Brendan van Niejenhuis
Brendan van Niejenhuis spoke 1023 times across 14 days of testimony.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I just have three questions, Your Honour, on Ms. Li. You described a lawless environment during the period of the convoy occupation, I believe, in reference to my friend's questions there, yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Did that change after you obtained the anti-honking injunction on February the 7th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did it change by February the 14th, the lawless environment that you described?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You obtained an extension of the injunction on February the 16th; is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you showed us photographs on February 17th and 18th, though you couldn't recall which of those 2 dates it was; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And was there still a lawless environment as you perceived it at that time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Commissioner. And sorry to single you out, Ms. Carrier, but I wanted to ask you just a few questions about your emails. My name is Brendan van Niejenhuis and I'm one of the counsel for the Government of Canada.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we call up COA-00000073? While that's coming up, Ms. Carrier, you provided some of your own content that we watched earlier to the Ottawa Police Services, but you also provided some open-source social media content from what you found online; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was usually to a Sébastien Lemay there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was that your usual contact?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And so this item here, if we can just go down to the bottom, you're providing Sébastien Lemay with a link to a TikTok Live; is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you say it's Ottawa jam the airport?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
What do you recall or what was your interpretation of what you saw and sent to him?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If we can go to another example, it's COA-00000118. And again, if we just go to the bottom here, this is on February the 8th; is it?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, and you sent again another TikTok Live to Sébastien Lemay at the Ottawa Police Service?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. You say, "On this TikTok Live, they are openly discussing tactics for breaking laws." (As read) Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you recall anything about the specific content of this TikTok Live that you are reporting to him?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
No, that's fine. That's part of the nature of the TikTok live is that it ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- is it ephemeral or it goes away after the stream is done generally?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Am I correct ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in fact, if you go up to the top of this document, you see Sebastien LeMay's reply to you addresses that precise question; right? "Do you know if there is a way to view TikTok lives after the fact?" (As read) Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you've just told us that you can do that if -- am I correct, that that's only if the streamer actively chooses the -- chooses to make their TikTok Live available as a live replay?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But there's a large volume, as you say, out there that you were looking at in large volume that from time to time you would send on to the police; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And you weren't in a position to be able to record large volumes of it for ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Can we go lastly to COA 6068? But you were asked earlier about complaints that you had received from members of your BIA and their contacts, and some of those questions were about being informed that the Canadian Tire Store near Coventry had sold out of bear spray; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This is not, that's correct.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But I'm just reminding you that you were asked about that earlier.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And here again, this is -- this is, you know, the top is Sebastien LeMay thanking -- it's Sebastien LeMay thanking you for sending this along; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go to the very bottom of this what you're forwarding here, the -- if you keep going to the very bottom email from February the 10th, do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This is what you're relying on, that the Canadian Tire, at least according to what you have been told, has also sold out of gas cans, Canadian flags ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- and the powerful hand held horns and smaller marine horns?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And you reported that on to the police?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good evening now, Councillors. My name is Brendan V. and I am one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada in this matter. And I just have a couple of brief questions for you. If we could pull up OTT00006610? This is a disposition document from the council meeting of February 7th. Are you familiar with that meeting?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this was a meeting in which many different motions were brought and passed with respect to the convoy, yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I just want to focus on a couple of them which the two of you testifying today brought or seconded. The first is if we could carry down to page 10 of the document. And to the one on the bottom of the page there; that’s right, right about there. This is a motion that was moved by you, Councillor McKenney, and seconded by you, Councillor Fleury.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this was referred to earlier, but this was the motion, if you could just go over to the next page, the top of the next page. This is the motion that was carried asking for the RCMP to assume control of the Parliamentary Precinct, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then the next morning -- I don’t think we need to go to the document but the next morning, I believe -- we can if you wish. But Chief Sloly wrote to you and the rest of council to advise about the operation of the Police Services Act and how -- and to provide some of the legal reasons, at least as he was informed of them, why the RCMP could not directly assume enforcement as police of local jurisdiction immediately. Do you recall that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me. Okay. Did you see that document though?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now you have.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. Fair enough. Can we move on to page -- the bottom of page 11 of the same document? It just vanished.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we just go back to page 11 again? And then this is a motion that you moved, Councillor Fleury, and you seconded, Councillor McKenney; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you just scroll slightly down the page, this is the motion, I think, referred to earlier with respect to increasing the set fines for offences under municipal bylaws in the POA? Is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this was passed as well; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. So that’s as far as this method went?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And then could we lastly go to the motion on page 17? That one there that is moved by Councillor Meehan and seconded by you, Councillor McKenney?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this motion actually on February the 7th is defeated on an even split vote? Is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But I take it that both of the two of you were yays in favour of this motion on February the 7th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was that because both of you, from what we’ve heard today, looking at the situation from your perspective as the ward councillors in this area of Ottawa, viewed the circumstances that existed on February the 7th as potentially warranting the invocation of the Federal Emergencies Act, and therefore warranting at least that this be discussed with the Federal Government?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
When the Act was in fact invoked a week later on February 14th, I think a number of things happened that day. The City of Ottawa also accomplished or was issued an injunction that day; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the Emergencies Act was invoked or its invocation was announced by the Prime Minister that day?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I’ll ask you this. Had the circumstances that led you to this view on February the 7th subsided enough to change your view that they warranted this step, at least as far as Ottawa was concerned?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sorry, ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- had the circumstances changed enough, had they gotten better enough that you ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- to change your view that the ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- step was warranted?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And enforcement was not in fact accomplished until after February 14th, when both the Act and the injunction were in place? Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And additional resources were in place from Ontario and the RCMP?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Mayor Watson. My name is Brendan van Niejenhuis and I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I wanted to start by asking you about some of your concerns that were expressed in your conversation of February the 3rd with Ministers Blair and Mendicino. Do you recall that first conversation with that group?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It’s the February 3rd call, Mayor, and I’m sorry if I misspoke.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I believe so. It’s -- it isn’t too material, at any rate. My point really is that, as early as the conversations you were having with the federal partners on February the 3rd, you were already, understandably, growing extremely anxious to secure more resources for the City of Ottawa, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you were getting engagement, certainly, at the political level from the ministers, initially, and later from the Prime Minister; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You were getting engagement on these issues ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- initially from those ministers and, ultimately, from the Prime Minister as well; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And at the political level, at any rate, you were getting the commitment to do what they could to assist you in getting boot on the ground; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, sure. And you certainly took them to be serious in their desire to get you that assistance, to the best of their ability, at the political level; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the purpose of getting those boots on the ground -- and when we say “boots on the ground”, what we mean in those conversations is RCMP officers working on Ottawa streets; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The purpose of getting those officers working on the city streets was to enforce the law; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in your first call with the Prime Minister that my friend took you through earlier, you expressed some, I think, understandable frustration given the situation you were in with the difficulties in the pace of bureaucracy at times; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In the press of events, though, you were feeling a great deal of urgency and you weren’t sure you were seeing enough urgency in terms of the implementation of these efforts; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And at the same time, there’s matters going on behind the scenes that -- you know, that you may not be able to be aware of in detail and that they may not be able to be aware in all of the detail because they’re operational in nature; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You, I think very fairly, earlier this morning acknowledged that some of the delays are simply practical delays, particularly when you’re dealing the National Police first, the RCMP. For example, you told us that you understood these officers might, in many cases, need to travel some distance to get to Ottawa; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure, and I’ll come to that in a moment. But just, first, on some of the practical, there’s an element of it that’s just practical delay, right, where you’re looking at travel, the need to check in to the hotel, the need to eat; these things take a bit of time depending upon where an officer is coming from, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure, that’s just common sense, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you start something earlier, you finish earlier. But the question is, you know, what’s done as matters unfold. So -- and one of the things that would take a bit of time, too, then, once you’re checked in, once you’ve had a meal, maybe gotten sleep and so forth, is to receive shifts in operational orders and be equipped to go out an start policing; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure, and you need then to also ensure familiar -- you need to ensure, as you say, familiarity with the place that is being policed and also, that's part of the need to do things in a safe fashion; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you need a sufficient number of officers with clear roles and responsibilities to proceed with a significant public order, a crisis in an environment like this; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And particularly in a place like Rideau and Sussex, for example, where you'd been told about a real concern about a more dangerous element having taken hold; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was also a top priority for the same reason in terms of the order of enforcement that you understood was likely to occur; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Rideau and Sussex was a priority for enforcement as the week of February 7th, for example ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure, but because of that more dangerous element, at least as it was being reported to you, that scenario where you would need, again, to really ensure officer and protester safety?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Now just coming back, you indicated the issue of the officers needing to be sworn in. And I want to ask you a few questions about that, Mayor Watson. Let me go back, first of all, to just, you know, reconfirm, the purpose of having these resources in place was to enforce the laws here; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in order to do that, you need the law enforcement professionals, the peace officers who are going to be doing that job, they need to be here lawfully themselves; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
They need to have the proper legal authority to be able to enforce before you can get underway with a very significant law enforcement operation; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if they did not have that legal authority, you might be in a situation where the operation itself might be called into question in terms of its lawfulness as well as any charges that might result?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
There might be a possibility of liability accruing to the City or indeed the RCMP or some -- or the individual officer if an officer wasn't lawfully in place at that point in time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now that process of swearing in officers to be able to enforce laws within the local jurisdiction, that was also true of other municipal police officers too, right, such as those that came from London and Belleville and otherwise?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
With respect to municipal by-laws though.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And at any rate, it is not something that needed to be done, whichever of us is right about that, and you may be. It was not something that needed to be done in the case of the Ontario Provincial Police, right, the swearing in process?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now could I ask if we could pull up OTT00006610? You are, of course, at the Ottawa 7 Emergency Council meeting, Mayor?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And quite a number of motions were passed unsurprisingly with respect to actions the municipality should take in response to the convoy that had then been entrenched for just a little over a week?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I'd like to just focus on a couple of them. The first is at page 10, begins at page 10. And this is a motion that your colleague Councillor Deans -- excuse me, it's the motion at the bottom of the page. It's a motion that we asked your colleagues Councillor McKenney and Councillor Fleury about last week, but it is a motion -- if you go over the -- to the top of page 11, you'll see that it's carried. And what it asks is that, "...the Council [...] formally petition the Government of Canada to assume responsibility for public safety and security within the [...] Precinct and to commit to an immediate and [...] increased level of support [...] to the Ottawa Police, the police force of jurisdiction, subject to the resolution of any jurisdictional discussions between the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that motion's carried, of course, unanimously I take it?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh, excuse me, I missed that. It's right there in front of me. With the exception of Councillor Chiarelli that was passed.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I want to turn now if we can to a comment that Chief Sloly sent to you the next morning and that's at -- if we can pull up, please, OTT00005837? You see this is an email from Chief Sloly to yourself and Chair Deans -- Councillor Deans copying a number of others from the Ottawa Police and the City Manager, et cetera. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Of course. Do you mind pulling that down? And we'll take a moment to look at that, Mayor, but my question's going to be, first of all, is this is reference to the motion we just looked at?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I'm just going to direct you to the second paragraph there where Chief Sloly's indicating to you, "In Ontario, policing is governed by the Police Services Act. In accordance with [section] 5[...] of [that] Act, the City [...] has discharged its responsibility to provide police services by establishing [its own] police force — the Ottawa Police Service." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he indicates that, "[Therefore,] Ottawa [...] is the sole police service of jurisdiction." But then he continues. He says, "It is [also] important to note that the Police Services Act defines "police force" as either the [OPP] or a municipal police force." You see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that's consistent with your understanding of the -- that's the reason why OPP, for example, need not be sworn in?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And when you compare the situation as you did this morning in Ottawa to the situations that were in place both in terms of enforcement efforts down the road, that were in place both in Windsor and in Coutts, you saw that those operations were able to move more quickly than you perceived they were in Ottawa; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well, I think -- and the point he is making to your point, I think really, is that there's both legal obstacles and there is practical obstacles -- -
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- to getting this to move forward as quickly as everyone wanted; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Surely. Surely. This is not a situation like it was in Coutts, where the RCMP was already the police force of local jurisdiction and didn't have to worry about any of those legal obstacles.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, you told us this morning, I believe, that before the 14th of February, when the Emergencies Act was invoked, that you in fact were not familiar with the particular authority that existed under that Act; is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And one of the points that you've raised in that regard is the important point that the towing issue... And I'm sorry, Mr. Commissioner, I just have to finish this one question.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But the second aspect of it, Mayor, am I right was that the regulations passed under that Act permitted RCMP officers, regardless of the niceties of being sworn in, to enforce provincial and municipal laws in the streets of Ottawa? Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That enabled the clearing operation to occur later in the week of February 14th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for your indulgence. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Ms. Deans. I'm Brendan van Niejenhuis. I'm one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada on this Inquiry. I'm just going to try to ask you some, hopefully, less controversial questions about your experience in your capacity as the Board Chair for this jurisdiction at the time.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I'm going to do so by reference to some of the documents that you've looked at already, but I'm going to focus on some particular effects that come out of them. May I ask to pull up OPB00001624? This is the February 1st Board update document, Councillor Deans, which just to situate you, February 1st was the Tuesday after the initial convoy weekend. If we could go to page 7, please. And if you can just move down a little bit, and to that paragraph that starts "Chief" there. Just to confirm, what the Chief is reporting to you already by February the 1st, a few days into this, was the international dimensions of this matter; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that this is going to have provincial, national, international consequences, and he's referring to demonstrations already being seen in the United States stemming from this one?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he points to the fact that this is coming out of a global pandemic, and it's a very different scenario than what you saw in November of the previous year; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now, please, to OPB00001264. And this would be several days later, Councillor Deans. It's the February 5th meeting of the Board. And that would've occurred, am I right, on the Saturday of the second weekend?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 3, please. I think this is the initial occasion on which Chief Sloly, both in this Board meeting and elsewhere, indicates the view that there may not be a policing solution alone to the demonstration. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we look further down the page, on page 3, to the third last paragraph, just a little further down. Thank you. It's that paragraph that starts, "In the medium term" there. Do you see that there's an indication that "The Service", in the second sentence, is highlighting: "...the need for additional legal supports in...the short and medium term, [and is] requesting assistance to find uncharted legal territory."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you appreciated that you were being informed that the Criminal Code powers, the Highway Traffic Act, and the City of Ottawa by-laws were somewhat limiting in respect of their application to the trucker convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you could just go over the page to page 4, in the third paragraph. The Service pointed out to you and the rest of the Board, did it, that there was an: "...ability of the demonstration organizers to spread a narrative via social media..." Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that this was connected to the need for: "...additional legal resources to advocate for legislative changes that would provide for increased powers of enforcement in these kinds of situations." Fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And did you take that as a suggestion that existing legal authorities at the time were, at least in the view of the Service, not adequate to deal with the situation already by that second weekend?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If we go to OPB00001647. This is the continuation of that same meeting, but the in-camera portion of it. And if you could to page 3 of the in-camera minutes. If you can just move down the page a little bit, and just stop there. Do you see the paragraph in which Chief Sloly is speaking and comparing the situation to that of the 2011 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And here, he characterises a distinction here in the second -- in the last two sentences. He says: "The demonstration ongoing in Ottawa consisted of thousands of people convinced that the pandemic approach has been wrong." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that's an approach that was taken by, not just the municipalities, but by the federal government, and of course, by provincial governments across the country.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he suggested that: "The Service's intelligence [at that time] suggested that some participants, [for them] being arrested, injured or even being killed was viewed as achieving a level of martyrdom rather than a deterrent."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. Was that a serious concern when the Board heard that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to COM00000641. This is an article from the CBC website that appeared on February the 5th, and I take it this was the same -- oh, that would be the same date as that Board meeting, so probably prior to that meeting; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If we could go to -- I think it's the second page, just continue on downwards. I'm looking for a quote from yourself, Councillor Dean, so if you could just keep going down the page? Maybe a bit further? Okay. So just at the top of the next page, which is page 4, you see you're quoted there as saying, "The City is under siege"?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And looking for a concrete plan?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. Could you go to the top of the next page? You are quoted here, Councillor Deans, as saying: "People can't go to work or open their businesses. They can't sleep, walk, shop, go to medical appointments, or enjoy their neighbourhood. This group is a threat to democracy. What we're seeing is bigger than just a City of Ottawa problem. This is a nationwide insurrection. This is madness." Is that a fair attribution of your comments?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And is that how you viewed things that second weekend already?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to -- well, I don’t need the document, I just want to bookmark the timing. Two days later, on February the 7th, which would be the Monday after the second weekend, you co-signed a letter with Mayor Watson to the prime minister and to Minister Mendicino, right ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- requesting more resources from the federal government?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that same Monday, February the 7th, you sent a similar letter or you signed a signed a similar letter with the mayor that was sent to the premier as well as to Solicitor General Jones, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And we've seen those before, so we won't go back to them. Could we now go to OTT00006610? This will be the minutes of the council meeting, the special council meeting that was convened on the Monday evening of the 7th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Or afternoon, rather. And if I could ask that we turn to page 10, it'll be the bottom of the page, a motion at the bottom of the page, and just so you can see the mover and seconder there, but go to the top of page 11 and you'll see the output. This is the motion that asked the Government of Canada to take responsibility for policing, in effect, in the Parliamentary precinct, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you were in favour of that motion?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go then to page 17 of the same document, and carry down the page, you'll see this motion to move by Councillor Meehan and Councillor McKenney referring to the federal Emergencies Act and resolving that the City should enter into discussions with the Minister of Public Safety to see whether the Emergencies Act could be invoked, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s because you saw the need already for additional legal measures from what the service had been telling you to date?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you voted in favour, did you, of this motion?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
February 8th was the Tuesday. If we could go to OTT00005837? And I don’t need to spend a lot of time on this, but this is a note from Chief Sloly the next morning -- or sorry, the next evening, rather, and he's writing in reference to that motion, the first motion we'd looked at with respect to the RCMP assuming jurisdiction over the precinct.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Right. And if you just scroll down the page for -- in fairness to you, do you recall Chief Sloly providing you this information to remind you? I'm sure you are familiar with it already, but that under the Ontario Police Services Act, the RCMP is not defined as a police service, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And for that reason, some of these steps that we've spoken about earlier -- you've spoken about earlier, had to be taken, such as having each of the RCMP officers formally sworn in in groups?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And another one of the steps that had to occur was the signing of a formal memorandum of agreement to define their roles, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I believe you signed that on February the 8th as well, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we could go to OPB00000858? This is on February 10th. It's the Wednesday now, ahead of the third weekend after the second. This appears to be an email from Julia Keast of your office?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you are one of the addressees, and it is approving a request -- if you want to scroll down the page -- it reflects you approving a request to delegate the authority to swear in up to 400 members of the RCMP, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the last thing that would need to happen in that regard was the approval of the Solicitor General for those officers as well, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If we could go now to OPB00001272? This will be February 11th, the minutes again of the Board meeting, and these will be the public minutes. That will be the Thursday ahead of the third weekend, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh, excuse me, the Friday?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we could go to page 3, to the second-last paragraph? It was emphasized again to you by the Service, if I'm understanding this right, that there was a number of different reasons that individuals were demonstrating and no one particular line of thinking, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The demonstrations had become, or continued to become a local, provincial, national, and even international issue?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the Service was concerned about money and supports coming in from other countries, including the U.S.?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we could go to page 4, in the third-last paragraph? There, you'll see the note that the Service had been in conversation regarding the mitigation of risks associated with counter-protest. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It's ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And what that’s referring to, if I understand right, is the fact that Ottawa residents by now were awfully tired, angry, and frustrated, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there was a real concern that citizens would start to take matters into their own hands in a fashion that could lead to real violence, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And that was a concern to you and your colleagues on the Board?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Lastly -- and I see I'm almost out of time so I'll wrap this up very quickly -- if we could just go to the in-camera minuutes for one item, it's OPB00001648, and to the top of page 4? Thank you. And I just want to point out that again, here you're informed by the Service in-camera that national and international security blind spots were being pointed to, and due to the cumulative blind spots, the OPS lacked the capacity to address the unfolding situation, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did that refer, in part or a substantial part to the awareness of the organization of the convoy online and the impact of social media on those who'd come in to occupy Ottawa?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
(Off mic)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Superintendent Abrams, my name is Brendan van Niejenhuis, and I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada. And I just have a few questions for you about your testimony yesterday.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You described yesterday at some length a difference of view or approach between yourself or members of your team at the OPP and Chief Sloly and some of those working under him at the OPS about the importance in this scenario of PLT techniques; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in particular, you described or you relayed information upwards about a significant dispute that had arisen about the arrest of those who were removing gas cans from the Coventry Road encampment.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Those gas cans which were in part there as a supply of fuel to vehicles in the red zone were a serious concern as to safety; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And their use as a supply was also a concern about it supporting the continued entrenchment of the trucks in the downtown care; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The OPP PLT and some of the OPS PLT members as well, I take it, were concerned that the trust that had been invested by them and by the protestors at that Coventry Road site had been disrupted or even destroyed by the arrests that were -- that occurred; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And some of the PLT team members felt extremely demoralized and as though their work had been set back by days or even longer.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Some days had already been invested, I take it, in building those relationships with the Coventry Road encampment participants.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I think that the flash point for that disagreement as we saw from the document was on or around February the 8th. Does that accord with your recollection?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so by February the 8th the convoy had been ongoing in the downtown part of Ottawa for approximately 11 days running from January the 29th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And now it would take several more days in the view of the PLT team to get back to that point, if not longer; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In negotiating with the participants in the fashion that the PLT units do, is it fair to say that some are more susceptible to being reasoned with than others?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And if we -- if I just want to call up a document, OPS00010383. Just by way of example, Superintendent, this is a report from OPS, some PLT members describing -- the name’s redacted, but one of the organizers from the east convoy, give a sense of what certain groups or factions are looking for. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he’s indicating that this individual wants a meeting with the Governor-General and the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Senate; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was not the sort of thing that would be readily within the control of a PLT unit; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so this would be an example of someone who’s more difficult, at least on the -- by appearances, at least, to come to deal with, so to speak, to resolve the situation peacefully. Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And that informs the usefulness of a de- escalation or negotiation approach with a particular organizer or group of organizers; right? The reasonableness of their requirements in order to come into compliance with the law.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Just returning to this Coventry Road site, which was the locus of this, you know, contretemps or dispute, whatever you want to call it, that site is approximately a little more than four kilometres away from Parliament Hill and the centre of Wellington Street. Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m going from Google Maps, so it’s -- but it’s several kilometres away. Is that reasonable, at least?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in speaking yesterday to my friend, Commission counsel, with respect to your -- the conversation that you didn’t recall, I think, but that was recorded by Dana Earley in her notes from the Windsor side of things -- do you recall being asked about that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you were asked to, I guess, really speculate or -- about your apparent comment that in Ottawa, unlike in Windsor, the blockade was “not affecting livelihoods”, at least that’s what she had noted. Do you recall that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And I just want to ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- be fair to you to make it clear what you can recall and what you can’t, which is perfectly fair.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But I just wanted to return to what you’d said as you speculated about it. You thought that you might have been speaking from your impression gathered driving around Ottawa outside of the downtown core in the Parliament precinct, that it was quite manageable to drive around town; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure, sure. Just different geography and a different scenario.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You could get back and forth down the 417, and off to the Coventry Road site relatively smoothly?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that's quite distinct from what was going on in the heart of Downtown Ottawa and Parliament Hill?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If I could just show you a photograph of -- it's OTT, this was from Mr. Ayotte's evidence, OTT00010005, and it'll be page 37. It doesn't want to come up quickly. Well, do you recall at any point, if I can't get the photograph up, there being a large industrial crane on Wellington Street at certain points?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that industrial crane, for example, presented a potential for serious danger to persons or property if it were to be misused; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there was also the presence, you know, again, not on Coventry Road, but on the Parliamentary Precinct and on Wellington Street, of an uncontrolled and unknown quantifies of gas or diesel fuel there as well; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And just as in the Coventry Road area, those can explode and cause serious fires in that downtown sector of Ottawa as well if they're to be set alight; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I want to come back now to the difference of view about PLTs. You told us yesterday that in fairness to Chief Sloly, you know, in characterising the difference of view, that he may have been taking quite a high- level perspective in his preference by February 8th to enforce through public order operations in reference to investigating the PLT engagements; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you appreciate that if Chief Sloly's perspective may have been high-level that the perspective at the political level would probably have been at even higher level; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Is it fair say, though, that the differences of opinion and the disagreements or even arguments amongst the participants in the policing operations from OPP, OPS, and later the RCMP, that these were operational in nature?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And these kinds of operational disagreements are not typically brought to the awareness of the political level; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It would not be appropriate to directly engage the political level in operational questions like that; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It would not be appropriate.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
At your level, it would not be appropriate or you would perceive it as concerning if a Minister, for example, were to try to intrude into or give direction on the operational questions you were discussing?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
When you expressed the opinion yesterday that there were ways to enforce that could've ended the convoy's occupation of Downtown , short of the Emergencies Act, you were speaking just from your own visibility; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Speaking just from the things that you can see on the ground in Ottawa and in the east region of Ontario.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. When you expressed the view that there ways to enforce and end the convoy occupation in Downtown Ottawa, short of the Emergencies Act ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- you were speaking from your -- what you can see on the ground in Ottawa and the east region of Ontario?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You also acknowledged yesterday, and you'll agree with me that this wasn't an isolated event, and that an event occurring in Ottawa would have an immediate impact on what was going on in Coutts and what was going on at the Ambassador Bridge; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that may have been part of the assessment for all you know at the political level in terms of what was visible there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Finally, just with respect to the measures being used, can we turn very briefly to ONT00000168. This is a form letter from Commissioner Carrique "To all identified towing companies". Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you just scroll down the page, you'll see that this is -- indicates... Sorry, maybe not that far down. Just go back up. This provides the guidelines for the requirement of towing to be provided by towing companies under the Emergency Measures Regulations; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that, you'll agree with me, was used by the OPP to require towing companies to supply services?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, fair enough. If we could go to OPP00003660. Do you see this is a Notice To Demonstration Participants from February the 17th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this was distributed by the teams on the ground, including members of the OPP, to protesters to warn them of the legal consequences of remaining in the red zone; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it refers to criminal offences, but if you go down the page, it refers as well, of course, to the consequences arising out of the Emergencies Act; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And by the time the public order operations began in earnest that day, the 17th, communications like this had had an effect on reducing the footprint of the crowd; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But you'll appreciate, at least from the perspective of the consequence that it's attempting to communicate, that that's the purpose of it, right, is to allow for a peaceful opportunity to depart?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in your experience, it's effective; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this public order operation, so far as you're aware, was able to proceed in Ottawa without death or serious bodily injury to any of the participants?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. But you're not aware of any death or serious bodily injuries?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. The encampment was -- sorry, the occupation at any rate was resolved after the enforcement operation went underway with the assistance of the Communications, as far as you knew?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was the purpose of the OPP’s assistance throughout the convoy to begin with; right? Was to resolve the situation?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
No, no. But that’s the purpose of OPP’s assistance?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And when the EA was revoked, the Act was revoked on the 23rd, you directed the employment of common-law powers to prevent further assembly for approximately another 24 hours?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then you concluded that that power was no longer necessary or applicable because the situation had been resolved?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sorry. No, the only thing I wanted to point out is we have lost connection to the database, so it's difficult for me to see the screen from there. I gather some of my colleagues have also lost connection.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon, Commissioner Carrique. My name is Brendan van Niejenhuis, and I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada. I’ll have some questions for you today.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon. I’d like to start with an issue my friend was just asking you about after the lunch break, and that has to do with the issue of towing. Actually, before I start, I want to take you to - - that, I want to take you to a document he had taken you to, which is OPP00001580. This has to do with the messaging to the demonstrators.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you could look at the third paragraph, you see there that your advice to the Deputy Solicitor-General was that the messaging to the demonstrators should start with the Emergency Measures and Civil Protection Act; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And secondly, it should go to the FA. I take that as a typo for the EA. Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the EA would be the Emergencies Act; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Because it refers to the enforcement of the designated restricted zone; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the prohibition of children.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And those were measures that arose under the Emergencies Act.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And your point there is that you want to emphasize the Emergencies Act consequences and the EMCPA consequences ahead of emphasizing the criminal charges; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Because those messages would be more effective than the ordinary available charges under the Criminal Code in reducing the footprint of the protest site before the POU operation took place in earnest.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Could we go now, please, to PB.nsc.can.00007378? I want to take you back to the letter that you wrote on February the 22nd to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso; do you recall being asked about this a moment ago?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, I just want to make sure that we read the whole of the letter. If we go down to the first paragraph, please, you say this is further to an original letter you’d sent him of February 15th; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And you say, at the time, you thought that the best approach would be the provisions of the Ontario Public Service Procurement Directive and the Emergency Provisions underneath it which allow for non- competitive procurement; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you say, as matters unfolded operationally in real time, the OPP learned that the vendor community was highly reluctant to assist the police?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And initial conversations with them revealed that they required an unusually broad and high-risk indemnification from the province; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Secondly, a commitment not to reveal their name; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And you were advised by the Solicitor General’s legal that the OPP could not provide such an indemnity absent the approval of the Minister of Finance or the President of the Treasury Board Secretariat; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s what you conveyed to the Deputy Solicitor General?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This third bullet point, you say: "As advised by the Legal Services Branch, the OPP could not provide an indemnity." Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. And you could not promise confidentiality, if you look at the fourth line there, because of the obligations the OPP has under FIPPA; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Next bullet: If the OPP were to enter into such agreements, a separate agreement would be needed to be negotiated each time you retained a vendor and there simply would not be enough time for that to be achieved when services had to be in place by February 17; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Next page, you continue and say: "On February 15th, we learned that the Government of Canada announced the declaration of a Public Order Emergency under the Emergencies Act." Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you pointed out in the next paragraph that the Emergency Measure Regulations include provisions whereby the Minister or the Commissioner of the RCMP, or a person acting on their behalf, can require a person to render essential goods and services; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That includes towing services, as noted there; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the next paragraph, in the second sentence, you say: "Additionally, the regulations were support by Legal as the appropriate way to address the need to have services available quickly…" (As read). Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s because they included provision for, first of all, compensation; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Secondly, compensation for any loss, injury, or damage suffered as a result of performing their duties?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And lastly, protection from personal liability, which would serve the function of an indemnity; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then you enclose -- you tell the Deputy Solicitor General you’re enclosing the letter and fee schedule that you provided to all of the identified towing vendors; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right, if we can go to the next page, please -- I’m sorry, the fourth page, that’s the -- my friend showed you that. That’s designating you as a person who may exercise the authority of the Commissioner for this purpose; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Signed February 17th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, next page. If you look at the second paragraph, this is a letter that’s signed by you. It says: "The OPP thanks you for your wiliness to engage in discussions to date to determine a solution that will help us move forward in this emergent situation." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there had been discussions, at least to help determine whether a solution could be found that would protect the towing companies appropriately?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And in view of that concern, what you say here is that: "Pursuant Section 7 of the regulations, […], the OPP is now requiring you to make available, and render, the essential goods and services needed for the removal, towing, and storage of these vehicles." (As read). Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the next paragraph, you confirm, then: "This letter is written confirmation of verbal instructions from the OPP, […], to provide these services from the date the regulations came into force on February 15th, and notice that you are required to continue to comply and provide them." (As read). Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And so, as you said, it’s a bit of a semantic issue but in fact, sir, the OPP did require towing companies to provide the services under the auspices of the EA; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you appreciate that the -- under the Emergency Measures Regulations, where this authority came from, that the power is to request them to provide the services; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if they do no do so, then that creates an offence under Section 10 of the Emergency Measures Regulations; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go now to -- well, actually, go to the next page. You see there’s a note about compensation, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then if you go to the next page, there’s a second that also goes to the towing companies that sets out the compensation levels; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it’s got a schedule on the last page of the document, page 9, and that sets out the hourly rates for these services, right ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- ranging from $175 or so an hour up to $750 for the really big 65-tonne rotator trucks; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now to PB.CAN.00001628? Sir, I’m showing you what appears to be an invoice from the Government of Ontario and the Ministry lists OPP there among the notations; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s the form of an invoice that comes from or on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You appreciate you had advised the Deputy Solicitor General that, of course, you’d be seeking recovery or compensation from the RCMP for the money you paid out under that schedule to towing companies; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you just go down the page to the amount, you see there that there’s been a bill issued in the amount of $666,000 and change to the RCMP?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And sir, am I correct that that accounts for the amounts that were paid by the OPP to towing companies and then billed back to the RCMP.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It’s –- it indicates services received as of February 27th, and that accords with the general timeframes that we're speaking of; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. All right. I'd like now to go to your text messages with the Deputy Solicitor General. They are at OPP00004580. And we'll begin at page 16. First, sir, a general question. If we just go to the bottom of this text. You see there on the bottom right it's got a time and date stamp; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so this says 26th of January, 3:19:58 p.m.(UTC+0)?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And understand that UTC is coordinated universal time, and that refers to a time that is during Eastern Standard hours, which is five hours ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. So it's five hours -- it's basically subtract five and you get the correct time. So you're looking here at 3:19 p.m. This is a text message actually sent at 10:19 a.m.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And in fairness, you'll see in other texts that you talk about the time that it is that will assist in confirming that ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- but if we could just go with that, that'll help us orient what happens when.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So in this text message, I understand, and I'll represent to you that this is the first indication of you reporting, at least via text, about the incoming convoy to the Deputy. Does that appear reasonable?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And that's what we have to work with in the productions at least, so I'm not sure ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But you'll see that they're already the largest convoy to date you estimate as being approximately 830 vehicles?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then you note below that there is convoys anticipated from the east, from Quebec; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And other southern- based convoys from southwestern Ontario.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And if you just move down the page to the response from Deputy Di Tommaso. You'll see he thanks you; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he would like an early morning report as he'll be reporting into SOC. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that the Secretary to the Cabinet?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to the next page. This is now the 27th. If you go down to the second text on the page on the page, And you're providing a further update on the progress of the convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go to page 21. You'll see there on the bottom text on the page on the 28th, again you're providing a further update. Sorry, it's 21. A further update on the 28th now; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh. You know what, you've got me. You're right. It's the -- there's that UTC issue. So you're saying the 27th, but this is actually five hours earlier. It's 9:40 p.m. on the 27th.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Does that make sense to you?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Easy to do. If you look at the bottom entry in your report that there's a focus by OPS... Just go to the bottom of that text. That: "OPS is focused on access and egress routes to hospitals and any risks associated to vaccine clinics." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That's because there is a concern about the purpose of the convoy and the potential for disruption of vaccination sites; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 23. At the top of the page. You'll see, you're reporting now on the 28th, and we know now that that's approximately 11:00 a.m., and you're indicating that there is convoys now commencing their travels to Ottawa from Huntsville, Owen Sound, Kingston, Innisfil, Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie, Cochrane, Little Current, and Quebec; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're expecting crowds of demonstrators all along the various routes, and the leader of the Opposition in fact you note there.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. And if you go to the bottom of the page, you're providing an estimate on this date. And if you could just scroll so we can see the timestamp. Thank you. So about 3:45 in the afternoon, 1,350 estimated at this point; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're reporting on: "...flatbed trucks...[with] heavy equipment, utility vehicles, seating, portable toilets, and a boat with graffiti directed at the Prime Minister spray painted on it." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Social media messaging indicating that demonstrators intend to stay beyond the weekend?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Some extremist views and comments encouraging unlawful protests are being posted on social media.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you note that $7.1 million have been raised now on GoFundMe.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I do, thank you.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 25. The second text on the page, please. This is a 29 January update?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You note here that "Yesterday on "Arnprior" was the destination, 65 kilometres west of Ottawa, "for over 600 convoy participants." Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Arnprior became a site where a sort of encampment ended up persisting; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the OPP did not have full visibility into the content of the encampment in Arnprior; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. You're not aware?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 26. The text at the bottom of the page, please. You see there now you're reporting to the Deputy Solicitor General that a farmer's field has been cleared on Route 200 in Embrun for parking. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
A site that can hold 400 trucks?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And a shuttle had been arranged ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- I guess to shuttle protesters back and forth to the city?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And again, the site in the Embrun, and maybe you don't know, but the site in Embrun was one in which the OPP and other Police Services did not have visibility as to what was set up there and what was occurring at that site?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you know where Embrun is? About -- I think about 40 kilometres to the southeast of Ottawa; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I apologise. I will do better at that. Can we go to page 28. The third last text on the page. If you see, there's an indication there you're giving at, it would be 7:44, so 2:44 in the afternoon on the 29th; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that is that a: "Private helicopter [is] flying over Ottawa with an anti-government sign [on it]." Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso responds to you. If you move down: "I saw that on the news. How is it permitted to enter into restricted airspace?" Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was that a concern to you as well?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, fair enough. At any rate, you thought it was a sufficient concern that it should be brought to the attention of the Deputy Solicitor General?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you go over the page. You got a 3:00 p.m. update, and you're indicating to the Deputy that: "Some protesters have exhibited aggressive and threatening behaviour towards uniformed police officers." Already on the 29th; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go to page 30, the top of the page, update of the 29th and around, it would be 4:30 in the afternoon, you've indicated that protests have concluded -- in other words, they've occurred but they've concluded in Bracebridge, Huntsville, and Thornbury, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And they were ongoing at Kapuskasing and Cochrane?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Moving down the page, you continue in the same update, your police have been managing incidents of fighting amongst crowds, tractor trailers driving around or through police barricades, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Windows have been smashed in the Rideau Centre?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I said -- I'm not sure which police, but police.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It's not clear as to which police, whether they're Ontario Provincial Police or OPS in this case.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 31, the middle text on the page, 30th of January update. That’s the Sunday, I believe, of the first weekend, yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you note there that in Waterloo, 100 vehicles were expected at the Wilmot Recreational Centre from a convoy travelling through Baden, New Hamburg, and finishing in Stratford, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the organizer there was concerned that with growing numbers, that other participants might not feel the same way about having a peaceful event, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 33? Bottom text on the page, please? This is a 3 o'clock p.m. or so update, again on the 30th, the Sunday. Okay. Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the second last item in your report that you indicate that is a precaution, "and for special attention, we are in the process of messaging all police services in the province with vaccine clinics in their respective areas for the coming week," correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You were concerned about possible obstruction or other criminal or concerning, at least, activity occurring near vaccination clinics because of the apparent motivations of the protestors?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 36, the bottom two texts on the page, please -- or the bottom three, rather. This is initiated by Deputy Di Tommaso, and he says, "Good morning, Commissioner Carrique." I take it as CC?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"Can you ensure that the issue of healthcare worker access and egress to hospitals and clinics is raised?" Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"The Minister of Health -- Ontario Minister -- sorry, excuse me -- the Ontario Deputy Minister of Health raised the issue this morning with the Secretary of Cabinet."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he committed to the Secretary of Cabinet that you -- that "we would make Ottawa Police Service aware of this issue," right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You then respond and confirm you'll do that, and you say there's no change from the 7:37 a.m. update in the city, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This is on Monday the 31st, the day that everyone hopes the convoy would leave?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And you see that Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso has his fingers crossed that that will indeed occur, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well, I think he's being more specific, because he's responded to your message which says, "We're experiencing traffic congestion outside of the city which is hopefully associated to people leaving the area," right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So he's hoping for it too?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 39. In this update on the 31st, you now say that the OPS estimates 1,000 trucks remain within the City?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Page 41, and if you could just go to the timestamp, this is -- it says 1st of February but we know now that that is about 8 o'clock -- or sorry, 7:38 at night on the 31st?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And it indicates in your last report in your bullet that OPS PLT is advising that all hotel rooms in Ottawa are booked for the next weekend due to additional convoys attending the area, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So the hope was not really materializing?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Page 43, you're giving a status update on the 2nd now, which is the Tuesday -- or sorry, the Wednesday, I think, of that week, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And now you're reporting that a group from Quebec, 10 to 20 protestors known as Farfadaa have formed at Sussex and Rideau, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that group became quite a concern to the OPP, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
To all the police services, not to single yours out. And that was a group that was noted in some of the later intelligence reports that we see with respect to the situation on the ground, correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Let's move forward to page 47. You are now giving a national picture. This is February the -- well, I guess it's February the 3rd in the evening. It's timestamped 2:53 a.m., so it's about almost 10 o'clock at night?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're now reporting to the deputy that the ongoing truck blockades in Ottawa and now in Alberta have the potential to develop into a national civil obedience movement -- disobedience movement that could extend to Maritime transportation and potentially other major transportation sectors, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you confirm, as you said today, that the strategies relied upon by various levels of government and/or police to resolve matters in one province are likely to influence the actions of the protestors in other provinces?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Some events are likely to be well organized; others may develop organically or spontaneously with little warning?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you were seeing that in various locations in Ontario already, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 48 to the top text on the page, which is sent by you at approximately 9:40 in the morning. You list events planned for the weekend outside of Ottawa and Toronto at Iroquois Falls, North Bay, Cochrane, Sudbury, Hurst, and Echo Bay, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so you had make provisions, or your officers in these detachments need to make provision to be able to police these events as well as what's going on in Ottawa and ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Toronto.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we can go to OPP00004579? These are your text messages with your Deputy Cox.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it looks like you didn't text as frequently with Deputy Cox as with Deputy Attorney General -- Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 4? And he's reporting you here -- to you here on the 29th about the continuation of the daily Hendon report; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then down the page, you thank him, and then he texts you again on the 5th of February. You see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
He said, "I had an interesting call with Pat Morris this evening. He had a call with Mark Patterson, Intel Superintendent for OPS. Indicated his Chief had a vastly different view over the nature of the protests than he did. Pat and Mark share similar views on the protests. I will call you to provide more detail in the morning." You see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
He's sending that to you about quarter to 11 at night.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you respond and thank him, and you say, "We'll talk in the morning"; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it looks like, from the text on the next page, you did speak sometime after 9 o'clock or after 9:30?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you recall that conversation?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And what was -- what do you recall?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to I believe it's OPP00004579?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sorry. Oh, it's the same document. Got the wrong document number. Just give me a moment. I've got to get the correct document number. Shoot. OPP00003444, and it'll be page 7. This is a email from Pat Morris to Chuck Cox; right? And that's Deputy Cox?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you'll see here that Deputy Cox twigs to him earlier that day on February the 2nd to send him an email as a follow-up to an earlier conversation so he can raise it with CCT; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is CCT you?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go down the page to the -- so the next page, it's the email that comes in response from Superintendent Morris; okay?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this has to do with requests for intelligence with respect to various individuals; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you could just go to the third-last paragraph on the page, this is, of course, February 2nd. It's occurring in the context of the convoy; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
He says, "There appears to be an incredibly heightened appetite for any [and] all information on entities that cause discomfort to the status quo..." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then the next paragraph, "I am concerned that "success" is seen as satisfying intelligence requirements and requests quickly..." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"...as opposed to satisfying the correct [ones] to the correct actors." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. He says, "I have acted to prevent/slowdown these requests and/or [...] responses to them." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And is that the topic that was raised with you by Deputy Cox?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did he refer to you about slow walking effectively, or preventing requests from being fulfilled?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, and he's suggesting that it's inappropriate for this intelligence to be, you know, gathered and passed along outside of channels that he characterizes as correct.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. we go to OPP00003443? This is another email from Superintendent Morris dating to August of 2021; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It appears to have been circulated to a number of different police services across the province in the Big 12?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you look at the second paragraph, here he's indicating that -- he's reflecting on, "...the hate crime and hate/bias motivated crime occurrence having spiked [...] by approximately 37% [to the previous year]"
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he says here that, "There has also, understandably, been a significant appetite for this information from government[...] and the public." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that suggests, does it not, that that's an appropriate appetite to, you know, in consequence of the significant spike in these type of crime occurrences?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Appropriate.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, he says, "...Hendon has these matters in our Intelligence Collection Plan and has been capturing much of this information from all of our services..." And he references, "...the White Lives Matter Movement, Patriots' movement, anti-government activity and [...] extremist entities engaged in anarchism, environmental issues, etc." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the appetite for that information is, therefore, understandable in the view of Superintendent Morris of 2021?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go back to your texts with the Deputy at OPP00004580, and we'll go to page 99. In view of the time, Commissioner Carrique, I'm going to skip ahead to February the 12th in terms of your updates. At page 99, you're asked at the top of the page by Deputy Solicitor General, he's referring to Windsor here, the Windsor clearance operation. "Have we started as planned or did [the] minister letter have an effect?”
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s the letter we saw earlier from Solicitor-General Jones; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Which I think was Ontario -- no need to go to it -- but 00000858 for the record. And you respond to him that you’re proceeding as planned, no effect; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The letter had no effect, the offer of negotiation had no effect on the determination of the Windsor protectors to stay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And neither did the injunction that had been ordered the previous day; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And neither had the invocation of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act by the Province of Ontario which had occurred the previous day as well; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s -- and that’s fair. But in this -- this crowd, these three instruments did not seem to affect their determination to stay and block the bridge.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go to the next entry on this page, it’s -- we’re at 1:15 p.m., roughly, UCC, so that’s about quarter past 8 in the morning.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’re now reporting to him that the port of entry in Cornwall has been blocked by 50 to 70 vehicles.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there’s conflicting reports about that, but it now adds Akwesasne to the mix; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s a -- that was a significant concern for you; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Let’s go to OPP00004584. These are your texts with -- is it Superintendent McDonell?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m just trying to get the rank right.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. And he texted you information much more frequently than, for example, your Deputy Cox?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’d like to go to page 57, please. And if you look at the -- 12:58 p.m., so about 8:58 in the -- or 7:58 in the morning, he says: “It’s totally different dynamic [referring to Cornwall]. The Mohawk community of Akwesasne gets a vote on this one. This is their lifeline, reliance on healthcare top priority. All residents of Akwesasne, Ontario, Quebec and New York rely on Ontario health care.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go down the page, the further report you get is -- if you just go down to the very bottom here. It’s being reported to you by your individual on the ground that this could cause the territory to react unfavourably towards the protestors.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s correct.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go over the page, he gives you some background about the connection between Akwesasne, Kanehsatake and Kahnawake?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
They’ll be quick to mobilize if the ask is made. The first level is a community ask. Next will be a warrior ask; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s reflecting the possibility, as he saw it, of violence inflaming that particular convoy blockade in Cornwall.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s a very jurisdictionally complex place, is it not? Probably even more so than Ottawa.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to the top of page 59. He’s reporting to you that, in his view, first there will be messages of support from Kanehsatake and Kahnawake, and then an ultimate from the warriors; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he’s concerned and you’re concerned about the possibility of serious violence erupting from that scenario.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 51 of these texts? Sorry, 52. Second text on the page. You see that he’s reporting to you that on February the 11th here, 7:40 in the morning, that: “Customs and border protection at the US Embassy has been in contact with RCMP probing Canada’s law enforcement plans.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Next text on the page, he’s reporting that in Windsor, the auto workers’ “anger and intent to counter-protest today is no doubt influencing the attitude”; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Openly expressing anger on mainstream and social.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the bottom text on the page, he reports to you that the U.S. call went well. “Cut to the chase, they’re watching the 1000 Islands bridge.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So they’re very concerned as well about the situation in Akwesasne.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And of course, you relayed that to the Deputy as well.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go back one last time, I think, to OPP00004580, page 114. This is back to your texts with the Deputy. All right. At the second text here, you’re reporting about the protestors apparently -- this is the 13th, so Windsor has been cleared or sort of in the process of being cleared?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’re receiving information that protestors are talking about going to the tunnel instead of the bridge; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that would have been a problem, too.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the bottom of the page, you refer here to -- “For further discussion”, you say to the Deputy. We see: “Best step for government - I would rather not see [Canadian Armed Forces] playing a role off of government properties. We could use special constables controlled by police for unarmed patrols, and immediate long-term commitments to adequate policing resources to both prevent and respond to these events.”
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’re actively considering whether or not the Canadian Armed Forces should be involved from the Ontario perspective?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh, I thought you were suggesting that the CAF should not play a role off of government properties but that you could use special constables controlled by police from the CAF for unarmed patrols.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Page 121. This -- if you just go to the time stamp, you’ll see this is at about 2:40 in the morning, so about 9:40 at night in actual Ontario time on February the 13th, okay, so the night before that the Emergencies Act was invoked.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And just a few highlights of what you’re reporting. If you can go a bit further up on the page, you note under Ottawa: “A 300 person counter-protest disrupted a convoy attempting to enter the city.”
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The prospect of counter-protests increasingly occurring, whether in Cornwall, Akwesasne or in Ottawa was an increasing safety concern, was it not?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The anger of the auto workers you described in Windsor from the blockade of the bridge. That was a concern about generating counterprotests that could become violence?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In Niagara you say two attempts by demonstrators to disrupt the Peace Bridge were prevented; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
At Fort Frances, OPP secured the bridge and border in anticipation of a demonstration that was attended by 230 protestors and 92 vehicles; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you identified four outlaw motorcycle gang members there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you have a national report that the Pacific Highway in B.C. was blocked by demonstrates? Convoys in Vancouver; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The Coutts border remained blocked at that time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The Emerson border in Manitoba remained blocked?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In New Brunswick, you had two demonstrations with two arrests?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me. We Canadians did.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in Prince Edward Island, we experienced a convoy attempt to block the Confederation Bridge that was fortunately disrupted?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, you’ve told us that the OPP’s Intelligence Bureau commenced reporting to its policing partners on January the 13th through Project Hendon; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And as the convoy crossed over the Manitoba/Ontario border and travelled across the province, and until it arrived in Ottawa on the 28th, OPP officers professionally fulfilled their duties without incident?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’d agree that in support of the Ottawa Police Service throughout the occupation, an increasing number of OPP officers were engaged?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Your members responded to many other convoys and demonstrations that consistently and repeatedly emerged in communities across Ontario?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This was a provincial and national emergency that garnered international attention?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the OPP and more than 20 other police services from across the country worked collaboratively to address public order emergencies that were unmatched in recent history?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m trying to be careful not to do so in an impermissible way. The illegal Ottawa occupation was accompanied by numerous other high risk Freedom Convoy related protests and blockades across Canada?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well I know nothing of previous statements, but I have you under oath, so I would like to ensure that I understand your answer to these questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s correct.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sufficiently trained Public Order officers were amassed from throughout Canada and deployed in an integrated, strategic, and measured manner?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That resulted in the collapse of the occupation?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It required unprecedented national collaboration to prevent injury, preserve life, and protect critical infrastructure?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The Emergencies Act was an extremely valuable tool?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The situation was identified as a threat to national security?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In fact, through the collection of intelligence right across the country with the simultaneous events going on and the events in our nation’s capital, you and other law enforcement agencies collectively identified a risk to national security?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. Commissioner, I think I have four minutes left. I’ll give them to Mr. Curry.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon, Mr. Marazzo.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’ll just have a few questions for you but I’ll start with where my friend started you with. And for the record, I’m Brendan van Neijenhuis, one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada. You described this call with an OPP officer that you weren’t sure of exactly which officer it was in which it was indicated to you that the police were going to enforce; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you saw earlier today the video on TikTok of Mr. Wilson advising people they could remain there on foot?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you yourself acknowledged that this was not in fact the case; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That people were not permitted to remain in the red zone on foot.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The call you described, you thought it was on the 15th, shortly after the Emergency Act was invoked on the 14th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to HRF00001510? I’m showing you a copy of this email which appears to be an email from Eva Chipiuk to, among others, yourself and Mr. Wilson; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And she is attaching a document that I don’t think we have but it’s a document entitled “The Right to Protest”; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And she indicates -- and I guess this is relaying some advice received from Sayeh Hassan, Barrister and Solicitor; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And she’s indicating -- or passing along a note to you and Mr. Wilson that says: "I’ve drafted something on the right to protest by have taken the cautious approach because I don’t know the emergency orders are but it’s my understanding that they can limit the right to protest. And while that can be challenged in court, at the moment, people who do not comply may be arrested." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Then she goes on to say: "I think that if we’re advising people, it’s important to let them know all of the risks that they’re facing and let them make their own decisions." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s sound advice that you would agree with?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So you had an interpretation of Justice McLean’s order; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. Well, you’re not a lawyer but Ms. Chipiuk is a lawyer and Sayeh Hassan, you understand, is a lawyer as well?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Did you take any steps to relay the risks the people are facing so that they could make their own decision with respect to the possibility that they would be arrested if they did not comply?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Now, sir, you’re publishing a -- I understand you’re publishing a book which you intend to release on February the 14th of next year; is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’ve selected that date because it’s the same date on which the report of this Commission must be tabled?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh, I see. You’ve been attempting to raise money for the publication of this book through a fundraiser on the website GiveSendGo; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. Could we go to COM00000415? Sir, this is an affidavit that you swore in support of an application by Canadian Frontline Nurses; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And if we could just go down to the very bottom of the affidavit to find the jurat date. There we go. You swore this, it appears, on March the 4th of this year?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we could go back up to paragraph 4, now, here you say that you arrived in Ottawa on January the 30th with the intention of peacefully participating in the protest; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you told us shortly ago that your arrival was due to the invitation extended to you to come to Ottawa by James Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you understood he was asking for your assistance in providing some form of organization to support his objectives as part of the group identifying itself as the Convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Well, so whoever convoy is ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- that’s who you were being asked to help ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- by Mr. Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you became familiar, you told us, with the Memorandum of Understanding that he was circulating and intended to deliver to the Governor General and the Speaker of the Senate; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Let’s go to COM00000886, which is a copy of the memorandum, just for clarity.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me, it’s 866. I misspoke. And in fairness to you, Mr. Marazzo, you were clear in saying that this was, at the very least, not a well written document?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the second page of the document, looking at the top here of the page, there's a list of the parties, in effect, to this Memorandum of Understanding. Do you see anything in there, the bold-faced lettering there at the top?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So one group is the concerned Canadian citizens, Indigenous community, and permanent residents ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- represented by the Bauders and Mr. Broadman?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then the next party is the Senate, as ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- as represented by the speaker?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then it's the governor general?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to page 2 in article 3 -- stop there -- you see the notion here is that there would be a committee formed between the concerned citizens and the senate and the governor general, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that that committee then would, under paragraph -- sub-paragraph (e) there, instruct all levels of the federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to cease and desist, et cetera, et cetera, provisions related to COVID-19, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go over to page 3 and look at item (j) there, you see that in exchange for this, the concerned citizens will immediately stop Operation BearHug Ottawa demonstration convoy. You see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so in effect -- and that was Mr. Bauder's name for the occupation and -- or blockades or what have you in Ottawa? It was Operation BearHug?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. At any rate, you recognized that this document presented a something of a nonsensical idea?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you insisted that it be withdrawn and retracted publicly, and that -- and this was then done, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you understood that any legislative action would require the participation of the elected representatives at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In fact, if you go to article 7 of the MOU -- excuse me, article 6 -- you'll see that it is, in fact, supposed to be construed in accordance with the laws of Canada, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, you can ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well, I'm sure you - --
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Well, I'll ask Mr. Bauder about it tomorrow to see if there's a distinction. You indicated in your press conference on February 9th, as we just saw, that you were offering yourself as willing to sit down with the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, and the governor general as a -- some sort of a representative, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You had no interest in meeting with municipal elected officials, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
On February the 13th, you had a meeting with Ottawa Police with respect to negotiations, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You had a meeting in the evening with Supt. Drummond and ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- others from the Ottawa Police?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Right. And you had commented that you wanted to have an inspector to deal with on behalf of Ottawa Police, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You understand that a superintendent is a rank above an inspector?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go back to your affidavit, COM00000415, and it'll be page 4? Now, could we go to paragraph 17, I believe it is? You indicate here that: "The freezing of bank accounts in the wake of the invocation of the Emergencies Act has left me real concern that authorities are surveilling me and may arbitrarily charge and arrest me although I've committed no crime." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"I'm constantly looking over my shoulder. I am hesitant to leave my house. I have left my home only twice since I returned from Ottawa."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Right? "I am concerned about travelling with my children, as I'm concerned they'll be taken away from me by Children's Aid in the even the police decide to charge and arrest me."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You've obviously overcome this fear to be able to be with us today?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You had overcome this fear by May the 4th of 2022 when the election period began in the Ontario provincial election, fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that election was held on June the 2nd of 2022?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you ran in the riding, I understand, of Peterborough Kawartha for the Ontario party?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you there received 1,973 votes amounting to approximately 3.8 percent of the vote in the riding, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to PB.CAN.00001774? I just want to put up a brief excerpt of the video. It'll be just at the very beginning.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
One-seven-seven-four (1774). Yeah, I've done it again. Excuse me. (VIDEO PLAYBACK)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sir, how do you know Mr. Mackenzie?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon, Mr. Bauder.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
My name's Brendan van Niejenhuis, and I'm one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada in this matter. Happy birthday.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I wonder if we could go to a document that you wrote I think after you had left Ottawa?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It's JBA00000043.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I am not sure, you might have to tell me. But let me just ask you first if this is a letter that you prepared?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And looking at it, I suppose -- in fact, you were still on the, as you say, on the frontline in Ottawa when you wrote it, and you talk about having been there for about three weeks; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So this is a document that you wrote and made public after being in Ottawa for about three weeks.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we look at the seventh paragraph on the page, it's the one that starts: "The Call for Freedom, Unity and Love has gone out, and Canadians answered." Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in the last sentence of that paragraph, you say that, "You made a choice", you Canadians, I guess: "...made a choice to come to Ottawa, to Coutts, to Windsor and make your stand for freedom." Is it fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you told Mr. Leon that you were not in contact directly with the participants at the events in Coutts and Windsor, for example, while you were in Ottawa, but you were grateful for the response across the country. Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you accomplished more than you could have hoped to accomplish in terms of the national and international response. Is that fair, Mr. Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You saw that what you had done inspired the protests at the borders in Coutts, Windsor, and Emerson, Manitoba, for example?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
What you and others ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
What you and others ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The collective "you" when I ask these questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that those efforts by and others also inspired events at the Thousand Islands Bridge near Cornwall, the Blue Water in Sarnia, Port Huron Crossing, the Peace Bridge, the Fort Francis Crossing and the Confederation Bridge in Prince Edward Island; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You inspired convoys in Surrey, B.C., Vancouver, Toronto, Quebec City, Regina and Winnipeg?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And similar ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- convoys were inspired in the United States too; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It went as far as New Zealand, Australia, Paris, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the United Kingdom; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to your statement of evidence, which is submitted -- which you submitted to the Commission. It's JBA00000080. This is the statement that you prepared, and you submitted this I guess over the weekend; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So this is the evidence statement that you were asking Mr. Leon to see earlier
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
We'll come back to that. Could we go to page 4, please? If you could go towards the bottom of the page under the heading, The Launch of Canada Unity - Convoy for Freedom. Do you see that area there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you describe in the first paragraph what happened to you in the spring of 2021 that led to the launch of Canada Unity; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I understand from what you've written here that your employer, where you were a full-time truck driver, came to you and said that you would need to provide proof that you had been injected with the COVID vaccines in order to be allowed access to their clients' facilities; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And therefore, you say that you were forced to quit your job; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that's because if you were not willing to become vaccinated then you would not be able to continue to attend at your employer's clients' place of business; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was a requirement that was imposed upon your employer ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- as a condition of continuing to do business with the client; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And to be clear, that was not a decision that was imposed upon by you by government. Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to page 6, please.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I said that that was not a decision that was imposed upon you by government.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That's your explanation for why you quit your employment, Mr. Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 7, please, of this document, the second-last paragraph on the page, please? Shoot, I may have the wrong page. Excuse me a moment.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I just don’t want to get it wrong twice.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me, it is page 6, the second-last paragraph on page 6. You see at the end of that paragraph, Mr. Bauder, you’ve written here that: " The words ‘Convoy for Freedom’ and ‘Operation Bear Hug’ got out internally, deeply embarrassing our Liberal Minister, specifically Trudeau and Freeland as they were called out by the international community, as they rightfully should be." Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Who specifically in the international community did you have in mind when you wrote that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I just wanted to understand what you had meant, sir, that’s all. But that’s okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now to another document that is a letter from you of February the 16th? It’s JBA00000008. You see this is a letter from Canada Unity, I take it, by you that you submitted to the Commission and wrote to the Ottawa Police; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we look at the third and the fourth paragraph on the page, please, starting with the paragraph that starts, “Canada Unity and the Convoy for Freedom…” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you say that you’re also very concerned to hear about the estimated 2,000 missing firearms from Peterborough, Ontario; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, if we can just go back to my question, you’d become aware around February the 13th, when it came out in the newspapers, that there had been a trailer -- approximately 2,000 stolen firearms from a trailer in Peterborough, Ontario. Is that what you’re referring to?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You don’t dispute that timing?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you say your concern is not least because of that number of firearms, clips, and ammo being so easily taken but because of their unknown location; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you immediately -- if you look to the next paragraph, you said: "We have concerns that these weapons will be used against peaceful demonstrators or the citizens of Ottawa in order to blame the participants of this lawful demonstration." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You were concerned that there was a connection between the events of the -- that were occurring in Ottawa in the Freedom Convoy and the theft of this large quantity of firearms; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. Sure. And you knew by February the 16th about the fact that a large quantity of firearms had been seized under search warrant in Coutts, Alberta, at the border blockade; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Regardless, it was a reasonable concern for you to wonder if there was a connection between these stolen firearms in Peterborough and what was going on in Ottawa, Windsor, and elsewhere.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Mr. Bauder. Those are all of my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Commissioner, and good afternoon, Mr. Freeman.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
My name is Brendan van Niejenhuis. I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada in this matter. Could we go, please, to ONT00000447? I think we saw this before. This was a note from Jessica Barton to all MTO; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I see. Okay. Let’s look down the page there. Just under “Good afternoon” she refers to a planned convoy called the “Convoy for Freedom,” right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go a little further down the page, I think, to the fifth or so paragraph. There we go. You see that the paragraph -- the little, short paragraph there with the link highlighted in it, “The schedule of dates and routes are planned”?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
“And can be found at this website”?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the website there is the website called, “BEARHUG - Canada Unity, BEARHUG 2.0,” right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’re familiar with that being a website operated by Mr. James Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. You weren’t, yourself, paying close attention to the different factions, so to speak, of convoys coming?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The distinction between the BEARHUG - Canada Unity group and the King and Lich convoy -- or, sorry; Freedom Convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Can we go, similarly, to ONT00000973? And this, too, is a note from Jessica Barton, and this is to Transport Canada, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this is sharing information, also on January the 21st, about the upcoming Convoy for Freedom?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you just go slightly down the page to that first entry in the table, you see already she has information with respect to a planned protest regarding border control in both Windsor and Sarnia; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that plan is what’s referred to as a slow roll, based on the description offered there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then moving further down the page, so the next table entry you see again reference to the Convoy for Freedom, and the BEARHUG or canadaunity.com website; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so again, to the beset of your knowledge, there wasn’t awareness on the part of MTO at that time of there being other convoy groups, such as the Freedom Convoy group associated to Mr. Barber or Ms. Lich, et cetera?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Fair enough. Can we go to ONT00005150, please? And so do you recognize this series of operations planned for MTO with respect to the Freedom Convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this is a document that went through various iterations; it’s sort of a living document as things evolved; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this one appears to have been amended up to January the 31st?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And if we could go to page of the document, please? If you look at the bottom of this page, you’ll see -- if I’ve got my numbers right, yes, you’ll see a list here of truck inspection stations across the province, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this is a list that truck -- tracks -- it’s not all of the stations but this tracks the route of the Convoy for Freedom as it was understood by MTO at that time, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And also just looking at the text above it which said, “This plan has been developed”?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You can continue on to page 5. Okay. And just stopping at the first paragraph. Again, you see this is a group of commercial vehicle drivers planning a truck protest dubbed, “The Convoy for Freedom,” right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then in the fourth bullet under, “Background” -- sorry; the third bullet under, “Background” you’ll see that, again, this is associated to the canadaunity.com website, as opposed to other groups, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Is it fair to draw the conclusion that the intelligence or the information available and promulgated by MTO was really being drawn from the canadaunity.com website, in terms of intended routes and so forth?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we just look under “Mission Statement” a moment, and then carry over the pages to see if it continues; I can’t recall. It does not. So if we go back up to “Mission Statement,” these are the key mission items that, I guess, have been compiled by your staff with respect to the Operations Plan, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you see that’s what’s being considered is whether to close TIS facilities if necessitated by protest activities, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Were you aware at the time that more trucks and convoys were anticipated to be joining the existing Ottawa scenario at that point? Recalling this is the Monday after the first weekend.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And, of course, we saw earlier, you already knew that there were affiliated or sympathetic protest activities that were contemplated or planned in the areas of the Ambassador Bridge at Windsor and at Sarnia; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And was consideration given, so far as you’re aware, to whether in fact it might have made sense to activate the TIS stations to require inspection of the trucks that were assembling in these locations?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If we go to page 7, please? In the second bullet point under “Enforcement,” I see there it reads in the last sentence: “Officers will not be involved in any commercial vehicle traffic stops of vehicles that are participating in the convoy protest unless directed to do so by the site leads.” (As read) Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And was that similarly at the request of the OPP that your officers from MTO not be involved in such stops?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go, please, to ONT.IR.00000001? And I’ll ask to go to page 7 when the document’s up. This is the Ontario Institutional Report, Mr. Freeman.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to page 7, and to the entry for February the 4th, and that’s the entry for 16 -- sorry; let me actually do the first bullet. A 9:09 a.m. entry; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It indicates that: “MTO officers began supporting the OPP with issues arising from the planned protest at Queen’s Park in Toronto, including blockage of GTA highways.” (As read) Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And hat lasted until Monday, February 6th; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That would be the second weekend of the convoy events?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And at that time, similar assistance was not provided by MTO with respect to the scene in Ottawa; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Is it fair to say you don’t recall when, but you believe that it occurred at some point?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If I look at the next entry on February 4th at 1645, representatives of MTO attended an urgent meeting convened by Transport Canada; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was: "...to discuss provincial [and] territorial mitigation measures directed at the 'Freedom Convoy' protests." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now, please, to ONT00002759? And just to be clear, you did not attend the February 4th meeting; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to the bottom email, which is at the intersection of pages 2 and 3? There we go. You see there's an email here from Aaron at Transport Canada, Aaron McCrorie at Transport Canada, to you and others; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Your provincial and territorial colleagues?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Transport Canada here is again apologising for the late evening email but hoping to have a follow-up discussion tomorrow, that is to say, Saturday, the 5th, at 11:30 in the morning; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I guess that's central time, so 12:30 here?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you attended that meeting?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go up page 2 to see your report onward from the meeting. There we go. If you just go a little further up we can see where it starts. Okay. So let's just see. You're reporting out to your staff, I believe. Could we just go to the email header? Reporting out to your staff; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I see. Okay, to your colleagues and staff?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're reporting on what happened at the meeting from your perspective?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we just go a little down a page there. You're reporting on what Transport Canada is looking for with respect to three things, which if I may summarise: the impacts of charges that lead to commercial vehicle operator registry points; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Legislation that protects critical infrastructure and services from disruption; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And lastly, incentives that might be offered to tow operators or penalties to compel them to provide services; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go a little further down the page. You say: "[They're] hoping for any [information] we can provide [as soon as possible]." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Transport Canada has called this an urgent meeting; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And what you say to your colleagues and staff is: "My suggestion is we pull what we can easily do on Monday and send [end of day].... Best efforts here. If something isn't available I think we can say that." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So you're saying to your colleagues and staff, essentially, don't work too hard on this, don't kill yourself, we'll deal with it on Monday. Fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to ONT00003842? This is the February 6th meeting, Mr. Freeman, the Sunday meeting to which I believe you didn't go, but you did sent Laurie LeBlanc; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me, I've got the ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- roles reversed.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 6, please. If we go under where Mr. Keenan is speaking, he's got three bullet points summarised, and he notes at the last bullet point that the "Wellington encampments", that is to say, the Ottawa occupation: "...is the spiritual source of the protest movement." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it's inspiring, in short, other protest activities that have begun to be seen in locations as far away as Coutts; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"It creates the spiritual fuel that will sustain the actions of the various encampments." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if I look at Ms. LeBlanc's response, she is reporting in the third bullet that demerit points relative to the CVOR, as I take it, is a long-term strategy that will not help with the situation in the short-term. Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then also, that the trucks are from outside province and that adds a layer of complexity to enforcing on a licensing basis; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if I look at the top bullet, she says that, with respect to tow trucks, MTO will just be working with the private sector to see what's out there. Fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, the next day, February... Or actually, can we go to the last page of this document? You see there the second last speaker noted is Jody Thomas, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor. Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And she says she regrets ending on this point. Asking: "Would the Province be looking to the Federal Government if this protest was happening outside of the City of Ottawa [for example]...in other places like Kingston?" Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And perhaps this is question can ask tomorrow, but it appears Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso says: "This is a protest and encampment movement against the federal mandate on trucks. They came to Ottawa from across the country for that purpose." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Does that reflect Ontario's attitude at that point towards the Ottawa protest as a federal responsibility?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to SSM.CAN.00005289? I'm showing you a text exchange from your Minister -- with Minister Alghabra of the federal -- Federal Minister of Transport; okay? Are you familiar with these exchanges?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
No. Were you involved in any calls with Minister Mulroney and Minister Alghabra?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. We can just take a look at them a second and scroll down the page. It's clear, though, that assuming that's what they are, that this is Minister Alghabra asking for a call; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And February 7th, 3:50 p.m., Minister Mulroney, fair to say, does not respond in the sense of scheduling a call; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. Fair enough. And if you go to the bottom of the text exchange, you'll see that Minister Alghabra reports on February 7th at 8:23 p.m. that the Ambassador Bridge is now blocked; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go now to SSM.CAN.00005290, the exchange continues. Minister Mulroney does not respond for about 24 hours, at least if these texts are accurate?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And she refers to a letter from Laurie LeBlanc, being, what, addresses the ideas that have been suggested; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go further down the page. And Minister Alghabra says he'll look at it, but would be good to speak tomorrow; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to SSM.CAN.00005291. Mr. Commissioner, I think I've just hit my 20 minutes on my clock. May I have another four or five minutes to complete this area?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And at the top of the page, you see Minister Mulroney now sends a letter along, says "happy to speak once you've had a chance to review"; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Continue down the page. And you see the -- by Friday, February 11th, excuse me, Wednesday, February the 9th, Minister Alghabra is again asking "who do you recommend in your office we should reach out to for a call?" Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And I understand they did speak, and we'll come back to Ms. LeBlanc's letter in a moment. If we could go to -- well, actually, let's go to the letter briefly, ONT00000156. This is the letter of February 8th from Ms. LeBlanc; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go to the third paragraph on the page? Oh, I’m sorry, the fourth paragraph. She, here, is, I think, saying roughly what was said in the meeting; right? Is that -- CVOR sanctions have a complicated administrative process that will require time to be effective; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go to page 2 of the document, she says: “I know we all have empathy for the people of Ottawa that are enduring this protest, while also respecting and recognizing the right to peaceful protest, and the MTO will continue to work with SOLGEN.” (As read) Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. so no additional contribution from MTO from a regulatory perspective, as communicated here?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to SSM.CAN.00001001? And we’ll go to the very end of the document, please. Just above that, you can see that this is a read out of the February 9th call between Minister Alghabra and Minister Mulroney?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the indication here is that: “Mulroney’s message to us is that they see these as federal trade corridors. They want us take the lead. Minister Alghabra pushed on this and said that that would need to be a formal ask. They have said they don’t have the ability to do more from MTO. They agreed to work with our department to see if there’s anything else that can be done. Overall, I would say the tone was difficult and they were trying to put this on us.” (As read) Were you present at that call?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So this is Minister Alghabra’s recollection of the call. I suppose you wouldn’t be able to contest that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, sir, you know Huron Church Road in Windsor that leads to the Ambassador Bridge?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’re aware that’s a municipal road where the Windsor Police Service, or alternatively, the Ontario Provincial Police are police of jurisdiction?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that connects Highway 401 to the port of entry, and the 401 is OPP and MTO jurisdiction; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And similarly, just while we’re at this, Wellington Street and the streets of downtown Ottawa under occupation by the Freedom Convoy, likewise, were under the jurisdiction of the Ottawa Police Service, or alternatively, the Ontario Provincial Police and within the authority of MTO from a transport regulation perspective; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, on February 11th, Premier Ford declared a State of Emergency and invoked the Ontario Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was followed by regulations that actually implemented the measures, which did not happen until the 12th; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was the Saturday of the third weekend of the convoy events?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’ll agree with me that critical infrastructure defined in those regulations included 400 series highways?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It did not include municipal roads; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Yeah. In terms of the power to order to leave or order to depart; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. You’re aware that on February the 14th, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the Prime Minister announced the invocation of the Emergencies Act; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’re aware that the Premier of Ontario, that morning, had expressed his support for the Emergencies Act being invoked during the First Minister’s meeting; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Are you aware that the Premier of Ontario has recently reaffirmed his support, saying that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister in making that decision?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And if we could just go back very briefly to ONT.IR.0000001? Actually, I’m sorry, we can just skip that. Can we go back to ONT00000179? And this is my last point, Mr. Commissioner. I apologize. If we could just go to page 2, please? The top of the page? And if you want to look at the header, this is an email which refers to the 10 tow trucks you indicated were sourced for Ottawa when you corrected your witness statement at the beginning of your examination today; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’ll see, if you go down to page 3 in the bullet points, which is an email from earlier on the same day, February 16, there’s a third bullet point there that says: “Important: All three towing companies have requested [a] letter that the province […] will cover costs […] indemnity from [other] damage [and] claims [for] vehicles that are towed…” And so forth; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it says that’s because: “…their insurance companies […] specifically told them that they will not cover [those] risks.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then, by now you know about the EA. The first bullet says: “Need [a] letter from the OPP requesting these two companies to provides services and stating that the Federal Act [that’s the Emergencies Act] will cover any damage […] and [indemnity]…” Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to the very, very top, you’ll see that Jasan Boparai’s reporting that he’s told them, being the towing operators, that: “…[this] letter will come tomorrow. [And that] [t]hey [are] moving tonight based upon [him] and Steve’s commitment [and] credibility.” In the absence of that letter; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And we’ve been through that letter with Commissioner Carrique. Thank you, sir. Those are my questions. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Commissioner.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Degrand, I’m Mr. Brendan van Niejenhuis. I’m one of the lawyers for the government of Canada in this matter.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sir, in response to the series of questions you were just asked about whether Premier Kenney was consulted about the setting of the First Minister’s meeting, I believe you said that this was the information available to you from the Premier’s office? Is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that is not information that we have seen under oath or affirmation? Is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’re not aware of that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you, yourself, were not, I take it, present at the First Minister’s meeting?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And likewise, you were not personally present for Premier Kenney’s telephone conversations with the Minister of Public Safety, for example?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Or the Prime Minister; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there’s nothing you’re aware of that disables former Premier Kenney from swearing his own affidavit about these matters?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’re not aware of anything that disables him from testifying before this Commission, should he had wished to do so?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m not sure it’s a legal question. I’m wondering if the witness is aware of anything that disables the former Premier from doing so.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Fair enough. Let’s turn to you, sir. You were an Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP until 2018? Is that correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so you understand while here what Deputy Commissioner Zablocki and the other RCMP officers involved in the Coutts blockade went through; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you respect Deputy Commission Zablocki and his service in the discharge of his duties in respect of Coutts?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And everywhere K Division of the RCMP policed the Province of Alberta during these events; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You became an Assistant Deputy Minister with Alberta Justice in 2018, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
No, no, I appreciate that. Just going with ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You swore the Province’s Institutional report in this proceeding as well, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And we’ll come back to that. Now, in the Province of Alberta this situation, if I can call it that, began really on January the 29th; is that accurate?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In terms of the beginnings of the ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- blockade.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to ALB00001010, at page 2. Just pull up the initial report about it to you.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go down to page 2, please. You see that -- I take it it’s Peter Tewfik, I think, reporting to you about the blockage of the roads north and south to the Coutts border, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, okay. And it says in the second-last -- subsequent paragraph there: “The organizers...have made calls to [the] participants to move their vehicles but the message has been ignored.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And strategies are being worked on to get those who are participating in the stoppage to get roadways moving again, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If we go up to the first page, you see a report; moving just a little further up the page, there’s a report on the officers who are deployed. Just to the top, please. There we go. And you see the report from Jason Delaney to Rick Gardner, is that from the Alberta Sheriffs; you’ve got 12 members deployed at Coutts?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And three of them had been reassigned from Coaldale, two reassigned from Redcliff and two are sent in from Lethbridge on overtime, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And the RCMP’s supplying 25, CBSA a dozen, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Police and an off -- a single officer.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to ALB00001312, page 2. If we just go to page 2, please. This will be a Tweet from the Premier issued on -- or Tweeted on January the 30th, it says: “The blockade of the Coutts border crossing violates the Alberta Traffic Safety Act. [It’s] causing significant inconvenience for lawful motorists and can dangerously impede movement of emergency service vehicles. This blockade must end.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you’d flip over to page 3, you’ll see that he issues a longer statement which is to the -- which is really to the same effect, yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this had no effect on the Coutts process -- this had no immediate effect on the Coutts protest, did it?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You still had a blockade. Okay. Can we go to ALB00001257, please? And this is a report which comes to you. If you could just move down the page, please? A bit further down, there we go. And you see it’s being reported to you now Tuesday the 1st of February, that you’re receiving information about new blockades on the highway by Fort Macleod, on Highway 3 by Pincher Creek, and calls to block Highway 43 West of Grand Prairie, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And did you interpret those as being a blockade sympathetic in spirit to the blockades at Coutts?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to ALB1263, please; ALB00001263. This is a February 1st intelligence assessment provided to you, sir.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And just want to make a few highlights here of what is brought to your attention, as well as that of some of your colleagues, from PSIO; that’s the Provincial Security Office?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. So the first point is that there doesn’t appear to be centralized leadership at this blockade, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It emerged from the so-called Freedom Convoy Movement, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to item b: “There [doesn’t] appear to be any overt direction being given between the Coutts blockade and Ottawa ‘Freedom Convoy’ organizers.” Although this is possible, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. It refers, in the last sentence, under b there to be: “...one of the spin-off support events for the Ottawa convoy that gained its own momentum and now appears to be self-supporting.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. “Individuals outside of the blockade location appear to be acting as entrepreneurs in organizing support and logistics.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You were seeing that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you go further down the page, you see already that there are: “Individuals on pro-blockade social media groups...organizing phone campaigns to threaten tow companies with financial repercussions, and to set up boycotts of companies they believe have acted in support of [the] police.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that a serious concern to you at that point already?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go down the page further then to spin-off actions, there’s: “Social media comments [calling on] blockade supporters to block in police to prevent them from removing vehicles from the...site.” Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And you’re also hearing from your: “Law enforcement partners...that support convoys have bypassed (or...broken through) police blockades to deliver [supplies].” Yeah?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The PSIO was reporting that social media messages are: “...promoting a decentralized blockade of highways throughout Alberta.” Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go just to the very bottom of the page now and see the last section here. “Intelligence Gaps”; do you see that section?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the to -- this refers to areas where there just isn’t visibility, from an intelligence perspective, as to the identity of the leaders and their level of influence at the blockade site, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’ve got an intelligence gap about how much support is likely to manifest in the real world from the calls for decentralized blockade action.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Got it. Let’s go now, please, to ALB00001620. This is a February 1st report concerning what’s referred to as a brawl near the blockade.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Are you familiar with that ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did you happen to observe the testimony of Mr. Van Huigenbos?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you go down the page, it says that you’re reporting here that you assume others are well aware of this, but if you go down the page, we’ll just see what’s reported out to you. Here we go. And this is a report about how the - - if you look at the third sentence: “The crowd had [became] increasingly hostile at [and] made threats against...members [that is law enforcement members] at the checkpoint, to the point where they surrounded the members.” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the protesters pushed through the vehicles with their vehicles and collided with vehicles travelling northbound on Highway 14?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, and I know you didn't have a chance to observe it, but when we were here with Mr. Van Huigenbos, I believe we watched a video of that incident taken by the driver.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well, you can go back and watch ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now please to ALB00001313? This will be a February 2nd report, sir, on the social media intelligence work ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- being done by PSIO.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In this case, you'll see that you're being informed that from a web and social media perspective, the term bear hug is a rising search query. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to ALB00001611, this is still on the 2nd of February and it's reporting on events in Calgary also associated with this phrase bear hug.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Just go down the page. There we go. So this is a report coming in about -- with respect to an, ""Operation Bear Hug" calling for truckers to block major highways in Alberta..." And at the top there's an Operation Bear Hug in Calgary intended to support the convoy on the 5th of February, which is the upcoming weekend; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You'll see in that second paragraph that there's a, whatever you want to call it, forward-looking intelligence that there's a plan to gather near the Minister's house?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go down the page a bit, just to scan through it, you'll see that there's events being reported on -- in the Southern Region, North Central, Fort McMurray Regions and Peace Region; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Calls to block every road?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This term "bear hug", are you familiar with that term as having been promoted by an outfit called Canada Unity and a gentleman by the names James Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That's fair enough. At any rate, it's clear by February the 2nd when you're receiving these reports that there's the potential for police resources becoming somewhat stretched in the province; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the RCMP is police of jurisdiction under contract with the Province of Alberta are responsible to police the whole of the province and not just Coutts; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Absolutely. Fair enough. Aside from the municipal police services.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to ALB -- go back to ALB00000543, please? This will be the letter from Deputy Commissioner ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- Zablocki ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The invocation of 9.1.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. So if we just move down the page, and the end of the first paragraph, do you see -- well, you told us that you greatly respect Deputy Commissioner Zablocki's judgment as a police officer; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you see that Deputy Commissioner Zablocki indicates in the last sentence of the first paragraph that, "This situation does, in my opinion, constitute an emergency in the province of Alberta."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And do you consider that a reasonable assessment on his part?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Got you.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Got you.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
No, that's fair enough. If you look at the second paragraph, he refers to this urgent and critical situation being what warrants him requesting the extraordinary application of the emergency provisions in the agreements; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that is going to involve bringing in -- or transferring in more RCMP officers from places other than Alberta; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to ALB00001177? And if you bring them in from other provinces particularly though, what it means is you've got less police available in those provinces to police those jurisdictions; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And here you're reporting about the information you've received from provincial colleague in British Columbia about the planned events there; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And all three of those are provinces which also rely upon the RCMP as a primary police of jurisdiction outside of those municipalities large enough to have their own service?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so those protests could likewise draw exceptionally on local resources in order to maintain order if that had to be done by the RCMP; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to ALB00000528, please? The bottom of the page, please. I might have the wrong reference, so never mind. You became aware that there were protests planned for Edmonton the weekend of February 4th and 5th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And a considerable number of vehicles, I think several thousand showed up according to the Institutional Report?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
February 4th is the Friday heading into this weekend, I think?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now did you have an opportunity to hear Mayor Willett testify yesterday?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I'm sure you have other things to do as well, so let's go -- we heard from Mayor Willett -- if we could call up COU00000016. We heard Mayor Willett testify yesterday about his perspective on the ground really, from the ground level at Coutts.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this will be a text exchange with Minister Sawhney that he tendered ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- into evidence yesterday ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- through Commission Counsel. Could we go to page 7, please? Here we see an indication from him on February 4th that an Artur Pawlowski had showed up and fired everyone up at the Coutts protest site to convince them to stay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Are you aware of that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to PB.CAN.00001835? This is the multimedia file that we had yesterday. And I'm going to ask to play this from --- (VIDEO PLAYBACK)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- the 2:07 mark until 4:18. (VIDEO PLAYBACK)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Have you seen that speech before by Artur Pawlowski?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you hear that he is singling out Premier Kenney as the source of the problem and I believe he referred to Kenney's mafia?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he said, "This is our Alamo," referring I take it to a -- the standoff at the Alamo in Texas?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he points to the international attention that has been gathered and says, "That's power"; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to COU00000016? This similarly we heard from Mayor Willett about, and it is the same series of text exchanges, and I just want to address one other factual issue that was circulating.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Page 9. Okay. You see he refers here in this instant message, again, with Minister Sawhney, to a gentleman named Paul Brandt; do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he's referring to a Rebel News story and saying that, "In my opinion Paul Brandt should post a clarification on the Rebel news story that he helicoptered in aid." Familiar with that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Or the rumour about that, yeah.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go down the page? And you see that Mayor Willett indicates that that's not in fact true, that this photograph that was circulating of Paul Brandt was five years old; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Paul Brandt is a -- just for the benefit of whoever doesn't know, is a well-known internationally successful country musician from Alberta; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there was a rumour in fact that he was going to come and perform a concert in support of the Coutts blockaders; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to page 13, you see Minister Sawhney still on the next day, February the 6th, she's asking, "Was food dropped off to the protesters by helicopter?" Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah, and that's the character of the rumour that was going on about Paul Brandt, that he had dropped off food by helicopter; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. According to Mayor Willett at least, he says, "Rebel rented a chopper and made a video."
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It's what circulated. Is that accord with your recollection of what happened there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we can go to ALB00001444? And I just want to suggest at any rate that what - - this notion about Paul Brandt renting a helicopter, coming to drop off food, putting on a concert, that was disinformation; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And if you go to the bottom of this page, this is a report to you from your PSIO Director; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
On February 6th, and at that point, at 3:27 in the afternoon, he is saying that there's no credible public information confirming this Brandt helicopter story, but it appears plausible based on the aircraft itself. I'm sorry ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, okay. And that's the NOTAM that's referred to there, the Notice to Airmen?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to ALB00001626? This is a report to you raised for your attention, I think again on February the 7th now, so the Monday.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Or the Tuesday.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Monday. Monday it is. If you go down to the bottom indication that's being forwarded up to you, "A regional stakeholder raised the following concern: there is the risk [that] many of the protesters [referring to Coutts] are armed with firearms kept in their tractor trailers and trucks. Violence is possible." Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that if -- and that proved to be the case, ultimately; did it not?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. We'll hear from Deputy Commissioner Zablocki about that when he testifies - --
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This in any event, if true, as it proved to be, made it a very dangerous situation and raised serious officer safety and public safety risks?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
On February the 7th, are you aware that Artur Pawlowski was arrested and charged with offences including mischief over $5,000 and interrupting the operation of critical infrastructure?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to ALB00001087? This is February the 9th. It's being reported up to you that sheriffs, Alberta sheriffs sprayed two protesters with, that’s pepper spray.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that that’s because two protesters reportedly moved towards the sheriff’s sergeants and refused warnings to stop; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Maybe not -- really just the raw fact that this was reported to you, is all I’m asking.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In terms of your state of mind at the moment.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And go to ALB00001307. Can we go to the bottom email, please? This is an email reporting in on protests occurring that Friday night and over the weekend at the Calgary Remand Centre.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sorry; the very bottom, please, page 4. Okay. Scheduled protest at the Calgary Remand Centre; are you aware of those protests in sympathy with Artur Pawlowski?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And they ended up continuing for seven straight days.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to the Institutional Report, ALB.IR.00000001? And to page 18, please? Okay. This is indicating -- first of all, go down the page. I think we’re looking for the weekend of February 12 and 13. Maybe just keep going, I may have the page wrong. Yeah, please continue. There we go, right between 12 and 13. The City of Edmonton obtained an injunction for the weekend of February 12 and 13 as a result of the prior weekend’s events; yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can you go to paragraph 80 on this page? You’ll see there’s a report of about 840 vehicles in Edmonton, down from 3,000 the weekend before. But what I’m concerned about here is at the end of the paragraph: “...200 protestors from the ‘Liberty’ march moved towards the counter- protesters in an apparent attempt to remove them...” Right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the risk of violence dramatically escalates when you’re dealing with a counter-protest situation; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to COU0000002? This would be one of the last exchanges I want to go to with respect to Mayor Willett, who testified yesterday.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this is an exchange with Bill Graveland. And it’ll be page 3, please.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it is dated as of February 12th, so two days before the Emergencies Act. And move down the page. All right. You see there, Mayor Willett says: “Good morning, Bill.” And he refers to, you know: “...need to find someone in a protected position to call these guys what they are, Domestic Terrorists.” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Mr. Graveland says: “Honestly, I had a number of run in’s several years ago with the Freemen on the land. After an unpleasant exchange with some of them at the saloon, I realized that’s likely what they are. Sorry you’re going through this.” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And do you know what “Freemen on the land” refers to?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It’s been found, and I think by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, and described as an organized method of disrupting court operations and frustrating the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah, he has a very well-known decision that you may be familiar with from 2012 on that point.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Meads and Meads, I believe.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s fine, you can take my word for that.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to PB.CAN.00001834? (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And, sir, I’ll ask if we can go to -- well, this is a decision issued one week ago today ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, and if we can go to the last page, page 16 at paragraph 69 and 70.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I just want to point out to you for your reaction that the view of Associate Chief Justice Rooke expressed last week, in paragraph 70 is that the litigation abuse he’s describing here, “...is part of a broader pattern.” In that: “The law in Alberta is not adequate to control abusive litigants.” Do you see that? Paragraph 70 in the middle.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And that’s a -- well, I won’t ask you to comment on your agreement with the Court. Could we go, now, to February the 14th. You understand that on February 14th, the arrests occurred at Coutts, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Approximately at 2:00 p.m. that day, Mountain Time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
At approximately 7:00 a.m. Mountain Time, Premier Kenney attended the First Ministers meeting, which you referred to earlier.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to SAS00000120? These are the notes produced by the Government of Saskatchewan with respect to the statements made at that meeting. We’ve got only what is rehearsed into the Institutional Report from Alberta. So I just want to -- thank you. If we go down to the bottom of this page where there’s notes with respect to Premier Kenney’s statements, you see the last few lines there, this is Jason Kenney speaking from about ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You see that section?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So just looking at the last comments that are attributed in here: “See it as very serious provocation. Could prove a net negative. PJs can compel...tow drivers. Please stop the trucker vaccine mandate. Language provocation. Don’t quibble if necessary.” Do you have any awareness of what was -- what ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we can then go to SSM.NSC.CAN00002941? And I’ll... Yes, Commissioner, I know I’m right at the edge. I’ll probably be about two or three minutes, if that’s acceptable?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, then I’ll keep ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’ll keep my mouth shut in the future when I guess wrong.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. And so it’s SSM.CAN ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
SSM.NSC.CAN.00002941. And this is another set of notes produced in -- from the Mr. Klau (phonetic), ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- who will testify in front of this Commission. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 22, and I’m sorry these are sideways. It’s a limitation of the ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- product, I think. And can you scroll down the page? There were go.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Doi you see on the right-hand side of Mr. Klau’s (phonetic) notes, with respect to Mr. Kenney’s statements during the First Minister’s meeting; do you want to just take a look at that for a moment?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Since I have the luxury of four minutes.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go ahead. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so you see that others have it here, again this word “quibble”. Mr. Klau has written, attributed to Mr. Kenney, “I don’t quibble with the use of the Act, but other ways to reduce tensions.” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in fairness to you, you’re not able to speak to whether or not that’s an accurate reflection of what Premier Kenney said because you weren’t present; fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this meeting occurs approximately -- well, some hours after the RCMP arrests are made at Coutts; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it occurs in a context where -- and I’ll just ask you if you’re aware of this - - approximately 2,000 firearms were missing, having been stolen in a trailer in Peterborough, Ontario, which had not been recovered for some days.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Fair enough.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Fair enough. We’ll deal with it in other evidence. At any rate, the Act is invoked at approximately 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, just coming back briefly to some of the content of the institutional report, if we could pull that up for just a couple of last questions, ALB.IR.0000001, to page 7. Paragraph 34. I think there’s a disjoint in the numbering. You can’t speak to and were not present for Premier Kenney’s calls with Minister Mendicino; correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at page 8, paragraph 38, you likewise, I take it, were not present for Minister McIver’s call with Minister Blair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And again, that information is provided -- is not provided under oath other than to the extent that your affidavit says you have heard it.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And page 9, then, please. Again, it’s paragraph 43. And I take it I’ll get the same answer, but you were not present for this further call between Premier Kenney and Minister Mendicino?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we go to page 3, finally, paragraphs 2 and 3, you see there it is stated or asserted that in the end of paragraph 2 Alberta received “virtually no consultation from Canada in its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act as applicable to Alberta and the entirety of the country.” Fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s really a matter of -- that’s characterization.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that your characterization or is that the province’s position?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well, we’ve heard areas where you were engaged with other colleagues.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Paragraph 3, you say -- at the end of that paragraph: “...Canada failed to provide any assistance upon Alberta’s request to simply borrow equipment from them.” And is that how you would encapsulate the dialogue that you were engaged in with Transport Canada and others?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Well, we’ll hear from the others about that. Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Commissioner. Ms. Termorshuizen and Mr. Comartin, my name is Brendan van Niejenhuis and I'm counsel for the Government of Canada. And I just wanted to follow up on a few of the items you were asked about by my friends. First of all Ms. Termorshuizen, it was suggested -- sorry, you suggested that others were likely to be better placed than you to answer questions from my friends for the convoy organizer group and the JCCF about specific laws being breached and about whether the Emergencies Act was necessary. Do you recall that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was the prospective of threat to the reputation of Canada, into the economic security of Canada that you’ve spoken about, was that simply GAC’s input into a broader consideration of that latter question?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I wonder if we could pull up PB.CAN.000016 -- actually, sorry, we don’t need this reference. Mr. Comartin, I think you’ll probably recall this. You’ve described your call on February the 11th with Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan’s 12th district. And you recall that that was the day of the Windsor injunction being granted; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And what I will ask to call up, and we’ll come to it in a moment, but I’ll call it up now, is PB.CAN.00001802. And just coming back to your conversation with Representative Dingell, I believe you said that it was reassuring to her that -- either that this injunction was being pursued and would soon be decided, or possibly that it had already been granted by the time that you spoke?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And but why was that reassuring to her?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I think it was also on the 11th, and you more specifically recalled when you testified earlier about it, that the injunction had been granted in Windsor by this time when you had a call with representatives of the OESA and the EMA. Do you recall that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And those are significant manufacturer trade organizations?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And were they too relieved that the injunction had been granted in Windsor for the same reasons as representative Dingell?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go then to that multimedia file at PB.CAN.1802 at the 2:22 mark, please? (VIDEO PLAYBACK) Did you hear the gentleman express the prediction or opinion that the protestors at the Windsor blockade would not in fact obey the injunction granted by Justice Morawetz?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And was that the case, sir? Did the protestors there at the Windsor blockade obey the injunction as of February the 11th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Now, when you speak of the Emergencies Act, you’re speaking of the Federal Act or the Provincial?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I see.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s -- I believe that’s what the evidence shows, that that was invoked as well on the 11th.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I think at 9:30 in the morning. But am I mistaken, sir, that the Public Order Operation actually wasn’t able to commence until the 12th and it took still 24 hours from there?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Were you aware of concerns from your American counterparts at all with respect to a continued concern such as the one expressed by the OESA and MEMA about reoccurrence?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Ms. Termorshuizen, you were asked, and you spoke of what you called international copy-cat protests from time to time. Do you recall those questions?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I’d like -- if we could take the same file, PB.CAN.00001802 and play from the 14 second mark to 1:55? (VIDEO PLAYBACK) Thank you. Ms. Termorshuizen, are those some examples of the sorts of copy-cats you had in mind?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you noted that each appeared, as I saw it, to illustrate the use of the Canadian flag in the protests; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I believe you said that the Canadian brand internationally was thereby being associated with defiance of the rule of law?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could you tell me, does Global Affairs Canada, aside from the damage that we’ve seen to the brand, as you’ve described it earlier, but does Global Affairs Canada have a sense or an assessment about the strength of the Canadian brand for being a peaceful and lawful society?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is it a concern to Global Affairs Canada the effect that this has on the brand strength not only of Canada as a lawful society, but on the effectiveness of democracy more broadly?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that a sort of branding issue that Global Affairs assesses as being under deliberate attack by foreign states? .
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you have a sense of what the intended audience are for attacks on brand reputation like that that affect the democratic countries?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that part of why RRM was established at the G-7?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I wonder if we could go briefly on the RRM point to ask you a few questions from a recent report issued. It’s PB.CAN.00001836, and if we could go to page 5 once it’s up. Go down the middle of the page and just that paragraph that starts, “Disinformation thrived in the context of COVID 19.” And I’ll highlight here the -- what the report describes as a “…fertile ground for hostile state actors to manipulate the information environment.” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And is that something that you saw reflected in the events of the convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we just move to page 9 for a moment? Just looking under the first heading there, “Implications,” if you just take a look at that first paragraph. It indicates that: “These trends demonstrate that foreign […] sponsored disinformation online and offline -- just one tool in the broader arsenal of hostile state activity -- is increasingly transnational, multi- dimensional, and cross-platform […}. In this context it is difficult to distinguish between foreign and domestic actors…” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then in the next paragraph it indicates that: “…attribution is increasingly difficult to achieve with a high degree of certainty.”
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And finally that: “Measuring the real or potential impact of disinformation is […} challenging.”
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Are those fair assessments at this point in time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is RRM quite a young organization or a collaboration of organizations, I take it?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And has that disinformation environment as you see it and that led to the decision by the G-7 collectively to establish this network called RRM, that’s been going on for longer than since 2018, I take it, in your assessment?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. SO is it fair to conclude that the RRM analysis -- if we see RRM say it hasn’t seen evidence of significant foreign state involvement relative to the convoy, that isn’t to suggest that there is a complete lack of connection between the disinformation environment in the broader sense and those events; is that fair?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
What about -- you've focused on the online environment but do these -- at least as Global Affairs assesses it. Do these operations objectives, whatever you want to call them on behalf of malign actors in the information space include the discrediting of media and the reliability of the traditional media in reporting the truth?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to PB.CAN.00001800? And Commissioner, I'm just going to ask to play a short clip and I’ll have one question and that will be my time, if that’s acceptable.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
When this is called up, could you play from 5:55 forward, please? (VIDEO PLAYBACK)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Ms. Termorshuizen, do these interactions that we saw on the screen between the CNN reporter Mr. Sullivan and convoy protesters in Ottawa illustrate the concerns that led to the establishment of RRM by the G7?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It's a rather non- specific complaint and I don't take it my friend is seeking relief. I can assure you, Commissioner, that in -- a large number of people are working incredible hours and have been doing so for many months to assemble documents. The Government of Canada is a large institution with many document sources and the items that are of key relevance, accordingly, take a great deal of time to identify, process and code. If there's a specific complaint about a specific item that I can be of assistance in addressing, I think we'd be more efficient to address that offline with my friend in terms of the concern or through Commission Counsel would be the appropriate route. But in the absence of a specific request or a specific complaint, I don't think there's more I can say sitting here now. I'm not prepared to speak to the issue at the moment in more particularity.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I think what I can say is if it's a complaint about the adequacy of the coding, we are all in the Counsel table here in the same boat. If the Commission Counsel has a concern about the adequacy of the coding, we'll be happy to do our best to remedy that. Obviously, these things take time, and if they take time, then that slows the process of getting things into the database, which is the whole purpose of the inquiry, so that they can be put into the public record as appropriate.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. Commissioner -- Mr. Commissioner, I think that misstates the evidence of the Clerk ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- with respect ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- to the green light ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- claim that my friend has made. I’d like to ask that my friend have a good faith basis for the questions put and the characterizations of the evidence that are placed before the witness as some of the characterizations suggest that there’s a purpose to the questions less of seeking the witness’ evidence, but a purpose of stating facts as though they were evidence, ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- when that’s not been put before you.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I'm trying to sort that out right now as I'm not aware of what my friend is speaking of in terms of the specific document. I see that there's been a response sent from the Government of Canada with respect to one of my friend's motions with an attachment to it. And frankly, Commissioner, I don't think I'm informed enough nor are those at the Counsel table at the moment to respond to what my friend has. If we took two minutes, we may be able to get there.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Commissioner, I’ve had a chance to speak with my friend with respect to the lifting of a redaction in Document SSM.CAN.NSC.00002872 and I’ve undertaken to my friend that I’m happy to ask the witness, I’m not sure if it’s technically feasible to put it on the screen, but to ask the witness the question whether he was advised of the information that has now been unredacted in a document that’s previously been seen as a Ministerial Update read out.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I accept that, Your Honour.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. It's Brendan van Niejenhuis for the Government of Canada. Just on the last point, looking at that word "plan" in the bullet point my friend was taking you to, are you certain, sitting here today, which plan that referred to?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. So is it -- looking at what's noted there, is it equally possible, sitting here today, as far as you know, that that’s the engagement plan as opposed to an enforcement plan?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. I would like to come back now to the broader issues here and ask you some questions about the environment that you were assessing, and as one of a number of members of Cabinet. This morning Commission counsel asked -- or this afternoon Commission counsel had asked you a number of questions about your perspective on the policing of the protest which included a couple of well-known protest events that occurred when you were the chief of police at the Toronto Police Service. Do you recall them taking you through the 2009 Tamil protests, for example?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And another well- known protest event in Toronto when you were the chief was the G20 held in June of 2010, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I think you and I are both quite familiar with that event, as well as the later process of accountability for some of the orders that were given by the bronze-level incident commander on the Sunday June 27th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And as I recall the evidence, in that example, you ultimately intervened and ordered that an end be brought to certain of those operations when they came to your attention?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I would like you to -- ask you to focus for a moment on the events in Toronto on Saturday, June the 26th in thinking about the scenario before us here in this Inquiry. Do you recall what happened on June the 26th of 2010 in Toronto?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, sir.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And one of your officers was quite seriously injured as a result of the police car being attacked by protesters; is that right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, leading up to that event, sir, were you aware that there was a not insignificant amount of advance information and intelligence of available with respect to certain actors, I think, most famously associated with the Black Bloc, actors that were shared with the Toronto Police Service?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And those individuals and groups were assessed as intending to cause violence to property and potentially persons during the course of the G20 protest, yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in fact, am I correct that some of these identifiable groups or individuals warranted or were found to warrant the issuance and execution of search warrants in advance of the protest?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But the events you described on Saturday, June the 26th, they involved individuals who were not on your radar specifically, didn’t they?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The groups that smashed stores and laid waste to a long section of Yonge Street in downtown Toronto, do you know whether all of them were a part of the target group assessed as subjects of interest ahead of the summit?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Would the same -- do you have the same perspective with respect to what occurred on Queen Street West, where at least two of the burning police cars, I understand, occurred?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Looking -- putting yourself back to the situation in the streets of Toronto on June the 26th, you were sitting there in the middle of that afternoon, would you have had any reason to think that obtaining more surveillance or monitoring authorities, the wiretap authorities would have been useful as a response to what was going on in the streets amongst that mass of people?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Would that have been a useful Public Order response on June the 26th of 2010 when those events were occurring in plain sight on broadcast and social media in real time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, coming back to February the 14th or 13th, the period in question leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, did you have a view about whether there was an atmosphere of lawlessness in the City of Ottawa?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So when you draw on that example, when you assess the environment of lawlessness or relative lawlessness in that scenario, is your assessment based only on information received from public officials, intelligence agencies, and police channels, or does it include what you can see with your own eyes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Where an environment of lawlessness persists for a protracted period, does that, in your view, affect the likelihood that there will be acts of serious violence against persons or property in a given city?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
We heard from Commissioner Carrique in this proceeding about his fears that his officers were being stretched between the extreme ends of this province, that is to say, Windsor and Ottawa, so that it would become impossible or extremely difficult at any rate to have an effective public order response occur in both places at once. And my question for you, sir, is did you, looking from the federal perspective, did you have a similar concern about the stretching, potential stretching of resources amongst the RCMP?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If there are inadequate numbers of police officers available to maintain law and order in a given location, do you consider that that might affect the likelihood that there will be acts of serious violence that occur in that location against persons or property?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I'd like to ask you about the risk of counterprotest. Do you see that as a relevant risk in a protest situation where a risk of counterprotest develops in terms of ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did it affect your sense whether there was a risk of serious violence against persons or property when you learned about the seizure of a large quantity of guns, ammunition and body armour from Coutts on February 14th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did it have any effect on your view of the likelihood or the risk level that there would be acts of serious violence against persons or property in Ontario when you learned on February 13 of the theft of a trailer of 2,000 guns near Peterborough, Ontario?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. I'd like to ask you about a subject some of the lawyers in this Inquiry have repeatedly asked witnesses about, and that is whether or not you believe in the rule of law?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Does the rule of law include the sense that citizens will generally acknowledge and abide by the law of their own volition?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
What happens to the capacity of police to do their jobs if the vast majority of people do not voluntarily abide by the law?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you see that if large numbers of Canadians repeatedly and for extended periods refuse or fail to abide by laws, by court orders and so forth, do you think this has any effect on the willingness of other Canadians to follow the law themselves?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But let's say that they didn't. Let's say that large numbers of Canadians for a long period of time declined to obey the law, to abide by court orders and so forth. Do you think that there'd be a greater likelihood that others would take the law into their own hands, so to speak?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in that situation, do you see that it has any effect on the likelihood that there will be serious acts of violence committed by someone or other against persons or property?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. I want to ask about one more area, which is with respect to -- and Mr. Cameron had asked about this to some extent earlier and I think you'd referenced it as well in later testimony, but it's with respect to the implementation or execution of the ultimate public order operation that occurred in Ottawa specifically after the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I wonder if we can call up PB.CAN.00001805_REL.01 and it will be at 1 minute 35 seconds. And while this is coming up, Minister, in this inquiry there have been some evidence or suggestion that the enforcement operation in the City of Ottawa on February 18th and following was excessively -- was conducted in an excessively brutal fashion. One witness I believe suggested that they couldn't believe that something like this was happening in Canada. Did you observe the public order operation at any time?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if we could -- when we get to the 1:35 mark, I'm going to show you what appears to be drone footage taken by the RCMP to record the execution of the public order operation on the 19th. And I'll just let you observe that for a moment and then ask you to comment on the execution and whether it is up to snuff. (VIDEO PLAYBACK)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I'll note as we go that appears that in a certain point the footage will be sped up and that will be indicated on the screen. Is this what that appears to be, sir, is a film of the -- that public order operation?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you can stop the video there. (VIDEO PLAYBACK)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Would you tell us your views on whether that represents a well-executed public order operation?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Are you aware of whether the public order operation that occurred in Ottawa resulted in any deaths or serious bodily injuries to members of the public or to members of the police?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I just wanted to just clarify, because I think the impression was left, inadvertently or otherwise, that these are the Minister’s texts, as opposed to the Chief of Staff Jones.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I apologize for intervening.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. Commissioner, just -- I just do think it is important that the Commissioner's evidence not be put that she wasn't sure, but that she articulated that that power she was describing was if you were to find committing a Criminal Code offence, just so the witness is ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Just so the witness does not skip past that.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. Commissioner, I have an objection to state with respect to the nature of this questioning. In my submission the placing of this photograph again before the witness in light of the evidence given to date, is an abuse of the process of the public hearing process and that the purpose of my friend putting this document up on the screen is not in good faith purpose; it is apparently for the purpose of asserting claims in order to associate them with the credibility of this public hearing process and distract from the fact-finding process that the Board work of this Inquiry surrounds. In my submission there needs to be a good faith basis for the questions put to the witnesses and this is a further example of what my friend is seeking to do that is not directed to the fact-finding process of this Inquiry respectfully, but to injecting this photograph and other documents into the public light so that they may be commented on, taking advantage of the privileged forum in which my friend is speaking and making assertions to which witnesses repeatedly have had no evidence to give and there could be no reasonable expectation that they would have relevance ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’d ask to finish my objection, which I’m also complete. In my submission the Commission must respectfully insist that participation be conducted in good faith by those who have been given the right of audience in the form of full party standing and where public funding has been recommended for the purposes of enabling their participation to serve the objects of the Commission and their client’s interests. I object to this line of questioning.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
My friend is misstating the content of the letter that he’s putting to the witness.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon, Minister. My name is Brendan van Niejenhuis, and I'm Counsel for the Government of Canada.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go, please, to document COM00000951? I'm showing you a document that's appeared in the Commission database that appears to be a statement from Enterprise Canada regarding comments made by Mr. Miller yesterday and issued on November 21st. Have you seen a copy of this document before?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You'll see that it indicates a denial of the -- what are called absurd and despicable accusations relating to that entity and a gentleman named Brian Fox?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you have any idea what this statement is talking about?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Next issue, and we can take that down, from listening to your evidence today, I don't believe it was entirely clear whether you had indicated in your evidence concerning the border officers employed by the CBSA, whether they, in your view, could exercise or could not exercise the powers of peace officers at or around bridges and other ports of entry if there is criminal activity observed there. Do you recall clearly?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. Ossowski had given some evidence, some -- in more particularity about this issue last week, which was to the effect that such officers had no such authority, other than with respect to particular offences that are noted within section 163.5 of the Customs Act. Now, to the extent that there is in fact any distinction between your understanding and that of Mr. Ossowski, would you defer to that of Mr. Ossowski?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. The next issue is -- arises from the questions that were asked to you by my friend acting for, I think it was the Democracy Fund. He was asking you some questions pertaining to the science behind the vaccines, and to the premise that COVID-19 vaccines approved by Health Canada, and many health regulatory authorities around the world, posed a risk to public safety. Do you recall being asked about that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I took it that his questions, as I heard them, were focussed particularly on vaccines developed by western countries, such as the Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen vaccines for COVID-19?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to SSM.NSC.CAN00001573. I'm showing you an analytical brief that appears to date to December of 2020 from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it's entitled Canadian Vaccination Rollout: Implications for Possible IMVE. Yes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we could go page 2, please. Do you see that the service in December of 2020 is reporting that: "Adherents of IMVE...are using the COVID-19 pandemic as opportunity to promote disinformation and alternative narratives regarding both the cause of the pandemic and potential societal outcomes.... The Service assesses that individuals and groups adopt or promote [these] conspiracies that best suit their personalized worldviews and range of grievances." Is that consistent with the information that CSIS reported to you when you became Minister of Public Safety?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the bullet points that are listed as key anti-vaccination conspiracy narratives, you see that one of them is: "[Threats] to liberty and freedom: [that] mass vaccinations constitute government overreach and pose an increasing threat to individual rights - vaccination will be mandatory and the government will establish 'internment camps' for those who do not adhere to government rules." Is that information, or information of that nature, consistent with what was related to you by the Intelligence Service under your remit?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And another key anti-vaccination narrative is that: "Vaccine development, provision and access: [that] vaccines have only been tested on animals...Russian and Chinese vaccines are safer and more effective." Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And did you receive information to that effect from the Service?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Fair enough.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The next key conspiracy narrative is that: "...rejection of the existence of the pandemic and/or its severity and [that] safety of the vaccination - [that] the vaccine is not needed and causes a multitude of health issues...or will contain small microchips placed by the government." Did you receive that kind of information from CSIS about ---
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. And lastly, amongst these key narratives is a: "...lack of confidence in government and scientific advice - [that] governments are corrupt and puppets of big business; [that] the pandemic was man-made to the financial enrichment of politicians and international corporations." Were you briefed to similar effect by CSIS when you became Public Safety Minister?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now, please, to PB.NSC.CAN00000527. I'm showing you, sir, a Special Threat Advisory from the RCMP, and this is dated January the 18th of this year. Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it's a Special Threat Advisory concerning Anti-Public Health Order: Escalation in Online Violent Rhetoric?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Would you go down the page to Current Status. You see under that heading, sir, the second sentence that: "The IMCIT has observed an escalation in threatening rhetoric against public officials, including references to assassination, holding 'Nuremberg Trials 2.0', and conducting civilian arrests of those perceived to be involved in imposing public health rules." Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the footnote concerning Nuremberg Trials there, it says: "The Nuremberg Trials reference is in relation to a set of research ethics developed after German doctors conducted unethical human experimentation during the Second World War. It has been used by COVID-19 vaccine opponents throughout the pandemic to argue that vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code." Do you recognise that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did you see that particular idea of Nuremberg Code or Nuremberg Trials in relation to the events of the convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did you see that, for example, in the Memorandum of Understanding that was promulgated by some of the protesters, such as Mr. Bauder?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go to the next page, please. Do you see at the third paragraph presently on the page that starts "Open source information", it has at the end of that paragraph, it says: "The following is a list of some of the demonstrations that have occurred outside the residences of public officials in recent months." Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And they include a number of municipal and other chief medical officers or health officials?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
As well as the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Education, if you go further down the list?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was this information briefed to you by the RCMP, or information of this nature, ahead of the arrival of the convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, I would like to go, if we may, to SSM.CAN.NSC00002578. And this will be a readout of a briefing from January the 26th of this year. If you go to the bottom of the page, of the first page, please, there we go, to the email header. You see there this note at the bottom, it's from Mary Liz Power to Katie Telford, to Jeremy Broadhurst and others, dated January the 26th?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it is a readout concerning trucker convoy and security concerns; right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could you go over to the next page, please.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. You see under Key points, this is summarising or discussing the upcoming at that point, as of January the 25th, upcoming convoy expected to arrive in Ottawa?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you could go down the page, please, to the other -- as to the key points. Do you see the notes at the end of that paragraph, right under the redaction? In the second sentence, that the: “Federal family has already been activated, and since last year’s insurrection conducted 3 readiness exercises in case a similar event were to occur here.” Do you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was it a concern by January 25th already to look at the potential for the convoy to develop into something similar to what occurred in January 6th in the United States?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to PB.NSC.CAN00000996, please? (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And sir, this is another RCMP Special Threat Advisory, this one dating from January the 25th, so that’d be three days or so before the convoy was expected to arrive in Ottawa; three or four days?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, that’s the description of the convoy. If you look to the top right of the page, you’ll see the date of the document.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you could just go to the “Key Points,” please? The third key point indicates that: “The IMCIT assesses that there has been an increase in online narratives supportive of the convoy among both ideologically motivated networks, as well as in general public discourse.” Correct?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it notes the “Significant amount of financial support” that’s occurring?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Could we go to page 2, to the heading “Convoy Participants”? And sir, it appears that the RCMP advised in the threat advisory that: “[It’s] assessed that this convoy will include ideologically motivated individuals with grievances that are anti-government, anti-authority and conspiratorial in nature. [That]...individuals with racially motivated and ethno-nationalist views may also be attracted to this event, though the purpose of the event is not rooted in these specific grievances.” Do you recall being briefed to that effect?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And just one more reference in this document. It says, at the end of that paragraph: “...rhetoric observed online in various networks known for more extreme content have made references to the January 6, 2021 events [at] the US Capitol when discussing the convoy to Ottawa.” Were you aware of those kinds of communications being on the radar of law enforcement?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Right, thank you. I’d like to go now just to a couple of texts, the first being PB.CAN00001843. This will be an exchange with Brian Clow. You’re familiar with Mr. Clow as the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it’ll be page 2, once the document’s up. I apologize that we’ll need to zoom in to be able to make any sense of this image. If you could scroll down, please? Continue to scroll down to the next image. All right, there we go. Do you see there that you send to Mr. Clow on January 29th -- and if you can go down, you can see the text that actually follows the image. It is a text from a gentleman named Randy Hillier -- oh sorry; a tweet from a gentleman named Randy Hillier. Do -- are you familiar with him?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I believe he’s complaining that the police have restricted access to Parliament Hill, and he goes on to say -- well, sorry; that he indicates that the PPS are restricting access to Parliament Hill; you see that?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was Mr. Hillier later arrested on nine charges, including counselling and commission of indictable offences and mischief in relation to the convoy events?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we could go down -- or actually, if we can go to PB.CAN.00001847. And on page 1, this is the same item here. Do you see Mr. Hillier here is calling publicly: “...on the PPS to completely open Parliament Hill, or we might have to open it up for ourselves”?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we just go back for a moment to PB.CAN.00001843, which is the last item we’ve looked at with Mr. Clow? I’m sorry; for the record, this last one was with Ms. Khalil.
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It’d be down to the third page, please. There we go. Do you see there, this is on January the 29th that you pass along to Mr. Clow a tweet from -- or a tweet reporting on a statement by former President Donald Trump, indicating: “We want those Canadian truckers to know that we are with them all the way.” (As read)
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Were you aware of that those kinds of statements from U.S. former and current politicians in support of the convoy?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Could we -- Your Honour, I just have really two more questions on the text about Commissioner Lucki, if I may have an indulgence for two more minutes?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go to PB.CAN.00001842, and it will be page 10. Is this an exchange of text between you and the clerk, Ms. Charette?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 10 please? All right. I'm showing you a text from February 16th, and it appears that you indicated below the redaction, "Speaking with Brenda now," is that referring to Commissioner Lucki?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The most substantive brief on the Ottawa enforcement plan to date, she says she is confident this weekend will not look like the last few weekends, right?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Were you encouraged by Commissioner Lucki's briefing after the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was it evident to you that she may have been walking a very challenging line in reporting enough to you and cabinet to ensure you were fully informed without providing inappropriate operational detail?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And lastly, let me just ask, you had indicated in your evidence you weren’t sure if it would have made a difference if you had seen -- you couldn't recall, but if you had seen the note in her email that indicated, "That having been said, I am of the view we have not exhausted all available tools." Do you remember giving that evidence?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was it possible, in your view, at that point in time, February the 14th, February the 13th, both to recognize that not every imaginable tool had been exhausted, but also recognize that there were insufficient police resources available to use those tools with the protests remaining at that size and number of locations across the country?
-
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you, Minister. Those are my questions.