Janani Shanmuganathan
Janani Shanmuganathan spoke 128 times across 4 days of testimony.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me okay?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay, great. So my name is Janani Shanmuganathan and I'm here for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. And my questions are for Deputy Minister Stewart. So sir, in your interview summary, you explained that an Ottawa municipal and provincial authorities were not used more extensively because the OPS was overwhelmed by protesters. Do you recall saying that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And I take it what you mean by that is that authorities like the Highway Traffic Act, noise bylaws, were not being enforced by the OPS because they were overwhelmed by protesters.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So there was this resource issue in Ottawa, you know, not enough police officers on the ground to enforce the law.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So I’d like to take you to your interview summary, and Mr. Clerk this is WTS00000066. And it’s page 12, please. So if we look at the third paragraph under the Ottawa Police Service heading, what it says here, it says: “The DM…” That’s you, sir. “…also described how there was some tension between the City of Ottawa and the federal government because Chief Sloly wanted more assistance, and questions were raised about how many RCMP officers and resources had been deployed to assist the OPS rather than to protect federal assets." So what you're describing here is that there's this tension because Chief Sloly wants more help to address the resource issue and is asking, well, how many of these RCMP officers are really just being used to protect federal assets rather than helping us, the OPS, enforce things like the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act to deal with the protest; is that fair?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And the tension is that OPS wants more help and is questioning, well, how much help are we actually getting right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And you go on to say in that paragraph, "The RCMP's position was that the OPS should have asked the OPP for more resources and that it was the OPP's responsibility to come and serve. He [-- that's you, sir --] explained that the RCMP felt pressed by the OPS, but that the OPP was the force that the OPS should look to pursuant to legislation...' And then there's a reference to the Ontario Police Services Act. So there's this tension and the RCMP is feeling pressed and the response you're hearing coming from the RCMP is that the OPS should really go to the OPP; right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
The response isn't -- -
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
--- hey, you know ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Sure.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Yes, right, the RCMP position was, well, OPS should go to the OPP first and then come to us; is that fair?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And so the position - - you know, the response that you were getting from the RCMP wasn't, well, the OPS is asking us for help. We should do everything we can do to give them whatever they need as soon as possible. That wasn't the position you were hearing?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Right. And so, you know, maybe it's just me, but it kind of sounds to me like there's one level of government saying, you know, passing the buck and saying you should look to another level of government. But I take it you don't agree with that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Now this idea that the OPP was a force that the OPS should be looking to pursuant to legislation, Commission Counsel asked you about that in her examination, and she suggested that it was the Police Services Act and you said, "I believe so." Right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So there's this idea that's going around that there is something in the Police Services Act that means the OPS should be going to the OPP primarily or first before it goes to the RCMP.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. So I've taken a look at the Police Services Act, and I think we should bring it up. Mr. Clerk, that's CCF00000011. And to page 15, please. And so if we could just pause here for a moment. So Section 9 of the Police Services Act, Section 9(1) talks about, you know, when a police service is absent during adequate OPP assistance may be sought. So what 9(1) says is, "If the Commission finds that a municipality to which 4(1) applies is not providing police services, it may request that the Commissioner have the Ontario Provincial Police give assistance." So what it says is that it may request that the Commissioner have the Ontario Provincial Police give assistance. And now if we scroll down to subsection (6), what it says here is, "A municipal chief of police who is of the opinion that an emergency exists in a municipality may request that the Commissioner have the Ontario Provincial Police give assistance." So what I say is, you know, these sections enable the OPS to go to the OPP, but I don't see anything in the Act that says the OPS cannot go to the RCMP first or that the OPS can only go to the RCMP after they've gone to the OPP. Do you have a different understanding of this legislation?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Sure.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Fair enough. But you do agree that it was your understanding that it was the RCMP's position that the appropriate force to be seeking assistance from was the OPP; is that fair?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Technically, that was what the RCMP's position was. Well, not technically. That was the RCMP's position.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Fair enough. And now you're not aware of any other law or legislation that requires the OPS to go to the OPP for help first before seeking help from the RCMP?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you very much.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Yeah. Thank you. So my name is Janani Shanmuganathan. I’m counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation and my questions are for Commissioner Lucki. So earlier today, when Commission Counsel was asking you questions, he brought up discussions with Federal Ministers about RCMP taking over the Ottawa Police Service, and you responded and said, you know, that was an issue that you were asked about often, and that you had to explain that the RCMP was not the police of jurisdiction in Ottawa. You recall that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Sure. And your -- the response was, you know, the RCMP is not the police of jurisdiction in Ottawa?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So I want to just talk a little bit about this notion of jurisdiction; okay? So I want to take you to the RCMP Act. And Mr. Registrar, that’s CCF00000029. And if I can take -- if I can ask to be taken to page 20, please? If you could just scroll down? And just stop there. Great. So section 18 of the RCMP Act, 18(a) specifically, sets out the duties of peace officers, the duties of police -- of RCMP officers. And what 18(a) says is, you know: “It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner, (a) To perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada…” And it goes on to say: “… and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody” So you’ll agree that this is the provision that sets out sort of the powers of RCMP officers; yes?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And you know, where it says: “…the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada…” That’s part of the federal policing mandate of enforcing federal statutes; you’ll agree?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So you’ll agree though that RCMP officers have the power to enforce the Criminal Code, for instance?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Right. And they always have the power to enforce the Criminal Code? It’s just part of what they’re allowed to do?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Right. They don’t need to be sort of the local police in a jurisdiction. This is a power that they always have?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Right. And there’s nothing in the Criminal Code, for example, that says an RCMP can’t enforce the Criminal Code in one particular place? They can enforce it anywhere in Canada?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Including RCMP officers?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So just to use sort of a bit of a silly example, if we have an RCMP officer that’s standing on Wellington Street in Ottawa, and they see somebody committing an offence under the Criminal Code, they don’t need to call up Ottawa Police Service to arrest the person, they could go and arrest the person themselves?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Right. Okay. And now, we've heard a lot about, you know, the appointment of special constables under section 53 of the Police Services Act, right? And what that does, it -- you know, it gives an RCMP officer who's appointed a special constable the powers to enforce provincial and municipal authorities, that, you know, Ottawa Police Service would be allowed to do?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And this would be in addition to the power to enforce the Criminal Code, which they always have?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And now, you know, it's fair to say that, you know, during these protests, Criminal Code offences were being violated. You'll agree with that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Some. And I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there was an injunction that was granted in Ottawa in relation to several City of Ottawa bylaws, which include open air bylaws, fireworks bylaws, noise bylaws. Are you aware of that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And you'll agree, of course, that an injunction is a court order?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And section 127 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offence to breach a court order, you'll agree?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So if there's ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So if I was to say to you, hypothetically, if there was an enforcement order that’s attached, a police officer could arrest somebody for breaching a court order, in this case, an injunction?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So you don’t you whether a police officer is allowed to, under section 127, to arrest someone if they're violating a court order?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So if it fell within the ambit of section 127, which speaks to breaching a court order, an RCMP officer could arrest a person for that, right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Sure. Okay. So leaving aside the research you say you need to do, if I was to put to you -- and I can bring up section 127 if that would assist -- Mr. Registrar, that is CCF00000028, and it's page 230. So we see over there 127 says: "Everyone who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act, make or give the order other than the order for the payment of money, is, unless ---" And it talks about the punishment. So you'd agree though that an RCMP officer who has the ability to enforce the Criminal Code and always has this ability could arrest somebody under section 127 for violating 127?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
That’s fine. But my question now is whether or not the serving RCMP officer could arrest someone for contravening section 127 of the Code?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. So my question to you, or I put to you that, you know, there's nothing that legally prevented you from deploying RCMP officers to enforce the Criminal Code in Ottawa?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So I just ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So I just want to sort of clarify now. There may be a difference between say, tradition and respecting the authority of local police and not intruding on them or entrenching on them. But you'll agree that there is nothing that legally prevented you from sending RCMP officers to enforce the things that they're always allowed to do, which is the Criminal Code?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. Those are all my questions. Thank you.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Yes. Good afternoon, sir. Can you hear me okay?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. So my name is Janani Shanmuganathan, and I am counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. And the issue I would like to talk to you about today is the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the Emergencies Act. Okay? So we know that section 16 of the Emergencies Act refers to the definition in the CSIS Act, and says: "...threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act." Now, we heard from Mr. Vigneault earlier this week, and he's the Director of CSIS, and he told us that CSIS has a very clear understanding of what threats to security of Canada means in the CSIS Act based on legal interpretation, jurisprudence and Federal Court rulings. And we also heard from him that as far as CSIS was concerned in terms of what was going on during the convoy, the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the CSIS Act had not been met. Now, are you aware of this evidence on this point?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So you'll agree that as far as CSIS was concerned the definition under the CSIS Act had not been met.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And all I want to confirm, sir, is that as far as CSIS was concerned, using their interpretation of threats to the security of Canada, that definition was not met under the CSIS Act.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And now, you know, we've also heard that Mr. Vigneault was provided a legal opinion that explained the separate interpretation of this definition under the Emergencies Act. And I take it if I asked you anything about the substance of that opinion you'd say it's covered by solicitor/client privilege?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And now, I just want to understand, who is the client in the solicitor/client privilege? And the reason why I ask is who is the person that we need to approach to waive this privilege so that Canadians can understand how the Government arrived at this different interpretation of threats to the security of Canada. Who is this client?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. So I want to now shift and take you back in time to look at what Minister Beatty, the Minister of National Defence, who was a sponsor of Bill C-77, the Emergencies Act, said about the definition in the Emergencies Act when the legislation was introduced. So if I can ask to bring up POE.CCF0000003? And just for context, this is a speech that Minister Beatty gave to the House of Commons debates during Bill -- when Bill C-77 was debated. And specifically, I’d like to go to page 5, please. Is that page 5? Perfect. So I just want to take you to the highlighted portion. Perhaps if we could make it bigger so that Minister Lametti can see it?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So just want to take you to ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So the highlighted portion where it says “Likewise,” what Minister Beatty says is: “Likewise, it has been said that probably the most contentious clause in this Bill is the one that deals with public order emergencies. This is the type of situation which gave rise to the use of the War Measures Act in 1970. This clause takes its definition of threat from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service[s] Act. This fact alone should make us very cautious because of the difficulties already encountered with CSIS in determining what is subversion and what is legitimate dissent. That was one view of the legislation.” He goes on to say: “I would remind Members of this House that the definition of ‘threats to the security of Canada’ received exhaustive scrutiny by Parliament in 1983 during deliberations on the CSIS Act. The language in this definition has, therefore, already received Parliament’s blessing.” So I pause here to note that what Minister Beatty is saying is, you know, we are specifically incorporating the definition that’s found in the CSIS Act, because this is a definition that Parliament has already blessed. Is that fair?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So I would say in response that, you know, this is something that I’m asking Minister Lametti to explain about how -- you know, he’s offered an explanation for why there’s a different interpretation under the Emergencies Act, because the purpose for that definition is different, or determining the purpose is different. And what I say is, well, I’d like to look to see what was described as the purpose under the Emergencies Act and why they use that particular definition. So I would say that it is an appropriate line of questioning.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And sorry, Justice Rouleau, or Commissioner Rouleau, you know, Minister Lametti has referred to the following passage in the highlighted portion and if I could, I just want to go to the next passage so I can ask him a couple of questions about it, because he’s now commented on that.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. So you -- -
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Thank you. So Minister Lametti, you referred to the fact that: “…must be read in conjunction with the definition of national emergency…” So when you move to the next page, to page 6, what the entire paragraphs says is: “I would also remind the House that the definitions at the head of each of the four major parts of this Bill, including the definition of ‘threats to the security of Canada’ do not stand alone. They must be read in conjunction with the definition of a national emergency in the preamble of the Bill and in conjunction with other restriction provisions. In other words, before the Government can declare a public order emergency under Part II, the emergency situation must correspond to the definition of a national emergency as stated in the preamble.” They go on to say: “I am told that this double test, as it is called, will be used by the courts to assess the Government’s compliance with the deliberate constraints and safeguards that have been built into the definitions of this Bill.” So what I’m saying Minister Beatty is saying here is that you have to, one, meet the threats to the security of Canada, that’s the first part, but also meet the definition of a national emergency under their preamble? That’s what he’s referring to as this double test?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And is it fair to say that they’re not saying here that the interpretation of threats to the security of Canada changes because you’re looking at it through the lens of a national emergency? They’re talking about this two-part test, a double test.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Those are all my questions on that. thank you very much.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Good morning -- or good afternoon. I think it might be easier to come back after lunch, but I’m in your hands.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay, great. Thank you.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Great, thank you very much.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So good afternoon, Minister. My name is Janani Shanmuganathan and I am Counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. And today in your evidence, you talked about the economic and financial consequences of the protests. You talked about the reputational damage to Canada as an investment destination. And at the end of Commission Counsel's examination, she asked you to explain how you understood this, you know, economic harm was linked to national security. Do you recall that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And your answer to that was you believe our security as a country is built on economic security, and if our economic security is threatened, all of our security is threatened. And now I'm not asking you to elaborate on this. I just want you to confirm that this was your evidence.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. Thank you very much. And now I take it you know that in order to declare a Public Order Emergency pursuant to the Emergencies Act, there must be what's called threats to the security of Canada. You're aware of that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And the Emergency Act says that threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the CSIS Act. You're aware of that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. So I just want to take you to section 2 of the CSIS Act, and this is COM either 5 0s or 6 0s 935. It should be 5 0s. If I can take to page 8, please? Perfect. If you can just pause there. So the CSIS Act defines threats to the security of Canada, and we've heard evidence in this Commission that, for the purposes of invoking the Emergencies Act here, the focus was on (c). That's where they were focussed on in terms of the threats to the security of Canada. So what (c) says is, "activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state..." So you see that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And so in terms of the economic harm that you've described today, the reputational damage to Canada as, you know, an investment country, you'll agree that it doesn't fall within (c); right? The activities relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence. Would you agree with that or is that fair to say?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So my question was whether the economic harm that you've described today falls within the definition found in (c), which speaks specifically to, "...the support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state..." Does the economic harm you've described today fall within (c)?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
No, I mean to be respectful. I just want to know -- you know, I appreciate that your position is that Canada acted within lawful authority to invoke the Emergencies Act, but I just want to understand if the economic harm that we spent a lot of today talking about, whether that falls within the scope of (c). And so I just want to know your answer to that question.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Sure.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Sure.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So my question was about how you understood the economic harms to fall within subsection or (c), the definition of threats to security of Canada in (c). And as I understand your explanation, your explanation is it falls within it because there’s a risk that the economic harm that’s being created by the protest could somehow manifest into actually threats of violence; is that your understanding of how it falls within (c)?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
I’m just trying to find out her -- you know, she’s offered an explanation for how she says the economic harm falls within (c) and she linked it directly to the threats or use of acts, and I’m just trying to understand what that link is.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And I don’t want to mischaracterize your evidence. Just so that we’re all clear, do you see a link between the economic harm that you say was caused by the protests to Canada with what’s contained in (c) in terms of the threats or use of acts of serious violence against persons?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So it ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Of course.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And I don’t mean to belabour the point. I just want to make sure the evidence is clear. So you’re evidence is that you understood that you had the authority to invoke the Emergencies Act but, in terms of saying there’s a linkage between the economic harm cause by the protests with the requirement of the threat or use of acts of serious violence, is that something that you can’t speak to?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And I don’t mean to belabour this. I just want to make sure I understand Deputy Minister’s evidence. Is she just saying that she can’t comment on it because it’s a legal question or is she saying that there is a link? I just want to know what the answer is.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
That’s fine. Thank you very much. I don’t know how much time I have left but I do have just one other point I’d like -- or one other issue to address, if I may. So when we were talking about FINTRAC this morning and you explored it as one option to pursue but decided that, you know, making a change to it, you know, the legislative amendment would take too much time -- do you recall your evidence earlier today about that?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And so, just so that we’re all clear, because we have Canadians watching who may not understand the process, the money -- the Proceeds of Crime and Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act, it gives the ability to create regulations; right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Thank you.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And there’s just a difference between how regulations are passed versus, say, for example, legislation or amendments to legislation. The latter is what you have to do three readings, going to Senate. It’s a much longer legislative process; that’s fair?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And, by comparison, passing regulations is a much shorter process?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you very much.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Yes, thank you.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
My name is Janani Shanmuganathan, and I am counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. And my questions are for Ms. Telford. So we know that there were three IRG meetings that took place on February the 10th, the 12th, and the 13th, and while Cabinet ministers were present at this meeting -- at these meetings, it's not a meeting of the entire Cabinet; right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And we do know that there was a meeting with the entire Cabinet that took place the evening of February the 13th; right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And the following morning, on February the 14th, there was a meeting with the First Ministers, and then later that day, on February the 14th, or at some point that day, there was a decision made to declare the Public Order Emergency.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Thank you. And so I just have a few questions about Cabinet meetings. Does the Prime Minister's Office advise the Prime Minister on the agendas for Cabinet meetings?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So it's fair to say, though, that you have some input, the Prime Minister's Office has some input into the agenda.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And who ultimately decides the agenda at Cabinet meetings? Like who has the final say?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And does the Prime Minister's Office advise the Prime Minister on which non Cabinet officials attend Cabinet meetings?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So does the Prime Minister's Office offer any input in terms of suggestions of who could or should attend these meetings that are non Cabinet members?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And who ultimately decides which non Cabinet officials attend these Cabinet meetings?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. But the Prime Minister, I take it, has the final say of who attends?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
All right. And does the Prime Minister's Office advise the Prime Minister on what information should be shared at these Cabinet meetings?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So leaving aside the physical documents that are coming in, it's fair to say, though, that the Prime Minister's Office has some input into the kinds of documents that are provided at the Cabinet meetings?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And I take it it's fair to say that it's, again, the Prime Minister who's got the ultimate say of the information that's provided at these Cabinet meetings?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And in terms of documents at the Cabinet meetings, I take it you also have -- the Prime Minister's Office also provides some input into the kinds of documents. I think I've already touched on this, the documents as well.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And so in terms of the February 13th meeting, the evening meeting with the full Cabinet, who sort of set the agenda for the Cabinet meeting?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And did the Prime Minister's Office offer any input for the agenda for that February 13th evening Cabinet meeting?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And what about the information that was provided at that February 13th evening Cabinet meeting, did the Prime Minister's Office offer any input on the information that would be provided?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. What about the documents at that February 13th evening meeting, did the Prime Minister's Office offer any input?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So information, that could be things that are said vocally, out loud to the Cabinet members, versus physical documents that are provided to the Cabinet members.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And again, I guess it's fair to say for that February 13th evening meeting, it's the Prime Minister who had the ultimate say over the agenda, the information that was provided, and the documents that were shared. Is that fair?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And just my last few questions I have. We've heard about this assessment from CSIS, an assessment that ultimately concluded that the situation did not amount to threats to the security of Canada as set out in the CSIS Act. Was this threat assessment provided to the Cabinet members at the February 13th evening meeting, with the full Cabinet?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. But ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
But none of you know? Okay. What about an alternative threat assessment, you know, a threat assessment that's different from the CSIS threat assessment, was that provided -- was any such assessment provided to the Cabinet members at that evening February 13th meeting with the entire Cabinet?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So but the members of the IRG meeting, you know, it’s not the entire Cabinet; right?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And so I’m just asking about the actual -- was there a document with a threat assessment that’s different from the CSIS threat assessment? Was there a document that was shared at that February 13th evening meeting?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And can either of the other two of you?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And we’ve heard about this legal opinion that was created that talked about how the definition of threats to the security of Canada and the CSIS Act has a different interpretation when applied to the Emergencies Act. I’m not asking about the content of that opinion, I just want to know, do you know if that legal opinion had been provided at that February 13th evening meeting with the entire Cabinet?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So I don’t see anyone objecting, and I think someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but the input that’s provided to Cabinet in terms of what information was provided is not covered by Cabinet privilege. I’m not asking about what was discussed or the deliberations. I just want to know if that legal opinion had been provided at that February 13th evening meeting with the entire Cabinet?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
And just so I’m clear, that objection means I can’t ask whether that opinion had been provided during that meeting? Sorry, I can’t see anyone.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
So to be clear, I was never asking about the content of the opinion. Was the fact of this -- you know, was this legal opinion, the fact that this legal opinion existed and whatever its content may have been, shared at that February 13th evening meeting with the full Cabinet?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. And the final question I have is, there was this Ottawa Police Service POU plan. Was that plan shared to the Cabinet members at that February 13th evening meeting with the entire Cabinet?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. But was that plan, the document, the plan, you know, there’s a document that’s called the OPS POU. Was that document shared with the February 13th Cabinet members?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Sure. I’m not sure how much time I have left, Commissioner Rouleau. I can just bring up the document just to ask them if this was something that was shared during that meeting.
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Yeah, that’s fine. So it’s ---
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. But you can’t say whether a document had been shared during that meeting?
-
Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.