on what Ms. Thomas said. I will leave that to our lawyers to discuss in final argument.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 101 29-101-28

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I reviewed documents, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 102 29-102-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

But once again, that’s a question that’s asking me to effectively divulge legal arguments. I remind my learned that it is very odd to put a lawyer on the stand. I’m really here as ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-07

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I know.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- a cabinet minister in order to speak to facts.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-12

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

I know.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And it is, to some extent, an obligation for me to try to answer questions as best I can, but ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-15

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- you’re asking me to answer questions as a lawyer and it is -- it would be remarkable to put a lawyer up on the stand in the middle of a ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-19

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Again, I’m going to rely on solicitor-client privilege.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 103 29-103-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s not true. Solicitor-client privilege is not mine to waive. It is up to the Governor-in-Council to waive.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-05

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, but you advise on that?

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I could advise on that, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-10

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right, okay.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I would remind counsel that this is a -- this is a right that the Supreme Court of Canada has set as a quasi-constitutional right. It is fundamental for good governance, as it is fundamental for any relationship between a solicitor and a client, that the solicitor be able to give full and frank legal advice, including all its warts, to a client. In my case, the client is the Government of Canada and my cabinet colleagues, and the Department of Justice needs to be able to tell truth to power. In order to do that, I have to rely -- I have a responsibility to rely on solicitor-client privilege, and the Supreme Court has effectively held that this is one of the highest forms.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 104 29-104-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Again, I am -- you’re asking me to give legal advice ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-04

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Well, I’m asking ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- or advice that I might have given to the Governor-in-Council.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-07

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I am -- I am -- in this case, I can’t distinguish because of the dates and the context that you’ve given me. You’re asking me to apply facts to law and I can’t do that without breaching solicitor-client privilege. I’m not sure if you’ve understood point.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 105 29-105-14

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

I’m not sure. I mean he’s not a -- he’s there as Attorney General as a member of cabinet. That’s the problem, I think ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-05

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- that we’re running into.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-09

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And if you were to ask me the factors that were going on, the events that were going on across Canada that I deemed to be important as a member of that cabinet, I would answer the question, but you’re asking me to interpret facts through the law, which is the kind of advice an attorney would give, and I won’t do that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Again, I am -- you’re asking me a hypothetical question. I would -- in probably virtually all cases advise that it shouldn’t be waived simply because it is such an important fundamental principle.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 106 29-106-28

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I only know of one example.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-06

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay. Now, just one last -- -

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

You’re going to have to wrap up.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-10

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Would you read me the provision of the Act or show me the provision of the Act, please?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-16

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

It’s ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I get 38 and 29 mixed up.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-20

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I really would like to see the text.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 107 29-107-27

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Okay.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Again, there are a number of ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-02

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Right.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- numerous texts that I read on a day-to-day basis and I would like to see the text.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Cabinet confidence is wider than simply what is discussed at cabinet and the recorded version of those but, with that caveat, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That -- that’s -- again, that’s a legal opinion you’re asking me to give on a controversial point.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-20

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Next, I’ll call on the City of Ottawa, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 108 29-108-26

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. That’s good. We have trading system that has been initiated, so ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-04

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

And it’s encouraged ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-07

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- so that those who feel they have a good pitch will have a couple more throws at you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-09

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

So that’s what’s happened -- happening, just so you know. Next is the Ottawa Coalition.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 109 29-109-12

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CHRISTINE JOHNSON

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, in addition to changing where I was living in Ottawa as well. I won’t say where in either case, but I had to change where I lived, too, for the time I was up here.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 110 29-110-02

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, I felt personally threatened. When you walk -- when you walked through the convoy and saw some of the banners, saw the prime minister hanging off the end of a rope, for example, violent -- violent images, and you saw some of the rhetoric that was coming out from the protesters, they -- sorry, I shouldn’t say protestors because it wasn’t much of a protest -- the occupiers, and when you saw what the occupiers were doing to my staff and the experiences that they were coming in with, at one point I said, “I’m going to Montreal. We’re going virtual,” because I didn’t want to put my staff at risk to have to come into work. All of that made me feel threatened. It only takes one person to recognize me, and I’m often alone, and I would have been vulnerable.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 110 29-110-10

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yes, that’s right. I mean, a number of friends who live in the Ottawa with whom I am very close.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-02

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Absolutely true. I mean, the Rideau Centre was closed. Again, I'm not going to disclose where I live, but it's something that I see often. I saw other businesses impacted, and I saw and heard from people who were impacted whose movements changed. And I could see that, as you have said, with my own eyes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-10

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

I'm not sure I allow that type of trade as I've said before. Okay. The OPP, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-20

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Next is former Chief Sloly's counsel, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 112 29-112-28

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TOM CURRY

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-11

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

You had imperfect information?

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 113 29-113-20

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In part, yes. I mean, I also witnessed as an Ottawa resident OPS officers standing idly by while people wheeled cans of gasoline down Wellington Street.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I do have interaction with police services for reasons of personal security.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In police operations, no, but I've got friends who are police officers.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

All I was trying to do, Counsel, was to say that Chief Sloly's concerns also included a number of other things that weren’t on my purview.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 114 29-114-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I'm not criticizing Chief Sloly.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah. As I said, that was in the heat of the moment. We were all living through a difficult situation, and I'm a human being. I do have personal opinions. I will happily walk that back in the light of hindsight.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-11

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Thank you.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

But it is the frustration that I felt at the time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 115 29-115-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s absolutely right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-02

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I take that point.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-08

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

To what are you referring?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct. And as I said, it was a humorous reference to a ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 116 29-116-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I will say though, Counsel, that it was very frustrating that we were promised plans or plans were forthcoming or plans were in the offing and that didn’t seem to materialize.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-09

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Just wanted to know the existence of it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Not the details, but ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-22

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- we were getting reports from the Commissioner of the RCMP ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-24

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- about the OPS and its development of a plan.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 117 29-117-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I can't speak to that. I'm not in a position to say.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-04

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Absolutely right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-10

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, it was -- no, it was more that the priority -- the reason why I reached out was there was a perception that Ontario was not looking at or not dealing with federal counterparts ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-17

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- and that the solicitor general should be at the table with others. That was it. it wasn’t -- it had no way -- it wasn’t in any way meant to direct them, but we could identify priorities across Ontario, and there were many.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 118 29-118-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

My understanding is that as a matter of jurisdiction Wellington Street was a provincial jurisdiction.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-08

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I can't speak for Ontario on that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-13

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

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

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 119 29-119-17

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CHEYENNE ARNOLD-CUNNINGHAM

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Thank you, Counsel. Thank you for that question. It is a long question, and a complicated one. I guess the easiest way is to say yes, from the outset, that I do think that we need to move towards, and we need to move quickly towards a series of practices, procedures, and principles that make consultation with, cooperation with, even co-policing with Indigenous peoples part and parcel of what we do in every situation, including emergencies. The Emergencies Act itself didn't have a consultation requirement with Indigenous peoples, that's just a result of the day -- the years in which it was drafted, I think, and the difference sensibilities at the time. That's something I would commit to change if -- as we move forward from, we'll get the report from Commissioner Rouleau, and we will see what recommendations are in there. But I do think that we need to have a more formally incorporated consultation requirement in the Emergencies Act with respect to Indigenous peoples. We did that informally, the Minister of Crown and Indigenous Relations did reach out in this case to the heads of the three national Indigenous organisations, but it could be better done down the road, and it needs to be more sensitively tailored to different nations, regions, and Indigenous organisations as we move forward.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 120 29-120-15

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Okay. We are developing the action plan as we speak, and we're working hard with the variety of forms of Indigenous leadership across Canada to decide together how we move forward, so which laws to change according to Article 5 of UNDRIP. I suspect the Emergencies Act will be one of them. But I can also tell you that my colleague, Minister Mendicino, as the Minister of Public Safety, is working very hard with questions of reforming Indigenous policing or peacekeeping or the better policing of Indigenous nations and peoples by police officers, whether Indigenous or not Indigenous, and that will wrap into how we move forward.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 121 29-121-25

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, thank you. Next, call on the Canadian Constitution Foundation, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 122 29-122-12

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JANANI SHANMUGANATHAN

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I am, but then the CSIS Director did go on to say that he supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act in this context.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 123 29-123-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I disagree with that. I have already, with counsel in a descriptive way, again, I'm -- I should start with the initial caveat that I am not going to -- I'm going to be careful with respect to solicitor/client privilege. I'm not going to link facts to arguments in a way that can be -- that can impute the kind of legal advice I may or may not have given or may or may not have been given to me in this process. And I have to maintain that privileged argument. But I think you have heard from a series of witnesses this week, including Mr. Vigneault, including the exchange I had earlier with counsel, that the incorporation by reference of section 2 of the CSIS Act into section 16, given the different purposes of the CSIS Act, given the different goals that CSIS has with respect to why it is using a section 2 definition for one of its investigations in order to get to further inquiries, is different from the context in which it has been incorporated into the Emergencies Act, and the decision- making body is different. It is not CSIS, it is the Governor in Council. So there is wider, as you've heard from a number of different witnesses this week, there is a wider set of inputs that are more than just CSIS inputs. You've also heard from CSIS about the specific rules of thumb that they use in order to interpret section 2, which aren't necessarily imported into section 16 because it's a different decisionmaker.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 123 29-123-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And for the purposes of CSIS in the CSIS Act, yes, I'll agree with that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 124 29-124-19

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well the client is the Government of Canada. The -- and I don’t think I’m telling tales out of school when I say that in closing argument, I believe these kinds of questions will be addressed by counsel.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 125 29-125-07

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I’d prefer it smaller, so that I can see the context, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 125 29-125-25

Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)

So just want to take you to ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

This is fine. It’s fine the way it is.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 126 29-126-01

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

I think it’s appropriate to ask him what the purpose of the CSIS Act is, if that’s what you’re doing, as I understand it, and I’m not sure that that requires anything beyond his understanding. I mean, I -- if it’s a legal interpretation of what the CSIS Act means, that’s different. So what is it you’re trying to get at from him?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 127 29-127-19

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

So what I’d like to do is I would like to go through Hansard and have him confirm what the understanding was in terms of what Hansard said about why they used the CSIS Act definition and incorporate it into the Emergencies Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 127 29-127-26

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

I’m not sure he can interpret anymore than read the words, but I think that’s the best you can get from him.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-03

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

The point that I was going to make, Commissioner Rouleau, was in the very next paragraph, which was the CSIS definition is embedded in the Emergencies Act and it must be read in conjunction. And that changes the scope, and the decision maker has changed, and that’s all, really, I’m comfortable saying.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-07

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Sure, go ahead.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-19

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Let’s see where it goes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 128 29-128-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s certainly your point of view.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 129 29-129-27

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

I’m afraid you’re also out of time. So you’re going to have to wrap up. And I think you’ve probably gone about as far as you can with interpreting Hansard.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-12

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. thank you. Unfortunately, you’re going to have to come back after lunch, if that’s not a problem, because I think we have over a half hour of material left.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-18

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s fine. Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-22

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. So we’ll adjourn and take the lunch break for one hour, come back at 2:00 o’clock.

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

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is in recess until 2:00 o’clock. La Commission est levée jusqu'à 14h.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 130 29-130-26

Upon recessing at 1:00 p.m.

Upon resuming at 2:05 p.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is reconvened. La commission reprend.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 131 29-131-03

MINISTER DAVID LAMETTI, Resumed

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Je m'excuse pour la retard. I apologize for the slight delay. I'm sure anticipation for a continued, exciting examination. So the next, I believe, is the JCCF, Democracy Fund.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 131 29-131-06

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ALAN HONNER

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Can I see the top of the document, please, first? Okay.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 131 29-131-26

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I can confirm to you that he still is my Director of Communications.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I'm not a party to the email, so I'll take your word for it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That is correct. That's what it says.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-19

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That would be the timing of it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 132 29-132-24

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

You're completely off base.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 133 29-133-17

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. Well ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

See, the communications teams -- I mean, first of all, I'm not party to the email, but the decision-making process was tracking. The decision -- the final decision was not made until the Prime Minister did, but communications teams will prepare for the eventuality that this might happen. I have seen in my political career in the past seven year ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 133 29-133-20

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No, you asked me the question ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 133 29-133-28

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- I have seen in my political career tracking announcements. You see the word tracking?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-07

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Tracking announcements get completely pulled at various stages, including the last minute.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-11

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Thank you, sir.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

So you cannot ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-15

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I only have five minutes.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- you cannot read ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-17

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

If I could just continue with this email.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No, but you want the context of this email because ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-20

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- I would like ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-25

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- I just wanted to ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- to give you the context of it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 134 29-134-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- I disagree ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-05

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I can move on.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- strongly that this means absolutely nothing in terms of ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-07

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Thank you, sir.

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- decision making.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-10

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Is 11:05 the time, because there have been some emails that ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

As I had said, the communications teams will be preparing for the possibility that there will be announcement. They do not go with it unless it happens, and ---

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

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir, you can agree ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- but they do have to prepare -- they do have to prepare. They're doing their jobs. They do have to prepare. I'm sorry that you don't ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 135 29-135-28

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- like that answer ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-04

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

--- you cannot ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- but it is the truth.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I'm not a party to the email so ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-10

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- I'll take it in terms of what it says, but they're just planning for their job - --

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-13

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So, sir ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- quite frankly.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 136 29-136-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yes, but it's all hypothetical because if ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-07

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- because I have seen -- and you can put it to me and I'll give you the answer, which is ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-10

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sure, then I put it to you ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- they're not final until it's final. I have seen these announcements pulled five seconds before it's supposed to happen. They are preparing in order that it might happen. That is their job. That's why I pay David Taylor. And same is true for PMO communications and everyone else.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-14

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sir, I put it to you ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That's good governance. We're preparing for the eventuality that it will happen, but it does not happen until the final decision's made.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 137 29-137-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I made remarks only after the final decision was made.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 138 29-138-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

He's not a member of Cabinet, so I'm not going to confirm or deny that. He's a colleague, he's a Caucus colleague. This was -- if you scroll up, please ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 138 29-138-27

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- this was after a Caucus call, so those are his reflections after a Caucus call. They are, I think, a good reflection in Mr. Fergus's view ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-04

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- of what this was. And I think this confirms, quite frankly, that a decision had -- a final decision had not been taken even though ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-08

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- even though, I must admit, that I was now at the point by February 13th where I thought the Emergencies Act should be invoked.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-13

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It is -- I prepared my colleagues from the beginning for the possibility that this would happen, as a good Attorney General would do, as a good Minister of Justice would do, from my experience from the pandemic where I also prepared my colleagues, and we didn't use it. By the time we got to this last -- this third weekend, I had come to that conclusion. That's evident here. But as you can see, no decision had been taken.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 139 29-139-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It is indeed, and I -- and although we did have the votes, and although the vast majority of senators understood that they were being asked to vote on the Emergencies Act at the time at which it was invoked, there were a number that didn’t understand that. We had said from the beginning, sir, that we would not keep the Act a minute than we needed to. It’s something we said to the NDP, and it’s something that we said to senators. And I’m being completely consistent here to say that we needed to be ahead of that in terms of keeping our promise in order to -- in order to not keep the Act in place a minute longer than necessary, and that’s precisely what we did.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 140 29-140-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I reject that premise. There are other -- there are other text messages that you will see where have predicted that we had sufficient votes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-05

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, next is the CCLA, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-11

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CARA ZWIBEL

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Pleased to meet you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 141 29-141-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Very much so, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-01

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, it was a political application of the various textual rules based on facts that we had, so ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-07

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- it’s made by -- what I meant -- what I mean there is it’s made by political actors. It’s made by the Governor-in-Council.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Could I see that text, please, because I think you’re reading something in that doesn’t represent what I thought.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 142 29-142-19

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, I meant -- I meant -- I mean there, and the context now makes it clear, that it’s made by political actors, so the Governor-in-Council. It’s not made by -- it’s not made, for example, by CSIS.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 143 29-143-06

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And it’s -- and I have now clearly -- I’ve clearly stated in that what the inputs were, and I think it makes it clear. So when I say a “political” one, I mean it’s a decision made by political actors, but it’s not a -- it’s not a political decision in the sense that I think you were understanding.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 143 29-143-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Amongst other things, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 143 29-143-24

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Have the potential, yes, but of course the Emergencies Act is subject to the charter and, as you have quite rightly mentioned, part of my role is to make sure that whatever we do is charter compliant.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 144 29-144-02

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Oh, no, it’s fine. I have -- I believe I have answered to the point that I can answer with previous counsel, so ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-11

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- I’m not sure I can add anything else. If you want me to repeat myself, I will ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-15

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- but it’s your time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 145 29-145-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

This is a news release.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-12

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It isn’t meant to be comprehensive.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-14

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Right. I would put to you that it’s not misleading, although it’s ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-19

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

--- although you may have wished to have more technical detail as a lawyer, but it is not misleading in terms of its general direction.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 146 29-146-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s -- that may be true for some, but they were participating in an unlawful protest. They were participating in a protest that was trampling on the rights of other Canadians, the section 7 rights to security. They were having a negative impact on mental health. They were having a negative impact on people's mobility, both in urban areas like Ottawa but also at border crossings. As a group, they were harassing Canadians, and there were threats of violence. We saw a plot uncovered in Coutts, Alberta. There were reports of violence, reports of guns possibly present in Ottawa, and there was the tracking of potential IMVE throughout. So they were participating in that, and despite messaging to try to say, "Go home," people weren’t listening.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 147 29-147-14

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

So this was not a legal protest by any stretch of the imagination. It was quite illegal and the Emergencies Act dealt with it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-01

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, I grant you that possibility.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-16

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

They always had the option to go somewhere else to protest legally. When the blockade was cleared, people moved down the street, Wellington Street in Ottawa towards Booth and they protested on the side of the road, not impeding traffic, not impeding pedestrians, manifesting their political beliefs, waving signs. That was completely legal. Throughout all of this, those people had an option to move to protest legally, and they didn’t.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 148 29-148-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, I think that’s right. The language used, to my recollection, was generally mandatory, but nobody would have quibbled with discretion, had it been applied. Again, this is a hypothetical situation. I don't know any cases where this actually happened.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 149 29-149-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No, where discretion may have been applied.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 149 29-149-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That may be true. There was anecdotal evidence though that the measures put into place had the impact of inciting people to go home and to take their trucks home.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s right. What -- I mean, I chose language that I probably shouldn't have used in the framing of this. What I meant to say is that if you happen to live in the United States and you're supporting what's going on in Canada, then you ought to be worried that these financial measures could kick in.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 151 29-151-06

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

The other clarification I would also stand by with respect to the discretion -- and I think that was a legitimate follow-up question to which we gave a legitimate clarification.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 151 29-151-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Absolutely right. And I'm glad you asked that because it allows me to say that we took targeted, time-limited, temporary measures that focused on specific areas of the occupation that we needed to get at, the financing as well as the geographical definitions and a few other things. The measures we took were specific to the blockades, they were time limited. I believe they passed Charter muster and they were quite proportional to the task at hand, and I think in -- this is the one time I will go to hindsight -- they worked quite well and quite efficiently.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 151 29-151-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Oh, I was actually just thinking.

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

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

Thank you, Commissioner.

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, thank you. Next call on the City of Windsor.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 152 29-152-26

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER KING

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Pleased to meet you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-06

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I have seen parts of it, and I now have it in front of me.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 153 29-153-28

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I'm aware of that as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 154 29-154-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yes, and it's certainly consistent with the information that we were getting, both from Windsor and other places.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 154 29-154-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Very much so, including even after the bridge was cleared later that day and the next day. We were monitoring very closely what police reports were saying. There were reports that people were coming back or in fact when the blockades began to be cleared in Ottawa, that trucks would leave Ottawa and go to Windsor to the Ambassador Bridge. So we were monitoring all of that but it was very much alive in our concerns.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 155 29-155-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 155 29-155-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Absolutely. Absolutely. And I would add, as I stated with the previous counsel, that there was always the opportunity to conduct legal protests, but the method chosen had a deleterious effect on many, many other people.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 156 29-156-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, it undermines – it undermines the ability of people to live, to work, to function; it undermines their mental health; it undermines their sense of security. And that undermines our functioning democracy. It undermines the ability of decision-makers to make decisions, democratically elected decision-makers to make decisions. And you can agree or disagree but there is a process for disagreement and that process has served our country well since its inception. This completely undermines that. It’s the rule of the mob as opposed to the rule of law.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 156 29-156-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Right. I knew that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 157 29-157-05

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I would add that nobody has a monopoly on irony.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 157 29-157-07

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Thank you. I agree with every word that Chief Justice Morawetz has written here. Rights are not absolute and one’s own individual rights go as far as they do not detrimentally effect the rights of others, it’s always a balance. With respect to peaceful protests, there’s always going to be a bit of inconvenience for a short period of time, but when you lock in and you block people from living and working and sleeping at night because you’re honking your horns or can’t get your children to school or to the hospital because you’ve impeded traffic, or you’ve blocked a bridge in Windsor that is vital for the economy of not just south western Ontario, but the whole country, and the impact that that has on families and on mental health and stress that it puts on people, all of that is so far beyond the legitimate exercise of free speech and freedom of expression, particularly when there’s always an option to do it legally in a time and place and space that doesn’t have that deleterious impact on other people.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 157 29-157-25

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Thank you, those are my questions.

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, next the Windsor Police Service, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 158 29-158-18

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. HEATHER PATERSON

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I can indeed. Good afternoon.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-02

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yes, in terms of operations, but there are larger decisions where at the very least, according to what was written in the Ipperwash Report, governments can make their priorities known in certain contracts, particularly these kinds of emergency context.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yes, indeed. Although as I’ve pointed out it is legitimate for the Government to ask that there be a plan in existence.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 159 29-159-16

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s right. And a I had said, even conversations later on the 14th indicated that we were still worried that continued occupations might be reasserted of the Ambassador Bridge.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-04

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-15

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

And you’re not ---

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I was receiving indirectly the news that an operation would happen but no detail provided to me directly.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It was information we received around the Cabinet table, often through the RCMP Commissioner or I believe it’s also possible through the National Security Intelligence Apparatus. But I’m pretty sure it was mainly Commissioner Lucki.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 160 29-160-28

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, it was based on a report that I would have gotten from Minister Mendicino saying that although the bridge had been cleared, traffic hadn’t been -- it wasn’t yet open to traffic at the time I was texting.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 161 29-161-18

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Okay, thank you. Those are my questions.

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. Next I’ll call on the Government of Saskatchewan, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 161 29-161-24

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MITCH McADAM

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In part. I was also referring to inconsistency. For example, applying insurance measures across the country. That’s one o the reasons why we invoked the Emergencies Act in order to get to that particular solution.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 162 29-162-15

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, certainly a number of people felt in the public space that ticketing wasn’t happening, for example, when it could have been happening. Rigs could have been ticketed as an example. So yes, that’s possible.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 162 29-162-24

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, it was certainly something that I took into account.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Certainly possible.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Not at all. What we’re doing is we’re assessing facts on the ground in order to determine whether there is a national emergency and whether, according to the Emergencies Act provincial laws are adequate to the task. That includes whether there are gaps in provincial laws or whether there is a necessary -- or whether there is a non-application of laws. I mean, I could give you examples but it’s your time. So it’s really just an assessment of the adequacy of the current state of laws both in terms of their use or their non-use as a way of determining whether we’ve met the threshold for the Emergencies Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 163 29-163-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Oh yes, they are. And I'm not being judgmental about the non-use. I’m just saying that’s a factor. It’s a fact on the ground. I’m not being judgmental about the non-use at all.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 164 29-164-17

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yes, that’s true. But we had a situation, for example -- I saw with my own eyes the licence plates of the rigs that were sitting on Wellington Street in Ottawa. And they came from across the country. And in order for a number of the financial measures that we put into place to work, we needed national application. And although a number of those measures fell within provincial jurisdiction, I think it was quite a reasonable observation on our part to have come to the conclusion that not every province would have put these measures into place in order for us to implement these kinds of financial measures. So again, it’s not a -- it’s a question of efficacy and using -- creating a useful tool that will fill a gap. It’s not a judgement on the operational plans of any province.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 164 29-164-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 165 29-165-18

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Oh absolutely. But we’re talking about an emergency here, a temporary limited measure with very specific purposes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 165 29-165-24

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

And my short answer is No, I don’t agree that -- with the way you’ve characterized it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-11

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I would suggest you read the Emergencies Act which says to examine the laws that exist and fill in gaps in that matter. And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-15

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s fair. But it’s not something one does lightly.

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

P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)

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

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. And good luck with the fire.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 166 29-166-27

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

You need to replace the portrait of the Sovereign as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-04

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Next is the Government of Canada, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-07

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Well, I have to ask questions and maybe a re-examination. So we’re going to have to figure it out. But one step at a time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 167 29-167-13

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANDREA GONSALVES

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No. But this was quite extraordinary. We’d already seen a weekend of a blockade which wasn’t going anywhere soon. So this was -- this is just prudence on my part.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 168 29-168-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think towards -- as we moved into the -- the sense I got as we moved into the sort of 11th, 12th, 13th, of February it began to be serious. Certainly, for me, it was moving into that weekend that it became a serious possibility for me.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 168 29-168-12

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No. This exchange is meant to be a joke between two friends. CAF if necessary. The CAF is always the last resort under the National Defence Act, the very last resort, even after the Emergencies Act. So, in a sense, the Emergencies Act is the second-last resort. And I think it's fair, particularly as we moved along, that the CAF was not an option.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 169 29-169-03

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

No, it's actually between my Chief of Staff and Mr. Antoine. So I didn't write this text. But with my team, I was tracking the numbers, so with my Chief of Staff and my Director of Parliamentary Affairs.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 169 29-169-22

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I believe he is the Chief of Staff to the Government leader in the Senate.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 169 29-169-28

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)

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Emergency was over.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-18

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Something to that gist, yeah.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-21

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Very true. We said from the beginning, when the emergency -- was objectively over. There we are. Pretty close. Notwithstanding the senate process. So we said from the beginning, we wouldn't leave it in place a minute longer than we had to. That's exactly what we did. We promised, as I said, the NDP that. We promised Canadians that and that's how we react.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 170 29-170-26

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 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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I note another person was insulting me in Italian, which is my mother tongue.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 172 29-172-13

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah, sadly, I did.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I believe they were. My team, both my constituency team, this was my constituency, and my Ministerial teams to routinely report any threats I receive.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 173 29-173-08

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Not to that degree. I have had threats. I have had threats online. My family has had threats from time to time and I have reported them from time to time. Often, I think from an anecdotal perspective, it's -- they're often a product of mental illness and that's a problem we need to fight. But there really was a market increase in the virulence and the threats, like, threat -- the threats to kill me, I think, are -- and the manner in which people would like to kill me have been, I think, they've accelerated immensely.

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

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Very much so. In fact, at the beginning of the occupation, a number of us living fulltime or parttime in the Ottawa/Gatineau areas were worried that our addresses were going to be published online.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 174 29-174-26

Andrea Gonsalves, Counsel (GC)

Thank you, those are my questions.

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. Okay, any re- examination?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-05

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, well, somebody will signal when that time comes, I take it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-09

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Go ahead.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 175 29-175-12

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. GORDON CAMERON

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I read the transcript of it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 176 29-176-05

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

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

In addition to the fact you’re asking me to comment on a conversation which I was not part of.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 177 29-177-19

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, well, maybe you can go -- go and vote, then, if -- and vote wisely. So ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 178 29-178-25

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I’ll take that, thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 178 29-178-27

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

I will adjourn until, I guess, what -- about 10 minutes?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-01

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is in recess for 10 minutes. La Commission est levée pour dix minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-03

Upon recessing at 3:12 p.m.

Upon resuming at 3:36 p.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is reconvened. La Commission reprend.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-07

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, I understand it’s now my turn? Okay. I don’t have many questions. I apologize for making you bounce back and forth. I just want to start with one easy one, which is the -- in one of the cross-examinations, you talked about the insurance and the need to make it national. And I take it you would agree that by the exercise you went through, you’re overriding a provincial right, if you like, to control insurance, at least in that limited respect?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-09

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

That’s correct, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-17

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

So it’s an exercise -- when we look at it, it’s not just a -- sort of a power of the federal government that’s exercised within its discretion. It becomes, in a way, a constitutional exercise that goes into another area of constitutional jurisdiction, and that may have some impact on how this has to be looked at; would that be fair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-18

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that’s fair. In response, I guess I would say that it is an emergency, that this an extraordinary set of powers which requires an extraordinary set of steps both before and after.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-24

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Yeah, I’m more thinking in terms of the review test ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 179 29-179-28

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- to give you a bit of a hint at what it was. And, as a spoiler, I don’t think Madam Drouin agreed with you, but that’s -- that’s okay, I gather. The second I wanted to just raise quickly, which is -- was also raised, is the role of injunctions. And, as I understand it -- I may be wrong -- you’re not a big fan the injunctions being taken by the government?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 180 29-180-03

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Well, I -- it is -- I think that’s generally fair in the sense that I’ve always felt that governments had other -- had other tools at their disposal. That being said, I did join, as Attorney General, the injunction in the City of Ottawa in order to give complete coverage -- territorial coverage to the citizens seeking injunctive -- the citizens groups seeking injunctive relief because some of that would have been federal land, so I wanted to make sure that they had complete coverage. I guess it’s an old private lawyer’s bias that I see injunctions as a private law remedy for citizens to use in the courts. It is a public-law setting, and I understand that, but it is a remedy that citizens can use, and I think government has other tools.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 180 29-180-10

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

And I appreciate that, and ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 180 29-180-23

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

We did talk about it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 180 29-180-25

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

And there is also an issue about enforceability and so on. But I guess one of the areas that has come up in the course of these hearings is that law enforcement and -- sometimes has issues in terms of clarity, and an injunction gives them clarity as to what's legal and what is not. And do you see a role in this type of a protest for injunctions to give police a clear line when it goes from protest to, as you've described it, an occupation?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 180 29-180-26

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Fair point. It worked, I suppose, or had a positive role in Windsor. The question of who seeks an injunction, again it's not necessarily in the toolkit of the Federal Government if it's not on land that falls within federal jurisdiction or if the police of jurisdiction doesn't fall within federal authority, but it is -- it's definitely there as an option.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 181 29-181-06

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. And I'm going to go back to the decision to -- or what we call the church and state distinction and Ipperwash. And I guess one of the things that may or may not be an issue in what we're doing is understanding how Ipperwash would extend to the types of situations that you and your government were faced with. And to put it in a, maybe in an unreasonable way, but as I understand it, the RCMP, the decision to deploy RCMP officers to do provincial -- to support the province would not be something that is -- the province has a right to call on.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 181 29-181-13

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It depends on the nature of their agreement with the Federal Government and the RCMP. Some provinces have contractual policing and don't.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 181 29-181-23

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

But yes, it would be something that they would request of the government or the RCMP, the Federal Government.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 181 29-181-27

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Yeah. And I guess what I'm wondering is does that -- is that something that should be reviewed or should be structured in the sense that what is the role of different police and how are they dispatched? In other words, is that purely a decision, and I don't know, by your Commissioner to decide to support, for example, the Windsor Police, where there's no agreement and it would be deploying resources and money?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 182 29-182-02

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think the question is probably best asked to Minister Mendicino in the sense that I believe there are agreements in place for the RCMP to move its effective resources around, and I know that's true in provinces where they have contractual policing arrangements. The relationship in Ontario, or Quebec for that matter, where you have multiple levels of policing, including provincial police forces I think would be different, but I can't say I know the answer to that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 182 29-182-10

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Yeah, because Minister Mendicino did speak about the arrangements, and he did say the political level he is involved ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 182 29-182-19

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- in a decision to deploy from one province to the other, as I understand it, a joint decision ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 182 29-182-23

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- by the province and the government?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 182 29-182-27

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I would take his word for it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 183 29-183-01

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

But I neglected to ask him about the -- how it would work in Ontario and whether there is any advantage in that being looked into.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 183 29-183-03

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

It's a question that we can answer for you, sir. I can't answer the question offhand.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 183 29-183-06

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. And just on one final, and I may get into trouble here, so -- but it's -- your counsel can weigh in if need be. But I'm just trying to understand, the job that the Commission is to do is to look at the decision by Cabinet, and as was mentioned by Commission Counsel, there's an issue of the reasonableness of it. And I'm having a little trouble, and I don't know if you can help me, how we assess reasonableness when we don't know what they were acting on. And do we just presume they were acting in good faith without knowing the basis or structure within which they had made that decision? And you know of what I speak.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 183 29-183-08

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Yeah. I mean, I think we have done our best to provide all the information we can. The section 58 report effectively gives you the conclusions that we got to.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 183 29-183-20

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

The -- and the various factors identified in there, facts on the ground, as well as the testimony that you've received from my colleagues, but also including me and other officials, gives you a picture of the actual events that were causing us to move in the direction that we did. You've had some, through testimony, some indication of what the views of the legal standards were, and I'm hoping that our lawyers will make the legal argument to you in their final submissions about the legal basis for what we did, I would expect them to do that, and I'm hoping that that will give you a complete picture. I -- I've said this a number of times, but I do think we, in an unprecedented circumstance, made a reasonable series of decisions. We went through the various possibilities throughout. That's not something we touched in testimony today, but I know my colleagues have, looking at alternatives and trying to figure out what we could do as the Federal Government in these circumstances. And I do hope we have given the picture. It's awkward for me, as Attorney General, to be here as Attorney General. It would have been easier just to come as the Minister of Justice, but that is what it is, and it's awkward to have the legal arguments at the end I suppose.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 183 29-183-25

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Yeah. I guess, and I don't mean it in any sort of derogatory or negative way, but the final arguments as to the law are obviously important as to whether or not what was done was -- met the requirements of the law, I have no trouble with that because that's something that has to be decided. But what I don't know, and I'm not saying we necessarily need to know, is what was the belief of those who made the decision as to what the law was? And I guess the answer is we just assume they acted in good faith in application of whatever they were told. Is that sort of what you're saying?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 184 29-184-21

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

I think that's fair.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-03

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Because I think you understand what I am saying, and I'm just trying to figure how I get from A to B because I'm close to starting to do that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-04

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you very much, and I'm sorry you had to bounce in and out ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-08

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- but it's good of you to come.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-12

David Lametti, Minister (GC-FIN)

Merci. Bonne chance.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-14

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Merci, beaucoup, et bonne chance à vous. So we'll -- I am not sure how it's going to work, but someone will tell me when someone is available? So do we start now? Okay. Well, we'll take five minutes to sort it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-15

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is in recess for 5 minutes. La Commission est levée pour 5 minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-21

Upon recessing at 3:48 p.m.

Upon recessing at 3:54 p.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

Order. À l'ordre. The Commission has reconvened. La Commission reprend.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-25

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Take your time. D’accord. Alors, on y va? D’accord.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 185 29-185-27

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

The Registrar (POEC)

Minister Anand, for the record please state your full name and spell it out.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 186 29-186-06

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

My name is Indira Anita Anand, I-N-D-I-R-A A-N-I-T-A A-N-A-N-D.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 186 29-186-08

MINISTER ANITA ANAND, Sworn

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. GORDON CAMERON

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

It is. Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 187 29-187-05

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Well, I’d like to be a little bit more specific than that in section ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 188 29-188-08

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

And Section 4 of the National Defence specifies that the Minister of National Defence has management and direction of the Canadian Armed Forces. I work very closely with a senior team and in particular the Chief of Defence staff who under section 18 of the National Defence Act has control and administration of the Canadian Armed Forces. I also work closely with my Deputy Minister who under section 7 is appointed and the Deputy Minister has jurisdiction over running the Department of National Defence, Human Resources in that Department, as well as advising the Minister on decisions. And that is the –- I would say the “Triumvirate” within which we work and the framework for the decision-making in the Department of National Defence, with of course me as Minister at the Apex.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 188 29-188-12

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I certainly can. I will say that that process is not run out of the Department of National Defence although we sometimes are the subject matter of a request for assistance that may come to Minister Blair who is the Minister responsible for the RFA process and under section 4(h) of the Emergency Management Act has the jurisdiction to continue to address request for assistance. And so in terms of the Department of National Defence, as I said, sometimes the Canadian Armed Forces and the resources of the Forces are the subject matter of requests for assistance. So for example, in hurricanes and floods, during Covid, for example the Canadian Armed Forces have been the subject of request for assistance from the provinces and we do our very best to respond in whatever way we can.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 189 29-189-05

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Could you clarify the question? Sorry.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 189 29-189-26

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Under section 273.6 of the National Defence Act the Minister of National Defence can authorize any duty involving public service. And under (2) of that Act it is in the case of law enforcement, only if it is in the national interest to do so and only if all other means have been exhausted. That is one particular way in which I, as Minister, can authorize the use of the Armed Forces and the other way is the aid to civil power. I will say, it’s very, very important to clarify that under 273 of the National Defence Act the Canadian Armed Forces are the force of last resort. What that means is, that the matter cannot be effectively dealt with other than the assistance of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is almost verbatim from the Act. And I take that very seriously. It was the main framework in which I operated as Minister, not only during the months of February and March of 2022, but since the inception of my role as Minister. It’s a very important section and we have to remember its import in all circumstances.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 190 29-190-06

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Most definitely. First of all we have to remember that this is a regular process, that receiving requests for assistance at the Federal Government occurs quite often and where the request concerns the Canadian Armed Forces, Minister Blair will typically have a conversation with me. I will also task my officials with questions relating to whether we can fulfill the request for assistance, understanding at all times that my goal is to ensure that we can be as helpful as possible to the entity or the person or the Governmental body requesting assistance for the purposes of serving the Canadian public.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 191 29-191-05

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

In each of those circumstances, my officials asked me whether I agreed with providing assistance of the forms you mentioned, the parking lot, firstly, the food rations, secondly, and I, of course, asked questions as to our ability, our resources to provide that assistance. And once I was satisfied that the resources were there for us, for example, a parking lot that was not otherwise being used and of the other example being food rations, over 1,000 packages of rations being available to the Parliamentary Protective Service, those were items that we had on hand and we could easily provide them. I want to make two further points, the first being that that triumvirate that I outlined at the beginning relating to the decision-making structure in the Department of National Defence is extremely important. Decisions that I make are based on information and advice that I receive from my officials and in particular, the Chief of Defence staff and my deputy minister. So in each of the cases that you are highlighting, I received and considered their advice before making the final decision on the RFA that came to me. Furthermore, I will say that the RFA process is one that works very well. It is robust in the sense that it is a vehicle for the federal government to offer assistance. And as I said, most recently, during Hurricane Fiona, it was the vehicle through which we at the Canadian Armed Forces were able to deliver assistance to the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 191 29-191-27

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

It did follow the same process. As I mentioned, Minister Blair will initially ask me about CAF resources, as he did in the case of the Alberta request for assistance. When I received an inquiry from Minister Blair relating to the use of CAF resources in Alberta, and in particular, the tow trucks, I then asked my officials, and particularly the chief of defence staff, to provide me with information relating to the number of trucks, the utility or usability of those trucks, and the consequences of providing that assistance. And he did provide me with his advice, and it was that advice upon which I made a preliminary decision about whether we could accede to what I heard from Minister Blair was a request.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 193 29-193-12

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

First of all, I’ll expand on the answer to that specific question about suitability because the response that I received from my team was broader. It didn’t only relate to suitability. So first and foremost, the number of trucks that the Canadian Armed Forces had available to assist were very few in number. Second of all, is the suitability point, that being that these vehicles were not suitable for the task at hand. These vehicles are typically used for very very large scale purposes. For example, pulling a tank out of the ditch, is the type of mission that we would typically use those vehicles for. And thirdly, because they are so large and so heavy, thee would be likely considerable damage to any roads on which they travelled. And then finally, using these vehicles, even if we got past the first three points that I just mentioned, would likely cause some escalation because the Canadian Armed Forces would be therefore involved in a personnel capacity and we have not discussed this yet, but I did have concerns about deploying the Canadian Armed Forces as did my chief of defence staff, as did my deputy minister for escalatory reasons.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 194 29-194-12

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

And so for all of those four reasons, that decision relating to the suitability of acceding to the request from Alberta did not go the same way as the first two requests for assistance.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 195 29-195-08

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I’d like to take a step back to give some more context to why I made the point about potential escalation which I sense is your -- the gist of your question. Any Minister of National Defence in a democracy would be loath to deploy the Canadian Armed Forces except in the most dire of circumstances. Our country’s soldiers are not police officers. They are not trained in crowd control. They are not trained in protest management. They are not law enforcement. And that reality was one that the chief of defence staff and my deputy minister and I carried with us throughout this time. Furthermore, the National Defence Act itself specifically states that the Canadian Armed Forces are the force of last resort. And I've already taken you through the legal analysis there. But if you put those two points together, we need -- and we need to make sure that the Canadian Armed Forces are not deployed in cases where we are addressing protest management or anything related to that, given the potential for escalation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 195 29-195-25

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I like to look at it in terms of what they are trained to do. They are trained to protect our country. they are trained to ensure the sovereignty and the security of our country. They are trained for combat. And that is why I make the point that any Minister of National Defence would be loathe to deploy the military, except in the most dire of circumstances, especially in a case like this.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 197 29-197-03

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

My concern is escalation, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 197 29-197-18

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

And a potential heightened threat to protestors, Canadians. And so my view across the board was while we need to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces are understood to be the force of last resort, we must also, at the Department of National Defence, do what we can to support the Government of Canada in its response to the protests. And so providing the parking lot, the food rations, offering to transport RCMP officers, those were the types of supports that we were able to offer. In other words, it wasn’t simply the case that we said we are the force of last resort and therefore we can do nothing. It was more how can we be helpful within the confines of the legal parameters that define our role in the National Defence Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 197 29-197-21

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

So simply because you’re the force of last resort doesn’t mean you’re the force of no resort. In other words, of course it is important to undertake some contingency planning in case there is the moment where you are called upon. And the Canadian Armed Forces are excellent planner. And there was work going on in the background at a conceptual level in case that need for options arose. But it was not formulated, it was not brought to me, given that we were still in the mode of we are the force of last resort. And that was well understood by my colleagues as we structured the Government’s response to the protests.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 198 29-198-14

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Thank you. So first, if I can call on the CCLA, please?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 199 29-199-03

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. EWA KRAJEWSKA

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

If I could specify in response to your question, you are correct. I will provide information as to the length of time that I was actually out of the country. I was in Ukraine, I was in Latvia, and I was in Belgium. This was just before the onset of the further illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine. We had been following intelligence that there was a build up of Russian troops at the Ukrainian border and it was important for me to have discussions with my counterparts in those three countries to ensure that they were aware of Canada’s support for Ukraine through Operation UNIFIER and further donations of lethal and non-lethal aid.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 199 29-199-19

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

That is correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-09

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I did not see it. I heard Minister Lametti’s voice in the background. There was a TV. I heard my name mentioned. But I was trying to prepare for these questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-14

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

That is something that I was very concerned about. The safety and security of my staff is something that concerns me greatly. You know, we work together every day. They’re family.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-22

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

And very concerned. Yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 200 29-200-27

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Minister Lametti not being in Ottawa? I do recall that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 201 29-201-04

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I remember reading it, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 201 29-201-12

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I do recall that. But I will say that there was a lot of literature being written about the protests during this time and it continues. And I don’t base any government decision making on articles in the press. I’m focused on intelligence. I’m focused on advice based on the intelligence that comes forward. It’s fair peripheral, I would say, an article like that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 201 29-201-18

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Well, I’m a rational decision-maker so I do welcome advice from experts, and I make my decisions based on the advice that I am provided with. Many times, my decisions accord with the advice that I am given. Sometimes, they don’t. But I always take information that is provided to me into account and that is why I am always asking my officials for the most amount of information they have as earlier as possible.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 202 29-202-07

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I do. I tend not to, again, make decisions about my security or decisions relating to my portfolio based on a like on a tweet, so I will definitely be searching for in-depth substantive information before making any decisions. Having said that, this was a time when I was concerned for the safety of my staff and myself, and I encouraged my staff to work at home. For example, the Department of National Defence was surrounded by protesters and it was a time where we did need to be concerned for our safety, including my safety in going to the West Block.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 202 29-202-22

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I do not have a direct line to the RCMP and CSIS in my decision-making. So the assumption, it appears, in your questions is that they are feeding into my decision-making, and they are not. They fall under the Minister of Public Safety’s portfolio. My decision- making is based on the information that that -- I’m not sure if you heard the first part of my testimony -- that that triumvirate of decision-makers forms, the deputy minister, the chief of defence staff, and both of those individuals feeding information to me for my decisions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 203 29-203-09

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

That is correct.

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

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Yes, but the advice was not coming to me directly. The advice was by way of reports to the table. So I want to be clear that I was not having a one- on-one conversation with either of those organizations.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 203 29-203-27

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I am a Minister of the Crown, and I am executing my duties as such, and I am a person who undertakes due diligence in all circumstances, and I was listening intently to whomever it was reporting in those meetings.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-08

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, thank you. Next, I’ll call on the JCCF and Democracy Fund.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-21

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

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

That’s my understanding also.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-26

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

All right, thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 204 29-204-28

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROB KITTREDGE

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Minister Anand, I’m ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-02

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

We have a trading system here, so ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-03

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Merci, ça marche.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-05

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I do not agree with that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 205 29-205-14

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I have the oath in front of me if you want pursue it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-02

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I assume. I was pretty nervous that day. I was focused on what I was going to try to say.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-07

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Yes. And I also committed to ensure that those shall be secretly treated of in-council and I would do so as a faithful and true servant ought to do for, now, His Majesty.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-17

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

The principle is based on the idea that a full-fledged discussion can only occur if those matters are kept confidential. The rationale is important to remember.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 206 29-206-26

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

The executive branch of government in a democracy.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-07

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Our collective decisions as the executive branch of government in a parliamentary democracy, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-12

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

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

They are collective decisions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-18

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

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So it was a collective decision that was, in part, your decision?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-23

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Of the executive branch of government.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-25

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. And you can’t publicly repudiate or criticize it, can you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 207 29-207-27

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

The importance of the declaration of a public order emergency is one with which I agree, one I support. Given the circumstances of the time, the inability of children to go to school, the inability of people to go to work, the inability of trade to cross the border, the inability of citizens to live peacefully in certain of our country, the build-up of arms in certain areas, certainly the threats that were present, led me to the conclusion that this was the right approach for our government.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 208 29-208-01

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right, but if you felt differently, you couldn’t repudiate or criticize the decision unless you stepped down from your post as minister?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 208 29-208-10

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

That is a hypothetical that I do not need to respond to given that I agreed with the decision and I agreed with the principle embedded in our Parliamentary democracy that the executive branch of government makes decisions collectively.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 208 29-208-13

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

The government has waived certain aspects of Cabinet confidence with regard to these proceedings. For example, as you know, some records have been produced that could have been withheld on Cabinet confidence grounds. This has been a partial selective waiver, and Cabinet confidence has been used to keep some evidence from being put before the Commission, but there hasn’t been any waiver of Cabinet solidarity, has there?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 208 29-208-18

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I believe that we are all committed to our oath and we will make decisions, as I said, on a collective basis. We've done that to date and we will continue to do that. That is foundational to the way in which decisions are made in this country as part of our Parliamentary democracy.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 208 29-208-27

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I asked you at the outset whether you agreed that the Public Order Emergency declaration earlier this year did not meet the requirements for such a declaration as set out in the Emergencies Act, and you disagreed. If you had agreed with me, you would have to resign your Cabinet post, wouldn't you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 209 29-209-05

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I -- again, it's a hypothetical. I am not going to respond to it. I will say the definition of Public Order Emergency being an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency was one that I strongly believed was met, and I am quoting from the Act itself.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 209 29-209-12

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Do you understand the principle of Cabinet solidarity?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 209 29-209-18

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I understand the oath that I took and I understand the principles on which our Parliamentary democracy are based.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 209 29-209-20

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

And one of those principles is that the executive branch of government makes decisions collectively.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 209 29-209-24

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right, and that if you disagree or repudiate those decisions, you have to resign your position as a Cabinet minister, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 209 29-209-27

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I am not aware of that principle, and I think that it is not relevant at this time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-02

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So you're saying that you don’t understand that Cabinet ministers cannot repudiate the decisions of Cabinet without resigning their post as Cabinet minister?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-04

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I'm saying that I understand the way in which Parliamentary democracy works and the executive and legislative branches of government and their respective functions. And in this case and all cases in which I have been involved, that decision making process is functioning robustly.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-08

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I can respect the response, I guess, but you -- so are you saying that you are free to criticize and repudiate the decisions of Cabinet without resigning your post?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-14

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I will continue to reiterate the point that at all times, we are able to have a full and robust discussion to satisfy ourselves that decisions that we are making are in the best interests of our country, as was the case in the Public Order Emergency.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-18

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

At all times in private Cabinet meetings you are free to express yourself, but in public, if you repudiate or disagree with the decisions of Cabinet, you're not allowed to say that publicly, are you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-23

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Again, I don’t find this line of questioning relevant to the case at hand. I fully support the Public Order Emergency and the situation that was gripping our country was dire, and it was extremely important for our government to take steps after three weeks of protests where existing law enforcement had not been able to effectively respond to them.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 210 29-210-27

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. Well, I find it relevant, and I see no objections from my friends.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-06

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Well, I think you've got your answer, and I think ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-08

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

All right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-10

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- you've gone about as far as you can on this.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-11

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Fair enough. At any point -- well, I've read your interview summary and listened to your testimony today, and until we started talking about this, there wasn’t any clear statement in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act. At any point since February 14th, have you considered resigning your post as Minister of National Defence?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-13

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I most definitely have not.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-20

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

All right. I'd like to show you a document. Can we please pull up SSM.CAN.00007851_REL0001? So this is a text message exchange that came up earlier today between Minister Lametti and Minister Mendicino in which they discuss making a request to you for tanks to be deployed in Ottawa. Minister Mendicino asks, "How many tanks --" oh, maybe that’s not it. Do you need the number again?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 211 29-211-22

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

It's coming up.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-03

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Oh, there we go.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-04

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

And go slowly when you're reading, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-05

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Sure, sure. Minister Mendicino asks how many tanks Minister Lametti would like deployed and Minister Lametti reckons that just one will do. Do you agree with Minister Lametti that one tank would have been sufficient to deal with the Canadians who had gathered in Ottawa to express their grievances about government policy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-07

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Two points. First, I believe Minister Lametti has mentioned that that was made in jest. Second, I have already provided my comments relating to the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces is the force of last resort, therefore, we were not considering deploying tanks in any number.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-15

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Could we scroll up to the top of this? So can you read the date at the top of this message exchange?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-22

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Can you read it aloud for us, please?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-26

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

"You need to get the police to move and --- "

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 212 29-212-28

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

No, I'm sorry, not the full text. I won't put you through that. I just meant the date at the very top.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 213 29-213-02

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Wednesday, February 2nd, 8:09 p.m.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 213 29-213-05

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. And Minister Lametti earlier on in testimony to this Commission wrote the exchange off as a joke between friends. Do you think this is a joke?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 213 29-213-07

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I take no part of my role as Minister of National Defence as something in jest, obviously. I am very concerned and was very concerned, not only about the situation in Canada but about the global strategic situation that we all find ourselves in. And so I am very concerned to make sure that we are making decisions with full information, and I know that’s the case with Minister Lametti as well as the other colleagues around the table. This was a very difficult time, and we were all doing our very best in our respective portfolios.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 213 29-213-11

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Right. But at the same time, on February 2nd, just a few days after the arrival of the protesters in Ottawa, this was the sort of joke that was considered funny among your Cabinet colleagues, wasn’t it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 213 29-213-21

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I was actually not in Canada at the time. I was in Europe, as previously indicated, trying to launch Canada's response to a potential further invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I will say that I know that my colleagues take their work extremely seriously.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 213 29-213-25

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Does Cabinet solidarity require you to find this joke funny? I'm sorry, that was a little frivolous. So just one final set of a couple of questions. After Minister Lametti wrote this off as a joke, he changed the subject and he went -- moved on to talking about how bringing in the CAF was a last resort, even more so than the Emergencies Act, which he characterized as a second-last resort. That’s not precisely accurate, is it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-03

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Do you mean Minister Lametti's statement or the content of his statement?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-12

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

That the Emergencies Act is - - I'm sorry, that bringing in the CAF is the last resort and the Emergencies Act is the second-last resort.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-14

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I think that is accurate.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-17

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, the Emergencies Act requires that an emergency be such that it can't be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Would you agree with that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-18

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Are you reading from a particular statutory section of the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-22

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I can show it to you, if you'd like.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-24

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. It's section 3, the end bit of section 3.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 214 29-214-27

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

So the statute is a legal instrument, and the reference here is any other law of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-01

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Yeah. All right, thank you. The National Defence Act is a law of Canada, wouldn't you agree?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-03

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Those are my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-07

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

--- 273 points to any other method of addressing law enforcement other than with the assistance of the CAF. So one deals with a statutory instrument and instruments that are available to address a particular situation, and the other deals with instances in which the CAF can be deployed.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-08

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Nonetheless, the Emergencies Act, as a precondition, requires that a matter can't be dealt with under any other law of Canada, and I'm asking you, the National Defence Act is a law of Canada, isn't it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-14

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

The National Defence Act is a statute with a section that specifies that the Canadian Armed Forces will only be deployed if there is no other means of addressing a particular situation from a law enforcement perspective. Those two items are different. One deals with the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces; one deals with the potential basket of laws wherein the public emergency is the last item from a legal perspective of any other statute.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-18

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Would you agree that the National Defence Act is a statute of Canada, a Canadian statute?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-26

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Of course, I would.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 215 29-215-28

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And so you would agree that the National Defence Act is a law of Canada?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-01

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I believe you’re splitting hairs now and you’re misconceiving the point that I am making. The point that I am making is that the Emergencies Act is a legislative mechanism of last resort.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-03

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Yes, I would agree with that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-07

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

The National Defence Act in section 273 simply says that the Canadian Armed Forces cannot supersede other law enforcement mechanisms ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-08

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

--- unless there is no other option for the law enforcement.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-12

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And just as one final question to kind of clarify my understanding of your testimony here, are you telling me that the National Defence Act is not a law of Canada?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-14

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I believe I’ve already answered that question.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-18

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

All right. Thank you very much. Have a great day.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-20

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, next is counsel for former Chief Sloly.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-22

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Commissioner, Tom Curry, we have no questions for Minister Anand.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-24

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Next is the Government of Alberta, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 216 29-216-26

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MANDY ENGLAND

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Good afternoon, my name is Mandy England; I am a lawyer for the Government of Alberta. I have just a few questions for you this afternoon, Minister. First, I’d like to ask, just in terms of next steps after your assessment of Alberta’s request for assistance, could you tell us who did you tell about that assessment? For example, did you tell Minister Blair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 217 29-217-01

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Do you mean the assessment that we made once Minister Blair had asked me to look into whether we could provide the tow trucks?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 217 29-217-08

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

That’s right. Sorry for being unclear. You mentioned that you had a conversation with your Chief of Defence staff. There may have been other individuals present. I understand that. In terms of the usual process of an RFA, that was more of an informal assessment because you hadn’t formally received the RFA but you had notice of it and then had a discussion about it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 217 29-217-11

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

And then following that discussion where you had considered the use of equipment from the Canadian Armed Forces, did you tell Minister Blair about your assessment?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 217 29-217-21

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Yes, I did. And if I could just take a step back and clarify that at all times I was seeking to be as helpful as possible in the RFA process and certainly to the Government of Alberta in any way, shape or form. You’ll recall that I led the country’s procurement effort of PPE, vaccines and rapid tests and in that capacity we were trying our very best to supply those materials across the country in the spirit of making sure we got through the pandemic together, and that was exactly the approach that I was taking in the RFA process as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 217 29-217-25

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Thank you. And no doubt those PPE efforts were greatly appreciated. In terms of who you did tell after the assessment, did you –- I think you indicated that you did speak to Minister Blair?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 218 29-218-08

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

We had a phone call, yes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 218 29-218-13

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. Would you be able to tell us when that phone call was?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 218 29-218-14

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

It was on or about February 7th or 8th.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 218 29-218-16

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you. And did you go into some detail about the analysis that you described or did you sort of simply communicate, you know, no, we don’t see it to be fit?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 218 29-218-18

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Not at all. I went into extensive detail, as I have here. My conversations with Minister Blair tend to be extensive on requests for assistance and go into significant detail about past CAF resources. That’s the approach we’ve taken on hurricane Fiona, on floods and such was the case as well with regards to the request for assistance from Alberta.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 218 29-218-22

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you. And did you communicate it with any other ministers or with the Prime Minister?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 219 29-219-01

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you. You outlined to us your considerations in going through Alberta’s RFA and I’d like to go through those in a little bit more detail. One of the concerns that you indicated played into the decision was the concern that using the trucks might cause some damage to roads. Would you agree that generally speaking the roads in question would have been within Alberta’s jurisdiction?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 219 29-219-05

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I agree that the roads are within the property and civil rights under the constitution of the province of Alberta but I would like to highlight that the primary reason was one relating to suitability and that the trucks being requested were not only low in number, they were not suitable for the task, nor were they guaranteed to achieve the outcome that was sought.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 219 29-219-14

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

And I will circle back to some of those points. In respect of the transportation on the roads, did you consider that you might communicate to Alberta that this was a concern or a potential issue and have a discussion with them about the possible scope of the damage, if there’s anything that could mitigate it and allow Alberta to consider whether it was willing to incur some risks in exchange for being able to allow the RCMP to carry out its enforcement action early in the Coutts blockade?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 219 29-219-21

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

So I was not in direct touch with the Province of Alberta on these items. The RFA process runs through Minister Blair’s office and so my having a direct conversation with Alberta was not something that would have been in keeping with our process, and nor was I in the country at the time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 220 29-220-03

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

That’s fair. Did you suggest to Minister Blair that that might be something that he could consider doing?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 220 29-220-09

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. Thank you. And when you say they were a small number, and I respect and understand that there may be restrictions on elaborating on that, so I’m not trying to go there and so obviously, you know, feel free to stop me if that’s a concern. Was the concern that the number wouldn’t be enough to in your view effectively assist Alberta or was the concern that you felt it was necessary to keep all of the equipment available on the base at CAF Edmonton, for purposes there?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 220 29-220-13

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

There are two reasons. One of sufficiency for the task at hand, but also, two, for operational efficacy in maintaining sufficient resources for the Canadian Armed Forces to be able to do its role as the military of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 220 29-220-23

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

In terms of sufficiency for the task at hand, would you agree that again that would be an option that Minister Blair perhaps could have discussed with Alberta, whether they were willing to accept just one piece of equipment and whether that might be of some assistance to them in meeting the goal for, you know, accumulating equipment to achieve the enforcement action?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 220 29-220-28

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Again, I’m the Minister of National Defence. My job is to provide information to Minister Blair when he requests information about CAF resources; that’s exactly what I did in that circumstance. I don’t tell other Ministers and my colleagues how to effectively perform their jobs and I believe Minister Blair is a very effective Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 221 29-221-07

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

And did you maintain the view that perhaps the number and sufficiency of CAF equipment to respond and assist Alberta, even as the threat grew to –- or as the event grew to what has been characterized by your Government as a threat to national security, sufficient to justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act or did you at any point consider when it had reached that point, that you might reconsider that assessment?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 221 29-221-13

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Could you repeat the question? What is the precise question?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 221 29-221-21

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Did you maintain your view that the quantity of equipment was a concern that would prevent the use of Canadian Armed Forces equipment, even as the event grew to what your Government has characterized as one that necessitated invoking the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 221 29-221-23

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Your question focuses on quantity, whereas my response focussed on quantity, suitability, usability and efficacy to reach the expected or designed objective. And so it is the totality of those factors which led to my conclusion and I maintained that that was the right conclusion all the way along until the Government of Canada made the prudent decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 221 29-221-28

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, taking perhaps –- and I anticipate that you may give the same answer based on what you said, but taking it a step back and out of simply that factor, did you at any time re-evaluate your assessment of the totality of factors during the course of the event prior to invoking the Emergencies Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 222 29-222-07

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

You’ll have to remember that an RFA did not come to me for signature and I provided this information to Minister Blair after discussion with my officials. And after I provided that information, I remained confident in its veracity and applicability and I continued going about my business at a very difficult time at the Ministry of National Defence because of external factors like the potential further invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 222 29-222-13

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

On to the next factor that you indicated that you considered. I understand that you had a concern about deploying members of the Canadian Armed Forces to assist, and in that RFA from Alberta, there was an inquiry about both equipment and personnel. Do those pieces of the RFA -- or were those pieces of the RFA may be a better way to put it, were they looked at separately and communicated separately, in your opinion, to Minister Blair, for example, you know, the equipment might be one piece and the resources might be a second piece in terms of the suitability of responding?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 222 29-222-21

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I believe we have reviewed this already. I have indicated there were more main factors that underpinned my decision relating to the deployment of CAF resources in Alberta. I conveyed those factors to Minister Blair in a phone call and my response rests there.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 223 29-223-04

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. I’ll rephrase the question, because I’m not sure if I stated it clearly. Was it your view that perhaps a request for personnel might be extractable, or a request for equipment? So for example, “Yes, I might loan you equipment, but I have concerns about using personnel.” Was that ever something that was considered, or was it always treated as both items together?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 223 29-223-09

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

All four items together led to the decision that we made.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 223 29-223-16

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. and if you had the knowledge that -- if, operationally, individuals had been cleared from the blockade, so that only trucks remained to be cleared, would you agree that there might not have been the same concerns that were raised in your assessment about escalation and optics about engaging the Canadian Armed Forces in an enforcement action?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 223 29-223-18

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

You’re putting a hypothetical to me, which I do no believe is relevant and I have no response to it.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 223 29-223-25

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Sorry, I’ll explain the relevance of it. Evidence was given earlier that the operational plan was anticipating that the civilians would be removed from the blockade with the equipment to be cleared at a secondary time. And I had understood from what you said, and perhaps I had a misunderstanding, that one of the concerns would be interactions between the Canadian Armed Forces and civilians and a concern that that might not be appropriate or something that they were trained to do. My question is whether your assessment of that might change with the information that an operation to clear equipment would be varied out at a time after individuals had been arrested or otherwise dispersed from the scene?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 223 29-223-28

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

It would not change, primarily because I am not, I’ve said this a number of times now, separating out the various factors that led to the decision not to provide the tow trucks in Alberta. And secondly, the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces as a general matter has the potential to be escalatory, given that the Canadian Armed Forces are not trained in crowd control or protest management and the visual of having Canadian Armed Forces was concerning in many circumstances during this time, including in this one.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 224 29-224-13

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Commissioner. Those are my questions this afternoon.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 224 29-224-23

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Thank you. I gave you a lot of extra time, just so you know for next time ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 224 29-224-27

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- when I’m a little tougher. Okay. Next is the Government of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 225 29-225-02

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CAROLINE LAVERDIÈRE

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

Good evening, Minister. Caroline Laverdière.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 225 29-225-06

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada, as you know. I have about two or three fairly quick questions. Can we put up document SSM.CAN.00003512? Do we not have that -- yeah, okay. It’s coming. Excellent. Thank you. Could you, Mr. Clerk, scroll down a little bit until we reach the -- further down until we reach the other email down the chain? Okay. Just got up a little bit. Okay. So -- oh, just -- sorry, I want to see the subject. Down a little bit more please. Okay. Minister, this is an email from the Chief of Defence Staff, Wayne Eyre to yourself, dated January 28th. And the subject is: “Pre-emptive RFA Authorization - Cartier Square Drill Hall and other NCR Infrastructure”. If we scroll down, Minister, for you to just get reacquainted with this email, this is an email by which the Chief of Defence Staff provided his advice for approving assistance -- for your approval to provide infrastructure assistance to police forces in the form of the Cartier Drill Hall parking lot and other similar infrastructure. Do you acknowledge that document?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 225 29-225-09

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

If we scroll back up just a tiny bit, we’ll see your response on the same day: “Thank you for this email. I approve. Best Anita” So this is the email by which you approved the RFA, or the pre-emptive RFA. And if we scroll back up a little bit, this is just, as the first line states, this is an update from the Chief of Defence Staff to you. If we scroll back a little bit more, we can see the date and your email address. So the next day, the following day, on the Saturday, the Chief of Defence Staff is providing you with an update. And then if scroll back down just a little bit more, the second paragraph, so you can see he states: “As per your email below, you approved an anticipated request from Public Safety to have law enforcement organizations use some of our CAF infrastructure…” Skipping a little bit: “You may have heard through your office that MPS has received the request, as we received this morning [a] request officials level and I have directed the CAF to provide the use of our parking lot and infrastructure to support law enforcement organizations.” And then that last sentence is what I want to bring your attention -- bring to your attention: “At no time with CAF members be employed in a security of enforcement role, nor will they conduct any assistance to law enforcement tasks.” Now, do you agree with that statement from CDS that this should be avoided?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 226 29-226-04

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Of coruse I do. That’s been my testimony to date.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 227 29-227-11

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

Now, can you just -- I’m going to use that statement, just to make sure that we are clear, did that state of affairs, or your position on that, and the CDS’, did that remain steady throughout the convoy occupation and throughout the invocation and the revocation of the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 227 29-227-13

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

Your position on that never changed?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 227 29-227-20

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

So I was wondering if you could explain a little bit the difference between approving an RFA for infrastructure, such as a parking lot at the Cartier Drill Hall in Ottawa and potentially considering and the Alberta request for assistance for military tow trucks?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 227 29-227-23

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Okay. I will do that. But I want to build on my last answer relating to that sentence because I thought you were going to ask me one more question on that, and you have not, so I will just say what else I wanted to say.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 227 29-227-28

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

And that is that the sentence: "At no time will CAF members be employed in a security of enforcement role, nor will they conduct any assistance to law enforcement tasks." The Chief of Defence Staff knew that that was an issue that was very important to me. I had done extensive analysis and discussion relating to section 273.6(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act, and in particular, (b) of 273.6(2), which states that the matter cannot effectively be dealt with other than with the assistance of the Canadian Armed Forces. And in this email, he is, I believe, responding and addressing my concern that we are aligned on the point that the Canadian Armed Forces are the force of last resort because in a democracy the Minister of Defence, and certainly this was the case for me, would be loathe to deploy the Canadian Armed Forces in a law enforcement capacity except in the most dire circumstances. And I believe that he knew that that was my view and my interpretation of the law. It reflected our discussions, and the advice he gave me in that sentence I believe is based on those conversations that we have had and the concerns I have. And I'm sure he knew that I would -- if it wasn't in there I would have replied and indicated that it should be. Now on to the question relating to RFAs, and the substance of the RFAs. So your question is a good one. The question highlights how we have to consider each RFA on its merits, and in particular, each RFA should be evaluated on the subject matter of the RFA. The Cartier Drill Hall was a parking lot, very easily handed over for use during this time. Not being used by the Canadian Armed Forces at the time, and certainly, we wanted to support law enforcement efforts wherever possible. Et aussi, c’est la même chose avec la nourriture. We said can we help? How can we help? We have more than a thousand meal packs, and we can provide those to the Parliamentary Protective Service. And so, c’était facile avec les deux choses-là, la « calculation » et notre réponse, c’était très important d’avoir toute l’information, mais ce n’était pas le même sujet avec le troisième RFA en Alberta.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 228 29-228-06

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

Dans le même ordre d’idée, Madame la Ministre, pouvez-vous expliquer la différence entre potentiellement considérer le déploiement de matériel militaire comme des camions à remorque et le déploiement de personnel militaire ou d’équipement militaire pour des situations différentes comme des catastrophes naturelles ou comme les instances qu’on a vues pendant la COVID?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 229 29-229-20

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Bien sûr. Il y a une différence, bien sûr, avec les soldats à l’un côté, à l’autre côté, c’est beaucoup de soldats, mais aussi l’équipement militaire pour aider les gens dans les provinces atlantiques. So in one case, we're talking about tow trucks, which were few in number, not suitable for the task and not clear that they would reach the objective desired, as well as having potential escalation by the deployment of CAF, and on the other hand, we have a natural disaster in the form of a hurricane sweeping the Atlantic provinces, and the question was can the Canadian Armed Forces help with the clearing of debris. And so as you would have seen in the news, Canadian Armed Forces were deployed in Newfoundland, PEI and Nova Scotia to make sure that the provinces had the support they needed in the clearing of debris, the restoring of power lines, the repairing of roadways and those types of undertakings. So, c’était très différent entre les deux choses et, ça, c’est le cas avec toutes les choses avec les forces armées canadiennes. À l’un côté, il y a de RFA, y’a un sujet très différent de l’autre côté, donc on doit « anhiliser » chaque RFA avec une voix différente. It's a different analysis each time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 229 29-229-27

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

I take it that the potential to inflame, in the context that you -- well, to the extent that you considered that in the context of the RFA from Alberta, is not a factor that is in play for the types of deployment you just mentioned, you know, following hurricanes or in the context of helping ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 230 29-230-20

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

The nub of the issue is whether it is a law enforcement situation. And in Operation LENTUS, which is the operations that we utilise for assisting with hurricanes and floods and the like, that is all assisting citizens trying to recover from hurricanes and natural disasters. So clearing large trees off of roadways, lifting them off of power lines so that power can be restored. Ça, c’est très différent, n’est-ce pas, entre les deux choses parce qu’en Alberta, c’était un cas de camions et… and our trucks were simply not suitable for the task at hand, nor were they large in number. Also, they could lead to escalation and potentially damage roadways.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 230 29-230-26

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

Mr. Clerk, can we pull up another document, please? TS.NSC.CAN.0001.00000183, and I would ask you go to the top of page 2, please. While this is -- the document is being brought up, Minister, I would ask just generally, just to jump off of the question from my friend from the CCLA about your concerns about safety and security. Can you just elaborate a little bit about your concerns during the period of the convoy, specifically those -- the period that you were perhaps in the country during that time?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 231 29-231-10

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I did have concern for my safety and the safety of my team, but it wasn't just about us, it was about the citizens of Ottawa writ large. It was about the safety of people going to work and a need to allow people to continue on with their daily lives. Parents were keeping their kids home from school, businesses were closed, people were not living their normal lives. Trade was not flowing across the border, Canadians couldn't travel across the border at all, and we saw and heard about weapons at Coutts. All of these were very concerning items to me from a public safety perspective. And so when you ask about my personal safety, yes, I was concerned, yes, I was concerned about the safety of my team always, but I was generally concerned about public safety writ large across our country.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 231 29-231-20

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

I'm going to come back to that point if I have time, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 232 29-232-06

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

You're -- in theory, you've got a ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 232 29-232-08

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- little over a minute.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 232 29-232-11

Caroline Laverdière, Counsel (GC)

Okay. Well, then, I'll end with this, then. Minister, I would bring your attention to the first full paragraph, actually the first and second, under the heading, Increased Threats to Elected Officials During Protests. And more specifically, in the second part after the redaction, it states that: "...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 focused on vaccine mandates and the government’s enacting of the Emergencies Act and has been directed at members of all political parties." Does that accord -- does that statement accord with your lived experience, Ms. -- Minister?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 232 29-232-12

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, thank you. Any re- examination?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 233 29-233-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

No, thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 233 29-233-10

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay, I just have two quick questions. One is probably and obvious one but -- well, maybe not. You mentioned you were in Ukraine at the time the convoy started and, obviously, things did not get better. Was Ukraine a factor in your analysis in deciding -- or in supporting the invocation of the Act -- of the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 233 29-233-12

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

No, the importance of my analysis relating to the Emergencies Act related to Canada and, in particular, I had reference, as someone familiar with statutes to Section 16 of the Act and the definition of “public order emergency” being an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency, and I believed the information that I had fulfilled that definition. In terms of what we are witnessing generally around the world and including in Ukraine, with a further invasion of a sovereign democratic country, I am also concerned about that, of course ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 233 29-233-18

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Yeah. No, I ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 234 29-234-02

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

--- but it is not -- it is not part of the analysis that I undertook in terms of agreeing with the decision that our government made.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 234 29-234-03

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

And the reason I asked is -- and maybe I should have been more specific -- is not in terms of the security of Canada as much as it being a national emergency and the impact on supply lines that we’ve heard was -- certainly, some have testified that that was an important impact on Canada that was only worsened or likely to be worsened because of the war in Ukarine. So that’s why I was asking, but obviously it was not a factor for you in terms of why it was a national emergency as opposed to the security issue.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 234 29-234-06

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

M’hm, that’s right.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 234 29-234-15

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. And then the second is -- it’s just to -- and I know -- I’m quite certain what your answer will be, but I think what Alberta was trying to raise with, and you wouldn’t necessarily be aware, is that there’s a suggestion that, at one point, the RFA -- well, let me give you the background. Alberta secured some tow trucks, heavy tow trucks, and at one point was looking for drivers. Was there a separate -- are you aware or were you separately asked, by way of an RFA, not for heavy tow trucks ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 234 29-234-16

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- but for drivers who could operate the tow trucks that had neem acquired by Alberta? And I think that’s what -- I suspect that’s what the questioner was trying to get out.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 234 29-234-26

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

I did not have any conversations relating to drivers of trucks.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-04

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Well, that’s -- thank you very much for accommodating the ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-06

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Thank you so much.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-08

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

--- schedule for the Commission and for coming to testify.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-09

Anita Anand, Minister (GC-DND)

Thank you so much. Merci beaucoup.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-11

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

So think we’ll take the afternoon break and we’ll come back in 15 minutes, assuming there are no other issues such as votes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-13

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La Commission est levée pour 15 minutes.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-16

Upon recessing at 5:20 p.m

Upon resuming at 5:36 p.m.

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is reconvened. La Commission reprend.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Good afternoon, Commissioner, our last witness for today is Minister Alghabra, Minister of Transportation. Could I have the witness sworn, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-22

The Registrar (POEC)

Minister Alghabra, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm? For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 235 29-235-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Omar Alghabra, o-m-a-r a-l-g-h-a-b-r-a.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 236 29-236-01

MINISTER OMAR ALGHABRA, Affirmed

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. GORDON CAMERON

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Good afternoon, Minister Alghabra. I’m going to start with a bit of housekeeping, as we usually do with the witnesses. I’m going to ask you to remember that a couple of months ago we had an interview where we got some information from you that ended up getting put into a summary form and then sent to you and your staff for review. And what I’d like you to do is confirm that you reviewed, that you considered it to be generally accurate, and that you adopt it as part of your testimony before the Commission today.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 236 29-236-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And for the record -- I don’t need this, Clerk, but for the record, it’s WTS00000075. And you know, Minister, we’ve already heard from your deputy who -- with whom I canvassed pretty much the same issues that we’re going to talk about today, but our perspective -- our point of interest today is your perspective as the minister. And so let me just begin. As I recollect our interview, you were appointed the Minister of Transport in January 2012; is that correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 236 29-236-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And can you give us just a brief account of your professional training and how you came into politics and, ultimately, to the position of Minister of Transport?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 236 29-236-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Okay, I’ll take the two hours, then.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 237 29-237-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

The one or two-minute version.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 237 29-237-04

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I’m a mechanical engineer by education, with an MBA, Master of Business Administration. I worked for many years in the private sector in the energy field. I used to volunteer for politics, knocking on doors for candidates, and one day, a vacancy came in my riding and I decided to run for office, and I got elected for the first time in 2006. And then, in 2008, the voters sent me back to the private sector, and then I was lucky enough to re- elected in 2015. And between 2015 and 2021, I served as Parliamentary Secretary on different roles. And in January 2021, the Prime Minister asked me to be the Minister of Transport.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 237 29-237-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And if we can pick up the narrative here, so to speak, at the beginning of the development of the convoy and how it first came to your attention and what your perspective was, what you saw coming and what concerned you with respect to the mandate of your department.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 237 29-237-18

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Because of my role, I’ve been involved heavily in government’s policies when it came to vaccine mandates and keeping Canadians safe. So I was involved with my colleagues in developing those policies and I was involved in the development of the decision to include a vaccine mandate for the transportation sector. We had an election on that and we got re-elected as a government, and I was tasked by the Prime Minister to complete -- it was part of mandate letter, to ensure the protection of the safety of those who work in the industry and those who use the industry. And there were eventually some opposition and -- where it manifested in this form of convoy protests that I heard about. I was briefed about it by the department first and then through law enforcement agencies.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 237 29-237-23

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And what issues first -- what issues did the convoy present? I mean, obviously, it's a convoy of trucks and you're the Minister of Transport, but can you tell me about the connection between the federal responsibility for transport and the provincial responsibility for transport, and how you decided your department could become involved helpfully in managing the protest and the convoy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 238 29-238-09

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

You know, it wasn’t -- the protests at the beginning was against all mandates, and at that time, there were vaccine mandates at all levels of government. In fact, there were vaccine mandates by -- in the private sector as well, there were vaccine mandates in universities. So I felt that there wasn’t clear who they're asking. I mean, there was a sense that they're asking the federal government, but the reality is that whatever they protesting crossed or transcended all governments and private sector. So we though were still concerned about safety, about the outcome of -- because we heard different reports on what the objective of these protests. People linked it to potentially what happened in the U.S. in Washington, DC on January 6th. So there was a lot of anxiety, and we certainly wanted to make sure that the federal government was prepared for this protest. So we were briefed by law enforcement agencies that -- and again, Ottawa is not unaccustomed to protests. It is, after all, the capital of our nation where there are typical protests. So we were briefed that law enforcement agencies were prepared. The hope that this was going to be like most protests, it might last the weekend, it might last a few days after the weekend, but the hope and the expectation that it wasn’t going to go on for a very long time.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 238 29-238-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And needless to say, it didn’t last just the weekend. When did it become apparent that your department was going to be more heavily involved than just observing the events unfold and that you would be asked by the government to take a role in finding solutions?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 239 29-239-15

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I would say a few days into the protest where it had become clear that this was not a usual protest. There was a sense that there is some stalemate by law enforcement and other type of agencies. So what I decided to do, what our government decided to do is to task our officials to figure out what tools that we have in the federal authority to deal with the occupation, because by that time, it had become an occupation. So we tasked officials to do this. They did a lot of work, looking -- we couldn't -- they couldn't find any legislation or a regulation because the jurisdiction was local law enforcement. It either was the responsibility of the local police or the provincial authorities. So then what we did and what I tasked the -- our department is to put together a toolkit, to be proactive, out of a sense of being proactive and collaborative and constructive, to put together a toolkit based on the rules and the regulations that the department has found to be utilized to help enforce the law and to help mitigate or manage the escalation of the situation. So that’s where eventually the Strategic Enforcement Strategy became to be.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 239 29-239-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And we heard from your deputy about the development of what I think was originally called the Maximum Enforcement Strategy, ended up evolving into the Strategic Enforcement Strategy, about seeing what laws from various jurisdictions could be brought to bear on the situation. And we don’t need to rerun the evidence that he gave us because he gave us quite a thorough account of it, but the point I remember him mentioning -- and I'll ask you to comment on from the ministerial perspective, is that just the way the Department of Transport works, because it has to take its federal responsibility and coordinate that with all of the provinces and territories, there's already a very strong network within the Department of Transport with all of the partner agencies or equivalent agencies, including law enforcement and regulation in each of the provinces and territories. And would that level of connectivity and intergovernmental relations also apply at the ministerial level?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 240 29-240-15

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Indeed. I would say I have very constructive, positive relationship with my provincial counterparts. We meet at least once a year in Council of Ministers. Transportation is one of those areas that has a lot of shared responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments, so we either meet as a council or one on one. This is quite a common practice throughout my year and a half as the Minister of Transport.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 241 29-241-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And at the ministerial level, did you, for the purposes of implementing -- or I suppose I should say originally developing and then hopefully getting the cooperation of the provinces and territories to implement the Strategic Enforcement Strategy, were you reaching out to your ministerial colleagues at the provincial and territorial level on the plan?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 241 29-241-13

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. You know, after the first week, it's become clear that the situation, as I said, has become a lot more complex and a lot more volatile. And it seemed that there was a bit of confusion about whose responsibility it is to deal with enforcing the law, or is there capacity enough locally to enforce the law? So we -- I was proactive in reaching out to my provincial counterpart, particularly in Alberta, in Ontario, in BC as well, and in Manitoba.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 241 29-241-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Let's start with your efforts to engage with Ontario. The timeframe I'm going to concentrate on, just to get the matter focused quickly, is the sort of February 7th, 8th, 9th timeframe. So we are at the point where the convoy has put down roots, so to speak, in Ottawa. There are other events at Coutts and Emerson. And if I could ask the clerk to call up SSM.CAN.00005289, and Minister Alghabra, this will be a text, a series of texts between you and Minister Mulroney, Caroline Mulroney of the Province of Ontario. And would you describe here as your counterpart in the Ontario government?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 242 29-242-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And if you can just look at the text there, see if that reminds you of the exchange you had -- it might not be necessary for us to go to the ones on the 8th and 9th, though if that would help you remember, we can -- can you tell us what you are attempting to do with Minister Mulroney of the Ontario government with respect to the effort you've just been describing?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 242 29-242-14

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Sure. I talked about the -- how the idea of strategic enforcement strategies come to being. I just want to add another context to this, is that we were looking for tools that will help end the blockades and the occupation with as minimum confrontation as possible too. So that’s where the idea of utilizing some of the provincial powers that they have in regulating commercial vehicles became obvious, because it really will -- creating -- I mean, I don’t want to call it incentive, but certainly, dissuade people who are using commercial vehicles from using them illegally and hopefully discourage people who are thinking of joining the occupation to realize that there is significant consequences. So that’s where the idea has come about. And I wanted to -- when we finalized or developed this, it wasn’t completely finalized, but when we have the outline of what we were thinking I reached out to Minister Mulroney to share with her what we have put in place or what we are proposing. So I texted her on Monday. By the way also that day I had participated in a press conference with my colleagues, Minister LeBlanc and Minister Mendicino. We felt it was -- up until that moment the Federal Government had not spoken out publicly about our role or in dealing with the blockades and the occupation. So I reached out to her and I asked if she would have time to speak with me so I can share with her what I thought was constructive ideas.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 242 29-242-21

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And how did that go?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 243 29-243-19

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Well, as you can see from the response, he said that he’s heard my comments through the media, because in my comments at the press conference I did outline some ideas that the provincial governments can use and she responded saying that our deputies are in communication and she would get back to me later.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 243 29-243-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Clerk, if I could ask that you call up WPS000000966. Now this is a bit of a cluttered document, Mr. Clerk, and you can either word search “potato” or scroll down until you come to it. It’s a document -- it’s hard to find; it’s a fair ways in. And you’ll come to a heading “Protests – a political hot potato”. There we go. Thank you. And can you tell me what this – as a I say it’s a bit of a cluttered document and there’s a lot happening in it, but do you recognize this?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 243 29-243-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

No. Is this an article?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 244 29-244-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yes, an account, a readout of multiple events. But if we look at the paragraphs under “Protests – a political hot potato”, the first paragraph, it reads – and I’ll quote: “There are growing calls for Ford to get more involved in bringing the protest to an end, after all, Ottawa and Windsor are in Ontario.” And then this is a quotation from you: “I call on the Government of Ontario to join us in securing an end to these illegal blockades in several Ontario cities, and to apply the law. Transport Minister Omar Alghabra will hold a news conference on Wednesday.” Now, was this part of your effort to get Ontario engaged in the enforcement plan?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 244 29-244-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And were you briefed by your deputy or your other staff on the reasons that Ontario was giving for not being fully enthusiastic about the enforcement plan?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 244 29-244-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

There’s a lot of speculation, but I -- it’s not my -- really I can’t give you a reason that I feel I can speak on behalf of the Ontario Government, but there was a lot of speculation about the apparent hesitation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 245 29-245-02

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. But one thing, I was wondering if your deputy or your staff briefed you on, was the concern certainly that the lawyers observing the situation could have had, which is that if you start using enforcement mechanisms for what might be called an ulterior purpose or for some objective other than those mechanisms were designed for, you run into legal issues, including the procedural fairness that has to be applied before the enforcement can be effective, before it can take effect. So you recognized that there were genuine issues that Ontario was concerned about before it could become fully invested in the enforcement plan?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 245 29-245-07

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I mean I think it was clear, even through my conversations, direct conversations with Minister Mulroney, that we have a difference of opinion; we had a difference of opinion. In my understanding, in my opinion, we were asking for the laws to be applied. We were not asking for an extra interpretation of the law. We thought the laws are what the laws are and they can be applied to help mitigate or deal with the illegal blockades and the occupation.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 245 29-245-19

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Well, that’s helpful. And as I understand it from our interview on February 9th, you met with Minister Mulroney to pursue this issue further; and can you tell us about that meeting?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 245 29-245-27

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. So in between the text and the meeting, her deputy had sent my deputy an official response to our outreach. And in that response they outlined why that are request was not doable.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 246 29-246-03

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And that’s on the records, so thank you for pinpointing that in this chronology.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 246 29-246-07

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

And she texted me a copy of that letter, but I still asked if its possible to have a conversation with her and that’s when we ended up virtually meeting. And we, as I said, it was clear that we had a different opinion on how to deal with it. She thought that this was a federal jurisdiction and I was saying that the roads, the blockaders and the occupiers were on were under municipal or provincial jurisdiction and that we hope that the province would take the lead and utilize their existing laws and enforcement to apply the law. And so we had a difference of opinion on who should take the lead on this.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 246 29-246-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

All right. Maybe you could flush that out a little bit. I mean it’s a federal problem in the sense that there’s serious problems in Ottawa by this stage, at Coutts and some of the other ports of entry. But I understand that the message you were trying to get across to Minister Mulroney, is that it was primarily the provincial enforcement tools that would be able to solve the problem; is that he gist of it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 246 29-246-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Yeah. Clerk, could you call up, please, SSM.NSC.CAN00000256. Can you tell us who Mike Maka is?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 247 29-247-01

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

He’s my Chief of Staff.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 247 29-247-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. This is an email -- it will come up in a second. It will be an email chain. And if we can just scroll down to page two and -- there we go. A readout of your meeting with a member of parliament. And I’m sorry, you might be better at that name than I am.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 247 29-247-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Kuzmierczak, thank you. Who as I understand it, is a liberal MP from Windsor, Ontario?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 247 29-247-11

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thanks. And can you tell us about that; the Clerk can help you scroll down through the notes if you would like to remind yourself, but it might be that by looking at points there you can be reminded of what it was you talked about and what it was of concern to you and your colleague.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 247 29-247-14

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Well, you know, I was doing a lot of outreach at the time and my colleague and friend Eric Kuzmierczak also wanted to convey to me the facts on the ground as he sees them in Windsor and the impact that the bridge blockade has had on the community, from the automotive sector, to retailers, to law enforcement, to trade. So he reached out to share with me what’s he seeing, his community’s sentiments, and to inquire about what else can we do as a federal government; what else can I do as a member of parliament to help deal with the reality and the pain that the people of Windsor are dealing with?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 247 29-247-20

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And then by now I think most of us know what happened very shortly after that meeting on February 10th when Ontario adopted its emergency measures order, and can you tell me how that had an impact on your perspective of things going forward once Ontario was, if I can put it this way, more onside with the approach that you had been trying to encourage them to take?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 248 29-248-03

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I was relieved that the Ontario Government is taking that measure. They certainly -- what I feel, built on the advice or the suggestions that we proposed to them, and I was relieved to see the Government of Ontario taking that step.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 248 29-248-10

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, I'd like to take you to your international effort because, I suppose, not exclusively, but perhaps primarily with respect to the Ambassador Bridge, but presumably with all of the border points, you also, in terms of your ministry's multi-jurisdictional efforts to coordinate your transportation function with those of the other jurisdictions in which the vehicles have to travel, you also have a relationship with officials in the United States; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 248 29-248-15

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And with Mr. Buttigieg, in particular?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 248 29-248-24

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And did you engage with him when Ambassador Bridge was becoming problematic?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 248 29-248-27

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. In fact, he had reached out to me and we scheduled a call. He wanted to express the concerns that the U.S. Government and what he is hearing from industry that is being caused by the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 249 29-249-01

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

So do you get -- do you have many interactions with Mr. Buttigieg that begin with him reaching to you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 249 29-249-06

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

No. Usually, I am the one who is trying to reach out to him to advocate for Canada's interests.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 249 29-249-09

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. And here, he's probably not indifferent to Canada's concerns because it's a symbiotic relationship, but he is calling you because he is -- feeling his constituency is feeling the impact of the Ambassador Bridge and nearby ports of entry blockages. Is that right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 249 29-249-12

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Indeed. The Ambassador Bridge is the most important port of entry that connects our two countries. It's a -- it's an average $400 million a day of trade that crosses that bridge, and it -- when it's shut down, and also, given the Just-in-Time business model that many in the auto sector and other sectors use, that blockade caused a significant disruption to supply chains, to businesses on both sides of the border.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 249 29-249-17

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Right. Mr. Clerk, if you could call up WTS6075, and go to page 6. By the way, this meeting with Mr. Buttigieg was on February 10th. Now, this is the summary of your interview, and you discuss this at page 6, where the clerk has put you there, Call With Secretary of State Pete Buttigieg. Now, if we look after the introductory paragraph to the introduction to a quote from you, and I'll read the introduction and the quotation. It says: "Minister Alghabra was asked about the following statement he had made in the course of his call with Sec. Buttigieg." So for the context of the readers, that's me or one of my colleagues asking you to elaborate on this statement. In the course of our interview with you, we've asked you to elaborate, and this is a statement you made during your call with Secretary Buttigieg: "But I can tell you - and I just spoke to the [Prime Minister] - that we are running out of patience. If things aren't addressed in the very near term, we as the federal government will step in." And at that point, this is February 10th, as is noted at the top of the page there, was it your understanding that you and your colleagues in Cabinet were contemplating the options that would include federal intervention as to find solutions to the blockades and the convoys?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 249 29-249-25

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I can't recall specifically the conversation in Cabinet about the second track of the Emergency Act that happened before this call or after, but I could tell you that my intention, and this -- maybe I should explain the conversation first, because in the conversation I explain... The Secretary certainly was anxious and wanted to know when -- if I could give an estimate, when will this end, and how quickly can port of entry be reopened, and I was explaining to him the complexity of enforcement and whose responsibility and that our Federal Government is not able to direct police to how to operate their law enforcement. So I gave him a context of how this -- the complexity of the situation, but at the same time, I wanted to give him -- to reassure him that this was an important matter, and that, yes, despite the complexity, that we're going to put - - we're going to do everything we can at the federal level to fix this issue. So it was -- for me, it was intended not, I could say, even if we had started the conversation, I wasn't sure where we're going to go at the federal level, but I wanted to give him a sense of confidence that this is a priority for us and that we will do what we can to deal with it as quickly as possible.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 250 29-250-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, right about then, in the course of your discussions with Secretary Buttigieg, Ontario invoked it's emergency order. And would it be fair to say that that went some way to address the concerns and take the pressure off you, at least temporarily, and in particular, Secretary Buttigieg would be able to see that things were happening and enforcement might be not far in the future?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 251 29-251-21

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

As I said, while it offered me relief to see the provincial government up its participation or its role in dealing with the illegal blockades and occupation, the outcome was still that the point of entry was closed. So that was the eventual concern for Secretary Buttigieg and for me, to be precise. And yes, we could see that now new tools are provided to law enforcement, but we still couldn't see the end, you know, of the blockades. There was a lot of fluidity and volatility in what was happening in Windsor or across the country, to be honest, because at different blockades, even though in Windsor we would hear reduction in size, growth in size, a clearance on one side, but maybe still a tenuous situation where the... So while, yes, it offered some comfort, but we still had the roads closed.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 251 29-251-28

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Let's move ahead a few days. And Mr. Clerk, if you can call up SSM.NSC.CAN0000214. These would be the IRG meeting minutes for February 12th. And if we go through to page 7, and if you scroll down to about almost halfway. There we go. "The Minister of Transport confirmed", et cetera. So that's you, Minister Alghabra, reporting, as I'm inferring here, you're reporting to the IRG about developments. And if we go down to just about the redaction where, again, the words the "Minister" is underlined, and I'll read that out: "The Minister confirmed that he is working with provinces on securing tow trucks and that Alberta is looking to purchase at least 2 large tow trucks. Other provinces have been offered support to facilitate purchase agreements for services relating to tow trucks but have shown interest to date."

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 252 29-252-15

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I think it means we have shown no ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 253 29-253-07

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

I was going to say, that sentence only makes sense if the typist intended to say “but have shown no interest to date”. But let me ask you to confirm that. Was that the fact, that Alberta was buying some, but the others, even though you’d offered them financial support to facilitate the purchase, they hadn’t shown interest to date?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 253 29-253-09

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

That is correct. And if I may, can I talk about the first part of the paragraph?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 253 29-253-15

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

So to explain what I was briefing to my colleagues, again, taking everyone back in time to that moment, there were a lot of threats emerging across the country to various ports of entries and institutions. We had heard of threats to the Port of Halifax, slow rolls in airport in Ottawa, Pearson Airport in Toronto, the Port of Vancouver. So what we did, proactively reach out to all or as many as we can to those ports of entry, to different institutions, including rail companies, to just encourage them to be alert, to perhaps increase their security, and to have plans in case any of these blockaders or slow rollers start appearing outside their institution.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 253 29-253-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And with respect to your effort to encourage the provinces to obtain heavy lift tow truck capacity, did Ontario express any interest in participating in a program like that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 254 29-254-02

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Not that I recall.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 254 29-254-06

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thanks. Now, at the end of that paragraph, we see a report on the situation at Manitoba, which I’ll just summarize by saying Manitoba said, “We’re doing okay on our own, thanks.” So your sense was that Manitoba wasn’t interested in -- it wasn’t sensing that it had a problem serious enough to become involved in the assistance you were offering? Is that it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 254 29-254-07

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah. I mean, I can’t describe why, but they certainly -- the Minister and -- I think it was officials actually, at the time, they were not indicating any interest in any support from the Federal Government.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 254 29-254-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. Moving ahead chronologically, Mr. Clerk, if we could turn up the same prefix, but with the last four digits being 0401? We’re now moving ahead to the IRG minutes of the 16th. So we’re now post-invocation. Before we jump over that, is there anything that you think is important to this chronology that involves your particular involvement in the decision of Cabinet to invoke the Emergencies Act?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 254 29-254-18

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Sure. I mean, that is the -- I guess the question that I had to deal with, and so did my colleagues. And I kind of alluded to it in my previous response, again, that moment in time, there was a lot of concern about ongoing escalation and inspiration that these blockades and occupations had been causing. And it felt, as I said, that there’s -- it wasn’t just Ottawa. It wasn’t just Windsor. It was Sarnia. It was Cornwall. It was Emerson. It was Coutts. It was Surrey. It was the Port of Vancouver. It was the Port of Halifax. All that to say is that there had been reports of either threats or some form of floral, some form of protest, and it felt that there was a stalemate, and that stalemate was raising the temperature, occupiers and blockaders were becoming more entrenched. Those who opposed them were also becoming more entrenched in opposing them. so there was a sense of a stalemate and a risk to many people, including those who were participating in the blockades, that this could get out of hand, that we could be reaching a tipping point where it could escalate and we would look back and regret not doing something sooner. And not to mention, by the way, the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Canadians, who have been personally impacted, either through their livelihood or their quality of life, businesses that I heard from. So there’s been -- this situation across the country was getting into really period of a lot of, I would say, concern, about where this is going to head if we don’t end up doing something. And I know I grappled with that decision. I didn’t take that decision lightly. And I would say I was reluctant to that decision. But it was the right thing to do to protect Canada’s national interests, to protect Canada’s security, to protect Canadians. And at a time like that, yes, the Emergencies Act is for emergencies, and it felt like an emergency.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 254 29-254-27

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now let me back up a little bit to, we mentioned your involvement and your Department’s involvement in the enforcement strategy, the strategic enforcement strategy. Your Deputy described a companion strategy that your Department was working on, the tow truck strategy. And as you were meeting with the IRG, is it fair to say that you weren’t the only one around the table who realized that the ability to tow these vehicles was problematic in the situations both at the border points and in Ottawa?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 256 29-256-05

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I don’t want to speak on behalf of my colleagues or breach Cabinet confidentiality.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 256 29-256-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. Just it’s your brief, so you tell us ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 256 29-256-16

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

So I certainly, you know, felt that having access to tow trucks was an issue. We, for weeks, had been asking -- were being told that it was near impossible, if not impossible, to find tow truck operators who were willing to take the risk to participate in a law enforcement action. So that was common feedback that I heard from the Department, from others. So it was clear to me that availability of tow trucks -- and not just any tow trucks, by the way. We’re talking about specialized tow trucks -- was -- the availability was an issue.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 256 29-256-18

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

And so again, recognizing that I have to be more careful about the questions that I ask you than I asked your Deputy, but what we know is that part of what came out of the Emergency Measures Order was an authority to compel tow truck service providers to provide towing services. And so is it safe to say that that was an element of the Emergency legislation that you considered an important part of the overall solution?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 256 29-256-28

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Indeed. Look, I think it was really important that the Emergencies Act is precise, targeted, and is measured, and the tool to compel tow truck operators was very specific and narrow and necessary to help law enforcement deal with the blockades.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 257 29-257-08

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Okay. And we have, thank you Clerk, the document for the February 16th, IRG meeting minutes. And if we can go down to page 7? About a quarter of the way from the top, immediately after the redaction. Right. So here you are reporting, and because this is unredacted, you’re allowed to talk about this, somebody has decided that it’s fair game. And it says: “The Minister of Transport confirmed that tow truck capacity challenges appear to be resolved, with Alberta and [Ontario] confirming that they have appropriate towing capacity.” And that speaks for itself, because I don’t want to ask you to expand on that in case it would involve a confidence of Cabinet. But we can get some insight from your -- on this point from your Witness Statement. And can you call that up, Mr. Clerk? I think I introduced it at the beginning as ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 257 29-257-13

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Seventy-five (75).

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 258 29-258-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you. And if we go to page 8 of that, this is again, so the reader puts it in context -- this is the summary of your interview with Commission counsel a few months ago. And you note roughly the same here as you did to Cabinet. “Minister Alghabra noted that a key proposal for emergency measures was the power to compel tow truck drivers to comply with an order to assist in removing vehicles, which was inspired by [Transport Canada’s] Tow Truck Strategy.” Then it goes on to stipulate in fact that: “… this measure […] ensured adequate resources and equipment were available to clear the blockades.” Do you remember that part of your interview?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 258 29-258-05

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Now, an issue that you might have heard talked about -- it depends how closely you've been following the proceedings. I think what is not contentious is that not long after the enactment of the -- or the invocation of the Emergencies Act, trucks did get towed and that some documentation indicates -- mostly documentation where the tow truck drivers are seeking to get paid for their services -- that at least the mechanism for compensating tow truck drivers who were asked to provide services or compelled to provide services under the Act, that that part of the system worked. But I wonder if you followed the evidence closely enough to have observed the observations made by some of the police, in particular Ottawa and OPP. Witnesses who have spoken about the fact that they already had tow trucks lined up and available, willing to provide service and that in fact those arrangements pre-existed the Emergencies Act and could have been used without the enactment of the Emergencies Act. Have you followed that evidence and that point f issue?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 258 29-258-23

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I haven’t been able to follow all of the proceedings but I got reports on what is being said. And I’ll share with you my perspective. Throughout these weeks of outreach and discussions and debates, no one has said that the tow truck issue was resolved. In fact, in all of my conversations prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act availability of tow trucks was always highlighted as an issue and that tow truck operators were worried about their safety or worried about their business. Those trucks, particularly the ones in Ottawa needed specialized tow truck and tow truck drivers. And that it was an issue, having access to tow trucks that could do this was an issue. And again, the tow trucks did not appear until after the invocation of the Emergencies Act. So I can’t speak to what the others have been testifying but I can tell you that that’s what I had heard. That’ was my understanding. And again, the facts are that the tow trucks did not appear until after the Emergencies Act was invoked.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 259 29-259-14

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you for that. Now, those are all of the specific questions I had for you, but I’d like to finish up by asking you if you have anything you’d like to add, just general observations or things you think is important for the Commissioner to hear. And in that category, if you have recommendations about things that could have been done differently, if different protocols or legislation or whatever had been in place when you were trying o develop your enforcement strategy and trying to develop your tow truck strategy, those types of points would be helpful to the Commission.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 260 29-260-05

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I just want to go back to the picture that I tried to draw for you about the situation and how heightened the sense of anxiety and concern for public safety, for economic well-being of our country was, how at the time, cities and municipalities were asking us to do something. Provincial governments were saying this is a federal issue. Opposition parties were asking us questions, “Why aren’t you doing something?” Canadians were asking us. Businesses were asking. We didn’t talk about several interactions that I had with associations that represented different industries including the trucking industry. They were all, you know -- and I looked them in the eye and I heard it in their voice, the panic, the fear, the concern that they have, the shifts that were shut down, the businesses that were closed down, the people who couldn’t go to hospitals. That was the moment that we were living. And it felt like we had to do something. We were -- again, it was not something that we took lightly. It was not something that I took lightly. But it was the context that we’re in, the fear of escalation, the fear of getting to a tipping point where it could get out of hand. That was -- I strongly believe that that was invoking the Emergencies Act again that was very precise and limited, was necessary. As to your second question, I think it’s clear that this incident has exposed some gaps, whether it is, you know, the issue of jurisdictions, whether it is -- do we need additional tools to protect critical infrastructure? I think those are important questions and in fact I’ve tasked my department to do some work on what can be done to strengthen federal legislation or tools to add additional maybe tools, set of tools to protect critical infrastructure.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 260 29-260-16

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Along those lines, let me just follow up with a question that takes us right back to the very beginning of your evidence, Minister Alghabra. You talked about the fact that you have at least an annual of a council of Ministers of Transportation at the federal and provincial and territorial level. Do you think that if, at the next one of your meetings, you put your heads together to see if you could come up with plans, procedures, and protocols so that you're not trying to invent this thing from the start the next time a problem like this arises, that the officials themselves perhaps even without new legislation or perhaps with a view to fashioning appropriate legislation could advance the situation?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 261 29-261-19

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I think absolutely. By the way, we did have a council of ministers after that incident. Typically we have them in February. And I think it’s really important to collaborate with provincial governments on clarifying these -- what appear to be misconceptions or miscommunication or misunderstanding, but also identifying tools. I’ll just note, for example, the Alberta government has its own critical infrastructure legislation. So perhaps we can also learn from the Government of Alberta and other provincial governments on what else we could do at the federal level and how we can collaborate on closing these gaps.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 262 29-262-04

Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Minister. And thank you, Commissioner. Those are my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 262 29-262-16

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. So if I could first call on the Democracy Fund/ JCCF, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 262 29-262-18

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HATIM KHEIR

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Good evening, Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 262 29-262-22

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I’m Hatim Kheir, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. So right from the start of the pandemic while people like you and I had the opportunity to work from home, truckers still had to go out and keep the goods moving, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 262 29-262-24

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And that’s why they were originally designated as essential service providers and they were exempted from the vaccine mandate, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 263 29-263-02

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

So first of all, let me just say that truckers over the last two years have done an amazing job. Like you said, when many of us had the option of working from home, they kept the movement of goods going. Most of us never thought for a moment about how these products got to the shelves but we certainly were reminded of the importance of the industry when everything else was shut down, yet the products kept on arriving, so I don’t think we could say thank you enough to truckers for their professionalism and for their job. And to answer your question about how polices were developed throughout the pandemic, these were done based on the advice that we received from Public Health and, also, taking into account considerations of the realities on the ground. There had been several professions and several categories that were granted exceptions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 263 29-263-05

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And truckers were one of them?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 263 29-263-20

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Truckers were one of them.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 263 29-263-21

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And you note in your witness statement that the protests arose in response to the elimination of that designation; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 263 29-263-23

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I -- my understanding is that the protest arose to oppose all mandates, not just a truckers’ mandate.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 263 29-263-26

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

But you state in your interview summary, which you adopted -- it states that your understanding was that the protest arose in response to the elimination of that designation; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-01

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I think it was a trigger, but the -- and again, I am not here to speak on behalf of the protesters, but my understanding is that in every communication they issued, they opposed all vaccine mandates.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-05

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay, can we please pull up JCF00000191. And while that’s being pulled up, just for the benefit of my friends, this is compilation of documents that are listed individually in the database. I’ll mention their IDs as we go through. I’m just using this to save a bit of time as we pull up documents. So, Minister, you can recognize that this a -- this appears to be a news release from the Province of Alberta; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-09

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

This is the first time I’m seeing this document and that’s what the headline says.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-18

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And again for the record, this is individually in the database as JCF00000192. Now, do you see the title where it says, “Alberta takes steps to safely return to normal”?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-20

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

With the date of February 8th just above that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-25

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And if we go down to page 2, Mr. Clerk -- Minister, do you see at the second paragraph, it says Alberta will remove the Restrictions Exemption Program and capacity limits under 500; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 264 29-264-28

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah, that’s what it says.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-04

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And then, if we go to page 3, it sets out a schedule for other restrictions being lifted; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-06

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I mean, again, I have not seen this document before and I’m only seeing what is being in front of me on the screen, so that’s what it says, “Step one, Step two,” so I’m assuming that what you’re saying is correct.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-09

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And you -- I take it you were aware that this was happening at the time in February, at least in the broad strokes?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-13

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah, I mean, again, as I said, all governments, not just in Canada -- provincial, municipal, around the world -- had different Public Health Measures, including mandates, and all governments had their own plan of how to adjust these measures.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-16

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. And then if we go to page 7 in this document which, for the record, in the database is JCF00000193, this is Manitoba news release dated February 11th; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-21

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

It appears that way.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-25

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And the title says that Manitoba’s accelerating: "Manitoba accelerating plan to reduce Public Health restrictions based on improving Covid-19 situation."

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 265 29-265-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

That’s what the headline says.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-03

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And again, were you aware of Manitoba’s action at the time?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-05

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Again, I was aware that different governments had their own plan of adjusting their Public Health measures, so did we.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-07

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, you might start to notice a pattern I’m getting at, but perhaps we can go to page 9 in this document, Mr. Clerk, which, for the record, is JCF00000190. We see an Ontario announcement dated February 14th; right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-10

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And it announces that Ontario’s moving to its next phase of reopening on the 17th?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-15

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And just for the sake of completion, lastly, if we just go to page 14 which, for the record, is JCF00000194, this is a Saskatchewan news release titled: "Living with Covid: Proof of vaccination no longer required; business verifier app discontinued." Correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-18

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

That’s what the headline says.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-26

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Okay. So you said you were aware the different jurisdictions were taking their own responses. What I’d suggest to you is that, given the timing of these measures all being taken by the different provinces, that they were being taken as a step by the provinces to respond to the concerns of protesters; would you agree with that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 266 29-266-28

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

No. Is that what you think?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 267 29-267-06

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I’m suggesting that to you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 267 29-267-08

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

No, I -- well, I don’t think so. But at the end of the day, it’s up to the government, I -- the government -- none of these governments have shared with me their rationale. I’m assuming that, just like they imposed these measures based on their advice that they received, I’m assuming they’re adjusting their measures based on the advice that they receive and their own considerations.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 267 29-267-09

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, we heard yesterday that at the First Ministers’ Meeting relating to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, that Premier Kenney asked the federal government to lift the vaccine mandate as it applied to truckers crossing the border, and he mentioned that he had raised that previously. I don’t believe you were at that meeting but were you aware of his opinion?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 267 29-267-16

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I was not at that meeting. I think he had made it public. I just can’t remember when he made it public, his opposition to border -- truckers- crossing-the-borders mandates.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 267 29-267-23

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, we also saw a text from Premier Kenney which was forwarded to you by Minister LeBlanc where Premier Kenney called the trucker vaccine mandate “dumb political theatre”; do you remember receiving that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 267 29-267-27

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So again, giving these comments from Premier Kenney and the time of the provinces, you still maintain that none of this was in response to the protests?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 268 29-268-04

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Again, you’ll have to ask the provinces that question. I’m not in a position to offer justification for a provincial government’s decision.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 268 29-268-07

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, given the motivation of the protesters, did the government consider resuming the exemption for truckers?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 268 29-268-10

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

And by the way, let me just be -- clarify -- and again, it’s not up to me to talk about provincial government’s decision, but they did not -- most governments, provincial governments, did not lift all mandates, so just for the record. Second, you know, we don’t make public policy based on the number of protesters or emails that we get. We make public policy, particularly during the pandemic -- and let me be the first to acknowledge, governments around the world, including the federal government, did extraordinary measures in what we believed was the right thing to protect the health and safety of Canadians. I never imagined provinces shutting down businesses. I never imagined provinces invoking curfews. I never imagined the federal government putting limitations on travel. But we all did that. Governments across Canada did these measures because we believed we are saving lives. And yes, they were extraordinary, but I can tell you, no one, at least us -- I am not -- I’m not making any apology for doing what we believed the best thing for protecting lives. Now, of course, it caused inconvenience. Of course, it caused disruption. And our government did whatever we can to mitigate those disruptions, and Canadians understood that. Canadians understood that. So back to your question, our policies were based on the advices, and facts, and the science that we received, not based on polls, or number of protesters, or even the illegal activities that should never -- should never drive public policy.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 268 29-268-13

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

So the government should never change its policies in response to outcry from protesters?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 269 29-269-13

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I’m saying governments, especially during the pandemic, made tough decisions based on what we believed was the best for the protection of the health and safety of Canadians. Now, if you’re asking me, should government change its policy because people break the law in expressing their opposition? I’d say no. Should the government listen to public and consider the sentiment of public? Of course, but we are guided by the interest of -- of the interests of Canadians -- protecting the interests of Canadians. So being aware of the sentiment of Canadians is different than advancing the interests of Canadians. Sometimes they are connected, sometimes there is -- the sentiment might be different, depending on the groups and the information that they have or the priorities that they have.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 269 29-269-15

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I'm going to suggest to you that the government couldn't reconsider the -- its removal of that exemption because it had already labelled the truckers and the protesters as White Supremacists and now had to maintain its opposition to anything associated with the protest.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 270 29-270-01

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah. No, I don’t agree with you. First of all, truckers themselves, if you follow the press releases by the Canadian Trucking Association, by teamsters, the unions that represent many truck drivers, have distanced themselves from this illegal -- these illegal blockades and occupations. They said they are giving the industry a bad name. They do not represent the industry. So -- and I have had several meetings with representatives of trucking associations, of trucking companies, and they all felt that they're giving the trucking industry a bad name. Second, let me just highlight a second point, by the way. We actually eased our international travel measures, and I can't remember the exact day, but sometime in February where there was a requirement for on-arrival testing. Those tests were eliminated, and that wasn’t because of the illegal occupation, it was because we entered a different phase of the pandemic and we felt, based on the advice that we got, we could adjust and ease our measures, so we did that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 270 29-270-06

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And one of the other things that the government did was invoke the Emergencies Act to deal with the protest, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 270 29-270-25

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

One of the other things done in February was of course, the invocation of the Emergencies Act, while we're here?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-01

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And I understand that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was not intended to infringe upon anyone's Charter rights, correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-05

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

It was specifically stated in the provisions of the Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-08

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

And whose -- so first of all, I understand that the Cabinet then would have turned its collective mind to that when discussing the invocation?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-10

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

We considered all ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-13

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

I'm sorry. As far as you're asking what Cabinet deliberated, that’s protected by Cabinet confidence.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-14

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Fair enough. Suffice it to say Cabinet's intention was to protect the Charter rights of Canadians?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-17

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

That is -- that’s our constitution and we're all sworn to uphold our constitution.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-20

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Did -- do you believe Cabinet protected the Charter rights of tow truck drivers?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-22

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

We protected -- we kept in mind the Charter rights of all Canadians, including truck drivers.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-24

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

You'd agree that tow truck drivers weren’t protesters themselves, aside from perhaps, individual cases?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 271 29-271-27

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I don't understand the question.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-02

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, so you said in your interview summary that some tow truck drivers refused to tow trucks out of sympathy with the protest, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-04

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I said that yes, there was a reluctance for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons may be because they might be sympathetic, but the bigger reasons that we heard is that they afraid for their livelihood and their safety.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-07

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Well, I want to focus on the group that was objecting out of sympathy with the protest. You'd agree that they may have done so out of political and moral reasons?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-12

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I can't really speak on their behalf.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-16

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

You'd agree that the Emergency Measures regulation compelled tow truck drivers to serve a cause that was potentially contrary to their beliefs if they were refusing out of sympathy with the protest?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-18

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

You know, again, the Emergencies Act was necessary, given the circumstances. The tools within the Emergencies Act were necessary to end illegal activities including blockades and occupation. And in order for us to de-escalate the situation and to end these illegal activities, we needed access to tow trucks, making sure that tow truck drivers were compensated and made whole. And I'm pretty sure that -- and I can't speak about the selection of tow truck drivers and tow truck companies, how the law enforcement agencies in choosing them, so I'm sure they found those who were willing as long as they felt they were compensated and protected.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 272 29-272-22

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Minister, I'm out of time, but I'm just going to push back on that one answer you gave me, because I asked you if tow truck drivers who would have refused out of sympathy with the protest, as you highlighted in your interview statement, would have been compelled by the Emergencies Measure regulations to serve a cause that they did not agree with, and you responded by talking about the necessity of it. But I'm asking you, were those people compelled to serve a cause that they felt went against their conscience and their choice of association?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 273 29-273-06

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

So I answered the question by saying I was not involved in how tow truck drivers or tow truck companies were selected. I would like to think that there were options to select tow truck drivers who were willing to participate.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 273 29-273-17

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

You'd like to think that, but certainly, the power created that opportunity, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 273 29-273-22

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I was not involved in the selection of tow truck drivers.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 273 29-273-24

Hatim Kheir, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I have no further questions. Thank you.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 273 29-273-26

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. Next if I could call on the City of Windsor, please?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 273 29-273-28

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER KING

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Thank you, Minister Alghabra. My name is Jennifer King. I am legal counsel to the City of Windsor.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 274 29-274-04

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

I only have hopefully a few questions for you to clarify a few points. So first, I have some questions about the Strategic Enforcement Strategy. Both you and your deputy minister have testified about this strategy. I'll ask the clerk to bring it up just in case we need to look at it. It is PB.CAN.00000860. And I understand that there was never a final version, and my understanding is that Deputy Minister Keenan agreed that this was the final version. So this strategy, as it's coming up, I think you'll agree with me that the strategy recognizes that given the complexity of the occupations and blockades, safe resolution requires three levels of government to collaborate, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 274 29-274-08

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

And do you agree with that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 274 29-274-23

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

And the strategy calls on all levels of government to deliver key messages, including that the blockades were breaking municipal bylaws?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 274 29-274-25

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

And the strategy lists examples of municipal bylaws including Windsor bylaws, right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-01

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Deputy Minister Keenan confirmed last week that Transport Canada did not consult with Windsor on this strategy, nor did Transport Canada consult with Windsor Police. He said that, "We left both of those to our provincial colleagues." Are you aware of that?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-04

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I was not aware of the level of consultation that took place. I was just aware that there's significant consultation that had taken place in putting this document together.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-10

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. But if Deputy Minister Keenan said that he didn’t consult with the Municipality of Windsor, you would defer to him?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-14

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I would defer to him.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-17

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

And you didn’t consult with the municipality on the strategy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-18

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I had a meeting, by the way, with Mayor Dilkens, I think, February 11th, I think. So I certainly reached out. I know my colleague, Minister Mendicino, has also reached out. So I put an effort into making sure that I heard directly from the mayor. You saw that I also had spoken with my colleague, Irek Kusmierczyk, member of parliament from Windsor. So it was really important for me to hear directly from those who are representing Windsor about the experience that they're going through and ideas that they may have.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 275 29-275-20

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Right. And we'll talk about that call that you had with Mayor Dilkens in a few moments. But I take it that you didn’t specifically ask for input on the tools that you were putting into this strategy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 276 29-276-03

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Again, the strategy was developed, put together by officials based on my request and I know -- and the idea was to consult our stakeholders, our key partners, so -- but I'm not able to answer your question about the level of engagement and who exactly was involved in this development.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 276 29-276-07

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Thank you. Okay. So let me put this to you -- put it to you this way. When you're in a situation -- and you've already talked about the call with Minister Mulroney on February the 9th -- and in your witness statement, you state that in that call, Minister Mulroney advised you that Transport Canada's enforcement proposals were simply unworkable. That’s what she told you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 276 29-276-13

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah. I mean, I don't know if that was the exact word, but maybe it was, but saying that what we were proposing was not doable.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 276 29-276-20

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. So if you're in this kind of situation where your provincial colleagues are maybe not on board at the moment and you're in a situation where safe resolution requires three levels of government to collaborate, wouldn't you agree that you should reach out directly to consult with the impacted municipalities on this kind of strategy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 276 29-276-23

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Again, I reached out to Mayor Dilkens and I had a conversation with him to hear from him about what's going on, to get a briefing from him, and then too, I offered him what else can we do to help. So I had a direct conversation with the Mayor. As I said, my other colleagues as well.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 277 29-277-01

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Right. And so it is important to reach out directly to a municipality then. You agree?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 277 29-277-07

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Yeah. So Deputy Minister Keenan also confirmed that Transport Canada would not have shared the strategy with Windsor after it was finalised, and again relied on Transport Canada's provincial partners to share it as they saw fit. And he didn't know if it had been shared. I take it you did not share the strategy with Windsor?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 277 29-277-11

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I didn't, but again, I mean, I -- the document was about provincial and federal tools, and mostly provincial tools, so it made I guess sense. And again, I shouldn't be talking about what exactly happened because I wasn't involved in it, but maybe I'm attempting at understanding what happened.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 277 29-277-19

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Right. And so we did get some clarity on that from the Deputy Minister. I can tell you that I'm not aware of any evidence that Windsor received it. I just wanted to confirm with you that if the purpose of the strategy was to coordinate with three levels of government, wouldn't it have been important then to ensure that all levels of government had a copy?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 277 29-277-25

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Counsellor, at the risk of repeating myself, I -- myself, my colleague, Mr. Kusmierczyk, my colleague, Minister Mendicino, perhaps others have reached out to the Mayor to ensure that we are still in touch and in contact. We offered -- we solicited input, we offered help. So I'm -- I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate is that we've actually done that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 278 29-278-04

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

No, and I can see, and we'll talk... Perhaps, Mr. Clerk, you can call up SSM.CAN00000981. And I can see that there was a reach out to Mayor Dilkens, and this is referenced in the institutional report from Windsor, absolutely, and Mayor Dilkens said that there was excellent communication with the different levels of government. I was just trying to confirm with the strategy that was an important strategy that Transport Canada had worked on why it didn't get to the local authorities that were on the ground.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 278 29-278-11

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah, I can't answer that question because I wasn't involved in the day-to-day put-together of this strategy.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 278 29-278-23

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Thank you. And so I just wanted to perhaps refresh your memory. This is a memo. Who is Samar Khan?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 278 29-278-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Oh, she is a former employee of mine.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-01

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. And so these -- this is a memo that she prepared for you reflecting your meeting with Mayor Dilkens.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-03

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes, it's a briefing note before a call.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-06

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. So I just have a couple of clarification questions about this call because you hadn't referenced it in your witness summary. And I just -- I'm not sure if it matters, but you had said that the call was maybe on the February 11th, I think that was Mayor Dilkens' recollection. This document seems to be dated February 10th.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-08

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Oh, it's not uncommon that my staff prepares a briefing note the night before so I can read it overnight in preparation for my meeting, and the briefing note tends to cover a variety of issues in case any other topic is approached when I am speaking with whoever I am being prepared for.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-14

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

And then your staff would insert the notes from the call. Is that what we have here?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-20

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I don't know. I think this is the actual briefing note. I don't know if it has the readout of the call. I think this is the actual briefing note.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-22

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. So when it says Current Status, and it has notes about what Mayor Dilkens is saying this is not notes from the call?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-25

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

No. No, this is preparing me for what's the latest activities that have been happening there.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 279 29-279-28

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. So if you could just scroll down the second page. So you're aware at this point, then, that the City, along with the APMA is seeking an injunction?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 280 29-280-03

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

(Inaudible response)

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 280 29-280-07

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Yeah. And on the second page you'll see at the top, it states that the: "OPP has been sent to Windsor to assist with the situation, and RCMP are sending a Public Order Unit based in Ontario to assist alongside the OPP in Windsor." So you were aware of that as of around February 10th?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 280 29-280-08

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah. As I said, this was a note prepared by my team to prepare me for the call, and the idea is to make sure that I'm up-to-date on the ongoing activities.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 280 29-280-17

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Great. Thank you for clarifying that. And my question is, Minister Alghabra, you told my friend, Commission Counsel, earlier that you tasked your department with what can be done to federal legislation and tools to protect critical infrastructure. Did you task your department to consult with border municipalities and other partners in considering these changes and tools?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 280 29-280-21

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Oh, I mean, we're not at that stage yet, perhaps we will get there. But for now, the idea is to put together a simple proposal on what additional tools we need, and then what we'd do is we would then talk to our partners. For sure it would make sense municipalities that have such critical infrastructure to seek their input.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-01

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Okay. Thank you, those are all my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-07

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. Next is former Chief Sloly's counsel, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-10

Nikolas De Stefano, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Nikolas De Stefano for Chief Sloly. We have ceded our time to the Government of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-12

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Chris Diana for the OPP. And we likewise have no questions, and have ceded our time to the Government of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-17

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Oh, my god. Okay. I don't know, that's going to be a long... Okay, Windsor Police Service.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-20

Heather Paterson, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Hi, there. Heather Patterson for the Windsor Police Service. We have no questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-23

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. And the Government of Alberta, please.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-25

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Good afternoon. It's Mandy England for the Government of Alberta. We do have some questions, and I'm wondering if we might be able to take the time for the Windsor Police Service that they weren't able to use this afternoon.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 281 29-281-27

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Well, that -- there wasn't an offer made, but -- and you owe me five minutes from the last time. But let's go and see where we go.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 282 29-282-04

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Fair enough. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 282 29-282-07

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MANDY ENGLAND

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Minister, you will agree with me that in your communications with Minister Sawhney before February the 13th that you did not raise or discuss the Federal Emergencies Act; is that right?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 282 29-282-10

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you. I'd like to take you to some comments that were made in your witness statement, and I would ask if that could please be pulled up just so you can see it. It's at WTS, I believe it's six zeros 75, at page 4. And as it's being pulled up, the first comment that I'd like to draw your attention to is, "Nonetheless, his", being your: "...assessment was that some provincial governments, for example, Ontario and Alberta viewed the issue as an issue falling under federal jurisdiction requiring federal intervention." And so if could paraphrase colloquially the request that the Government of Alberta did make for assistance to the Federal Government, it was, you know, "It's our information that you own some heavy lift tow trucks that are sitting in our province, and we would like to borrow them." So would you agree with that that request was not the same thing as saying, "Responding to this event doesn't fall under Alberta's jurisdiction, this falls under federal jurisdiction"?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 282 29-282-15

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

First of all, it was actually a comment that was mentioned to me by Minister Sawhney, that they also see it as, because it's a point of entry, they see that the Federal Government is implicated in this. So -- and that the Federal Government needed to play a leadership role in it. And so this was based on a comment that I had received from the Minister. Second, you know, I think -- I can't comment, you know, on the RFA. That's a -- that's not necessarily where my comment had come from.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 283 29-283-10

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you. And so in terms of, you know, the issue that there was a port of entry, I understand you were saying that there was a role, but not that it was a matter solely of federal jurisdiction. Alberta did not in any way imply that and viewed this as not being anything to do with it; right? You were aware that Alberta was actively responding to it as a matter within its jurisdiction.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 283 29-283-20

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

You know, when I asked Minister Sawhney, and I -- Minister Sawhney and I have a very good professional relationship where we're in regular contact when she was the Minister of Transportation, when I asked if she would be willing to issue a joint statement, because we -- I felt having a joint statement by two levels of government calling on the blockaders to go home would send a strong message to those who are thinking of staying or those who are thinking of joining, she refused to do that because she said that this is a federal issue because what the blockaders are objecting to has nothing to do with us. So that’s -- I’m sharing this with you to explain to you where I received that sense, that Alberta was saying that this is the Federal Government’s problem.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 283 29-283-27

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, well, if I could ask if the Clerk could please pull up SSM.CAN00002302, which is a readout of your colleague Minister Sawhney. I did not read her comments in the same way that you did and so I’ll pull those up for context. And so here is the readout of your meeting with Minister Sawhney. And if we could scroll down, please, right there -- sorry, the fourth point. We see “Minister asks if we could do joint statement”. And Minister Sawhney’s response was: “Maybe, however, this would seem as if she’s endorsing the vaccine mandate. And that was her issue with your joint statement, not that she thought that the matter was federal jurisdiction to deal with. Is that a fair summary of what the comment was?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 284 29-284-12

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

This is a readout and my memory is that, and it’s not really that off from the readout. My memory is that she said that the protestors and the blockaders are opposed to the federal mandate and that’s why she was reluctant to appear like she’s supporting the federal mandate and she was reluctant to be appearing to be involved with us on this.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 284 29-284-26

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. And then you mentioned that it was your impression in your witness statement; you mentioned it was your impression from this conversation that existing tools in Alberta were not being used or were not sufficient. Were you aware that the RCMP were not able to carry out their enforcement action without having on hand the heavy towing equipment that Alberta -- we were just discussing that Alberta was looking for?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 285 29-285-05

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I was aware that the blockade continued, so I ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 285 29-285-14

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Were you aware that the enforcement action could not be taken out without the heavy towing equipment that Alberta was looking for?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 285 29-285-16

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yeah. I mean I was aware that there are different reasons, including towing capacity. So, yes. And, again, overall the outcome for me is that these blockades continued.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 285 29-285-19

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

And with the knowledge that the enforcement action could not be taken out without the towing equipment, wouldn’t you agree with me that there was a connection between existing authorities not yet being enforced as of the time of your conversation with Minister Sawhney on February 9th and the fact that the RCMP hadn’t yet secured the equipment that they needed? Those two ideas were very inextricably linked?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 285 29-285-24

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Again, the common response that I was getting as to when I kept asking why are the blockades at Coutts and other places continuing; there were different reasons. Some of them were safety, operational, including availability of tow trucks, and tow truck operators by the way; it wasn’t just tow trucks, tow truck operators.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 286 29-286-04

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

And the readout that we’re looking at right now from Minister Sawhney’s call with you on February the 9th, indicates that she reiterated to you more than once that the RCMP were working on it, but that Alberta could not and would not insert itself to tell them exactly what to do. Do you recall that and see that before you?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 286 29-286-10

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you. There are also documents on the record that show that your Deputy Minister Michael Keenan knew by the afternoon of February the 12th that Alberta had purchased towing equipment. To be clear in respect of a prior answer that you gave this afternoon, is it your evidence that no one had made you aware that by February 13th Alberta had acted itself to purchase the equipment that the RCMP needed?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 286 29-286-17

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I was aware that Alberta is seeking to purchase tow trucks; I can’t recall when I found out that those tow trucks were purchased but I was aware that Alberta had made a decision to purchase tow trucks. And I was also informed that there was an issue with operators for those tow trucks.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 286 29-286-25

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

And you are aware by the 13th of February that they had made that purchase; correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-03

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I don’t recall if I knew on the 13th or not, I can’t recall that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-05

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Do you recall whether it was before the Emergencies Act was invoked?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-07

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

No, I can’t recall that.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-09

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay. If you had known that, would your assessment of the necessity of the Emergencies Act have changed at all?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-10

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Look, the Emergencies Act was needed because we had a national issue. We had problems across the entire country, including a threat of other emerging trouble zones. So I think -- and let me repeat. Coutts as well had during those three weeks or two and a half weeks, was on and off. So there was also still no confidence that the whole issue is going to be resolved this quickly. So the short answer to your question; no, I don’t think it would have changed my mind.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-13

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Okay, thank you; those are my questions this afternoon. And thank you for your indulgence, Commissioner.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-22

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

No problem. Okay, next is the City of Ottawa.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-25

Daniel Chomski, Counsel (Ott)

Dan Chomski for the City of Ottawa and we have no questions for the Minister.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 287 29-287-27

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. So the big winner, the Government of Canada.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 288 29-288-01

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. DONNAREE NYGARD

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

I only had ten minutes to start with so it’s still not that long. Good afternoon -- or I guess good evening, Minister. My name is Donnaree Nygard. As you know, I am one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada. I want to take you back in time a little bit to before the blockade -- the protest arrived in Ottawa. What was the situation with truck drivers being able to cross the border in both directions at that point in time?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 288 29-288-04

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

So first of all, I mean maybe to even set the broader context, are supply chains have been going through a lot of disruptions because of Covid -- mostly Covid measures with lockdowns, with border restrictions, that had an impact on our economy and on our supply chains. So it was really critical for me personally and for our government, to keep monitoring our supply chain and the health of our supply chain and in fact one of the rationale that we believed the vaccine mandate would be good for our supply chain, is to protect the health and safety of the workers in the supply chains. With absenteeism being high because of Covid, with spread of Covid, with the risk of contracting Covid, the vaccine mandate, one of its rationale is that it ensured some additional resilience within our supply chain, including for our truck drivers. So when we -- and there was coordination; you’re asking about truck drivers across the borders; there was coordination between us and the U.S.; they also required similar measures for truck drivers to cross the border. Prior to invoking -- or implementing that measure, I had many consultations with trucking associations, with industry and it had come to me that about 90 per cent of truck drivers were fully vaccinated, that this measure would not have a measurable impact, however, we’ll continue to encourage the remaining who have not been vaccinated to get vaccinated. So all that long preamble to say is that I kept an eye on the volume of our truck activities across the border on a regular basis and published those on my social media to reassure the public that while the vaccine mandate is working, it has not had a measurable impact on the flow of our goods and our truck drivers across the border.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 288 29-288-12

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you mentioned that you were coordinating with the U.S. who had a similar mandate in place. So if Canada had lifted or put back in place the exemption for truck drivers, would an unvaccinated truck driver be able to cross the Canada/U.S. border?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 289 29-289-15

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Not a Canadian truck driver. A U.S. driver maybe, but not a Canadian truck driver.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 289 29-289-20

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you mentioned supply chains as well. I understand that on January 31st you participated in a supply chain summit. Can you tell us a little bit about that, please?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 289 29-289-22

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Sure, I just explained to you how vulnerable and turbulent our economy was at that moment as we are coming out of the acute phase of COVID after significant disruptions. Supply chains certainly were impacted. And what our government wanted to do and what I wanted to do is go to action on figuring out what can the federal government do to strengthen our supply chains to respond to the ongoing challenges that we were facing. And we held a summit. I hosted a summit that invited key stakeholders, industry leaders from different sectors to come together and talk about they’re hearing, what they’re seeing, and what their recommendations are for the federal government to ensure that we have stronger, more resilient supply chains. And by the way, it included representatives of the trucking industry.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 289 29-289-26

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And you also spoke about the feedback that you were getting from the trucking industry and I just want to -- and industries in general. I just want to pull up a document. Mr. Clerk, if you could pull up SSM.CAN.00000958.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 290 29-290-14

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I have to say, I'm impressed at how fast you pull the documents.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 290 29-290-19

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And is this a document you recognize, Minister?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 290 29-290-21

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. This is a press release by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturing Association -- Manufacturers Association.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 290 29-290-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And was this something you were aware of at the time?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 290 29-290-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. In fact, I think I met with them on that day. So I met with different industry associations and representatives including the Vehicle Manufacturers Association. It included the Auto Part Association. It included the Retail Council. It included the manufacturers and exporters and they -- to talk t them about the impact that the blockades is having on their industry, to hear from them. And I can,. You know, go through some of what I heard, whether it was from the Vehicle Manufacturers, GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, all of them had shift disruption. And some of them were considering shipping on planes engines because some lines were being shut down and some production is being delayed. I also heard from 3M, a medical company, the Retail Council and grocers. It was quite evident., again, not only just through data but I mentioned earlier, in their voice how anxious they were about the wellbeing of their business, about the impact that this is going to have on investment in their business, about decisions that their -- some of them had U.S. headquarters in the investment decisions that their headquarters was going to make. So there was a great concern and they at the time issued the statement to again articulate that concern.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 290 29-290-28

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And can we also pull up SSM.CAN.00000987, please. Do you recognize this letter?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 291 29-291-23

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And is this something that was -- it’s not addressed to you. It’s addressed to the prime minister and to all of the premiers. But were you provided with a copy of it?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 291 29-291-27

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And if we can scroll down to the body of it. This was from the Canadian ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-04

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Trucking Alliance.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-06

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

--- Trucking Alliance. That’s right. And ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-07

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

The Canadian Manufacturers Exporters.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-09

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Yes, that’s correct. And the sentiments expressed in this letter, are those reflective of the sorts of things that you were hearing from the various groups that you've just referred to?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-11

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. And then can we have SSM.CAN.988, please? This is, as I understand it -- well, perhaps you can tell us who Ninu Forrest is? Do you know?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-16

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. Ninu is a staff in my office.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-20

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. So this appears to be a readout from a call you had on February 11th with the Teamsters; am I reading that correctly?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-22

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. We don’t need to go through the document but can you tell us about that call? You can look at the document to refresh your memory if you need.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 292 29-292-26

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. This was with, I think, either the president or the executive director at the time of Teamsters. And expressing their concern about the blockades, and how much flak they were getting from those who are supporting the blockaders because they had publicly spoken out against the illegal activities. And you know, they were again asking us to do something to end these issues.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 293 29-293-02

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And was this reflective of the kind of information that you were receiving from other stakeholders in the industry?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 293 29-293-09

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Yes. The Canadian Trucking Alliance said the same thing because again they were -- they issued -- again, a statement, I think, on January 31st, right at the beginning of the illegal occupation, that they distanced themselves from those activities and that they do not represent truckers and the profession of truckers. But they then told us that they did receive a lot of threats by those, I guess, who are sympathetic to the blockaders.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 293 29-293-12

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And if we can pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000780. This appears to be a summary of the stakeholder engagement by you and your staff on February 10th. Have you see this before?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 293 29-293-20

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

So the first entry there is an engagement you had with Ms. ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 293 29-293-26

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Thank you -- that you've already spoken about. And then the next one is your call with Secretary Buttigieg which you’ve already spoken about, if we could scroll down. Then there’s an entry in regard to an engagement you had with Global Automakers. And you referred to this in passing but could you tell us a little bit more about that call? And were these all on February 10th or this just a summary of the calls that had occurred until up to that date?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 294 29-294-01

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I can’t recall, to be honest. If the sheet says it was done on the 10th, then it was done on the 10th. I know they were all done within a few days. So within that week. But this, as I alluded earlier, this was a conversation with representatives of Toyota and Honda. And they were explaining to about the severe impact that these blockaders are having on their business, the shortage of parts, the impact on assembly lines, the impact on workers, and the impact on confidence. And again, don’t forget, we’re at a time where there’s a transformation in the auto sector, the building of new vehicles, electric vehicles. There’s competition between different jurisdictions. Who’s going to get which plant? Obviously Toyota Canada and Honda Canada and others were competing with their fellow other regions around the world for investments. They felt that this put a lot of the plans that they have in place at risk.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 294 29-294-10

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And I'm not going to go through each of the entries on here but if we can just scroll down further you'll see there a number of consultations there listed that were conducted, apparently, by your staff. But is it fair to say that your staff would have briefed you on all of these consultations?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 294 29-294-27

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And if we can pull up PB.CAN.00000734. And just while that’s being pulled up, you had been taken earlier to the February 12th IRG minutes, in which you discussed Manitoba, and I believe you said you’d had a consultation with your counterpart in Manitoba. Is that correct?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 295 29-295-06

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

And this is a letter from the Premier of Manitoba dated February 11th. Were you aware of this letter?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 295 29-295-14

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

I don’t think I saw it, no. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it before.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 295 29-295-17

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Okay. Well we’ll leave it at that then. You also continued to conduct consultations with some of your provincial counterparts after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, as I understand it. Can you tell us about that, please?

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 295 29-295-19

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Correct. And these were part of the outreach that I had been doing for a while, and I had a call with my B.C. counterpart, Minister Fleming, and I had a call with my Nova Scotia counterpart to talk about -- B.C., by the way, at the time, even though when I’d spoken with him, and I think it was the day the Emergencies Act was invoked, ---

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 295 29-295-24

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Correct. But at that time, if I recall correctly, the Surrey Port of Entry was still blocked. So we had a conversation about the fact that the Emergencies Act was invoked. He told me that his government supported it. And I asked him for the situation in Surrey. He said it’s still blocked but that, you know, now hopefully we’ll find a resolution to it. So that was the extent of the conversation. With Nova Scotia, you know, there were also threats of blockades and protests around ports, around the legislator. They had, I think, invoked their own state of emergency. So I just reached out as well as part of my effort to reach out to many of the provinces who were impacted to speak with her, to get a sense from her about what she and her government felt about the invocation of the Emergencies Act and about the current situation in the province. And she also indicated, I think, that they were supportive of the Emergencies Act.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 296 29-296-03

Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)

Thank you. Those are all my questions.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 296 29-296-21

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Okay. Well, you didn’t take up all your delegated time. Okay. Well that was -- thank you very much for coming and for testifying, and especially at this late hour. So you’re free to go and enjoy the little bit of evening that’s left.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 296 29-296-23

Omar Alghabra, Minister (GC-TC)

Thank you, Your Honour.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 297 29-297-01

Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)

Thank you. So we’re going to adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9:30.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 297 29-297-02

The Registrar (POEC)

The Commission is adjourned. La Commission est adjournée.

Volume 29 (November 23, 2022), page 297 29-297-05

Upon adjourning at 7:24 a.m. Ottawa, Ontario