Shantona Chaudhury
Shantona Chaudhury spoke 1167 times across 7 days of testimony.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, everyone. My name is Shantona Chaudhury. I’m co-lead counsel to the Public Order Emergency Commission. Bonjour tout le monde. Je m’appelle Shantona Chaudhury et je suis coprocureure en chef de la Commission sur l’état d’urgence. I’m going to take the next few minutes to explain to you how the coming hearings will unfold. I’ll start by describing the schedule for the next two days in some detail, and then I’ll give you a broad overview of how the evidence will be led in the coming weeks. So, starting with this morning. This morning will consist of introductions to the parties who have been granted standing before the Commission and the counsel representing them. Each set of counsel have been invited to prepare a brief statement of no more than three to five minutes introducing themselves and explaining in broad terms their party’s interest in the mandate of the Commission. Given the number of parties and counsel involved, we’ve allocated approximately two hours to these introductions and we’re very much looking forward to hearing from all of you. This afternoon, Commission Counsel will present a series of overview reports and presentations designed to assist the parties and the public in understanding the issues before the Commission and the context of the evidence that you’re about to hear. So these will consist of, first, an overview report on the emergence of COVID-19 and the various public health measures implemented across Canada in response to it. Second, there will be an overview report on early protests and legal challenges to the various public health measures put in place in response to the pandemic. Third, there will be an overview report consisting of a timeline of the key events leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Quatre, il y aura une présentation qui trace les grandes lignes de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence et de son cadre juridique. Fifth, there will be a presentation of the explanation provided by the Government of Canada to Parliament, pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act, regarding its reasons for declaring a public order emergency. Now, you will frequently hear this document referred to throughout these proceedings as the Section 58 explanation. Part of the Commission’s mandate is to evaluate and test the explanation provided by the Government for invoking the Act. Ces rapports sommaires et ces présentations ont été préparés par les avocats et les avocates de la Commission. Il convient toutefois de souligner la distinction entre un rapport sommaire d’un côté et d’une présentation de l’autre. Les rapports sommaires seront formellement déposés en preuve et feront partie de l’ensemble des preuves sur lequel le commissaire pourra s’appuyer pour formuler ses conclusions de fait et ses recommandations. Avant d’être finalisés, les rapports sommaires ont été partagés avec toutes les parties afin qu’elles puissent commenter leur exactitude. Les présentations pour leur part ne sont pas des éléments de preuve, elles sont simplement des documents explicatifs créés par la Commission pour aider les parties et le public à comprendre les enjeux que la Commission abordera au cours des prochaines semaines, elles ne font pas partie de l’ensemble des preuves présentées aux commissaires. So that will be day one of the hearings and that takes us to tomorrow, day two, which is the day that the Commission's going to begin hearing its evidence. Now I should explain that when witnesses are called to testify before the Commission, they will generally be examined first by Commission Counsel, a rotating cast of Commission Counsel, as the Commissioner explained, then by Counsel for the parties, and then by the witness's own Counsel. The order in which evidence will be called over the next six weeks is as follows. And actually, I should pause and preface this by saying that the order of evidence I'm about to describe is approximate and it's subject to change as the hearings unfold. However, in broad terms, first, we're going to deal with the Ottawa protest. So the first broad area that will be examined is the protests that occurred here in Ottawa from late January to mid February 2022. These events will be examined from the perspective of the residents and the community, the municipal government, the police, and the protesters. So that evidence will begin tomorrow with three panels of witnesses speaking to their lived experience during the protests. These panelists will include residents of Ottawa, Ottawa businesses and Ottawa City counsellors. Next week, the Commission expects to spend the first part of the week hearing from various municipal officials involved in the City of Ottawa's response to the protest. We'll then spend several days hearing evidence on the police response to the Ottawa protest. Finally, the Commission anticipates calling a number of organizers and participants in the Ottawa protest. Bon, la Commission quittera ensuite Ottawa — au sens figuré, bien entendu — pour la frontière canado-américaine. Elle se penchera alors sur ce qu’on pourrait appeler de manière générale les manifestations aux postes frontaliers. Plusieurs jours seront consacrés aux témoignages des manifestants, de policiers et de responsables municipaux pour faire la lumière sur les manifestations qui se sont déroulées dans les environs de Windsor et du pont Ambassador ainsi qu’aux alentours de Coutts en Alberta. Après ça, troisièmement, il y a… ça nous amène aux gouvernements provinciaux. La Commission entend ensuite recevoir des témoignages sur la manière dont les provinces ont réagi aux manifestations en faisant témoigner des représentants de plusieurs gouvernements provinciaux, dont ceux de l’Alberta et de l’Ontario. Finally, the last two weeks, give or take, of the hearing will be spent hearing evidence from the federal government about its response to the protests and its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. The witnesses called will include senior officials from the federal departments and agencies, as well as cabinets ministers and the Prime Minister. That will conclude the fact-finding portion of the public hearings. By the time the hearings end, the Commission will have heard from over 60 witnesses, presenting all the different points of view that I've just outlined. In addition to all of the oral evidence that will be called, the Commission will be adducing a significant amount of written evidence in relation to all the areas mentioned above, including relevant documents that have been produced by parties, institutional reports that have been prepared by parties, and overview reports that have been prepared by the Commission, which consist of largely uncontroversial evidence. Introducing all of this evidence in writing will expedite the hearing, which is a necessity given the extraordinarily tight timelines under which the Commission's operating, but it's important to keep in mind that the body of evidence before the Commissioner includes not just the oral evidence, but all of the written evidence we will be adducing as well. As the Commissioner mentioned, the fact-finding hearings will be followed by a week of policy round tables discussing the many and varied policy issues arising out of the Commission's mandate and the evidence it has heard. As a reminder, the Commission has published a series of Commission papers as part of its policy review program, as the Commissioner mentioned, and parties have 30 days from a date a paper is posted to provide comments on it. With that, I echo the Commissioner in thanking the parties very much for their cooperation and their contribution to the Commission's work thus far, and especially over the next few weeks. I'll now turn the floor over to my co- lead Counsel to introduce our team of Commission Counsel.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Commissioner. To begin, I would ask our senior Commission Counsel, Daniel Sheppard, to present and adduce into evidence an overview report on the emergence of COVID-19 and the various Public Health measures implemented in Canada in response to it.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Commissioner. I’d now like to ask our Senior Commission counsel, Dan Sheppard, to present an Overview Report consisting of a timeline of key events leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oui, je pense que oui. C'est encore Monsieur Lacombe, en fait.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
C'est ça.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. My name is Shantona Chaudhury, co-lead Commission Counsel. I’d like to call Mr. Rob Stewart and Mr. Dominic Rochon to the stand.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Mr. Stewart. Good morning, Mr. Rochon. Nice to see you again. I’ll just start by introducing your witness summary. So you’ll recall sitting for an interview with Commission Counsel on September 1st, 2022? Mr. Clerk, I’ll ask you to pull up WTS.0000066. Okay. So Mr. Stewart and Mr. Rochon, you’ll recall that some of your colleagues were not with us today, were not called to testify, also sat for that interview, namely Mr. Talal Dakalbab. I’m not sure I’m pronouncing that right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Pardon me?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Dakalbab. Thank you. Mr. Deryck Treheame also participated in that interview. I’ll just ask you to confirm that you’ve reviewed the summary of the interview, and if you have no changes to make, confirm that insofar as it contains your information, you adopt it, and insofar -- and it’s accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief insofar as it contains the information of your colleagues, and you believe them to have accepted it as accurate.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Mr. Stewart, at the time of the Freedom Convoy events in January and February, you were the Deputy Minister of Public Safety? Is that correct?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you’ve since moved on to become the Deputy Minister of International Trade?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And when was that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The 17th of October? Okay. Mr. Rochon, at the time of the events, you were the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Safety’s National and Cyber Security Branch? Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you’ve also since left Public Safety to take another position? Is that correct?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Associate Deputy Minister of Transport?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And when was that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So also very recent. The next thing I’ll just ask you to introduce the Public Safety’s Institutional Report, despite the fact that neither of you are currently with Public Safety. Mr. Clerk, that’s DOJIR0000008. Okay. So, Mr. Stewart, you’ll recall that Public Safety Canada prepared and filed with the Commission this Institutional Report. Have you reviewed it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is it accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you confirm that it’s been filed with the Commission as part of Public Safety’s evidence?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Okay. With those introductions out of the way, I’ll just ask you to start by giving an overview of the structure of Public Safety. It’s a slightly complicated department. As we know, it’s the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. So Mr. Stewart, can you walk us through Public Safety writ large?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But the three that you mentioned are the ones that were most implicated in the events of the convoy? Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Mr. Rochon, I understand the National and Cyber Security Branch manages five directorates. Can you tell us about that? And if you’d like to have the reference for your notes, it’s DOJIR at page 8, paragraphs 25 and 26. So we can just pull that up.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we can just scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk. Under Critical Infrastructure and Strategic Coordination, it says: “This Directorate supports the Ministers in leading the national effort to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure against a variety of hazards.” Do those hazards include protest?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, getting to your own individual roles and responsibilities, Mr. Stewart, can you tell us, first of all, a little bit about your general role as a Deputy Minister of Public Safety and then describe at a very high level your role with respect to the events of the convoy.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Sorry, go on.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think we’re going to hear a lot more about that shortly, and thank you for speaking without acronyms. It’s appreciated. On the first day of federal government evidence, we’re still getting used to all the acronyms. I think CSIS we can handle, and probably CBSA, but when it gets deeper than that it’s going to be a struggle. Okay. Mr. Rochon, can you tell us at a high level, first of all, your role at the time and your role in the convoy?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I certainly do want you to elaborate on that. First of all, who was your PCO colleague?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, you’ve anticipated essentially my next question because the first sort of broad topic that I think we’re going to cover here is public safety’s preparation for the convoy, and that feeds into, Mr. Rochon, what you were telling us about public safety’s intelligence role. So at this point I’ll ask you to, I guess, please explain that and explain how it was -- how it fed into public safety’s preparation.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And in your interview -- we're going to go back to some of that as we go along, but you explained that prior to the convoy's arrival -- this is taking you up on your last point -- NCSB, so the National Cyber Security Branch, wasn't gathering or dissemination intelligence about the convoy because, at that point, there was no indication that the events would be a national security threat. So can you explain and elaborate on that a little bit, what that threshold is and when, if at all, NCSB did start doing that and why?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And when you say he would have called, you mean he did call?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That actually happened? Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And so I understand the GOC started monitoring this, as you said, around January 19th and it started producing 2 types of reports. One is called "Key Points on Potential Impacts to Critical Infrastructure" and the other is "Daily Operations Briefs." So these were being produced as of around January 25th, January 28th. Is there any difference, a marked or noticeable difference between those types of reports?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No? Okay. And who receives those reports? Who are they disseminated to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I appreciate that it's your colleague, Mr. Trehearne, who was in charge of the GOC, so he's the person with the best knowledge on this but ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Of course.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So maybe you could help us here a little bit to understand this -- oh, sorry -- the distinction between information and intelligence. Who wants to tackle that one?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And appreciating that Public Safety is a consumer, and neither a collector or a gatherer of intelligence, and the fact that we are going to be hearing from both CSIS and ITAC next week, I won't spend too much more time on this, but there was one thing I did want to raise with you. Mr. Clerk, could you please pull up TRN0000011? So this is an excerpt from a transcript of Commissioner Carrique's evidence from a couple of weeks ago. I'll set the context for you and then I'll ask you to maybe elaborate a bit on what he was discussing. So the reference is page 90, and just pull that up. So the context here is Commissioner Carrique was being questioned by my colleague Mr. Brousseau about a reference in an OPP Hendon report, and I'll just stop there. In the interview -- the Commission's heard quite a bit of evidence about Project Hendon and OPP's Hendon reports. And in the interview that we had in September, you told us that neither of you had heard of Project Hendon at the time specifically and that the Project Hendon reports hadn't been fed up to you. And I take it that that goes to your point of provincial law enforcement intelligence would likely not be directly fed up to you, but I'm wondering if you can -- or if it did, it would be through the RCMP. But I'm wondering if you could just explain, elaborate on that a little bit?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So if I can just summarize that; if the RCMP was privy to anything from Project Hendon that was relevant, you would expect to have knowledge of that through them?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, that’s helpful. So just getting back to this little transcript excerpt here. So Comm. Carrique is being asked about a reference in an OPP Hendon report to a potential threat to Canada’s sovereignty and national security; that’s around line 19, I believe?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And if we can just scroll down now to the next page, page 91.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ninety-one (91).
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No problem. Okay. So I’m just going to read through the first few paragraphs here. Comm. Carrique says: “What is required is further analysis of that threat, Hendon...did have those conversations with the appropriate security partners...to see if that potential threat rose to the point that would warrant them enacting their mandates for the items...they’re responsible for. And...as we know, [slow down]... It in the CSIS Act, it says [threat to the secure -- or] it says ‘the security of Canada.’ doesn’t actually say national security. Public Safety Canada goes to a much broader context when describing national security, and one of the items in national security, if you look at the national security strategy and how it’s described by Public Safety Canada, actually includes impact to economy, activities at critical infrastructures, international border crossings.” So Mr. Rochon or Mr. Stewart, whoever’s best placed to answer this, can you explain and elaborate a little bit on what Comm. Carrique is referring to here; Public Safety Canada’s national security strategy and definition?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So from Public Safety’s perspective then, or its -- in its modus operandi, there’s a distinction between national security and threat to the security of Canada, as defined in the CSIS Act; is that fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Okay. Moving on from there, I just want to situate us in time here. With the information that Public Safety was receiving prior to the arrival of the convoy; so the information that it was receiving from its various sources -- and Mr. Clerk, I’ll just ask you to pull up, at this point, PBCAN00000703; this is the GOC key points from January 27. But as that’s being pulled up, feel free to already start in describing what your state of knowledge was at that point, and what you anticipated happening when the convoy arrived.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Of course ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, if we can just scroll up, I guess, or down; sorry. Keep scrolling, keep scrolling, keep scrolling. So as you’ve mentioned, convoys coming from several directions. Keep scrolling. Mr. Stewart, I think you covered most of this in your introduction. Keep scrolling. Okay, stop around there. So we see: “Ottawa Police are planning for around 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles...” The Convoy is going to be directed to Sir John A. The second-to-last or third-to-last bullet there: “Near Vanier, old Jetform park will be used to park trucks and passenger vehicles with cabs and LRT available for demonstrators to get downtown,...” So we’ve heard a lot of evidence on the Commission -- at the Commission already about what the plans may or may not have been, but I understand this reflects the notion that protesters would be -- would park at, I think what’s now referred to as, in common parlance, as Coventry Road, and then be bused in from there, or from various locations. And then if we just scroll down here to “Assessment”: “Ottawa police assessment determines [there’s] no need for people to stay home or for businesses to close....OPP is advising motorists to avoid travel...[because of the] delays....Ottawa Police, OPP...RCMP as well as the City of Ottawa, are...coordinating a response....disruption to government activities...expected to be minor...” Because most employees are at home: “INTERSECT is indicating...this will be a significant and extremely fluid event that could go on for a prolonged period.” It’s anticipated to be peaceful. Does that reflect, essentially, the information that you had at the time and your expectations?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So is it fair to say you anticipated that it would be -- well actually, I’ll just ask it open ended. How long did you think it would ask? What were you expecting to happen when the convoy arrived?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Rochon, was that your expectation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Is there anything in particular you’d like to highlight about what was going on across the country at that time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Please do.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So one eye open that this could develop into something, but essentially, with respect to Ottawa at least, the expectation was that it would end after the weekend. And as we know now, that didn’t happen. And it didn’t end after the weekend. Some trucks stayed. Many protestors stayed. So the next sort of topic I want to address is, very broadly, how did the Federal Government respond? Let’s start by talking -- we know that there were a variety of committees struck and calls and meetings taking place. So Mr. Stewart, I’ll ask you to walk us through that, starting with the internal Federal Government response.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So DMOCC is another acronym ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- that we’re going to have to get used to pretty quickly. No, no, no. That’s one that’s going to come up a lot over the next couple of weeks, so we’ll learn it now. Deputy Minister Operations Committee, the DMOCC. Who attended the DMOCC? Who participated in it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
CBSA?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so you referred just now to the Communications Security Establishment. Can you just explain what that is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Signals intelligence. Can you explain what signals intelligence is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Okay. Mr. Stewart, sorry about that. A little interlude. So there was the DMOCC and then you said there was these daily ministerial briefings. And at a high level, can you explain what those daily ministerial briefings were about?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you mentioned that the principal briefer was often Commissioner Lucki from the RCMP?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Why was that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So these two things that we’re talking about, the DMOCC and the Ministerial Briefings, these are entirely internal to the Federal Government?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It’s exactly right. Okay. And before we move on to external, Mr. Rochon, just ask you to explain, you touched on this before, but what the ADMNSOPs was doing at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So would it be fair to say that the information chain would sort of be ADMNSOPs up to DMOC and then from DMOC up to Cabinet where warranted?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The Ministerial level. Okay, Mr. Stewart, now I’ll ask you about the meetings that were happening that included actors external to the federal government.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that’s what’s referred to as the FPTCPCC, I think?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
CPPC.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can I ask you to pull up ONT00000159? These are notes that we received from Ontario from a meeting on February 6th, which I understand was one of the situation in Ottawa meetings that you describe, Mr. Stewart. And as you said, I believe you convened these meetings in order to have some input on what was going on in Ottawa and assist with that situation. Okay. So I just want to take you to the various things that you’re reported to have said in this meeting, so the first thing is you convened the meeting and you were looking to get a sense of what the -- what was going on on the ground in Ottawa and steps to resolving the situation. First thing is you noted that some of your federal Ministers were concerned and wanted a quick resolution to the matter. In addition, there continues to be concern from the federal Ministers about coordination of activities federally and with other partners. Can you just elaborate on what you were reporting there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just moving down, if we can scroll down to the next time you see Rob Stewart. There we go. Just keeping scrolling down a little bit, Mr. Clerk, so we can see. Rob Stewart posed the following question to Chief Peter Sloly, “What is the nature of the support that Ottawa is likely going to ask for?”. And it says here: “Note Rob Stewart was trying to understand in unsaid terms whether the OPS will directly request non-law enforcement assistance.” Can you tell us a little bit about what was going on there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the next bullet point is what are the obvious and visible successes that Ministers could be told and can also see? What were you referring to there or what were you asking Chief Sloly about?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that, I suppose, reflects the fact that these meetings are information sharing and aimed at -- sorry, information sharing and attempting to sort of brainstorm solutions. Would that be fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, if we can just keep scrolling down. Sorry. Just stop right there. No, keep going until you see Jodie Thomas, National Security Advisor. And scroll down a little bit more, please. Okay. There we go. So Mr. Stewart, I just want to ask you a little bit here about these meetings were meetings at the official's level largely; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And there was participation from Ontario, Mr. Di Tommaso ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- would participate in these meetings, and we heard from Mr. Di Tommaso last week. And you'll see that quote that's attributed to Jody Thomas, who is the National Security Advisor, and you've already told us that the National Security Advisor is an official at PCO ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- who was involved in I think both chairing the DMOC and coordinating federal government response here. So Ms. Thomas is said to have said -- she noted that it was a positive meeting and regrets to end on this point, but would the Province be looking to the Federal Government if this protest was happening outside the City of Ottawa, e.g., happening in other places like Kingston? Mr. Di Tommaso when he was here last week, the transcript reference for this is TRN0000021, page 262, testified that he understood this comment to mean that Ms. Thomas was trying to have the federal government wanting -- or this comment indicated that the federal government was wanting to wash its hands of the entire thing. And I was wondering if you could comment on that? Was that your understanding of Ms. Thomas's comment here?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that leads into something I want to ask you about more specifically. I think you've already introduced it here, but which is Ontario's general position and attitude towards the Ottawa protests and what was going on in late January, early February. Mr. Clerk, can I just ask you to pull up WTS0000066? This is your witness summary. I'd like to refer directly to some of the things you said in our interview. Okay. If we can go to page 17? There we go. So in the interview you said, "...it was never clear whether the Government of Ontario was willing to assist Ottawa." And you noted the Mayor of Ottawa, in your recollection, was frustrated. And then you added, "...there was a question about how quickly the provincial government would endorse the OPP and whether it would put its weight behind the OPP..." And then I think you just answered that the OPP was fully behind this. But then you noted, "There is a misconception that in the normal course, protests in Ottawa are not a provincial issue, but rather [they're] dealt with by a combination of federal and local police. As he explained it, [he being you,] they were treating Ottawa as Washington, DC" Can you explain what you meant by that, they were treating Ottawa as Washington, DC, and sort of walk us through what your viewpoint was in the early days in February of attempting to deal with the situation on behalf of the federal government and the response you were getting from Ontario.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
When you say according to the law they should go first to the OPP, what law are you talking about there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I believe that was the Police Services Act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So in addition to the meetings that we've already talked about then, the DMOC meetings and the Ministerial briefings, there were also a series of tripartites convened. Can you tell us a bit about those?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you noted that those calls were not attended by any political -- any politicians from Ontario?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Who convened the tripartites?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And did you attend all of the tripartites?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I believe the dates of those would be February 7th, February 8th, and February 10th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Before we leave this document, your witness summary here, the other statement I wanted to ask you about was the one where you say the provincial government was more engaged in Windsor because the Ambassador Bridge blockade impacted the Ontario economy. I realize we haven't talked about Ambassador Bridge in Windsor here yet this morning, but we heard several days of evidence about it last week, so we're aware of what happened in Windsor. Can you speak to a little bit that viewpoint that you held or hold that the Ontario was more engaged in Windsor than it was in Ottawa?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next series of meetings that I'd like you to tell us a bit about you've already referred to. The acronym is FPTCPPC, so Federal Provincial Territorial Crime Prevention Policing Committee. Mr. Clerk, can I ask you to pull up PB.NSC.CAN.0000005 -- 000000005. I see you nodding, so you know better than I do. Okay. Can we just scroll down? So these are -- this is a read out of the FPT -- actually, this is a FPT DMs ad hoc meeting on February 7th. Do you recall this meeting, Mr. Stewart?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Perfect. So here's the read out. And the first comment I want to take you to is just at the, sort of the end of that first paragraph where it says, "Intel. There [has been -- there] has not been significant element of violent extremism. We've discussed this before, can set up another meeting with CSIS and how monitoring threats to democracy. For now there is no planning going on [...] no degree of violent extremism going on, not saying this will happen." Can you just tell us a bit about what you were saying there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And actually, can I just ask you to tell us who attended this particular meeting? What was this meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So would these be all Public Safety Deputy Ministers or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we will be hearing from CSIS directly next week, but I think it might be useful, Mr. Rochon, you can just elaborate briefly on what CSIS can and cannot do and what it was and was not monitoring here, following what Mr. Stewart said.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. That's helpful in understanding that. So the second bullet point then, to go back to Mr. Stewart, on people protesting in accordance with the law, "In Ottawa, the law has been disregarded. The norms of behaviour and laws.” You talk about what’s going on in downtown Ottawa: “Police have not been able to control. Have heard comments made to federal ministers: do something. CBSA, Transport and PS [that’s Public Safety] officials have heard from our Ministers. Roles of police and govt, have not tried to get involved in enforcement but staying in touch with police. Police including rcmp and outside of Ottawa have supported […] Have strayed [I think that’s probably stayed] in close touch. Political layer is engaged.” And then the last line is: “Strong desire [not to] engage protestors and to let enforcement take tis course.” Do you recall what that referred to? In particular that last line?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this was -- to situate us in time, this was on February 7th and at that point, that was the position being taken?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, we can take that document down. And the next one to pull up is SSM.NSC.CAN00000246. So these are the NSIA’s talking points on February 8th, and it looks like they’re for a Cabinet briefing. We’re going to get into the specific Cabinet meetings in a bit. But for now, if we can go to page 4 of that document, Mr. Clerk? There’s just a couple of specific points I’d like to ask you about. Oh, sorry, up a bit. “Yesterday an FPT table of FM of Public Safety and [Transport] met to discuss a national and coordinated strategy […] that is built upon ‘maximum and strategic enforcement’ using any and all tools available at all 3 levels of government, and need to align all communications to protestors about ‘maximum enforcement’ and the consequences. General support for approach - more to come.” So the first question is, is that FPT table that happened the day before, is that the call that we just looked at?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, I think we’re going to hear a lot more about this in detail when you colleague, Deputy Minister Keenan from Transport Canada testifies, which is on Wednesday, but can you briefly explain to us what this idea of a maximum strategic enforcement strategy was?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we scroll down a little bit more to page 5: “Departments have developed a rolodex of ‘creative alternatives’ to be explored in addressing this matter.” So that refers to -- that’s what you were just talking about? This idea of trying to come up with alternatives or ideas. And can you give us some examples of what those -- that rolodex would have contained?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, again, I think Deputy Minister Keenan will be taking us through this in great detail. But sort of skipping to the conclusion, what happened with the idea of the maximum enforcement strategy? Did that ever materialize? Were steps taken by the provinces to -- or municipal authorities to actually implement some of these?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Before we get there, there’s another topic I’d like to ask you about, which is requests for federal assistance. So this again falls within the rubric of what was going on between the provinces, municipalities, and the Federal Government at the time. So request for federal assistance. I understand that that’s a responsibility that falls to the GOC. So can I ask you -- to an extent, at least -- be processed through the GOC, if I can put it that way. Can you explain, Deputy Minister Stewart, how that process works?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure. And maybe, actually, at this point, it would be helpful to bring up the document. It’s PB.CAN00000718. So this the RFA, Request for Federal Assistance, from Minister McIver to Minister Blair. And the request here is for tow trucks and personnel, described largely. So I believe, Mr. Stewart, you were in the process of telling us how that RFA was dealt with in Public Safety?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to make sure I understand that, on the one hand, it was determined that the Canadian Armed Forces did not have the appropriate equipment, that was not suited to task, and on the other hand, Alberta did have in its own powers the ability to compel tow trucks under its Critical Infrastructures Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next topic I'd like to address briefly is the engagement between Public Safety and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I understand there were a couple of calls around February 10th, February 11th. Are you able to speak to those at all and tell us a bit about what you were hearing from Homeland Security?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
What was her name?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Were they expressing concern about various convoys happening through the U.S. as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The next topic I want to get into is the inputs that you were providing to Cabinet over the course of the convoy. So, Mr. Commissioner, I don't know if you'd like me to start now or if this would be a good time for the break?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oh, it's a good time for me.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So as I mentioned before the break, the next topic I'd like to address with you is the various inputs that you were providing to Cabinet over the course of the convoy. So, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask you to pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00000292. These are minutes from a Cabinet Committee on Safety, Security and Emergencies on February 3rd. So, Mr. Stewart, the first thing I'll ask you to do is can you tell us what the Committee on Safety, Security and Emergencies or SSE is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand that the SSE Committee met three times in relation to the convoy and this was the first meeting that addressed the events of the convoy; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we can just scroll down to page 5, Mr. Clerk? We'll see about halfway down that page the Deputy -- there we go. Deputy Minister of Public Safety. So, Mr. Stewart, I'll read this slowly, for the benefit of the interpreters. "The Deputy Minister of Public Safety provided an overview of engagements to date with the City of Ottawa, and the province of Ontario. The Deputy Minister stated that the view of the Ottawa Police is that they will not be able to bring the protest to a conclusion without the assistance of the federal government due to concerns for public safety. There is a risk that increased enforcement will provoke some protesters. There is work being done by the city on an injunction however, there is no timing on if and when it could be issued. Finally, Ottawa may seek compensation for policing costs and consideration for compensating the businesses and people impacted..." So if I understand correctly, what you were putting forth to Cabinet at that point was the result of all of the various conversations you were having both within the federal government and with counterparts from Ottawa, Ontario, et cetera. So this was the state of the situation that you were reporting on February 3rd; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So a couple of specifics in here. The view that the Ottawa -- the view of the Ottawa Police is that they will not be able to bring the protest to an end without the assistance of the federal government. Can you tell us where that view that you're expressing comes from?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And more generally, what was he expressing and also, was he -- you say specifically here without the assistance of the federal government. Was it federal specifically or was it both provincial and federal? So essentially, just convey to us what Chief Sloly had conveyed to you and what you were bringing up to Cabinet here?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
But what you’re conveying essentially is that at this point, he’d formed the conclusion that the OPS couldn’t do this alone, they needed help?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s enough of that document. Can we go, Mr. Clerk, to SSM.NSC.CAN00000293? So this is the next SSE meeting, which was on February 6th. These are the minutes from that. And again, at page 5, please. There we go. Paragraph 3 there: “The Deputy Minister of Public Safety provided an overview of engagements to date with the City of Ottawa, and the province of Ontario. The Deputy Minister stated that there is a clear indication that the City of Ottawa will declare a state of emergency. An emergency council meeting is planned for Monday to identify options which will likely result in a request to the Government of Canada for police support. The Deputy Minister indicated that the Ottawa Police Services view the dismantling of structures at Confederation Park [as] a success and will continue to enforce further. The Deputy Minister reiterated the views of provincial colleagues that negotiation is the ongoing preferred option for resolution at this time”. So can you tell us what essentially in, not these words, but your own words now, where that information was coming from and what you were attempting to convey here?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now I want to take you to something specifically that actually arose in the last extract and was sort of alluded to here as well. But the law enforcement response in Ottawa generally. So what happened in Ottawa, the OPS’ reaction and response to the protests as they happened. And I’ll take us away from the minutes for a second to pull your interview summary up again. So Mr. Clerk, that’s WTS0000066. Can you go to page 12, please, Mr. Clerk? Okay. So this is a topic, Mr. Stewart, that we canvassed fairly in depth at your interview. And you’re starting here, I think, from the very initial reaction of the OPS to the protests. And you say from the beginning -- well you’re actually conveying Commissioner Lucki’s words here, or her views: “She reported that from the beginning, the OPS were on their heels. The volume of people exceeded their ability to do policing and they made a mistake in allowing trucks to come into the downtown core and park on the street. Commissioner Lucki also reported […] that the NCRCC was not working particularly well because there were personality issues involved. [Deputy Minister] Stewart explained that he got the sense that as time went on, the OPS pulled it together and the OPP got involved.” So I’ll just stop there and ask you to describe, in general terms, what you were hearing about the OPS response and what views you formed about it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we could just scroll down a little bit here to page 13? Paragraph 3. So just scroll down a little bit. So here you’re adding: “…it was difficult to get people to come to an agreement about a plan because there were personality issues in the mix.” And then you go on to talk about that. So that probably refers to what you were just saying about chemistry at the NCRCC? Can you elaborate a little bit on the personality issues that you were hearing about?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And then just scroll up again, sorry. The previous page. There we go. “The RCMP’s position was that the OPS should have asked the OPP more resources and it was the OPP’s responsibility to come and serve. He explained [this is you explaining] that the RCMP felt pressed by the OPS, but that the OPP was the force that OPS should look to pursuant to legislation…” So that’s what you were telling us about according -- so that information is information that you were being given by the RCMP, “We’re not the right people. The OPP are the first, sort of, call to action here.” Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s fair. I was sort of talking about the order as opposed to willingness, so that’s a fair response. Thank you. And just the next issue I want to raise here is the issue of swearing in. So if we can just scroll down a little bit. There we go. So there’s also the obstacle, you say, of swearing in RCMP officers so they would have the jurisdiction to enforce municipal and provincial laws. We’ve heard again evidence about this already in the Commission. Mr. Clerk, if you can just scroll to page 13. Now, I appreciate here that it was your colleague, not you, speaking. But can you speak to the swearing-in process at all and how that may have played into difficulties on the ground?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So that was a concern that had been raised.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Mr. Clerk, can we pick up the February 6th minutes again, so SSM.NSC.CAN.00000293? Page 5. So Mr. Stewart, the last line of that little blurb of what you were saying says: “The Deputy Minister reiterated the views of provincial colleagues that negotiation is the ongoing preferred option for resolution at this time.” What were you referring to there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this -- in time, we’re in February 6th here and this was a view that you say you held from your own experience and was being expressed by Mr. Di Tommaso from his policing experience. Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we now bring up February 8th minutes, which is SSM.NSC.CAN00000295. Page 10, please. There we go. Paragraph 8. So here the Deputy Minister provided an update on engagement with Ottawa, confirming that since the injunction has been in place, there have been no horns used in Ottawa by the protestors. “The OPS is reporting that their staff are tired and need enforcements. It is evident that the protest is well organized and that the blockade at Ambassador Bridge is designed to divide the attention of the Ontario Provincial Policy. The Deputy Minister confirmed that Ottawa has developed a plan that is being reviewed by the OPP and the RCMP, which includes four key elements: reliance on negotiation; ongoing enforcement; containing the demonstrations once an area’s cleared, and gathering intelligence of various trucking companies.” Okay. So a couple of things I want to ask you about here. First of all, just to situate us in time, this is now February 8th and the blockade at Ambassador Bridge has happened and sort of coalesced on February 7th. So one thing you note is that there’s -- the Ambassador Bridge blockade is designed to divide the attention of the OPP and that this is evidence that the protest is well organized. Can you comment on that and whether -- where that observation came from and...?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I’m going to ask you to tell us a little bit about that keeping in mind that we’re going to be hearing directly from CBSA, Canada Border Services Agency, and from Transport Canada, who will have a lot to say about the specifics of what was going on at various ports of entry and places across the country. Would you be able to give us sort of a high level overview of what you were seeing and what you were being informed about around this time across the country?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So essentially, as you've said, you in your position as DM Public Safety, were looking at not just what was happening in Ottawa, but what was happening across the country and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can you tell us a bit about that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That was happening in Canada?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now let's go to now the February 10th minutes, so this is SSM.NSC.CAN.00000209. So these are now minutes from a different Cabinet Committee called the Incident Response Group. And we will be hearing from PCO later in the week of the details of what that is and how that transpired, but again, can you just give us a very brief definition of what the Incident Response Group is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So and an IRG, that's the acronym that we'll come to know and love over the next couple of weeks, the IRG was convened on February 10th, so this is the first meeting of the IRG; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can we go to page 6, please? Scroll down a little bit until you see Public Safety Canada. There we go. Okay. "Public Safety Canada reported on a conversation with the lead negotiator (OPP) who noted that in Ottawa, approximately 80 [percent] of protesters had a weak connection to the cause, 5 [percent] had a strong devotion to it, and 15 [percent] were a swing factor. The negotiator suggested that the leaders of the protest could potentially be encouraged to leave and denounce the blockade in exchange for a commitment to register their message with the Government." Okay. Mr. Stewart, first question is, is the lead negotiator OPP you were speaking about there, who is that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Marcel Beaudin. So we've heard Mr. Beaudin come and testify here. Can you start off by just telling us a little bit what you were reporting here to Cabinet at this time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Engagement as a steppingstone to enforcement. I just want to unpack that a little bit. So you said -- at this point, the engagement that was being contemplated would not -- was not something that would lead to an end to the protest in and of itself.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the intention would have been ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- to shrink it. To shrink the footprint, as they say in the lingo that we've learned. Okay. And we know what ultimately comes of this, or at least part of what comes of this is something that's come to be known as the engagement proposal. Can you tell us how that proposal came to be?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You noted that there were some colleagues from PCO involved. Do you recall who was involved ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So but Mr. Hutchinson's role there was essentially ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- observer. Okay. And I understand there was some back and forth that you had with the RCMP and with Inspector Beaudin about the proposal itself. So, Mr. Clerk, if we can just pull up OPP00000150? Excuse me. So this is an email that is not sent to you, so you may not have seen it before, but this is Commissioner Lucki speaking to Commissioner Carrique and Inspector Beaudin, I believe. So she attaches a draft of the engagement proposal and then says, "I am not the SME [-- SME we know stands for subject matter expert --] in this area, but my folks are a bit worried on a few items and need[...] to get your thoughts." Do you know what Commissioner Lucki's concerns were at that time? And I'll just say two things. One, we're going to hear from her directly, so we can ask her that question; and, two, in the course of our interview, you mentioned that one of Commissioner Lucki's concerns may have been around the issue of police independence, so just to situate a little bit -- you a little bit.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So I think the line we've heard expressed is there may have been some concern that it crossed the line between church and state. That would be the ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. One thing you noted when we were speaking in your interview is that the government could benefit from some clarity around where that line is in police independence. Is there anything you'd like to add or share about that in this context?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, you just said recent experience?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what would those be?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we bring up OPP00000171? So, Mr. Stewart, as you've noted, this is something that evolved over the course of the one or two days, and we're just trying to put together the chronology of how things evolved. So if we can scroll down, top of page 3 I believe? Okay. So in this email, you're raising some concerns about the engagement proposal, but to the very last bit of the email now. Sorry. "If I can manage to work through this process, and the RCMP Commissioner will be privy to the discussion, I think I can assure you that the federal government's commitment will be solid. But we have to get there first! Thanks" So at this point in time, and this is Saturday, February 12th at 11:23 in the morning, what was your understanding of what level of support there was in the government for this notion and where it came from?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the next document then that we want to look at is SSM.NSC.CAN.00002958. So this is a text between Minister Mendocino and Katie Telford, who's the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and I believe this is on the evening of February 11th. And Minister Mendocino expresses here that he's just learning about the engagement proposal, so do I understand that, at this point, while this was playing out, you hadn't yet had the opportunity to brief Mr. Mendocino on this; is that right or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So it was the OPP as opposed to Mr. Di Tommaso, you think, who you were speaking to about it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so when you communicated to him that you couldn't get the federal government to sign on to Windsor, that was a matter of timing as opposed to a position being conveyed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And there was also, we've heard evidence about another potential sort of engagement possibility, which was the Mayor of Ottawa's sort of deal that was happening to potentially move some trucks up to Wellington Street, et cetera. That was playing around -- been around the same time. What was your awareness of that at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So would it be fair to say that there’s sort of these different branches of potential engagement going on with not perfect sight over all of the ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No coordination at all. Okay. And what ended up ultimately happening to the engagement proposal? Where did it go?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So it was brought to Cabinet, or to the IRG, rather?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
On February 12th. But it was not taken up. So with the benefit of hindsight, and this I’m going to ask you, although it’s completely speculative, but what effect, if any, do you think that that might have had? The engagement proposal.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So would it be fair to - - it’s an option worth considering, but not a deus ex machina?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I now want to move to the invocation of the Emergencies Act itself. And appreciating that we’ll be hearing from a lot of people on this topic, I’m going to target my questions quite specifically. You mentioned in our interview that the Emergencies Act started to be seriously considered around February 11th. Is that about right in your recollection?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well why don’t you just tell us your recollection of how it sort of came on the radar?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand that Public Safety was asked to provide its input on potential measures that could be helpful under the Emergencies Act. Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So this would have been a topic of discussion at the DMOCCs happening around that time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we pull up SSM.CAN00000399, please? So this is an email, and you weren’t on this email, so -- but it reports something that you said. It’s from Mike Keenan, who is the Deputy Minister of Transport, to Kevin Brosseau, ADM of Transport. And it’s reporting on the February 13th DMOCC. And you’ll see: “Emergencies Act is fast -- don’t need to pass anything Rob and I argued [Rob being you here, I believe?]…”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
“… that [the] Emergencies Act can backfired in building more energy.” What did you mean by that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So essentially it might do more harm than good by inciting, rather than calming?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Another document, related topic, PB.CAN00001147, please. Okay. Scroll down a little bit, pleased, until we see something that says “these are okay”. An email from Mr. Stewart. Page 5, please. Okay. There we go. So this is forward a bit in time, but it’s on the same topic. This is in preparation for, as it says, some technical briefing remarks that Mr. Rochon was due to give on February 15th about the Emergencies Act once it had been invoked. And Mr. Stewart, your comments here are: “These are ok, but will be duplicative, I expect, of what Justice will say and rather short of substance. If possible, we need to weave in a few more ‘for instances’ that suggest how law enforcement authorities (and the CBSA, as relevant) will deploy the new powers, e.g. intercept and turn away attempted blockades from critical infrastructure, facilitate synthesis of local police and the RCMP…” And then you say: “(I’m afraid I don’t have a lot of great ideas because there aren’t a lot of significant benefits, but we have to try to PS portfolio specifics as much as we can).” So can you tell us what you were expressing her vis a vie the measures that were being implemented?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure. February 14th, 11:12 p.m.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can you actually explain what that technical briefing is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So they're essentially explanatory brief meetings, sort of an explanatory this is how -- what it is, this is how it works kind of briefing?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thanks. That's helpful. So just to take you back then, Mr. Stewart, to what you were saying, would it be fair to say that, at the time, so shortly before and immediately after the Act was invoked, you had some hesitancy about it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then you said that in hindsight, you think you underestimated the utility of the Emergencies Act. Can you tell us a bit more about why that is? Not why you underestimated, but why you say that it was an underestimate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you're speaking there not just of Ottawa but of the situation across the country?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Another topic I want to touch on briefly, and I appreciate the time is short, is something you noted in your interview was the consultation with the provinces. You said some of the consultation was discounted because it wasn't premised on whether the government was going to decide to invoke the Act. What did you mean by that comment? I could pull up the reference if it's helpful.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So when Mr. Di Tommaso testified last week, I can bring up the references if we need them, but he noted that you spoke to him on February 13th and essentially gave him a heads up, if I can put it that way, told him or advised him that the federal government was considering invoking the Emergencies Act. Do you recall that conversation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Another thing -- and I'll come back to that in a second, but another thing he noted you said was that the provincial declaration of emergency that had come in on February 11th "had more teeth" than the provisions in the Federal Emergency Act. Do you recall that and what you were speaking about then?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the reference to had more teeth was specifically in reference to the penalties?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Are you aware of any other discussions with provincial officials on the 13th or before the invocation of the Emergencies Act in which they were notified that the Act was under consideration?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the other thing that Mr. Di Tommaso mentioned was that you had a call with him the following morning, I believe, on February 14th. And on that call, he inquired as to whether the Act was going to be -- the Emergencies Act was going to be invoked that day. And his comment on the notes was "silence!" So I'm gathering that you said nothing at that point about whether it was going to be invoked. Can you just explain a little bit how that conversation went?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We'll fast forward now to the issue of revocation. So, Mr. Clerk, if I can ask you to pull up SSM.CAN.00000429? Okay. So just to situate us a little bit, you told us in the interview that between invocation and revocation, the government was tracking developments across the country, at the ports of entry and receiving input from the RCMP as to what powers were being used, whether they were necessary. Mr. Clerk, can we just scroll down a bit here until we get to an email from Rob Stewart? So we'll see this email probably a couple of times over the course of the next couple of weeks, but this is a discussion that's happening between officials, including yourself, Jody Thomas, the NSIA, several officials from PCO, Mike Keenan at Transport and others, about what considerations should go into revocation and when the Act should be revoked. And your comment here is -- your quick comment, "My quick comment is that, while these are [probably] all worthy considerations, they focus[...] too much on the utility of the Act and not its proportionality. In other words, we need to assess the threat in terms of serious violence, not in terms of whether the truckers are hanging around." What were you attempting to convey here to your colleagues?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So essentially, bring revocation right back to invocation, coming full circle.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That takes us to, essentially, the end of our time together today. But I'll just before leaving completely ask you, is there anything that we haven't covered in the last two-and-a-half that you think we should have, or anything else you would like to say about the events.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Of course.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So sort of a -- can you elaborate on what was lacking, essentially?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that was a result of inability to gather that information or was it at the gathering level or the sharing level or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So maybe some lessons to be learned in the information gathering, sharing and line of sight.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Commissioner, those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Just one area briefly, Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Stewart, this is just an area of questioning arising from the questions you were asked around police independence, and also relating to some evidence that we heard from Mr. Di Tomaso last week. So Mr. Clerk, can I just ask you to pull up -- now I’ve lost the document number. It’s OPP00004583. While that’s coming up, Mr. Stewart, this is a text exchange between Commissioner Lucki and Commissioner Carrique. You can go to page 52 of the document, bottom right hand corner. There we go. So just scroll up a little bit. So starting at the text that says -- so the green here is Commissioner Carrique and the blue is Commissioner Lucki. And the context of the conversation is with respect to the potential new chief coming into OPS. So Mr. Carrique writes: “With respect to your comments yesterday, I agree we need to assure OPS leaves Steve in play until we have done what we need to do. Introducing a new external player in a short terms will set us back.” Commissioner Luck then replies: “I will see what I can do to get them to delay bringing in an interim Chief, if you think that will help.” Commissioner Carrique responds: “If you have some influence I think it would be helpful. Our Ministry Policing Advisor is going to suggest the same.” Going on to the next page, “10-4,” says Commissioner Lucki. And then she says, “Had DM Stewart reach into Steve K, Ottawa City Manager. He assures that they are very sensitive to this, keen f for the ICC plan to proceed and don’t want Bell to be replaced. Rob… Rob being you. “…got the sense that there’s a lot of political infighting going on.” And then Commissioner Carrique says: “Thanks, Brenda. We’ve made the same recommendation via the Province. Hopefully they stay the course.” Okay. So first thing, can you tell us first about that conversation that you had with Commissioner Lucki? When did she reach out to you? Do you remember?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And do you remember those conversations at all?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What did she raise? What were her concerns?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Do you remember when you called Mr. Kanellakos?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. And what did you tell him? How did he respond?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And do you remember what he replied?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the reference here to a lot of political infighting, can you explain or elaborate on that at all?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's correct. So did that come up on the call that you had with Mr. Kanellakos, the potential removal of the Chair or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Did he mention that he'd be speaking to the Chair about ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Can we just pull up an extract from Mr. Di Tommaso's testimony? It's TRN21 around page 244 please. Sorry, 250 apparently of the PDF. Okay. So I'm just going to take you through Mr. Di Tommaso's comments on that exchange and then ask you for your view. So starting at the very bottom, so we -- Commission Counsel goes through the exchange and then asks Mr. Di Tommaso, "To what extent were you aware of these discussions that were being had with respect to the Chief of Police in Ottawa?" (As read) And on the next page, Mr. Di Tommaso replies, "I'm not aware at all. And what my position was with regards to the selection of the next chief, that was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Police Services Board, and I certainly didn't want my advisor to interfere with that at all. Okay, [says Commission Counsel,] and the discussions that are being had here, would you agree that this is impermissible, a kind of political interference in something that's been the exclusive purview of the Board?" (As read) Mr. Di Tommaso says, "I don't know whether anyone followed up with these actions at all, but I made it clear to both Ken Weatherall and the advisor that they were not to interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board, and it was the Board's sole responsibility to select the next Chief full stop." (As read) And then Commission Counsel asks, "So if these actions have been taken, is it your view that they would -- that this would have been improper?" (As read) And Mr. Di Tommaso says, "Yes. Can we just get your views on that as well, Mr. Stewart?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's fair enough. Thank you. Those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We do indeed. Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission, for the record. Our new witnesses, we’re changing gears completely. We heard from Public Safety all day so far and now we’re going to Global Affairs. So the Commission has called Ms. Cindy Termorshuizen and Mr. Joe Comartin to the stand.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Mr. Commissioner, I’ll just note that I’ll be conducting the first half of the examination, and then my colleague, Ms. Dahlia Shuhaibar will be taking over.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So good afternoon, Ms. Termorshuizen and Mr. Comartin. Thank you for being here. We’ll just start by introducing your witness summary. So Mr. Clerk, can you pull up WTS00000052, please? You’ll recall having sat for an interview on August 23rd with Commission Counsel?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you’ve had a chance to review this interview summary?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you’ll note that certain interviewees who were present at the interview were not present today, namely Ms. Marta Morgan, the Deputy Minister, Mr. Loken, Mr. Sébastien Beaulieu. Can you confirm on your own behalf that you’ve reviewed the summary and that it’s accurate to the best of your knowledge and that insofar as it contains the information provided by your absent colleagues, they have reviewed and accepted it as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Then the second just little piece of housekeeping is the Institutional Report. So Mr. Clerk, that’s DOJ.IR.00000002. So Ms. Termorshuizen, do you recognize this as the Institutional Report provided by Global Affairs Canada?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you’ve reviewed it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you confirm that it’s accurate to the best of your knowledge ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- before the Commission? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So I’ll just start now by asking each of you to introduce yourselves. So starting with you, Ms. Termorshuizen, can you tell us -- well I understand you’re the Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Can you just tell us briefly, describe that role?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the Deputy Minister, as we’ve seen, is Ms. Marta Morgan? Or at least was at the time of convoy? I think recently changed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the Minister of Foreign of Affairs is Ms. Mélanie Joly?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Mr. Comartin, can you tell us your position? Well your position is Consul General of the Detroit Consulate, but tell us a little bit about what that role involves?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I’ll then ask you to describe, at a very high broad level, how each of your roles was engaged at the time of the convoy. So during the convoy, generally speaking, what was your role in all of this. So for instance, Ms. Termorshuizen, I understand that you essentially oversaw GAC’s response, GAC being Global Affairs Canada’s response to the events as they were unfolding of the Freedom Convoy. Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We’ll be getting into all of that. DMOCC is one acronym that we actually have learned today, but thank you for -- there are a lot, and especially in Global Affairs. It’s challenging. And our understanding is that along with Deputy Minister Morgan, Minister Joly’s time was very much occupied by Ukraine during this period? Is that accurate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Mr. Comartin, can you tell us at a high level what your involvement was during the time of the convoy?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So essentially, interacting with U.S. officials and business stakeholders? Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We’ll be looking at some specific examples of that, but before we get there, can you just tell us about the very early days of the convoy? When did the convoy hit the radar, so to speak, at GAC?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And within the department, what was the reaction at that point, or response?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you were attending the daily DMOCC meetings as they were happening on behalf of GAC?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So that would be the Monday after the first weekend, essentially.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, it doesn't matter too much day of the week, but that's the approximate moment in time. Okay. So what would you say the GAC's mandate became very engaged?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We'll come back to all of that. My colleague, Mr. Hayber will be asking you some more specific questions about the mission. And I'll be asking you some questions now about the -- your engagement with U.S. officials and what you were hearing. But before we get there, I just want to set the stage contextually a little bit, some things that you brought up in your interview and that are also referred to in the institutional reports and in the documents. So you've mentioned that Ukraine was a crisis the GAC was dealing with at the time as well. And there's a couple of other contextual elements. So, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask you to bring up PB.CAN.0000027. And if you can just scroll down to page 3. There we go. So this is a Tweet from representative Elissa Slotkin that's mentioned several times in the documents we received from GAC. First of all, who is Slotkin; can you tell us?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we'll just take a moment to read through that quote. It's a Tweet, I believe on February 3rd is the date, and it says -- sorry, just scroll up a tiny bit. Thank you.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
"If we needed another example of why supply chains matter, look no further..." It might be the 9th. "The blockade of the Ambassador Bridge..." That's right. Sorry, I think it's the 9th. "...the busiest border crossing in America, is already creating major disruptions for our businesses in Michigan." Just scroll down a little, Mr. Clerk. The next Tweet she says, "Michiganders have been saying for decades that when our manufacturing is outsourced too much, we end up paying the price. It doesn't matter if it's an adversary or an ally -- we can't be this reliant on parts coming from foreign countries. I've been in contact with the White House today about [the] situation, [...] they are closely following these events. We are [...] waiting for [the] Prime Minister Trudeau's way forward." So, yes, thank you for the correction on the date. I believe it's the 9th. And then she goes on to say, "The one thing that couldn't be more clear is that we have to bring American manufacturing back home to states like Michigan. If we don't, it's American workers like the folks at Delta Township who are left holding the bag." So can you tell us a little bit generally about that concept of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. and what was going on generally in that at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So this Tweet would essentially be an example of that bring manufacturing back home sentiment?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Comartin, would you have anything to add to that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you're referring to the negotiation of NAFTA?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Okay. Well, let's start looking at some of the specific examples of communications or statements that were made by U.S. officials. I don't know if you want to start, or please do start actually by giving a general overview of what you were hearing, Mr. Comartin.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up PB.CAN.00001661? So I appreciate this isn't an email that either of you received. It is your colleague -- Mr. Comartin, I'm sorry, Martin Loken, who's the Deputy Head of Mission, Foreign Policy and National Security at the Canadian Embassy in Washington and he’s writing to Jody Thomas whom we’ve heard is the National Security Advisor and he says at the bottom here: “Concern about Ottawa situation now overshadowed by the blocked Ambassador Bridge and supply chain disruptions to Detroit. There is a sense Canada is not devoting enough resources, human or otherwise, to dislodge the truckers.” So is that an example of what you were just telling us about, Mr. Comartin?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that’s something that Mr. Logan was hearing and you were hearing as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And, Ms. Termorshuizen, you were hearing that as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And if we can just turn up SSM.CAN.00000442. And just scroll down a little bit, please. So this is a public statement by Governor Whitmer, so that’s the Governor of Michigan, I take it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And scroll down a little bit. She says at the beginning: “My message is simple; reopen traffic on the bridge.” Scrolling down onto the next page: “It is imperative that Canadian local, provincial and national governments de- escalate this economic blockade. They must take all necessary and appropriate steps to immediately safely reopen traffic so we can continue growing our economy, supporting good paying jobs and lowering costs for families.” So if I can just ask you -- so this statement, I believe the date was February 9th as well? And this was a public statement made. So in addition to direct communications being made to you, there were politicians making public statements. And what was the purpose of that, do you believe?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Comartin, why don’t you tell us a bit now about what you were hearing from the auto industry, from who and what they were saying?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.0001605? Scroll down to page three, please. Okay. So this is a weekly advocacy report that sort of recaps what happened over the course of February 7th to 11th. And the first thing addressed -- essentially it recaps some of the conversations you’ve had, Mr. Comartin. So I’m hoping you can take us through a few of these with the assistance of the notes here. So the first thing that’s mentioned is a call that you had with Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence. And I believe that was in response to a public statement that she had made the day before or earlier, also calling on the Canadian government to do something about the Ambassador Bridge.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we can just scroll down a little bit more, Mr. Clerk. The second call that’s mentioned is with Congresswoman Dingell; can you tell us a bit about the context of that one. Can you tell us a bit about the context of that one.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Taking some action; okay. And then the next call referred to, just scrolling down a bit, is the Detroit Regional Chamber on February 10th.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the next series of calls that are mentioned is the OESA and the MEMA. Can you tell us about those conversations, who those are, those organizations, and what was said?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that’s February 11th, and you were specifically asked by Ms. Fream whether the Canadian government was planning or intending to invoke emergency legislation, and your information at that time was no?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I think in the interests of time we'll leave that document. Can we pull up, Mr. Clerk, PB.CAN.0000038, page 1, bottom half? Okay. Yeah, that’s exactly where it was supposed to be. Thank you. So this is an email from Stefano Maron. Who's that? Can you identify how Stefano Maron is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And he's writing to Ambassador Hillman, and Mr. Loken and Mr. Comartin are both copied on this. And he's giving an overview of the situation key takeaways, and one of the things he says about midway down that paragraph is, he emphasized the shared nature -- he's talking about a conversation with Representative Kildee. Can you just tell us who Representative Kildee is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So Representative Kildee is someone that you essentially needed on your side in this battle?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what Mr. Loken mentions in this email -- sorry, it's not Mr. Loken, it's Mr. Maron -- mentions in these emails, he emphasized the shared nature of the challenge, referencing American support including through funding for the convoys in Canada, and then the many ways in which the officials are working together. Is that something that you were hearing about as well, American funding, American support for the convoys in Canada?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think that’s right, and we'll probably be hearing more about that as the next couple of weeks unfold. For now, I think we've probably -- you've given us a good overview of what you were hearing from the United States, so we're going to move to other countries now. Mr. Clerk, if you can pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000156 please? So this is some material that was prepared for you, Ms. Termorshuizen, skipping a little ahead in time on February 14th, but it gives a bit of a summary of some of the things that were being said. So if we can just scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk, to where it says "Top Level Messaging" there? "GAC continues to monitor the situation in the U.S. and around the world. Concerned that the Canadian 'model' is being exported and that the Canadian flag is being misused as a symbol to fuel protests in capitals around the world, eg. France, Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand." Can you tell us about that, Ms. Termorshuizen, what you were hearing, what was going on?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We're going to come back to some of the copycat protests in this, but I just want to take you to something else right now because it came up. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000141 please? So again, this is some material that I believe was being prepared for you in preparation for DMOC, Ms. Termorshuizen. We'll scroll down a little bit to page 2 please? There we go. "Impact on Canada, the U.S." So this is going to the trade impact that you mentioned. So it says: "There's a high level of U.S. concern on implications on flow of goods, ripple effect of protests across the U.S." Then it says: "Immediate trade impact, 2.4 billion a day, two-way trade, 500 million by Ambassador Bridge alone." And then there's some talk about the longer-term impact and pressure on for near-shoring supply chains. So first of all, was GAC doing its own economic analysis or analysis of trade impact, or where did this information come from; do you know?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So you have less knowledge of the specifics and more of the broader picture; is that fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We'll go back now to SSM.NSC.CAN156. If we can scroll down to page 2, please? Keep scrolling, keep scrolling, okay. So we're talking now about what happened and Wellington being New Zealand, the Super Bowl. Can you just give us a bit of an overview of those concerns, Ms. Termorshuizen?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, next document I’d like to pull up is SSMNSCCAN00000703. So this is again on the topic of concerns being heard from other countries. This is an email sent by Ralph Goodale, so can you just tell us what Mr. Goodale’s position is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And he was writing to a number of people at Global Affairs. Can we scroll down, please, Mr. Clerk. “Two themes,” he says. Disbelief that this is happening in Canada of all places and no one wants this to become an unwelcome Canadian export as the protests spread elsewhere. Are you familiar with this email?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about what Mr. Goodale was saying? You have it in front of you for your reference but where this email came from, and what was being expressed and why.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we can just scroll down to the next page, please. It’s the last paragraph, the concluding paragraph of Mr. Goodale’s email. He says: “Two consequences need to be watched very carefully, the negative economic and reputational impacts and trade disruptions and the possible impression that Canadian police, security and intelligence systems are incapable of responding effectively to blatant large-scale illegal conduct.” Elaborate a bit on that concern.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The last question I’ll ask you in closing has to do specifically with the Section 58 explanation provided by the government. It’s one line. We can pull it up if you’d like to have it in front of you or I can just read it.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. It’s COM00000670. Okay. I think it’s the bottom of page 1. Yeah, there we go. Bullet number 3 references: “…as part of the justification for the Emergencies Act, the adverse effects resulting from the impacts of the blockade on Canada’s relationship with its trading partners including the U.S. that are detrimental to the interests of Canada.” So the reference there is to its relationship with its trading partners in the plural. Did you hear any concerns directly from trading partners other than the U.S.? or was it primarily the U.S.?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Those are my questions. I’ll turn it over to my colleague now.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, I think this is a concern that's probably best addressed offline.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
For the record, Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission. Our next witness is Ms. Jody Thomas, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister. I would ask the witness be sworn or affirmed.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Ms. Thomas. Thank you for being here. We’ll just start with a couple of housekeeping matters. First of all, you’ll recall participating in an interview with Commission Counsel on August 30th of this year?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you’ll recall that some of your colleagues who are not here today, namely Assistant Secretary Michael MacDonald and Assistant Secretary Martin Green also participated in that interview?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And after that interview, Commission Counsel prepared a summary of the interview. For the record, -- I don’t think we need to pull it up, Mr. Clerk, but for the record, it’s WTS0000071. So Ms. Thomas, I’ll just ask you to confirm that you reviewed that interview summary, and that it's accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief, and that insofar as it contains the information of your colleagues, they have also reviewed it and confirmed it was accurate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now the second little housekeeping matter is the institutional report of the Privy Council Office, affectionately known as the PCO. So you're aware that the PCO filed an institutional report with the Commission?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you've reviewed it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And it's accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. For the record, that's DOJ IR 00000013. Ms. Thomas, I'll ask you to just start by telling the Commission what is the role of the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister is a position that was created after 9/11 in order to coordinate and bring sort of structure to the national security community, which is a group of very independent departments with independent Deputy heads, although they all work together in a horizontal manner. And what was learned after 9/11 was that coordination amongst these departments and agencies is useful in understanding intelligence, national security informed policy issues. And so in my job, what I do is I do coordinate the national security community. I have a convening function, which means I can call them to meetings, I can raise questions, challenge them on certain issues. So I have a challenge function, like all Deputy Secretaries at the Privy Council Office. And I also provide advise and information and brief the Prime Minister of Canada.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And when you speak of the National Security community and the various departments and agencies, who were you speaking of specifically?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And within the Secretariate -- well, I believe there's four separate Secretariates, so three or four Secretariates that -- within the National Security and Intelligence Advisory. Can you tell us about those?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So they all report to you and you in turn report to who?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And the Clerk of the Privy Council. Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about the communication channels there? So you report directly to the Prime Minister. What's the briefing method, what's the reporting relationship there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand that you assume the role of National Security and Intelligence Advisor. I'm going to say NSIA. We all hate acronyms, but that's a mouthful. Shortly before the events of the Freedom Convoy; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And where were you before then?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
How long had you bee in that role?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was your background before that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you mentioned that you have a convening role between all of these various agencies, the National Security community, as you call them. We heard earlier this week from your colleagues at Public Safety, and they described their role as being a consumer of intelligence as opposed to a collector of intelligence. I understand the same is true of PCO?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can you elaborate on that a little bit, where the sources of your intelligence come from?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if I can ask it colloquially, when you get it, what do you do with it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And do they produce, like, assessments, certain products of intelligence, and if so, how are those disseminated, dispersed, what's done with them?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. With that basic background out of the way, we'll move now to the events of January and February 2022. So the first thing I want to ask you about is the early monitoring of the convoy. And I'll ask, Mr. Clerk, if you can pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00003209. So this is an email from Mike MacDonald, who we understand to be Assistant Secretary of Security Intelligence to you, Jackie Bogden -- Jacqueline Bogden, who is Deputy Secretary Emergency Preparedness and a variety of people. So to situate you in time, this was Tuesday, January 22nd, so ahead of the arrival of the convoy. There's a - - so I'm going to take you through a couple of points in this email. If we can just scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk? Okay. Just a little bit more. Here we go. Thank you. So at this point, "In monitoring the convoy thus far, the RCMP and other [Law Enforcement] report that it is peaceful [participate to] being lawful and disciplined as they have an objective of arriving in Ottawa on-time/as planned. While the current convoy is peaceful, concern lies around whether any individuals might join the convoy [...] who are not aligned with peaceful protest..." And then there's some media reporting, YouTube videos and some comparison to some people who might like to see a January 6th Capitol Hill type event. Just scroll to the next page, please? And we see there's some talk of social media, content targeting some Ministers around the bottom of the page there. And then -- sorry, keep scrolling a little bit, Mr. Clerk, here we go. Then there's, "CSIS has received media queries lately about the convoy and CSIS' role in any monitoring activities." And there's a bullet here where Mr. MacDonald says, "This is a sensitive area for CSIS as the CSIS Act defines that CSIS cannot interpret lawful advocacy, protest or dissent as to the security of Canada unless it is in conjunction with defined threat activity to the security of Canada as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act, for example, espionage, sabotage, FI ---" -- I think it's foreign interference -- "--- serious violence, destruction or overthrow by violence of a constitutionally-established system of government." Can you explain what Mr. MacDonald was referring to when he said, "This is a sensitive area for CSIS"?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I think we'll probably hear more from CSIS themselves when they testify on Monday, but would it be fair to say that meant there was limited information on the convoy coming in to you from CSIS?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Then the next thing Mr. MacDonald talks about -- Mr. Clerk, if you just pull that up, just -- sorry, back a little bit -- outstanding questions. So these are some questions that were flagged as issues that you might have to deal with over the period of the convoy, whatever that was then going to be. Who has authority to pay attention to the online space and Chatter? That’s to Parliamentarians, our other ministers, opposition leaders, or Parliamentarians under similar threats? What would engagement look like? Should MPs meet with the convoy while in Ottawa? Is this safe, and do we have advice for them? What will be the specific advice to ministers on this issue? And I assume that’s talking about meeting with members of the convoy. And then if we scroll down a little bit more, there's the talk of potential, the CAF -- CAF is Canadian Armed Forces?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Or JTF2. What does JTF2 stand for?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Special forces have a possible role, okay. So it's fair to say that those were issues flagged by Mr. MacDonald as things the PCO would -- and the government would have to think about?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay. And I think we'll probably come back to some of those issues as we go through the chronology a little bit. Okay. Mr. Clerk, if you can now pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000250? This will be another email sent on January 25th, and I understand you're not actually a recipient of this email personally. It was to Mr. MacDonald, but I'm hoping you can help us with some of the issues in there, specifically -- Mr. Clerk, if you can scroll down to page 3 to a point where you see "there is a gap when it -- where it comes to reporting". There we go. So this is our Deputy Minister, so this is Deryck Trehearne from Public Safety writing -- or I'm sorry -- it's not Deryck Trehearne writing, but in any event, it's to Deryck Trehearne. "Our Deputy Minister, Rob, debriefed on the NSIA call on this topic today and mentioned that there is a gap where it comes to reporting on this issue as we head towards the demonstration this weekend." Do you what reporting gap Mr. Stewart was talking about there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this is a law enforcement reporting gap?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that is actually an issue that we discussed a little bit in your interview. Can you tell us -- can you explain to the Commission what that gap is? It's something that’s been identified here by Mr. Stewart and it was also identified in his testimony. As I said, it was discussed also in your interview, so can you elaborate on what that law enforcement reporting gap was from your point of view?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And did you identify that as an issue that reoccurred throughout the (audio skip) the convoy?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So with that having been said, what was your expectation of what the convoy was going to look like when it arrived in Ottawa?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So were any specific steps taken by PCO or by you ahead of the convoy's arrival to prepare for it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And then as we know, the convoy arrived and didn’t leave when it was expected to do so. What was the response from your perspective then?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And within the federal government, the response -- you mentioned earlier the ADM NS OPS which is the Assistant Deputy Minister, National Security Operations Committee -- and that’s co-chaired by Mike MacDonald?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And so we've heard already that that committee was meeting daily as an information sharing mechanism?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And DMOC was chaired by you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Is DMOC always chaired by you or is that -- was that specific to this circumstance, as if it was a security thing?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
What other kind of meetings were you participating in?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what about externally to the federal government; were you participating in meetings that involved other authorities, municipal, provincial?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And when was that, in your recollection?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up ONT00000159? So this is a summary of a call that was held with the City, the federal government, and the provincial government of February 6th. This may be the first meeting that you were talking about. It may be the second.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Pardon me?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It’s the second, okay. So I want to ask you about something specific in this meeting which, if we scroll down to page 9 of the PDF, I believe -- so, in evidence that we’ve heard before before the Commission, we’ve been through most of this already. There’s on specific point have to do with you. It notes at the end here that you’d: "Noted it was a positive meeting and regrets to end on this following point. Would the province be looking to the federal government if this protest was happening outside the City of Ottawa, for example, happening in other places like Kingston." So Mr. Mario Di Tomasso, Deputy Solicitor General, testified here a couple of days ago -- a couple of weeks ago, sorry, and his impression of that comment was that this was the federal government trying to wash its hands of this entire thing. So now that we have you before us, I wanted to ask you, is that what you intended by that comment?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you for that. So now I’m going to skip ahead a little bit and talk about your role in briefing Cabinet committees and Cabinet itself in all of this. So the first thing is -- and this is in reference to something that you said in your interview, and it’s something that’s also said in the Institutional Report, and I want to clarify what it means for the Commission. In the interview, you’d explained that your role at the IRG meetings, and any time you were briefing Cabinet, was to provide a full and frank factual threat picture to Cabinet or to the IRG. And again, then, in the Institutional Report, it said -- I don’t think we need to turn it up but the briefings that you gave did not include advice or recommendations. So can you flesh that out a little bit and explain what you were and what you weren’t doing, and maybe why?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And at some point, it says that you would sometimes be asked to give -- or provide your assessment of a situation. So can you explain the distinction, then, between, an assessment of a situation and advice?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s helpful. Simple is good. Simple is always good. Okay, so I’d like to turn now to the -- some examples of the actual briefings that you were giving at these various meetings. So, Mr. Clerk, if you could pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000292. Well, you’re pulling that up, I’ll just explain. This is the SSE Meeting of February 3rd. And can you just give the Commission a brief reminder of what SSE is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we can just go to paragraph 4, please, Mr. Clerk. Hm, there doesn’t seem to be a paragraph 4 -- page -- oh, there we go, yeah, thank you. Paragraph 4 of a different thing, sorry about that. "The National Security and Intelligence Advisor, NSIA, indicated that protest organizers have indicated an interest in negotiation. However, the protesters confirmed that representatives from the city, province, or federal government have not reached out." So this is February 3rd at this point and you’re indicating that the protest organizers have indicated an interest in negotiation. Where did that information come from? What were you talking about there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then you said various -- "The protesters confirmed that representatives from the city, province, or federal government have not reached out." Was this also just from open-source media?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So this wasn’t from any particular information you had ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- just collating open- source information. Okay. Mr. Clerk, the next one is SSM.NSC.CAN00000246. Okay, these aren’t minutes of a meeting, they’re talking points. So do I understand that these would be the materials prepared for you by your staff in preparation for one these meetings?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we go to page 3, please? Senior, there; there we go. The bullet that says, “Senior Officials,” so: “Senior official ([Deputy Ministers] Stewart, Keenan and myself) continue to engage [the] City of Ottawa to encourage dialogue with demonstrators, consultations with provincial regulatory authorities, sharing of operational plans and a coherent communications approach.” And I see “Encourage dialogue” is bolded and underlined there. So what was that about; what were you talking about there, dialoguing with the protesters?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But what it says there is that Deputy Minister Stewart, Deputy Minister Keenan and you are engaging the City of Ottawa to encourage dialogue. So at that point were you actively encouraging ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. In the hope, then, that dialoguing with the demonstrators would produce a positive outcome?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The next document, please, SSM.NSC.CAN00000209. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So this is the February 10th IRG, and we’re going to get into this in more depth with your PCO colleagues tomorrow, but again, just a brief description of what the Incident Response Group is, please.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. If we can just scroll down, then, to page 5, please. So February 10th, I believe, was the first IRG meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Just going to find the actual page. Okay, here we go. So, the National Security advisor, you’re giving a rather lengthy report here, Ottawa situation remains largely unchanged. “Threats on social media persist...it continues to be used as a planning tool,...possibility of driving by ...and...local schools...” And that you say: “[There’s] indications that some protesters would like to leave but are unable to do so given physical barriers. An integrating planning cells is developing a plan of action...the preference remains to continue moving forward with [negotiation], with enforcement actions to start early next week if negotiations remain unsuccessful.” And then: “A surge and contain strategy will be employed for the upcoming weekend.” So is it fair to say at that point that the notion of negotiating with the protesters is still very much on the table?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you go on to talk about Coutts, and there’s a line here: “The number of protesters had dropped from [200] to 40; however, those remaining are firmly entrenched in their views, and there are weapons on site.” So that’s information that had been provided to you by the RCMP?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, that weapons were on site at Coutts.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And sorry; the -- only the RCMP knew the extent?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you knew that they were present, but you had no idea about the extent.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
If we can just keep scrolling down a bit, please, Mr. Clerk? CSIS reports tracking several individuals, and then there’s some threat assessment by CESC and CSIS. Scroll down a little bit more please, Mr. Clerk. Okay, I think that’s probably it. So on that topic of negotiation, or engagement, I just want to take you sort of a bit of an aside for a moment but related. SSMCAN00006131. While that’s being pulled up, I’ll situate this. So this is the engagement proposal about which the Commission has heard quite a bit.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oh, I think just scroll down a little bit more. There we go, from Ms. Thomas. So this is a February 11th email at 2:30 p.m., that you sent to the -- Jan Charette, who’s the Clerk, Nathalie Drouin, who’s the Deputy Clerk, and what you say is, you’re forwarding the engagement proposal and you say: “Rob has continued his engagement. I suggest that we need to decide if this has a green light. I expect he will get more specifics....” And then it just says, “we indicate a positive response.” I think there’s probably an “if” missing there; “if we indicate a positive response.” So can you situate what this email was about, what you were saying to the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk when you sent it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did you have a view at that point on the engagement proposal; whether it was a good idea, a bad idea, a likelihood of success?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So beyond having a view that it shouldn’t be taken on [sic] the table, did you ever form, or were you ever asked for your view on whether it should or should not go ahead?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this is February 11th, and I believe it was brought to the IRG on February 12th.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And at that point views were sought.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you provided a view?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And your view was?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It’s protected.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can we then go to the February 12th IRG, SSM.NSC.CAN00000214? We can scroll down, then, to page 5. “In terms of specifics...” -- just scroll down a little bit more: “...the [NSIA] reported that the situation in Windsor remains very fluid with Law enforcement having begun to take action. In Ottawa [we’re] seeing a significant escalation in the boldness of protesters.” So just stopping there, what does that mean; what was that observation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And did that have an effect on your assessment of the situation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then if we can just scroll down again, Mr. Clerk, to page 15. So this is part of what became known as the IRG tracker. Can you just explain, Ms. Thomas, what the IRG tracker was very briefly?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
For instance.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the one that pertains specifically to your area is Item Number 4 here, which is: Identify immediate measures to close the intelligence gap (i.e., open source, non-criminal, non-terrorist)." Okay. Can you elaborate on that? Is that the intelligence gap you've referred to earlier, the social media?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. On that point, Mr. Clerk, I'll just ask you to turn up the witness summary, please, so that's WTS0000071, at page 6. It's under the Social Media Intelligence Gap. So Ms. Thomas, I'll just ask you to elaborate with reference to this little bit on some of the points you were making. For instance, the tools. What tools -- when you say "we didn't have the tools", what tools are needed to do that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then just scrolling down the page again of it, please until -- thank you. So just the point where it says "NSIA Thomas" there. One of the issues that was identified there was distinguishing between credible threats and non-credible threats on social media. Can you tell us a little bit about that and the difficulties, if any, you faced with that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, we'll move on to the February 13th, please. So Mr. Clerk, that's SSM.NSC.CAN00000216. Scroll down to page 8, please. So this is the Cabinet meeting on February 13th, and this is the report that you're giving at this -- it was definitely a key moment in the events, and in the eventual decision to invoke. And you're reporting on what you've heard from various agencies, including CSIS and including the RCMP. I don't know if you had a chance to see the RCMP's testimony the other day, but Commissioner Lucki testified that she was never asked to speak, either at the IRG meeting on February 13th or at the Cabinet meeting on February 13th. And there's a key bit of, well I call it evidence, but it's information at the time, where Commissioner Lucki had expressed the view to Mike Jones, who was the Minister of Public Safety's Chief of Staff, that law enforcement had not yet exhausted all available tools to it. Is that a message that you, who were asked to speak at these meetings, conveyed to the IRG or to Cabinet in either of those meetings?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Was that information provided by Commissioner Lucki to you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that's about whether or not there was a plan in Ottawa.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Was -- did she say anything specific, or did you know that her view was law enforcement had not yet exhausted all its tools?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next document is SSM.NSC.CAN.00000298. So these are your talking points for this meeting. Chronologically a little out of order, but that’s okay. Okay. So here again we see: “The mood of the organizers in Ottawa appears emboldened.” So that’s essentially a repeat of a point that’s been made on a previous day. No change there. And then there’s talk of: “City of Ottawa announced agreement with protest leader (Tamara Lich) that could lead to approx. 70 percent of trucks and cars [leaving] the residential areas in the downtown core over the next 24 hours…” And then they explain in a little bit more detail about that. “Given the anti-government sentiment of Ottawa group, along with the decentralized nature of its leadership, it is unclear at this time the concurrence of other leaders in the group to the Agreement.” So is that your assessment of the situation there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Would it be fair to say that at this point, your confidence in negotiation with dialoguing with protestors was no longer what it had previously been?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We’re going to move now to the February 14th DMOCC. So that’s SSM.NSC.CAN00000217. Bottom of page 1. Keep scrolling a bit. “OPS has approved a joint operational plan for Ottawa developed with support from RCMP and OPP […] will be put into action in coming days.” So this is -- now we’re on February 14th. In your recollection, when was Cabinet made aware that a plan was coalescing to carry out an operation in downtown Ottawa?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
When you say no evidence, what kind of evidence would you have expected to see?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Do you think that that falls into the law enforcement reporting gap that you discussed earlier? The sort of information between law enforcement and your level?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Also on February 14th then, PB.NSC.CAN00008485, please. Scroll down, please. Scroll down again. I think it will probably be the bottom of the second page we want to start with. There we go. So this is a series of emails that you sent the morning of February 14th around 11:45/noon. The first one is: “I need an assessment for Janice about the threat of these blockades. The characters involved. The weapons. The motivation. Clearly this isn’t just COVID and is a threat to democracy and rule of law Could I get an assessment please. David [-- I assume that’s David Vigneault, CSIS Director --] is this you? It’s a very short fuse Please call if you have questions” Can you explain what that email was about? Who is it to? What was it about? What were you looking for? And why?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the intention was to get that assessment for Ms. Charette, the Clerk, and she would then provide it to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The Prime Minister. Okay. And if we just scroll up a bit? So the next email, so this one is to Mike MacDonald, Rob Stewart, something blacked out, Inez Neville, and Martin Green. Inez Neville. Who is that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Perfect. “This is about a national threat to national interest and institutions. By people who do not care about or understand democracy Who are preparing to be violent. Who are motivated by anti government sentiment” What are you saying there? Are you setting out what the assessment should say or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
how specific it should be in terms of?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So does what is reflected in this email reflect your assessment of the situation at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Was that assessment ever produced to you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And would that be -- why would that not happen?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next topic I want to address, or the next document, let’s start with the document, SSM.CAN.00000297. Before I go there, actually, if that document had been produced, that threat assessment, it would have been CSIS who did it? It would have been the RCMP who would have ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So it was a call for input so that PCO itself could produce the ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the topic I want to address with you now is something that has come up, will come up, and will forever be part of the Commission’s Inquiry, which is this idea of what is a threat to national security. This email, scroll down a bit, is -- sorry, just want to see. So this is an email from you to Jacqueline Bogden, Phillipe Lafortune. Can you tell us who that is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. "So Philippe did some research which is handy to keep in our 'back pocket'. FYI, at this stage, Mike." And the date of this is February 9, so before the IRG started, this research was done. "Mike, as requested, we did some digging on the Canadian definition of national security. As you know, one of the challenges on this issue is that the GOC, Government of Canada, never ended up formally defining it. However, we looked at transition material, various Acts to provide you with the best answer, and its potential applicability to the current situation. Below, you will find a policy definition of national security but also NSICO's --- " Please explain what NSICO is. If not, it'll make me feel better about my lack of acronym knowledge.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
" --- take on it, and what the CSIS Act, SCIDA -- S-C-I-D-A."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Information sharing, okay. "And the Emergency Act stipulate on the issue. Here are the various pieces." We'll just, I think, probably read through most of this email because it's quite relevant. But first of all, before we get into the specifics of it, can you explain the context of why that information would be sought?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that’s what Mr. Lafortune is talking about when he says "the problem is, it's never been formally defined"?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And how would that be formally defined if it were to be?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
In a policy? So not in legislation, but in a policy?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
A Government of Canada policy of some sort?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that would be something prepared by -- if it were to exist -- PCO?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Public Safety?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So here we have the first: "National security pertains to the safety and security of Canada's territory, government, economy, and people, as well as the promotion and protection of Canadian national interests. National interests refers to Canada's sovereignty, democratic processes and institutions, security, territorial integrity, economic prosperity, social cohesion, environmental protection, and healthy and resilient communities." That’s the NSICOP -- so NSICOP, I believe, is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- annual report. So that’s about as broad a definition of national security as one could possibly imagine.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Then there's the legislative perspective reported by Mr. Lafortune. What he says is: "There is no true legislative definition of 'national security'. The CSIS Act and SCIDA provide examples of threats to security and activities that undermine security; however, do not exclusively define what is included in the term 'security' as their lists are not exhaustive and do not specifically reference 'national security'." And then there's the definition of the CSIS Act which we're all familiar with now.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk. SCIDA has its own definition here. Scroll down a little bit more. Then there's a quote from a Supreme Court ruling. I think the case is actually called Suresh, not Sunresh, but -- and so what the Supreme Court says in Suresh is they talk about danger: "A fair, large, and liberal interpretation in accordance with international norms must be accorded to danger to the security of Canada." They're talking about deportation here. Then they say the danger to the security of Canada is difficult to define, and then they go on and talk about a broad and flexible approach, et. cetera, et. cetera. They then -- I think this is now Mr. Lafortune, not part of Suresh -- the Emergency Act, and he talks about how the Emergency Act does define national emergencies of the following, and then he gives a definition which again is similar to us here on the Commission. So you received this email, this sort of memo, if I can call it, on national security. Did that have anything impact on your thinking, your assessment of the situation about what's happening at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And would this memo be something that was kept internally to PCO or would it have been disseminated, shared, would it have been briefed up to Cabinet?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you're aware, of course, that CSIS assessed the protest as not constituting a threat to the security of Canada as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And obviously, we'll hear directly from them on that on Monday, I believe.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
But were you personally ever asked to advise on whether that definition had been met?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Were you ever asked whether you thought that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was necessary?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And when was that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what was your answer?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
See how we're doing for time here. Oh, we have time. Okay. The next thing -- oh, yes?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Morning, afternoon, evening, whatever it is, yes please.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ms. Thomas, I understand that you had some discussions at break with your counsel, which actually obviated the need for me to have a discussion with your counsel about whether or not you could answer some questions about the inputs that you -- and views you expressed to cabinet on a couple of issues, so I’m just going to ask you those questions again. The first is with respect the engagement proposal; what view did you express to cabinet on the engagement proposal?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And this would be on February 12th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And why did you form that view?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And the second question that fell into that category of whether or not you could answer is whether you were ever asked whether the Emergencies Act was necessary.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that was on February 13th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The other area I’d like to take you back to briefly just to elaborate on a little bit is this idea of the law enforcement gap in reporting. So for that, can we pull up the witness summary again, please? So it’s WTS, a bunch of zeros, 71, and to the bottom of page 7, please. Okay, so we’ve discussed here two different sort of intelligence gaps that you’ve identified. One is the social media gap that you’ve spoken about, and we may speak about again; the other is the law enforcement intelligence gap. So what you’ve expressed here is a slightly more elaborate than you’d expressed earlier today, but you didn’t receive -- and this you and Assistant Secretary Mike MacDonald, Security and Intelligence -- did not receive direct reports from law enforcement partners such as OPP, OPS, WPS -- so that’s outside the “federal family”. You can tell I’m learning the lingo. That constituted another significant intelligence sharing gap. Assistant Secretary MacDonald recalled a significant delay in receiving updates from the RCMP given the RCMP’s policy obligation to consult with each relevant agency prior to sharing investigative and operation information. And you clarify that neither you nor your staff received SITREPs, so situational reports, projects reports, or other forms of information directly. And, as you mentioned today, you hadn’t heard of Project Hendon, specifically. And if we just scroll down a little bit, it also says there that you learned of the Coutts arrests through the media, not directly from the RCMP. And just scrolling down a little bit again: "Sharing among all three levels of government information and intelligence in relation to the convoy could have been better." So I’ll just asl you to elaborate a little bit on where you think the deficiencies are and what and what maybe can be or should be done about them because, as you know, the Commission has sort of a forward-looking mandate as well as a backward-looking one?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
When you say there are ways you can help, what are you referring to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So from your perspective, keeping in mind the need for police independence, which ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So there’s some work to be done in the area ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- from your perspective, of information flows between law enforcement and government?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Switching gears a little bit, the next topic I want to address with you is sort of an existential one, but the line between lawful and unlawful protest. And I’m going to do this with reference to a few documents in which this was brought up and came up repeatedly over the course of the events of the convoy. The first one, Mr. Clerk is SSM.NSC.CAN0003211, and scroll down to page 2, please. So this is a readout or a report from ADM NS Ops on January 26th. There we go, under “Posture”. So first they’re talking about the RCMP monitoring, and then: "ADMs committed to return to the Committee with specifics on what will trigger the event from peaceful event to one requiring law enforcement action." So I realize this in ADM NS Ops, not specifically at your level, but is it fair to say that that was something on the radar, when does an event go from lawful to unlawful?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you see it says here: " ADMs committed to return to the Committee with specifics…" To your knowledge -- and I know this isn’t your committee but, to your knowledge, did that happen?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. It may be that the next document is the answer but I’m not sure.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
SSM.NSC.CAN00000294 at page 6, please, under “Peaceful Event”. Okay, there we go, perfect. "Peaceful Event -- Key question remain: How does this end and who is left, e.g., numbers may be lower but what is the threat nature of remaining individuals." And then: "There is no finite timeline for when a lawful protest must end. As long as it remains lawful, it may continue. Violence will require a public order response. OPS has brough in additional support teams." Okay, so that is something ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- being said about the line between lawful and unlawful. I don’t know if it’s -- maybe you don’t know either, because it wasn’t your committee, whether that was the specific sort of deliverable return on that point but, if so, it’s not a particularly detailed answer.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That's a helpful distinction, actually, and it'll come up in the following discussions. So the next document is SSM.CAN.0000016. So this is a read-out of the February 14th DMOC. And if we can scroll down a bit to page 2, please. There we go. "The NSIA and Director of CSIS", so this is the DMOC that's being held on February 14th. Do you remember what time that DMOC was?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So: "The NSIA and the Director of CSIS highlighted the need to better understand where and how the convoys metastasized into something else - we have seen a fundamental shift - protest that effects people's ability to live and exist is no longer peaceful. Need to understand long-term trends." So can you tell the Commission a little bit what your thinking was there in saying that the protests have metastasized, the convoys, rather, metastasized into something else?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
In a sense, I think you've pre-empted my next question, which is is this an area that is being worked on within the Federal Government in case anything like this ever happens again, where that line is? And when you talk about the line between lawful/unlawful, in some senses that's the line where intervention would happen.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The next document, please, Mr. Clerk, SSM.NSC.CAN.00000405. So this a related point, Ms. Thomas, to situate you a little bit, on the need to protect lawful protest. There is unlawful at some point, we don't know precisely where that line is you've said, but the need to protect lawful protest in all circumstances where possible. Was there any thought given, and I'll wait for the reference to turn up here, but in your recollection, was there any thought given in the discussions around how to intervene once it became clear that there was going to be intervention, in what was happening in Ottawa, specifically, I suppose it would apply across Canada, but specifically in Ottawa to protecting lawful protest, so a subset of that protest? Was there any thought given to, okay, well, you can't do it on Wellington Street, but maybe you can go somewhere else? And I'll just situate you a little bit here. Can we turn down to page, I believe it's page 2, but it could be a bit later. Sorry, keep scrolling, I'll find it. Keep scrolling, please. No, I guess no. Page 5, sorry. Yeah, okay, there we go. So this is a description, and I realise it's not your description it's the RCMP I believe, but... Keep scrolling a bit down, please, Mr. Clerk. I'll tell you when you got it. Okay. Yeah: "The focus of the operation today has been on clearing protesters south of Wellington and reinforcing barriers. Protesters remain at Bank and Sparks...have been advised that they will be arrested if they do not leave. Public order units continue to wear tactical gear but police tactics remain focused on de-escalation." This is February 20th: "Police are also monitoring a gathering that has formed at the War Museum of approximately 100 people and a smaller gathering of 30-50 at Confederation Park....information suggests some indication some protesters are staying in the secure zone..." And I think that's about it. So: "...including at hotels in this area RCMP is looking into." So these other areas, the War Museum, and at this point it's Confederation Park, were these lawful protest zones to your knowledge at this point?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So I think this will be the last area that we can cover today, but I want to ask you about a couple of intelligence assessments, secretariat assessments that were produced to the Commission. The first one is SSM.NSC.CAN.0000218. It's called Context for Civil Unrest Following Pandemic. So first of all, this is a document dated February 16th. Can you tell us the genesis of how did this document come into being?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you already had a piece on what happens after pandemics?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So we’ll take you through a little bit of this, and you can tell me if this is something that would have been known before February 16th and formed part of the context you were thinking about or whether it was an ex post facto. So the first -- just introduction: “Historically, civil unrest and degradation of social cohesion have been common in the immediate aftermath of pandemics or epidemics. The health impacts and restrictions involved […] provide fertile grounds for social unrest and mobilization as pandemics progress or end. This is particularly true when there are existing underlying inequalities and/or social fault-lines within the population […]. The ongoing trucker protests have several markers demonstrating consistency with this trend.” So is this something that was part of your thinking when the convoys rolled in or was this something that was only thought about after the fact?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So if I understand correctly, it wasn’t part of your personal thinking, but it may have been part of the thinking at PCO?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And if we just scroll down a little bit more: “For a Canadian historical context, the 1885 vaccine requirements intended to curtail the spread of Smallpox […] resulted in public violence throughout the city. Per the Washington Post, more than 2,000 violent rioters marched through the streets of Montreal screaming, “kill the vaccinators” in response to […] vaccine mandates.” So again, this would be part of the context that PCO was aware of at the time and was thinking about, but not your specific thinking?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what would be the purpose of having an assessment like this done?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next assessment is SSM.NSC.CAN0000231. So the first paragraph here, it talks about -- the date of this one is the 21st of February. So this is right actually as the Emergencies Act was being lifted, and to a certain extent, events were coming to an end. And it says here: “The ‘Freedom Convoy’ [..] is not an unprecedented event.” Again talking about societal alienation, civil unrest, and social polarization. Then it says: “…the convergence of several elements make this protest […] somewhat more sophisticated and unique: the use of social media for organizing and communicating both internally and externally, the use of misinformation and disinformation to promote certain narratives, the use of crowdfunding […] cryptocurrenc[y], blockade tactics and logistics, the virulence of discourse towards government and elected officials, appropriation of national symbols, …” And it goes on. It mentions then: “The overwhelming majority of protesters […] have denounced violence and are not directly aligned…” Then it talks about the wide range of participants. And if we just scroll down a little bit, the movement -- talks about the IMVE aspect. “It is unlikely that premeditated violence will take place, however, [the threat of] ‘lone actors’…” Scroll down again. “…significant international financial support and publicity.” So it’s sort of collating the information that was available then. And then it says: “The “Freedom Convoy” itself or new entities that emerge from it are likely to continue for several weeks and will seek new opportunities to protest, occupy and disrupt. It may also embolden other groups and individual movements across the ideological spectrum. There are also risks that the protests may serve to deepen and harden new and existing cleavages within Canadian society. As the protests persist, these feelings may become more entrenched and form the basis for longer-term societal schisms.” So this is a -- can you speak to this a little bit and just situate the context in which all of this was being dealt with at the time by you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Those are my questions for you today, Ms. Thomas, but before I sit down, is there anything that we haven’t covered today that you’d like to raise?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Commissioner. Shantona Chaudhury, Commission Counsel. I’d like to call Ms. Jacqueline Bogden and Mr. Jeffery Hutchinson to the stand. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Ms. Bogden, Mr. Hutchinson. We’ll just start with a bit of housekeeping, which is introducing your witness summary. So you’ll recall sitting for an interview with Commission Counsel on August 30th, 2022?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And following that interview, Commission Counsel prepared a summary of that interview. You’ve reviewed that summary?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you can confirm that it’s accurate, to the best of your knowledge and belief?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So for the record, that’s WTS00000072. No need to call it up right now, Mr. Clerk. Ms. Bogden, I understand you are the Deputy Secretary of Emergency Preparedness; is that correct?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Mr. Hutchinson, your title is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just so you know, we’re conducting this examination in panel format. I may direct questions to one or the other of you; if I direct it in general, then whoever’s best placed to answer is free to answer. And you can also, of course, jump in if someone else has something to say about a point I ask. So the first question is probably for Ms. Bogden, which is I’ll just ask you to briefly explain the structure of the PCO Emergency Preparedness and COVID Response Secretariat.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And when you say it was newly created; when was it created, and why?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that would be Minister Bill Blair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And as I understand it, Minister Blair is supported both by the Emergency Preparedness Secretariat within PCO and by the Department of Public Safety, is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can you explain how that interaction works, and what each of you do to support the Minister?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So maybe that’s a good time to explain, what different kinds of emergencies does Emergency Preparedness deal with?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So in a sense, the Secretariat was created in response to a recognition that there are a growing number of emergencies that Canada has to deal with?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And when were you appointed Deputy Secretary of Emergency Preparedness?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So shortly before the events of ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- the Freedom Convoy in question.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And Mr. Hutchinson, can you briefly describe your role?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And who would your -- sorry to interrupt, but who would your counterpart at Public Safety be?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Okay, the next thing I'll ask you to do is briefly explain the role of Emergency Preparedness in responding to Requests for Assistance. So can you tell us what a Request for Assistance is, a request for federal assistance, RFA is the acronym, and the process by which it's reviewed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, that's helpful. One of the many things we're doing in this Commission is attempting to sort out who does what within the Federal Government and it's not always an easy answer. That's helpful. Okay. We're now going to move to the meat, essentially, of what we're going to talk about today, which is your role in convening and coordinating the Federal Government's response to the Freedom Convoy. And I'll just let you know, in the time that we have, given -- in an attempt to sort of use our time productively, given that we heard from the NSIA yesterday, and we'll be hearing from the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk this afternoon, we're going to be concentrating on the first couple of weeks, so sort of right up until the first IRG. We'll go a little beyond that, but that's where I anticipate we're going to be focussing our efforts this morning.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So I'll open it up to you to tell us, essentially, what role you played in coordinating the Federal Government response.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So when we spoke in your interview, you identified January 30th as sort of the day that it became clear to you that the convoy wasn't going anywhere fast and there would have to be some coordination. I won't say response at that point, necessarily, but some coordination of what the Federal Government was going to do about this at this point. So can you walk us through that first week of the protest and how that unfolded?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Of course.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Do you recall when the Prime Minister was first briefed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, we’ll ask the Clerk, that’s fine. Okay. So essentially, what you just told us, if I can summarize it, is the initial posture before the convoy arrived was, on the one hand, you have the information you have; on the other hand, it’s expect the unexpected.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then when the unexpected, let’s put it that way, sort of happens on the 30th, what happens from there? How do you respond from there, what -- how does your role kick in?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Second (2nd), probably?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I’ll just stop you there ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- with one question; which Ministers would have ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I will.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I’m just going to ask the Clerk to pull up ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- the minutes from that first SSE meeting, which is SSM.NSC.CAN00000292. So you can continue, with the benefit of the minutes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you just scroll down to page 8, I believe? Is this the placemat you were talking about? Okay. So can you just walk us through, obviously not all of it, but the general ideas that are expressed and...?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So that, I think, falls under Policing Agreements; what agreements are in place between the OPP and OPS, what agreements are in place with RCMP and OPS? So would it be correct to say that that reflects the federal government sort of attempting to sort out in a -- or the Committee, rather, sorting out what the jurisdictional issues are there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So to put it a slightly different way, “What can we do within our jurisdiction?”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to say about this particular document, or should we move to the next?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then, so how does that lead in to the next meeting of the SSE, which I believe was February 6th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Just stopping you there, we'll just ask the Clerk to turn that one up. So that's SSM.CAN.00000082, please. This is the request from Alberta that you ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So can you just walk us through that from your perspective and what was done with that request?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And eventually, skipping ahead, I don't know if, Mr. Hutchinson, you have anything to add on that, but it was determined that this was not a request that could be fulfilled as intended?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Sorry to have interrupted you. So we're on February 6th now, and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we'll just go to the minutes for the February 6th SSE, which is SSM.NSC.CAN.00000293.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sorry?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oh, very good memory. Okay. So -- yes, can you situate us for this meeting, how it took place and what was discussed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this is February 6th. So this is the day that the City of Ottawa declares a state of emergency.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And was that part of the discussion at this meeting; do you recall, or was ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And in any event, as you said, a decision was taken that it was time to convene the trilateral?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So can you take us through that a little bit? You said you were tasked with setting up the next day.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so that first -- that was convened same day then, February 7th ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- 5 p.m. And as we know, Minister Jones did not attend that meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Was Mr. Di Tommaso?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the first one was sans Ontario. Can you tell us in general terms sort of what was discussed and what came out of that first meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That's fine.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And despite the fact that you appear to have a fantastic memory, it's not a memory test, ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- so if ever you want me to bring up a document, I can do that.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that sort of takes us, at this point, to we’re in the second week of protests, getting into that, and then the third and then final, I believe, SSE. So that was February 8th. The document number is -- drumroll please, SSM.NSC.CAN.00000295. Was this one also an ad hoc meeting or was this a regularly scheduled one?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just a clarification here, so the SSE is a Cabinet committee with, as I understand it, no decision-making power?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So coming out of the February 8th SSE then is a decision that it’s time to do something more, essentially? Okay. So what is the more? What happens after that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So, sorry, I’ll just interrupt. The PB.NSC.CAN.000002418. I just want to make sure that this is what we’re talking about here. Okay. So this is an email from Mike MacDonald. If you just scroll down a little bit, there’s an email from you to Genevieve Binet, who is also ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- a PCO, Mike MacDonald, ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- who we know is the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Hutchinson was copied. “Genevieve, I am looking at this now and will make changes in track changes […] send back to you…”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
“…my sense is […] we need more info from […] RCMP…” So this is what you’re discussing?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I think if we just scroll down a little bit in this document, Mr. Clerk? Find essentially that list that you just described.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Enforcement ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- Ms. Bodgen, this being the attachment to that email, essentially, that set out the various plans ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- that have been discussed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this is essentially, it's assessing the request because at this point the request for additional resources, I think it was 1,800, had been made; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And so ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- the assessment of the -- there we go, it's spelled out there, a 1,000 regular, 600 public order, 100 investigative, 100 civilian.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what's said about it is: "The broad request at both levels of government is without specifics and is almost impossible to meet until details are worked out. Given other operational demands faced by RCMP, OPP and other police services...there is a requirement to understand the specific resources needed and the objectives the...(OPS) is trying to achieve, prior to providing [those]...resources."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So this is the information that you would have been receiving from Commissioner Lucki and the RCMP?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I think that some of those concerns are reflected. If we just scroll a bit down the document a bit, and then we get to Strategic Enforcement Options.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Scroll down to the next page. And take us through what's being expressed here. I believe this is what you were referring to when you were saying that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And this is being cobbled together, this document, not cobbled, but put together on February 9th, which as we know from Deputy Minister Keenan, is the day after he received a letter from Ontario Ministry of Transportation, which I think he characterised, and I'm paraphrasing here, but as a polite thanks but no thanks.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So if we just keep scrolling down a bit here. Now, we get to Border Related Enforcement Options. So I think this probably refers to what you were telling us about CBSA having -- dealing with no less than 10 different ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- potential disruptions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So both domestically and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- and cross border? Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And do you recall having any information at that point that those things might happen? Any intelligence in that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So then if we just scroll down now to page 4, Mr. Clerk, we get to Engagement Plan. So we'll be getting into this in a little more detail a bit later, but can you walk us through a little about what the idea here is with potential engagement? We see at the second bullet: "Engagement could open lines of communication, signal willingness to listen...create leverage to move protesters out."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So at that point in time, that's on the table as something that could be helpful in the situation.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And now, just scrolling down a little bit, there's one point I want to ask you about. And I don't know if this is information that you were aware of or came from you, but it says here: "DM of [Public Safety] and NSIA are meeting with senior levels of the City of Ottawa daily."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It talks about potential expansion of engagement to include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or other mayors, and then says, "The Chief", and I'm assume that's Chief Sloly from the context here: "...continues to communicate publicly his view that OPS lacks resources to effectively manage the situation. This may be somewhat true but may also be a strategic tactic and may need to be managed." Do you have any knowledge of where that information came from?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Scrolling down, it next discusses International Engagement, so what's been going on between CBSA and U.S. Customs and then the -- Public Safety and the Department of Homeland Security were in touch and meeting following that. And then the next page discusses Ontario Engagement. And at that point, I think February 8th is when the second tripartite happens as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah. And as we know, there was no representation from Ontario at the political level at that one.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Did not participate in that one either.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then we have summarised here, and we'll get into this more next week when the ministers testify, but Minister Mendicino and Minister Leblanc starting to reach out to Premier Ford, specifically.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And then we have DM IGA, so that would be Intergovernmental Affairs from PCO ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- Mr. Vandergrift ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- speaking to his counterpart in Ontario on February 9th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So presumably this reflects some attempt on the part of the Federal Government to get that engagement going at a ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the next page then, please, and we won't spend too much time on this today because we spent a lot of time on it yesterday, but financial levers being considered. At that point, were the PCMLCFA ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I'm comforted by the fact that Mr. Sabia doesn't like that acronym either, and we can just keep going. And the second option is the Bank Act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then the last thing that's discussed in this document, page 9, is what's described as the federal narrative. So can you tell us a little bit what is that, what is the federal narrative here? What's the purpose of putting this on paper and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Is it a communication strategy? Is it a ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
You can take a minute to read it now if you want or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this document then -- we can take that down now, thank you, Mr. Clerk -- is put together, and as you say, it summarizes essentially the options being considered, efforts made, options being considered. What's done with it? So that -- who's that circulated to, what happens to it next?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that would probably be SSM.CAN.00008758.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
This is the February 10th version.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you just pull up now SSM.CAN.00008757? So, Ms. Bogden, I think this is the email that you sent, and looking at that timestamp, that does mean it's about 2:45 in the morning, to Mr. Hutchinson and MacKilop, Ms. Thomas, whom we heard from yesterday, Ms. Drouin, so essentially, higher ups at PCO. And do you want to walk us through your thinking in this email, what you're conveying about what your efforts have been in putting this together?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I think you've foreshadowed what I was going to ask, which is Plan A here and Plan B is what eventually then becomes known as Track 1 and Track 2 ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- in the IRG tracker?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Track 1 being, as you said, what can we do within existing authorities, and Plan B or Track 2 being what other authorities might be of assistance, whether that is the Emergencies Act or some other type of new legislation, or amendment, or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Just a couple more questions on this. "We [...] have a Tripartite table [you say] booked at 12:[...]pm for federal Ministers, hopefully the Ontario Minister and Mayor Watson and officials. I will check in the morning whether the Ontario Minister [...] has accepted the meeting or not." Do you recall whether she did, whether she attended?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this email goes out, and where do things go from there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is that because the -- as a matter of procedure, it is a decision-making body because the Prime Minister is there? Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Well, I think we'll be hearing a lot more about the IRG from the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk this afternoon, so won't go too much further into that. There's one thing that I'm hoping you can help us with and that's actually addressed more to Mr. Hutchinson probably. It might -- it's actually to both of you, but is -- we’ve referred to it before, but the engagement proposal that Mr. Stewart ended up preparing. So Mr. Clerk, if I can ask you to pull up SSM.CAN.00008759? So this is an email on February 10th. The timestamp is challenging, but that’s probably about 2:00 o’clock in the -- 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon. So email from Mr. Stewart to both of you and to the NSIA providing “input for our advice on engagement”. So can you just summarize for us the context of this email and why Mr. Stewart was sending it? Why to you? How did this come about?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And Mr. Hutchinson, I gather you were involved in some of those calls? And the police expert was Marcel Beaudin? Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about those calls and how that progressed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And thank you, that’s helpful to be walked through that. And as we know, that proposal was eventually brought to the IRG on February 12th and it was decided there not to pursue the engagement strategy.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. It didn’t proceed -- it didn’t go anywhere from there. Put it that way. And I think -- I believe in your witness summary, you described it as overtaken by events?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. Sorry, Mr. Hutchinson, were you going to add something on that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. and I believe when we were discussing this with Deputy Minister Stewart the other day, we were discussing those different branches of attempts at engagement in Windsor and then this theoretical possibility, and then what was happening, and the Mayor of Ottawa, and I believe he agreed that there was no coordination over these. It was a lot of people trying to do something, but no line of sight over all of it, which complicates things. Do you agree with that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Fair enough. Okay. The last area I want to address with you briefly, Mr. Clerk, if you can pull up SSM.CAN.00000429? We’re skipping way ahead here. We’ll skip invocation, we’ll skip enforcement, and we’re going to go to the time that revocation was being considered. So if we skip down to the end of that email, please? Well actually page 3, I think, is probably where it starts. Just a -- so good -- this is Ms. Thomas saying: “Good morning Jeff has put pen to paper…” Jeff here would be you, Mr. Hutchinson?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And if we scroll down a bit more? And again, sot eh following couple pages describe -- I’ll let you tell us what they describe, but these are -- this is pen to paper on thresholds of revocation of the Emergencies Act? Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So essentially this is -- it’s starting from first principles, almost, because there are no criteria that you’re working with. How do we put together the criteria. And the attempt, as I understand it, is to find that sweet spot between the -- being confident that it’s not too early and the emergencies won’t recur, and revoking at the earliest minute possible.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Subject to that, those are my questions for you. But before I sit down, is there anything that we haven’t discussed today that you would like to raise?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
This may be a record. I think we’re about five minutes early; this may be the only examination that has ended early. Thank you very much.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
If I get to state my preference, I’d prefer to take lunch now, Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you Mr. Commissioner. For the record, Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission, and the witnesses this afternoon are Ms. Janice Charette and Ms. Nathalie Drouin.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Ms. Charette and Ms. Drouin. Thank you for being here. We’ll just start with some housekeeping, introducing your witness summary. So you’ll recall having sat for an interview with Commission Counsel on September 29th, 2022?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Ms. Drouin?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And after that interview, Commission Counsel prepared a summary of that interview, which you have reviewed. Can you confirm that that summary was accurate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And for the record, that is, Mr. Clerk, WTS.00000074, but no need to pull it up right now. Okay, Ms. Charette, I understand that you are the Clerk of the Privy Council.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
How long have you held that role?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was your background before that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It’s a long list, is it? Okay. And Ms. Drouin, you’re the Deputy Clerk at the Privy Council?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And how long have you held that role?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
OK. Et avant ça?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
OK. Et si vous allez témoigner en français Madame Drouin, je vais vous poser des questions dans les deux langues.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Parfait. Alors on parle en parfait franglais.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ms. Charette, would you be able to explain to us, in some detail, the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council? It’s well understood by you but maybe not by everyone here.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Of course.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
First among equals?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Mme Drouin -- but we’re going to go back to some of that, Ms. Charette, ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- but before we do that, can you explain the role of the Deputy Clerk, Ms. Drouin? And then maybe how the two of you work together.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
OK. Et comment est-ce que vous travaillez ensembles tous les deux?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Of course.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that’s Minister LeBlanc?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So as the Senior Advisor within the Public Service to the Prime Minister, can you explain a little bit the interaction between PCO and PMO and just explain how those lines of communication work, how the Prime Minister is briefed, how you communicate with him, those general things?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So would it be correct to say that all formal advice to the Prime Minister from the Privy Council Office goes through one of you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. That’s helpful. We’re now going to move to the, I’ll say the meat, but the early days of the convoy, the Freedom Convoy, the events that the Inquiry is concerned with. But just picking up on the last point that you made in terms of the communication lines and briefings, could you set the stage for us in terms of what was going on in government at the time? At a very practical level, as well as a sort of ideas level. So were things happening virtually? Where were people working? Where were you? Where was the Prime Minister? That scene.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s helpful. That’s perfect. So that takes us to my next question, which is when did you first brief the Prime Minister on what was happening with the convoy?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We’ve spent a lot of -- I don’t know if you had a chance to see the testimony of Ms. Bogden this morning and Mr. Hutchinson and/or the NSIA yesterday. We’ve heard from many of your Deputy Minister colleagues and we’ve spent a lot of time on the lead-up to the convoy and the early days, so I think with you this afternoon we’re going be focusing mostly now on the beginning of -- sort of February 9th on. Let’s put it that way. So I’m going to ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes, you can. I thought that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s fair enough. I think that will probably arise. So I’ll just set the paraphrasing very briefly the kinds of evidence that we’ve heard from your colleagues over the first week or two -- let’s put it that way -- after the convoy arrived. So the convoy arrived. It was not expected to stay as long as it did. It did stay. At that point, the federal government was meeting to try and understand what was going on. There were regular DMOCs happening. And I’ll just ask, actually, were either of you in attendance at those -- at the DMOCs that were happening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Starting on the 9th there. Okay. Which is why we’re soon going to be skipping to the 9th.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The 9th, okay. So we’re sort of -- all roads lead to the 9th here. So we heard about the three SSE committee meetings that were had. Ms. Bogden took us through those February 3rd, February 6th, February 8th. And we more or less left it off at the end of the day on the 8th it was sort of -- it was decided, essentially, that maybe it was -- it’s time for the federal government to consider more intervention in the situation. Would that be fair to say?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We’re definitely going to come to that. Just before we do ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- I actually want to take you back to the 8th before we get to the 9th. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up PB.NSC.CAN00008073? This is a document you may not have seen before, so I’ll just explain to you what it is. These are the notes of Deputy Commissioner Mike Duheme. And if we scroll down, Mr. Clerk, to page 41, you’ll see a notation there. So these are Mr. Duheme’s notes from Deputy Commissioner Duheme for, I believe, it’s the 8th, maybe the 9th, but it looks like it’s the 8th. And you’ll see 8:00 a.m. there, 7:00 a.m. in office, 8:00 a.m., “Call with clerk. Flesh out the financial [something] financial compensation”. I’m not sure what that says. Employee business, maybe? Then “Public safety. Feels organized. Ambassador Bridge stretches. OPP incremental success, OPS. Working in incremental way”. And then if we just scroll down a little bit more to what I’m actually looking for. “Clerk. We need to take this over. Do they know what this means?” So I understand that during this time you were having regular calls with various colleagues within the federal government. Can you explain to us, do you recall this conversation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Maybe it’s the 9th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So these are probably Mr. Duheme’s notes from the DMOC call.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Makes sense>
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So if I understand correctly, when you say -- what Mr. Duheme writes down here is: "We need to take this over, do they know what this means." You're talking in a general sense about it's time for some federal intervention in this. Let's talk about what that might look like or what the options are. Is that fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Time to consider, perhaps.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we saw this morning --- Mr. Clerk, you can take those notes down, thank you. We saw this morning that Ms. Bogden put together a -- sort of a list of -- that pretty much wrapped up a lot of the discussions that had been had over the previous two weeks about strategic enforcement strategies, financial options, et cetera, et cetera. That's something she sent off a draft of some point during the -- on the 9th, and think at three o'clock in the morning on the 10th. So we've looked at that. And you mentioned, I'm just going to take you back to your conclusion before, that at some point in all of this you formed the conclusion or gave the advice to the Prime Minister that it was time to convene an Incident Response Group.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Maybe I should've asked you this or to put it this way to begin with, but to the extent you can, can you walk us through the chronology, then, of what happened on the 9th and how we got to the 10th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's fine.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can tell us - - so the Prime Minister accepted your advice to convene the IRG and then did so. Can you tell us about that first IRG meeting? And I'll just -- oh. Was there something? Madame Drouin, si jamais vous vouliez ajouter quelque chose, dites-le. Allez-y.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's fine.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, that’s fair. And yeah, we’ve heard a lot of evidence this week about exactly that, sort of what the -- the conversations that have been going on between counterparts in various levels of government, et cetera, so we’re pretty well caught up on that. And that, then, takes us to the February 10th IRG, and we’ve heard that -- from Ms. Bogden -- what started off on her February 19th plan -- or email as Plan A and Plan B, existing authorities or new authorities of some sort, then evolved into Track 1 and Track 2 in the IRG Tracker. So can you just take us through that a little bit, what was discussed at the February 10th IRG, how that evolved into the IRG Tracker that we then see in the February 12th IRG? And at that point, we’ll ask the clerk to bring that up so you can take us through it.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Always helpful to have a reminder.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, that’s helpful.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So I have I. No, no, that’s helpful. Okay, so if the decisions -- what kinds, actually -- I just want to explore that a little bit. What kinds of decisions can the IRG take?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
But the IRG wouldn’t have had the power, for instance, to invoke the Emergencies Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, we will. Okay, I just wanted to clarify that right now. Okay, so then let me pull up, Mr. Clerk, SSM.NSC.CAN000000214.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So what was my question?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Well, apparently you came up with a lot of what ended up in the IRG Tracker on the 12th, so ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can we just flip down, please, Mr. Clerk, to where the tracker starts? There we go. Okay, so Ms. Charette or Ms. Drouin, can I ask you to explain sort of what is going on under Track 1 and then Track 2 of the IRG Tracker?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, and if we ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, so it’s not clear from looking at this document what stage the analysis ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- is at for these various tracks?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Clerk, if we can just scroll down a little bit, see what else is on this. Okay, we see the famous ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We’ve heard a lot about tow trucks, more about tow trucks than we ever thought we’d know. We also see there -- and I’ll just get you to comment on this briefly because we did canvass it with Ms. Thomas, but Item No. 4 there says: "Identify immediate measures to close the intelligence gap." Is there anything you’d like to -- well, I suppose you didn’t necessarily hear all of the NSIA’s evidence but she spoke at some length of the social media intelligence gap and the difficulty of the federal government in collecting the kind of information that may have been of assistance in this situation. Is that something you’ve personally observed as well? Would that apply to you as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s helpful. Now, if we can just scroll down, Mr. Clerk, to Track 2? I think we can sort of put Track 1 away. We've heard quite a bit about what was going on under Track 1. Track 2, you see that the first sort of item there is "Assess utility of other tools that do not require invoking the Emergencies Act, e.g., the National Defence Act." Now, I appreciate that the rest of that is solicitor-client privilege which is redacted, but is it fair to day that there were options other than the Emergencies Act being considered in some ways?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the gaps drove the solution?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And I think it was found that there was nothing available; is that right, that could allow sort of the designation of a trade corridor?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Sorry, I'm trying to figure out how to bring us to the next topic without going too far into it. At the end of the February 12th IRG -- so we'll put away this document for now. That sort of brings us to what is a critical time in the chronology of all of what was transpiring February 13th.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what I'd like you to do if you can is walk us through -- I understand that was a very packed day, DMOC, IRG, Cabinet, maybe another DMOC somewhere in there. How did you get from -- well, just walk us through the day, but before we go there, a slight parenthesis, which is, the Emergencies Act appears on the IRG tracker, and it sort of appears out of nowhere and -- when you look at the documents. But I understand from our interview that the Emergencies Act was something that had sort of been in the background of the consciousness of the federal government since the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020, so I wonder if you could give us a little bit of that background before we get into the chronology of what happened on February 13th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So I was right in starting this examination with February 9th. Would you agree with that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Not with what I said, with what Nathalie said.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s helpful. So now I’ll just ask you again to walk us through the chronology of the 13th of February.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the outcome of the IRG in the afternoon was it’s time to convene Cabinet to consider options, including potentially invoking the Emergencies Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then that evening is when that Cabinet meeting took place?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
There’s a few questions we want to ask you about what information Cabinet had at hand in that -- at the end of that day, if I can put it that way. So there’s some specific questions, and we’ll just go through them one at a time. They’re items that have come up in the last two weeks of hearings, or the last maybe more than two weeks of hearings. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up OPS00014566? So to situate you a little bit while this is coming up, this is about the law enforcement plan in the City of Ottawa. So the Commission has heard a lot of evidence about the plan for resolving the Ottawa situation, or lack there of, from the moment the convoy arrived to where we are in time right now, which is around February 13th. And the question we have, if you can just scroll down, Mr. Clerk, to where you see, “Lucki did not get prime minister”? It’s on page 2. There we go. Lucki, so that would be Commissioner Lucki, did not -- and these are notes, by the way, I think on the 14th? Is that correct? Okay. So this is a meeting between Commissioner Lucki, Commissioner Carrique, and what it says there is: “Lucki did not get prime minister briefed […] on the plan. Prime minister will be enacting the emergenc[ies] […] act. Advised her legal to review what the measures are, what’s the procees [sic]…”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ten (10:00) o’clock meeting with Commissioners Carrique and Commissioner Lucki. My guess is that these are scribe notes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
OPS. So we got the document from the Ottawa Police Service.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the statement there is: “Lucki did not get prime minister briefed […] on the plan. Prime minister will be enacting the emergenc[ies] […] act. [And then] [a]dvised her legal to review what the measures are, what the procees [sic]…” So the question we have for you is, coming out of the 13th of February between the IRG and the Cabinet, was the Prime Minister -- was Cabinet/the Prime Minister briefed on the state of the plan for law enforcement in Ottawa, and specifically that there was a plan coming together?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Absolutely fair.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That's helpful. So if I can -- and just sort of a -- because you may summarize, Cabinet's state of knowledge as to what was going on in Ottawa, it would have been at the end of the day on the 13th. There is some sort of plan being developed but nothing particular earth shattering about what stage that plan was at?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So no detailed knowledge about the timing of it or the intention at that point?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the second question I want to ask about is also to do with the RCMP. PB.NSC.CAN.00003256, please, Mr. Clerk. So to situate you, this is an email from Commissioner Lucki to Mike Jones, Chief of Staff of Minister Public Safety. The timestamp on it is, it's the Greenwich Mean Time thing, so it's midnight minus 5 hours, so 7:47 ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- shortly before the Cabinet meeting that took place, I think at 8 o'clock or 8:30 on the evening of the 13th, 8:30 I believe. Okay. And if we just scroll down, so she's putting together what she -- what's called her EM list, emergency measures list. And then if we scroll down to the very end of the email ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, of course.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We scroll down to the very end of it. Yeah, sorry, just there, Mr. Clerk. This said, "...I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all available tools that are already available through the existing legislation." And then she says, "There are instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities..." And then, "The Ontario Provincial Emergencies Act just enacted..." I think that had been enacted on...
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- the 11th.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Right. "...will also help in providing additional deterrent tools to our existing toolbox." So my question for you is, was that something that was conveyed at either the IRG or more importantly the Cabinet meeting that evening, that the RCMP had flagged that their -- in their view, in Commissioner Lucki's view, there were still available tools?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's helpful, and I think that will come up a little bit later on when we discuss the eventual decision that was made. So, Ms. Charette, you pointed out that at the end of the 13th, the decision -- no decision had been made, you said, to invoke the Emergencies Act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. There are actually two more bits of information that I want to ask you about first briefly, but I think they will go pretty quickly and there may be others who take up these points as well. But the first one is -- I don’t think I need a reference for this one. But was Cabinet aware that CSIS had assessed that there was no threat to the security of Canada under section 2 of the CSIS Act coming out of the protests?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we’ll come back to that in some detail. Again, I just wanted to make sure that Vigneault had expressed that view that you just articulated was before Cabinet.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes, okay. That’s fair, and we’ll come to that. And then the last piece of information is we’d heard from some of the deputy ministers and CSIS, I believe, and the RCMP that there were concerns being expressed that invoking the Emergencies Act could make things worse, not better, in the sense that it could inflame tensions. I believe one of the lines used by Deputy Minister Keenan was “it could backfire” -- so either Deputy Minister Stewart or Deputy Minister Keenan. So was that sort of hesitancy or reluctance then put before Cabinet?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that brings us to the end of the meeting, and as you say, a decision was made to convene a First Ministers’ meeting the following day. How was that convened?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I saw, Mme. Drouin, you were shaking your head at it, so the subject matter was not conveyed to the premiers that evening; is that correct?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the First Ministers’ meeting was called but the premiers weren’t advised that this is about potentially invoking the Federal Emergencies Act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you mentioned there may have been some conversations happening at the political level that evening that we may get into next week ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- when we hear from the ministers. We may or may not. We also did hear some evidence from Deputy Minister Stewart that he had a call with Deputy Solicitor General di Tomaso the evening of the 13th and it was mentioned on that call that the Emergencies Act was being considered. To your knowledge, was there any other communication at the officials level?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that takes us right to the events of the 14th. So the First Ministers meeting is convened, at what time? Do you recall when it took place?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we’ll hear some detail when I get to the next part about what occurred at that meeting. Maybe I’ll just ask you to walk us through the chronology of what happened on the 14th from your recollection.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, so just to get the chronology straight, then, that day, First Ministers’ Meeting happens. I think you said an IRG happened. But is it possible that that’s misremembering?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s right. There ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We know that there was an IRG -- or there was a cabinet meeting on the 15th, I believe.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah. Okay, so ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- a First Ministers’ Meeting. Following the First Ministers’ Meeting, you provide advice to the prime minister ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- and you advise -- and we’re going look at this in some detail in a moment. You advise that the time has come to invoke the Emergencies Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then the public announcement happens?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So let’s ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I forget that step, yeah. The prime minister ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So can pull up the “Invocation Memo”, as it’s known, SSM.NSC.CAN00003224? So the first question, Ms. Charette, is, when was this memo prepared?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just for a moment, Mr. Clerk, can we pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00003218?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, so this would be - - this email is from someone at PMO, Jeremy Adler, to a host of people at PMO: "Please find attached a PM note for decision on invoking the Emergencies Act and…" So it’s the Invocation Memo and the timestamp on it is 8:41 p.m. GMT, so that’s ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- minus five, so that’s ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- 3:41 p.m.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oh, I’m sorry.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the important part, which I missed, is that it’s actually from PCO ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- your chief of staff ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- to PMO?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. Mr. Clerk, you can take that down and pull up the Invocation Memo again, SSM.NSC.CAN00003224.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So there’s a lot to unpack in the Invocation Memo. I see it’s three o’clock. I may have to borrow back those five minutes with interest that I gave up this morning, Mr. Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Let’s see how far we can get.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think so, too. So the summary here -- the overview of this memo essentially gives a wrap-up of what happens next. So ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
“The decision box”, thank you. "The Emergencies Act came into force in 1988 and is meant to be used as a measure of last resort." And then we’ll see you go through the four different types of emergencies, or that there are four different types of emergencies. Go down a little bit. "All measures taken under the Act must be exercised in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should be carefully circumscribed…" Then you go through a little bit of the history of the IRGs. Scrolling down to the next page, this summarizes a bit of what has happened and who attended. Then getting down to a slightly more pertinent part here: "While the demonstrations started out relatively peaceful, they have grown more complex and expanded into multiple locations in the country. The movement is considered to be highly organized, well financed, and is feeding a general sense of public unrest that could continue to escalate with sever risks to public security, economic stability, and international relations. The economic impact to date is estimated at approximately 0.1 percent of Canada’s GDP per week, however the impact on important trade corridors and the risk to the reputation of Canada as a stable, predictable and reliable location for investment may be jeopardized if this continues.” Just stopping there. So that’s essentially a summary of much of the evidence that we’ve heard coming from the Deputy Ministers this week before the Commission. One thing I want to ask you about, and it goes back to something that you mentioned a bit earlier, and I realize that when you say while the demonstrations started relatively peaceful, they’ve grown more complex, you’re talking about everything that was going on in the country?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
A little earlier, you mentioned that at some point, the Ottawa protest in particular had become illegal, had become unlawful. I’m wondering whether there’s -- you could put a timestamp on that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No, fair enough.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We had some discussions yesterday with the NSIA about that line between lawful and unlawful protests not necessarily being particularly clear or particularly evident to everyone in these positions. And I understand there’s some work being done by her, or her office, looking into that question. So taking us back to now the invocation memo, the next line in it: “A more detailed threat assessment is being provided under separate cover.”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can you tell us about that threat assessment?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. This is not actually a threat assessment that was ever produced. It was an aspirational threat assessment. One that was supposed to be produced, but wasn’t in the end. Is that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So it was supposed to be a collation, essentially, of existing information?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. just moving on then, talks about invoking the legislation, taking a proportional approach with time-limited measures, “these would not displace or replace their authorities,” they wouldn’t “derogate [from the] provinces and territories”. “Rather, these measures would aim to assist in bringing an end to the illegal activities observed across the country.” Scrolling down now, Mr. Clerk. “On February 14[th], [that day,] you convened a First Ministers Meeting to discuss with Premiers and seek their views on this scenario and the measures being explored. The Premiers expressed a variety of views - those closest to the situation (e.g., the Premier of Ontario) were completely supportive of invoking the [Emergencies Act] and moving forward with robust measures. A large number of other Premiers expressed concern about the need to act carefully to avoid enflaming the underlying sentiment they considered to lie behind the protest…” Okay. And just stopping there. So we didn’t go through the First Ministers Meeting in any detail today for reasons of time. We will go through it in more detail next week. But coming out of that meeting, there was a lot of opposition from the Premiers to the idea of invoking the Emergencies Act. The Premier of Ontario was fully supportive, as was recorded here, and I believe the other -- you can correct me if my recollection is faulty, the Premier of Newfoundland expressed support?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. That’s helpful. So the only thing I wanted to sort of -- sorry, if we could scroll back up, Mr. Clerk? I don’t know if quibble with, but raise, is the wording here: “…those closest to the situation (e.g., the Premier of Ontario) were completely supportive." So if we're talking about support from Ontario, then from Newfoundland and potentially BC, neither Newfoundland nor BC were particularly close to the situation at all. It was really just Ontario that was supportive because they were close?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can we just scroll down again to the next page?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes, that’s right. There was the developing Pacific Rim blockade, sorry. Yes, that’s fair. Okay. The next -- the sentence I want to point out here is after describing the First Minister's meeting, you advise, Ms. Charette: "This First Minister's meeting will meet the requirements for consultation with the provinces under the Emergencies Act." How did you come to that conclusion? What was that based on?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So it was the First Minister's meeting specifically, not any of the engagement that happened before that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s exactly what I was trying to nail down. That’s helpful.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So that was further outreach being done, but that wouldn't affect the conclusion of whether or not the consultation requirement was met?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So then we go to your recommendation. We see PCO recommends you approve declaring a Public Order Emergency under the Emergencies Act. That one's self-explanatory. Okay. We have a lot to unpack in the remainder of this document, so I'm just going to pull out some of the highlights. On the following page, go down to: "Earlier today, RCMP had made 11 arrests related to the protest at the border in Coutts, Alberta ---"
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I'm sorry. It's sort of mid-page there.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And then the conclusion of that sentence is: "--- indicating that there are definitely elements within this movement that have intentions to engage in violence." So this brings us back to something you had raised a little bit earlier, which is that the enforcement action in Coutts had happened early that morning and it was revealed to you then that there was this cache of weapons. And I'm just wondering if you can tell us what effect, if any, that really had on your views that day? And the second part of it is, what you've put in the invocation memo is that indicates there are definitely elements within this movement that have intentions to engage in violence. And I'm wondering if that -- when you say "this movement", are you looking at this as a sort of a homogenous movement across the country as in there's a relationship between what's going on in Coutts and what's going on in Ottawa and what's going on everywhere else?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And so that would then apply also to the next sentence, which says: "The movement has moved beyond a peaceful protest and there is significant evidence of illegal activity underway."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So cells, sort of disparate cells as opposed to one organized movement?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We're going to flip through pretty quickly the next part, so the memo, so this is just summarizing municipal and provincial responses. Keep scrolling down, please, Mr. Clerk, until you see -- actually, keep going. Mentions no involvement of the Canadian Armed Forces. And here we get to the crux of, in a sense, the memo. "Test for declaring a Public Order Emergency." You'll see there, we'll just read it out, "In order to declare a Public Order Emergency, the [Emergencies Act] requires that there be an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that is so serious as to be a national emergency. Threats to the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried out in conjunction with any of the following activities." And am I right that the following four bullet points are pulled from Section 2 of the CSIS Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then we'll just scroll down a little bit again, so those are outlined there.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's right. So Section 16, which defines Public Order Emergency, refers to Section 2 of the CSIS Act, threats to the security of Canada has the meaning ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- in Section 2 of the CSIS Act. So the next bullet there, a national -- sorry, "A national emergency is an urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively dealt with uniquely by the provinces or territories, or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada." So that's essentially just language lifted from the Emergencies Act itself. Scrolling down, "PCO is of the view that the examples of evidence collected to date support a determination that the two criteria required to declare a public order emergency pursuant to the EA have been met." Scrolling down again. "Specifically, PCO is of the view that while municipal and provincial authorities have taken decisive action in key affected areas, such as law enforcement at the Ambassador Bridge [...], considerable effort was necessary to restore access to the site and will be required to maintain access. The situation across the country remains concerning, volatile and unpredictable. While there is no current evidence of significant implications by extremist groups or international sponsors, PCO notes that the disturbance and public unrest is being felt across the country and beyond Canadian borders, which may provide further momentum to the movement and lead to irremediable harms -- including to social cohesion, national unity and Canada's international reputation. In PCO's view, this fits within the statutory parameters defining threats to the security of Canada, though this conclusion may be vulnerable to challenge." Can you explain to us what you meant by the last part of that sentence there? So you explain the threat as you see it, and then you say, "In our view, this fits within the statutory parameters of the Emergencies Act, but this conclusion may be vulnerable to challenge."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So it's essentially expressing some ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So some uncertainty, let's put it that way, as to whether that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- would be a universally accepted ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Not by you, not by you, but the Act had never been invoked before. There was no ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- sort of case law saying this is what this means, so ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- some uncertainty.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Is that a fair way to put it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Pardon me?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So your view is firm.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
There may be some uncertainty as to whether everyone agrees with it.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. "In addition, PCO is of the view [-- just continuing --] that this is a national emergency situation that is urgent, critical, temporary and seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively dealt with uniquely by the provinces or territories." So some of the evidence that we've heard before the Commission is that there were tools that provinces could have used. There was an Alberta Critical Infrastructure Act and Emergency Management Act in Alberta that could have allowed for some of the things that ended up happening under the Federal Emergencies Act. For instance, the compelling tow trucks. Given the -- and as you mentioned, even Commissioner Lucki was expressing that the tools she had available to her had not yet been exhausted. So can you just square that circle for us in the sense of measure of last resort, cannot be dealt with uniquely by provinces or territories, but there are all of these tools available.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just asking you back to the statutory parameters for a minute, Ms. Charette. You're very firm in your view that the statutory parameters were met.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Are you able to articulate how they were met, in the sense that -- and I'll just put it out. There's a bit of an apparent contradiction with Section 16 referring to Section 2, threat to the security of Canada. We have evidence saying that Ms. Vigneault on behalf of CSIS assesses that the protests do not constitute a threat to the security of Canada under Section 2 of the CSIS Act. So how do you come to the conclusion then that the statutory parameter is met?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Absolutely.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mme Drouin, I don’t know if you have anything to add to that from the perspective of, as your colleague put it, the dark arts of the law.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I’m going to try and articulate this and correct me if I’m wrong as I’m attempting to wrap my mind around this. But would it be fair to say that we know that there was no specific threat of serious violence identified by CSIS as in there was no bomb plot. There was nothing -- there was no bomb -- plot to bomb Parliament Hill or there was no specific January 6th insurrection planned. But is the position that you’re articulating essentially that there can be a threat of serious violence without a specific identified threat having been identified?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, that’s was a helpful layman’s attempt, certainly. From there, I just want to bring in another piece of what was relied on in the sense to invoke the Act. So we’re skipping ahead now, leaving the invocation memo and going to -- and I’m just going to -- I don’t now that we need to turn it up. But this eventually results in, once the decision is made, what we’ve come to know as the section 58 report. So this is the report to Parliament explaining the justification for having invoked the Emergencies Act, made the declaration of a Public Order Emergency. And I understand that that report was prepared by PCO in conjunction with the Department of Justice and a few others; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
A collective effort.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
You will be relieved to know I'm not going to any specifics ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- unless you want ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, no typos. Not picking on typos. What I do want to raise is that a large parge of that section 58 explanation relies on something other than serious violence. It talks about the threat to Canada’s economic security and I think there are at least three or four points and we can bring it up if you’d like to see it in front of you. But they talk about the threat to economic -- Canada’s economic security which has arisen as a result of these various border blockades and everything that we’ve been talking about over the last couple of weeks, everything Mr. Sabia was -- and his colleagues were discussing with us yesterday. So how does that factor in in this sense? Economic security is again not something that is articulated within the section 2 CSIS Act definition that is the trigger of a public order emergency. So how does that work?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So if I understand correction then, the economic security piece is less a sort of - - less related to the actual threshold in terms of section 2 of the CSIS Act, and more the threshold of -- the aspect of the threshold or the aspect of the Emergencies Act that goes to this is in the national interest. It is in the national interest to invoke the Emergencies Act here because Canada’s economic security has been threatened.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Is there anything else you’d like to add on that point, or should we leave invocation and leave the threshold and very very briefly -- I am way out of time. The last area that I would just ask you to address briefly if we have nothing else to say on invocation, is revocation. And I know that there was a lengthy memo you prepared; the flip side of the invocation memo is the revocation memo. In the interest of time I don’t think we have time to go through it in any detail. But can you explain the thinking around when the Emergencies Act was revoked, why you advised when you did that now is the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to close the loop on that, I'll bring it up very briefly to situate everyone in what that looked like, the revocation memo. It's SSM.NSC.CAN.00003227. Okay. So there we go: "Overall the situation has evolved significantly since February 14...and is no longer considered urgent and critical, or a threat to the security of Canada..." If we just flip down, Mr. Clerk, until page 7. Unsure if that's right. No, I'm sorry, page 6. Okay. So there's a section here starting: "Since the EA was invoked, the regulations resulted in:..." And it proceeds to list a number of factors, or a number of occurrences, let's say, "rapidly assembly" ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Pardon me?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Indicators. Okay: "[R]apid assembly of large police presence....Signaling to protesters that trucks...would no longer be treated as violations of parking bylaws, but would [actually be treated as] potentially serious penalties..." They say there's been: "A significant decrease in the number of minors..." And it goes on. We don't have time to review them in detail. But essentially, there's a link being drawn here between these indicators that have occurred and the invocation of the Act. So since the Act was invoked, regulations resulted, or in any event, these things have happened. And then if we go on to the next page 7, that describes the operational status. And so as we see: "All the [Ports of Entry] are currently open...operating normally. Movement of truck convoys continues to be monitored..." Just scrolling down a little bit there, Mr. Clerk: "...an operational plan [is in place] has been established to maintain security in Ottawa." Then it says: "To date, approximately 30 individuals...attempted to enter Canada for the purpose of participating in illegal protests and blockades." And I think we know now from, it says there, from Mr. Sofsky (ph), two individuals were turned back using the Emergencies Act authorities, the remainder were turned back because they didn't meet entry requirements one way or the other, vaccination requirements that are under the Quarantine Act. It then refers to "an unknown number of protesters remaining in Ottawa." It's difficult to assess the potential of that group to engage in illegal protests, but then it refers also to: "Since the end of the occupation...small numbers..." And it says here: "...(20-30) have gathered at the War Museum to protest. So far, these gatherings have been orderly, non-violent and legal." So there was some lawful protest continuing at least at the War Museum. Going on: "...freezing of accounts has been assessed as having had a deterrent effect..." And I'm losing my own place now. Okay, and then we go down a little bit more. Let's go to page 10. This all culminates in PCO Comment: "PCO is of the view that the public emergency order pursuant to the EA...invoked on February 14...is no longer required..." And so you advised the Prime Minister that the time has come, then, to revoke the Emergencies Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That brings us to way past the time that we were supposed to go. But I will ask before I sit down and turn this over is there anything else that, any key points that haven't been raised today that you want to raise?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Commissioner, those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination, Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We are. Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission. The Commission’s next witness is Minister Marco Mendicino.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Minister Mendicino. The witness be sworn or affirmed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning again, Minister Mendicino. So we’ll just start with a little housekeeping, which is the entry of your witness summary. You’ll recall sitting for an interview with Commission Counsel on September 5th of this year?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And after that interview, Commission Counsel prepared a summary of the interview. Have you seen and reviewed that summary?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you confirm that it’s accurate, to the best of your knowledge and belief?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. For the record, Mr. Clerk, that’s WTS0000054. No need to pull it up. So Mr. Mendicino, I understand you were appointed Minister of Public Safety in October 2021, is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you briefly outline, well, first of all, your background before that; your background in politics, and then -- and what you did before that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So can you briefly outline -- and I really do mean briefly; we have a lot to get through in these two-and-a-bit hours, so we’ll do our best to do so -- your responsibilities as Minister of Public Safety?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we’re going to explore a lot of the details of what you just outlined today. So we’ll start with the time period before the convoy arrived in Ottawa. So Mr. Clerk, can I ask you to pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00001790? So Minister Mendicino, to situate you, this is just on January 26th, I believe -- oh, I’m sorry; if you just scroll down a little bit -- you had asked Commissioner Lucki, I believe, to brief you on the convoy. Do you recall that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the next document I’ll ask you to pull up, Mr. Clerk, is PB.NSC.CAN00000992. So these -- to situate you again as the document’s being pulled up, Minister -- are talking points for the briefing on January 26th. I believe they’re Commissioner Lucki’s talking points, so they’re not yours, but I’m going to take you through them, and you can confirm to us whether this was the sort of information that was being provided to you that day. So 26th, before the convoy arrives. Scroll down, Mr. Clerk, to where you see, “The goal”; there we go. So: “The goal of the nation wide protest is to disrupt traffic flow and general business of government in the [hope] that the Canadian government will lift all COVID-19 related [restriction].” Below that: “Although the majority of information indicates organizers are planning a peaceful event, many social media posts suggest some participants may attempt to disrupt government buildings and further cause disruptions throughout the city.” Was that information conveyed to you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Scrolling down again to page 2, please. “It is unknown how long the protesters plan to stay in Ottawa; however the RCMP has located social media posts indicating some participants may stay around the downtown core until January 31st in hopes to disrupt the House of Common’s [sic] sitting that day.” So was that information conveyed to you; and, more broadly, can you tell us what your expectation was before the convoy arrived about how long it would or might stay?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to sum that up and to make sure I have it right; when you say question the intelligence, you sort of -- do you mean question the assessment and then the conclusion that this is likely going to be gone by the end of the weekend, and you were concerned that it would stay longer than that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Scrolling down to page 3, please, Mr. Clerk, we see -- there we go. Perfect. “With respect to the threat picture, there has been an increase in online narratives supportive of the convoy among both ideologically motivated networks,…” We’ve heard a lot about ideologically motivated networks and IMVE over the past week or so. “…as well as in general public discourse.” And then scrolling down a little bit more: “The convoy is attracting individuals who are not aligned with any specific ideology or group, but who have experienced personal hardships (such as job loss) due to COVID-19 and are upset with provincial or federal government responses as COVID[…] continues to impact daily life. Open Source monitoring has identified associated posts advocating violence and there is potential for anti-government groups to join the demo with violent intentions.” Then it talks about online posts feeding: “…the conspiracy narrative with misinformation and disinformation[, raising tensions]…” Scrolling down a little bit more, please, Mr. Clerk. “Open Source reports also suggest police are setting up roadblocks […] and such reports seem to fuel [no pun intended] some trucker’s agitation. A post to event Facebook group asks for known MP’s addresses in Ottawa including the [PM’s] residence and cottage. [This suggests that] the convoy should break apart to […] these locations.” Is that all information that was conveyed to you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Absolutely.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I’ll just stop you there. And scroll down to the next page, please, Mr. Clerk, because I think this is -- or actually, I think it’s page 6. This is touching on the point that you just made, Minister Mendicino. So at the top of that page, it says: “Effective January 11 [something] for announcements and public functions has been put in place for eight individuals…” And it lists off Ministers Joly, Freeland, yourself, other Ministers, and Dr. Tam. And without, obviously, getting into what’s behind that section 37 redaction, is it fair to assume that that means that some sort of -- it was a security risk identified?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And last point on this, if we just scroll down a little bit more, you’ll see a line that says “Concerns from Minister Leblanc” specifically. We’ll be hearing from Minister Leblanc early -- later on today, but it says: “Minister Leblanc has reached in to Minister Mendicino, noting MPs are concerned for their safety amid reporting of demonstrators attending their residences. This is being taken into consideration as part of the above planning for deployment of resources.”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That was actually my next question, whether these concerns were based on identified threats having been identified, I’m going to use that word twice, but by the intelligence services, or by law enforcement, or whether these were based on what was being seen on social media or based on, essentially, complaints or worries expressed by Members of Parliament and the individuals involved?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we will get to the actual arrival of the convoy, but there’s one more document I’d like to pull up before we get there. So Mr. Clerk, that is SSM.NSC.CAN.00001809. And so this, Minister, may go to what you were just expressing about your heightened level of concern. This is Friday, January 28th at around noon. So this is as the convoy would be starting to roll in. You send an email to Mike Jones. Can you tell us who Mike Jones is? Because his name will come up a few times, I think, this morning.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just a couple of things. The first is, for the record and for ease of understanding, you’ll see the notation “plus 0000” there. That means that the time stamp is in Greenwich Mean Time, so it’s minus five hours, so that was around 12:30.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And as you say, you’re asking what if scenarios, what if they don’t leave, what if it lasts beyond Monday, what if it turns violent, what if they come before Parliamentary residences. And we know now at this point that what ended up happening as of, I think, January 28 was a group of Ministers consisting of yourself, I believe Minister Leblanc, Minister Blair and Minister Alghabra were briefed daily by a variety of officials from PCO and various agencies under Public Safety. Would that have been done in response to this request?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we’ll just skip a little bit ahead now. So the convoy arrives, it doesn’t leave on Sunday or Monday as expected. And then we’re into the first week of the protest. So I’ll ask you a few questions about what that first week was like from your perspective and with the assistance right now of the following documents, PB.CAN00001870, please. So Minister Mendicino, this is a test from Mike Jones, who’s in the blue -- there’s no one else, I think, in the -- and it’s not blue, but -- here we go. Now it’s blue. And the text is to Brian Clow. Can you tell us who Brian Clow is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just scrolling down a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk, so we can see the text. So this is Sunday, February 6th. And Mr. Jones, Mike Jones, writes to Mr. Clow, “So, my boss” -- that would be you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
“...is pretty amped up. He’s concerned that OPS have lost jurisdiction as there’s no control at all over what’s happening on Wellington. Also concerned for pm’s safety if he is returning to this this week.” What does that mean, if he was returning this week, just pausing there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just scroll down a little bit more, Mr. Clerk. So the next part of the text says, “He wants to go out” -- that would be you want to go out: “...and say that OPS needs to get control over the situation, and if they need more from OPP they should make that clear but they should get working on removals within the next 24 hours. And if they aren’t going to do it then we may need to look at other measures. Let me know if you want to discuss.” So this represents where your thinking is, as you say, at the end of the first week. So this is Sunday, February 6th and you’ve just told us why you’d come to this viewpoint. Can I ask what you meant by “we may need to look at other measures” at that point?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, we’re about to get into some of the resourcing discussions because the next topic we’re going to cover is the tripartite meetings ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- what we’ve come to know as the tripartite. So Mr. Clerk, if you can pull up, while I’m talking, PB.NSC.CAN00002335. So you mentioned, Minister Mendicino, that at this point there had been a number of requests made from the Ottawa Police and various provinces at this point, even. There’d been an approach from Alberta, but we’re not really getting into Alberta right now. But in any event, around the 7th or 8th of February, a decision was made that it would be a good idea to convene the federal, provincial and municipal governments to discuss the situation in Ottawa and the way forward from there, including the provision of resources, as you mentioned. There are a lot of issues to cover that come out of the tripartite, so we’re going to focus on a few. A few of those issues are the RCMP resources, it’s the lack of the OPS plan, and there is what seems to be expressed as a lack of engagement from the Province of Ontario. So I'm going to take you through a few extracts, but focus on some of those topics. So the document in front of us now is a readout of the February 7th tripartite. And that was the first tripartite meeting; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Scrolling down, Mr. Clerk, to when you see the initials MM. Okay, MM. MM is Marco Mendicino? That's you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Minister Mendicino or Marco Mendicino, one of the two. So: "MM: 'Call last week with Watson was productive, it is stressful period for you and Chief. Feels like things have turned around a bit today. We have confirmed 250 Mounties have been deputized, supporting local law enforcement. We have been timely and responsive in putting our response together. Minister Jones will want to have a discussion with what they can contribute - letter addressed to...'" And scroll down. Yeah, there we go: "'...both PM and Premier. We are going to be in touch.'" Okay. So from your recollection, Minister, who attended that first tripartite meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That's fair. This isn't a memory test anyway. But -- so Minister Jones obviously did not attend because you were talking about getting her to attend in this exchange here. Okay. Can we just scroll down again to page 2, please. Keep going a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk. There we go. Where it says "Watson - on tripartite table". So the discussion before this pertains to RCMP numbers, how many resources are being provided. There is some frustration expressed throughout this by the Mayor of Ottawa, Mayor Watson, about how many RCMP boots were actually on the ground, so that's being discussed. And then we get to: "Watson - on tripartite table - has the province agreed to this?" And Minister Blair then says: "Both of us have reached out (MM..." That would be you: "...and I)...she wasn't able to join today unfortunately. Will continue to engage to encourage them to join these talks." And then Mayor Watson expresses an opinion that the: "Province is reluctant to be a part of [what's] going on." And then expresses some frustration about that. Would you agree with that characterisation of Mayor Watson in that line, "Province was reluctant to be a part of what was going on"?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can we just scroll down again, please, Mr. Clerk. Last point I think on this one. Page 3, please. Sorry. There we go, where it says "MM" again, "Wellington". So: "MM: 'Wellington has invoked a lot of images, but the sight of a crane, trucks in front of PMO/PCO are particularly concerning.... Need to know from the Chief what the plan is...'" And "Chief" there is Chief Sloly: "'...what the plan is to have those vehicles removed. With appropriate boundaries on operational independence - how is the convoy being broken up and disengaged.'" Can I just ask you to speak at this point on what you meant there by "appropriate boundaries on operational independence" in this context?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. There's a lot you've said there, and we'll unpack that slowly but surely. But for the purposes of the discussion we're having right now about the tripartites, would it be fair to say that part of the idea in holding the tripartites would be sort out the jurisdictional issue?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We'll go now to the next tripartite, which is the following day, February 8th. Mr. Clerk, that's SSM.NSC.CAN00002052. So these are notes taken of that tripartite. Just again to situate us a bit with the names here. Zita Astravas, we've heard, is Mr. Blair's Chief of Staff, Samantha Khalil -- can you tell who -- tell us who that is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this is essentially a readout or notes from that tripartite on the 8th. Scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk. There we go: "MM: 'good to be back on these calls.'" It's only been a day: "'Stay focused on the task at hand. Received your letter.” And the Mayor then says: “why no SOLGEN attendance?” SOLGEN is Minister Jones?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you say, “no word back.” So you’re conveying back that you attempted to call or attempted to contact Minister Jones and had not heard back at that point?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then the Mayor says he’s speaking to the Premier tomorrow, and he will ask that his Minister be at the table. He goes on to talk about a call that he had with the Prime Minister, which we went through in some detail a few weeks ago. And then Minister Blair chimes in on Ontario involvement and says: “I know Marco’s been having good conversations with [Ontario]. They are worried about being visible and then being asked about what the province is doing.” Now, I appreciate that these are Minister Blair’s words, not yours, but do you know -- do you recall what he was talking about when he said they were worried about being visible?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we’ll get back to that topic. I’m going to scroll down and take you to something else I want to ask you about here. This is -- sorry; down a little bit, Mr. Clerk, until you see page 3. “Sloly: for every action”; it should be a little bit down from there. There we go. So just scroll down. There we go. Thank you. Sloly; so this is Chief Sloly speaking and you’re asking: “What does the trend look like for removal, is it slowly going down or is it stop and start?” And Chief Sloly says: “For every action we do, there is a counter reaction that can exceed our resources. We saw that in Coventry.” So he’s discussing there the give and take or the reactions and counterreactions in Ottawa, specifically. But he then says: “Our public request for more -- for...1800 more people resulted in the activity in Windsor, plus a national call for protesters to drive to Ottawa so they can outnumber even increased police presence. There are national implications and local implications here. They are very well organized and able to mobilize people.”
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So can you tell us; expand a little bit on what you were hearing about that at that time, the level of organization, and to the extent that you were hearing this and the interconnectedness, or not, of what was going on across the country?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So going back to a few things you’ve said. The first one, you mentioned that there was some questions about boots on the ground and how many RCMP officers were being provided, and we’ve heard about that, but from your perspective as Minister of Public Safety, what was your understanding of what was going on there and why?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Well, I was -- before we get to Alberta, when you say, “Let’s get you what you need,” do you mean, “Let’s get you what you need from the RCMP,” or, “Let’s get you what you need from the OPP, and then, only then from the RCMP”?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So getting back to that last concern about the counteroperations, the action, the reaction; were you concerned, then, that this could spiral into something where resources, police resources would actually be overwhelmed and stretched beyond capacity across the country? Was that the nature of your concern, or was it in specific areas there wouldn't be enough available locally? Or was it a broader concern than that, or was it just a -- specific instances?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Did you have any actual evidence of what Chief Sloly is referring to here, that interconnectedness, or was this more you saw a correlation, or Chief Sloly is here, but you agreed with it, that one action then seems to have a counter reaction or provoke a response amongst the protesters nationwide? Did that come from evidence or did that come from essentially observation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we will come there, but first, I'm going to take you through now to sort of close the loop. Sorry, you can take this one down, please, Mr. Clerk. So can you just pull up quickly, SSM.CAN.NSC.00002676. This is the third and last tripartite, and there's just a couple of things I want to highlight here, Minister, and ask you about, which is... Sorry, here we go. Just scroll down a little bit more. Thanks. "Latest from RCMP"; okay. So toward the middle of that paragraph you say: "Phase has moved beyond inconvenience or disruptions..." So this is now February 10th: "... - they have moved to disrupting the economy. We are having very intentional conversations with the province about how confident they are around enforcement, the ability to take appropriate action quickly and decisively. Whether in Ottawa, Windsor, Sarnia etc. Spoke to Minister Jones, it was a focused conversation and I am looking forward to hearing back from her - on what OPP can do to assist you." Okay. So I'll take it from that, and we'll get back to the conversation with Minister Jones, but Minister Jones was not at the third and last tripartite here. Is that correct?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So... Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'm just going to try and put together the chronology of what happened here, and I'll take you back to February 5th. SSM.CAN.00007854 [sic]. This is a text exchange between you and Minister David Lametti. Just scroll down a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk. I'm not sure what you're referring to. You say: "You were perfect today. Thx." "So were you buddy." So then should -- so the blue is ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Colleague/bromance. Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
"So were you buddy." "Should I call Downey?" "You've spoken to Sylvia." Downey there would be a reference to Doug Downey?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can you tell us who -- just for the record, can you tell us who Doug Downey is and why Minister Lametti might be calling him?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so you have spoken to Sylvia he says, and you say: "I have spoken with Sylvia. You should call Downey. We need them in the right space to respond to any RFA for OPP assistance." And then Minister Lametti replies: "Spoke to Doug Downey. Need Sloly to be quick, quick, quick." Can you tell us why would Minister Lametti be calling Doug Downey about this? So you're speaking to your counterpart, he's speaking to his. In what capacity would that be?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So you actually asked him to call Downey. So do you have a recollection of why, or is it essentially what you just told us?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, next document is ONT00001141. So I understand that there was a call that took place between you and Minister Jones on the 7th. And in that earlier text exchange, you seem to refer to an earlier call before the 5th. I don't know if you -- do you have any recollection of that one?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I'm sorry.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sorry. Yeah, that's my fault. The last document, the text exchange with Minister Lametti, you say "I have spoken with Sylvia." And that appears to be on the 5th. So do you remember a conversation prior to the 5th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Well, we know that one happened on the 7th, and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- this document is Minister Jones's notation of that call. And she says -- so she's talking to you, "Marco Mendicino" "Jim Watson wants an 'interlockier'." I think that may mean interlocutor, but I'm not sure: "Wellington will be fast and jurisdiction F.T.P. table to support the city; 1,500 OPP; 38 Kitchener." Can you tell -- so the "interlockier" is that a reference to an interlocutor? Was that part of the discussion you were having?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes, you did. And ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Pardon me?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we’re going to get to a report of what was said in that conversation as well, but before we get there, I want to just go through a little bit the call you subsequently had with Premier Ford, because at this point, so can you take us through that? Minister Jones doesn’t -- you have a conversation on the 7th. Actually, why don’t we go there now?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So that conversation is reported in a text exchange. Can you pull up, Mr. Clerk, SSM.NSC.CAN00003127? So while that’s getting pulled up, this is a text exchange on February 11th between Samantha Khalil, who you’ve told us is a PMO staffer, Mike Jones, your Chief of Staff, Zita Astravas, and so Samantha says: “Thanks guys […]. Long day…” Okay. So writing here is Mike Jones, your Chief of Staff. And -- oh, no, I’m sorry, this is Sam Khalil, I think, writing here. And she says: “Hey so on trilateral meeting” Got it wrong again. it’s Zita writing. So Ms. Astravas says: “Hey so on trilateral meeting Sam I don’t know what you think but I really think we need Jones at the table […] perhaps your boss […] push again” So Mike Jones, he’s talking about you. He says: “By Jones I assume you mean [Ontario], and can have my boss reach out again but the last call got pretty frosty at the end when he was saying we need the province to get back to us with their plan ‘I don’t take edicts from you, you’re not my fucking boss’” Scroll down again. “Yes! Obviously not you She said that! ?!” Does that accord with your recollection of your conversation you with Minister Jones?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So regardless of the language, it’s fair to say you were encountering some resistance in obviously coming to the tripartite table and it was described as a call that didn’t go well. And we know that on the 9th you spoke directly with Premier Ford. So we can take that document down, please, and we’ll pull up the read out of your call from Premier Ford, which is SSM.CAN.NSC00002832. How did that call arise? Did you call Premier Ford? Did he call you? Tell us how that happened.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I think you’ve taken us through pretty much all of that. On the point of “stand with the PM”, we’ll just pull up another document, which is SSM.NSC.CAN00002952. So this is a text, while it’s being pulled up, to Katie Telford, who is the Prime Minister Chief of Staff. You send her a text reporting on this call with Premier Ford. And -- oh, did I get the wrong document number? It appears that I did. Okay. You know what? I’ll just -- I’ll read it to you. We can look for the document number in a second. It says: “Just got call from Ford. They’re pivoting. He will announce they’re lifting passports, possibly more measures. Said he would stand with the PMs.” (As read) And then you said: “Said I would relay. I said the situation at Ambassador Bridge is serious. It’s hurting working families, killing jobs.” (As read) So by “stand with the PM”, you said -- I didn’t quite catch what you said that thought that meant. “Stand beside the PM” and?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. For the record, Mr. Clerk, the document number is SSM.NSC.CAN.00002952. So what I wanted to ask you, Minister Mendicino, was did you sense that that -- or was your interpretation that standing with the PM was in any way tied to what you've described I think as a gentle nudge to ease public health measures?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The last point I want to ask you about on all of this is to get your reaction to something we heard from Mr. Mario Di Tommaso when he testified, which was -- and I'll paraphrase what he was saying, but essentially, part of his thinking or his explanation of why Ontario was reluctant to participate in the tripartites is that insofar as these were a forum to discuss policing resources, Ontario -- the governmental officials shouldn't participate in that because that's a law enforcement matter. The question of deploying police resources is something for law enforcement, not for governmental officials. What's your take on that in the context of what we'd raised earlier about the lines of operational dependence of the police?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
When the RCMP officials testified last week, so Deputy Commissioner Duheme and Commissioner Brenda Lucki testified, there's a few things that came out of their evidence that I want your reaction on. One of them is that -- I believe Commissioner Lucki said that there were times, or I think it was Deputy Commissioner Duheme said that there were times where it may have felt to him like officials may have stepped a little over that line, that line between church and state. Now I think they did say specifically, I remember -- I recall Commissioner Lucki saying that she never felt pressured by her Ministers, you and Minister Blair. She did say that at some point you sort of had to educate her or educated -- she didn't point to any sort of instance where it was necessary, but she said you educated and it felt you essentially to educate the rest of Cabinet, I think, or it was the February 10th IRG ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- on where that line was and the importance of operational dependence. Do you recall that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to go back on that a little bit. I mean, what we've heard over the weeks that we've been here at the Commission, there is what could be described as, quote on quote, "pressure" all over the record. So there's a real sense of urgency from politicians and from officials, "We need to do something about this now." "We need to do this quick, quick, quick." "We need to do -- this has to end", et cetera, et cetera. And how does that not constitute, can you explain how that does not constitute pressure on law enforcement to do something to clear up this protest in whatever way they can?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the line is politicians and the government has a role to play in expressing a desire, let's say, to -- or the need to solve a situation, but not in telling the police how to do it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Another issue that we -- we've heard a lot about the last few weeks is the idea or the notion of one could put it as negotiating or we could put it as engaging with demonstrators or protesters. So we've heard that that was an issue that was discussed, is there a way to sort of end this or to ameliorate this by engaging directly with demonstrators? There is reference in the -- Sylvia Jones's notes of the February 7th call to having an interlocutor engage with the protesters, and we've heard a lot about an effort by your Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister Rob Stewart, around the 10th, 11th of February, to create what's become known as the Engagement Proposal. So can you tell us a little bit from your perspective how those engagement efforts, if I can put it that way, and eventually the Engagement Proposal, came to be and evolved?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this was -- you knew that this was -- you were aware that this was being worked on by your Deputy Minister?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00002958. So Minister, this is a text from you to Katie Telford, the PM's Chief of Staff. The date of it is February 11th, it's at 6:49 p.m. So just to situate you in time, the IRG happens on February 10th, there's no IRG I think on February 11th. So you write to Ms. Telford: "Hey there. We got some very last minute (and thin) paper tonight on an engagement strategy from my DM, who apparently socialized it with PCO, Rcmp [Commissioner] and the Ontario [Government], and not me. We only found out about it during a call tonight I placed to him. The DM's outreach during the day to the [Ontario Government] on this engagement proposal, resulted in the [Ontario] Deputy [Solicitor General] sending my DM a draft letter addressed to unnamed protesters proposing engagement, which would be co-signed by [Ontario government] and an unnamed official from the [Federal Government]. It's unclear whether PCO, RCMP or [Ontario Government] has given their support to the engagement proposal. Flagging as a concern and inconsistent with good info flow. I have addressed with him...wanted you to know. I will be replying to DM and letting him know..." Then there's some redactions, and the last that you say is "Sorry - but had to let you know." Can you explain to us what you were expressing in this text?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So your concern, if I understand it then, is not with the engagement proposal itself, with the ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- work that was being done. It's the information flow ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- and the fact specifically that it had been socialized, as you put it, with the Ontario government without you knowing about; is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I believe Deputy Minister Stewart's evidence was that he hadn't socialized it with Mr. Di Tommaso but with Commissioner Carrique. So would that change your view at all as to whether that engagement was appropriate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Everything was happening very quickly. There's no doubt about that. The other -- the reason I asked you whether you were concerned about the proposal itself was because one of the bits of evidence we've heard is that Commissioner Lucki and the RCMP may have had some concerns about it or -- about the proposal in the sense that it may have crossed the line between church and state. So, again, we're back to this issue of police independence, operational independence. And I'd like you to speak for a moment, if you could, about how -- the idea -- where does political negotiation fall into that piece. And just for a little -- to situate you in background, what we know now is that there were different lines of potential engagement going on almost simultaneously. There was an attempt at engagement in Windsor. There was an attempt on the part of Mayor Watson to coral trucks up onto Wellington Street and get them off the residential streets where they were disturbing the residents on those streets, and then there was the federal government's engagement proposal. So we have these different lines going at the same time, and that could arguably, at least, be put as something that makes it difficult for law enforcement to do their job. What's your reaction to that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I now want to ask you, turning to -- we know the engagement proposal didn't go anywhere in the end. And we're -- chronologically, we're now getting to the crux of events and when the Emergencies Act was actually decided on. So I know it wasn't decided necessarily on the 13th, but that's the day we're going to talk about. There's some evidence, and I'll ask you if you know about this first, so shortly before -- we understand there was an IRG meeting in the afternoon of the 13th, followed by a meeting of the full Cabinet in the evening at 8:30 p.m. The Commission has seen evidence shortly before that 8:30 meeting. Commissioner Lucki sent an email, and let's get the email up. It is SSM.NSC.CAN.00002280. So this is an email, the timestamp on it is just shortly before eight o'clock once we do the Greenwich Mean Time adjustment. This is your Chief of Staff, Mike Jones, sending this to you and copied to Deputy Minister Stewart, "Evening Minister Responses from the commissioner below." And this is -- we've seen this already in the inquiry, so I won't go through it at length, but there's a sort of a wish list or these are tools that could be effective. And then at the very bottom of the email -- there -- Commissioner Lucki says, "This said, I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all available tools that are already available through the existing legislation. There are instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities for various Criminal Code offences occurring right now in the context of the protest. The Ontario Provincial Emergencies Act just enacted..." Skip that in the narrative, but we know that happened February 11th. "...will also help in providing additional deterrent tools to our existing toolbox." So my first question, Minister Mendicino, is did you see this before the Cabinet meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, just to be clear, which information are you talking about there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that was on -- you had that conversation ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- on the afternoon of the 13th.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to recap a little bit; you didn’t see this email from Commissioner Lucki before the Cabinet meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, fair enough. So if you did see it, it didn’t register as much as what she’d said about Coutts; put it that way. In your recollection, was that information put before Cabinet? So we know that Commissioner Lucki wasn’t called on to speak; do you recall this being expressed to Cabinet that evening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you certainly, obviously, ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If you had known this information -- and I appreciate you’re not entirely sure on whether you saw this information or didn’t -- would it have changed your mind at all?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, let’s actually stop there for a moment. I’m going to go back to what we were talking about. But PB.CAN1864, please, Mr. Clerk? So this is a text from John Ossowski, President of the CBA -- CBSA, the evening of February 13th, and he says: “The gap...” -- well, you asked: “Is it possible to direct CBSA officials to take a harder line? Or is the heightened sense of vigilance as far as it goes?” And he writes back: “The gap is the fact that there is not an inadmissibility in irpa [Immigration Refugee and Protection Act] for coming to a protest. We have directed back 29 so far for other reasons as part of our enhanced vigilance....” And you say: “Right, ok. So nothing we can do to strengthen our position there? I think our position broadly is that it’s an illegal blockade....” And it goes on. So that is -- sorry; go on. Scroll down a little bit, please. “...if you’re blocking a border...hurting Canadians,...it would warrant a tougher position.” Then you ask: “The 29 were sent back because it was believed they had violent intentions? Or on what grounds were they sent away?” We don’t have the text after that. But first of all, is this a -- is this is a text conversation that was happening during the Cabinet meeting that evening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
About 9:23 p.m., I think.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think we know it was two, and the answer to the question here is that the 29 were sent back because -- under enhanced vigilance, because -- generally speaking, I think, because they weren’t -- they didn’t meet the vaccination requirements.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I’m at the end of my ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Absolutely. You’re right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No, thank you. That’s helpful. Mr. Commissioner, I’m at the end, but if I can ask for five minutes to ask some concluding questions?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Not a lot. Actually, no, I do have some time. Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Actually, ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- you can count better than I am -- better than I can. I was thinking of the old time allocation. Okay. So ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure. Let’s take the break now.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Welcome back, Minister. I want to take you back to something we were -- we’d touched on before the break and I’d like to get your reaction on. I asked you whether if you had seen and observed, let’s put it that way, Commissioner Lucki’s statement that they had not yet exhausted all available tools? Law enforcement still had tools available. I asked you whether that would have changed your mind as to necessity of the Emergencies Act and you answered no and you explained that your concern about Coutts. How do you reconcile that position with the notion that the Emergencies Act is a measure of last resort?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you’re expressing here a concern that what was going on in Coutts might be going on in other places. Not evidence of that, but you were nevertheless concerned about it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I'll put this to you and you can tell me right or wrong. But are you sort of saying your concern was okay, but what if it gets worse?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Sorry, I should have put my question more clearly maybe, but with respect to the availability of tools and whether law enforcement had what it needed, are you saying, and you may not be, so I'm asking you, but are you saying that regardless of whether the tools -- there may have been tools available, there was a concern that it would actually -- that the situation would get worse, and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Where the gaps were.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So we have heard evidence about gaps that have been -- that were identified. We also heard from a number of of officials, and we saw in documentation, a lot of hesitancy around the idea of using the Emergencies Act and the possibility that it may inflame tensions, it may make things worse. There was a lot of, if I could put it this way, doubt around that. In light of that, and in light also of a lot of discussion that we have had here in the Commission about whether the threshold itself was met under the Emergencies Act, can you go there at this point and explain to us your understanding of why it -- why the threshold was met and why it was necessary in light of the hesitancy that had been expressed about the need to invoke it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. On this point, then, Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00000290. So this is a readout of minutes of the Guns and Gangs. Can you situate us, actually, Minister Mendicino, and tell us Guns and Gangs, what does that refer to, that meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It's a reading or minutes of a meeting that was held -- okay, the date of it isn't clear, actually, but we know that it's post invocation because it refers to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. And it says: "(Schedule was changed, Guns & Gangs instead)." It's a Guns and Gangs meeting. And there's a report from you. "M3" I think refers to you. That's the notation that's used to describe you, "M3". Why M3?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I should have been able to answer that. Okay. Bullet Number 3 here, you're discussing -- okay, well, let's go from the Bullet Number 1: "Update on current state of affairs: The blockades that started a month ago, aiming critical infrastructure, had a very significant and negative impact on our security, sovereignty, integrity at the borders. We worked very closely with FPT to get a grasp of the risks to public safety, [and] international security." The important one, which I'll slow down on, is the third one: "We took unprecedented decision to invoke [Emergencies Act] on the advice we received from many branches of enforcement on every level."
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
What I want to ask you about is the advice you received from branches of enforcement, was that advice to invoke the Emergencies Act specifically?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to recap, then, the advice you’re talking about is the advice that’s identifying gaps in tools, not specifically advice to invoke the Emergencies Act but advice that goes to identifying gaps or tools.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Then the very last question -- I think I actually am now out of time, so the last question I want to ask you, Minister Mendicino, and your legal background shows in how you unpack my triple-barrelled question last time around, so this is the last barrel, the third barrel that you didn’t get to in your answer, which is the threshold for invoking a Public Order emergency, as you know, depends on identifying a threat to the security of Canada with reference to the CSIS Act. We’ve heard a lot of discussion at the Commission about how that threshold may or may not have been met, and we know that there was no specific threat to the security of Canada assessed by CSIS. Nevertheless, the government concluded that the threshold was met, presumably, because the Act was invoked. How, in your view, was that threshold met?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, those are my questions. I’ll pass the baton.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No, Commissioner, no re- examination.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I believe that point was canvassed this morning with the witness. It was put to him that there -- it had been concluded by CSIS that there was no threat pursuant to section 2 of the CSIS Act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure. If we can have the doc ID number?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Let's read this then. Can we scroll down a little bit please? A little bit more please? Okay. "NES spoke with NSIA -- " ---looks like and Jody Thomas, but the NSIA is Jody Thomas--- "--- section 2 of the CSIS Act, violence not met. Wonder if we need full 30 days if Ottawa cleared." I suppose the question would be, Minister, were you aware that it had been concluded that section 2 of the CSIS Act was not met?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I'm afraid I don't know.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, almost evening, Mr. Commissioner. Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission. Our next witness is Minister Dominic Leblanc.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Minister.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good evening. Exactly. Almost. Juste avant qu’on commence, si vous voulez répondre en français, aucun problème. Il se peut que je pose quand même mes questions en anglais, mais dans la langue de votre choix.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Parfait, même chose. Okay. we’ll just start with a little housekeeping then. You’ll recall, Minister Leblanc, having sat for an interview with Commission Counsel on September 9th? And - - oh, sorry.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes, that’s right. And following that interview, we prepared -- Commission Counsel prepared a summary of that interview, and you’ve reviewed that summary?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you can confirm that it’s accurate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Perfect. Sorry, just any time you’re nodding or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Perfect. So for the record, Mr. Clerk, that’s WTS0000073. No need to call it up. So Minister LeBlanc, obviously you’re the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. And I’ll just ask you to start of by describing very briefly what that entails. What is the role of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, generally speaking?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we haven’t -- the Commission hasn’t called as witnesses anyone from the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, so could you just spend a moment explaining how that works? How you’re supported within PCOS, as opposed to by an external line department?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you’re not dealing with another Minister, you’re dealing with the Premier?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you, that’s helpful Well, as you know we’re here today to talk about the events that led to the Emergencies Inquiry and we have about an hour and change to do so, so we’ll take it pretty quickly. But to start off, can you give us an overview of what your involvement was essentially; what role did you play in the Federal Government’s response to the events of late January, early February?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I think you’ve probably answered this question then, but as you mentioned, that initial group of Ministers consisted of I think public safety, so Mr. Mendicino, Minister Blair, Emergency Preparedness, Minister Alghabra, Transport, and then you as -- in your capacity as Inter-Governmental Affairs Minister or was your role sort of a within government coordination role or?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can I ask you to pull up SSM.CAN00000293. Minister LeBlanc, this is a document that summarizes the engagements you had with various provincial counterparts. And you’ll see it starts on February 10th. We’re not going to go through it right now; we are going to go through it; we’ll become very familiar with it by the end of this examination, but at this point I’m just going to sort of highlight the fact that these engagements really started on February 10th. So the convoy arrives on January 28th, 29th and your engagement specifically start on the 10th. So the role you were playing, if I understanding it, prior to the 10th, is essentially facilitating or encouraging these communications between your colleagues and their various counterparts in other provinces?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you, Mr. Clerk. You can pull that one down and pull the following one up, SSM.CAN00006594. So, Minister LeBlanc, given the short time we have, we’re skipping a lot of narrative and going to some pretty specific questions that effect your participation and your role in all of this. So you’ll just have to bear with me in that. So this is an email, and just scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk, that you received from Ralph Goodale on February 6th, and I take you’re familiar and you recall this email?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that was my first question, how did it come about? So you were asked to speak to him. I think this email is him emailing you.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Following your conversation with him, okay. So maybe we’ll start with your conversation with him then. Can you tell us about that conversation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is the content of that conversation more or less reflected in the email that we’re about to read out, or is there anything that you want to say about it before we do?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I can appreciate that it was probably a lengthier conversation than what we see here, but we’ll just read the summary in the email. So he’s sending this to you and he says: “See this tweet from Mayor Tory. The point is clear - Toronto and many other cities handled this MUNICIPAL policing problem in a professional and competent manner. Granted the volume of the protest in Ottawa was greater and came without as much warning, but the City of Ottawa and the OPS have proven themselves incapable of grappling with this problem. And it is now the duty of the responsible senior authority - i.e., the Public Safety Minister of ONTARIO under PROVINCIAL policing legislation ...” I’m emphazing the capitals: “... - to rectify that problem, including talking control ...” I think it’s “taking” not “talking”: “...if and as necessary. NA See this tweet from Mayor Tory. The point is clear. Toronto and many other cities handled this municipal policing problem in a professional and competent manner. Grant it, the volume of the protest in Ottawa was greater and came without as much warning, but the City of Ottawa and the OPS have proven themselves incapable of grappling with this problem and it is now the duty of the responsible senior authority, ie. the Public Safety Minister of Ontario under provincial policing legislation...” I’m emphasizing this should be capitals: “...to rectify that problem, including taking control ...” I think it’s “taking” not “talking”: “...if and as necessary. There should not be an unconstitutional leap to pin this on the feds or the RCMP. Federally under mutual assistance agreements we can/should provide resources and personnel, as requested, but the authority and responsibility rests with the municipality and the province. To this point, they have failed to deliver safety and security to the inhabitants of Ottawa (and those innocent inhabitants include many parts of the Government of Canada). Scrolling down, please, Mr. Clerk? “It remains essential to delve deeply into the true genesis of this demonstration and who is controlling and directing it. Stefanie Carvin...” Who I believe is an academic: “...suggests it is the work of organized Violent Right Wing Extremists. It may even have US roots. She could be correct. Our intelligence and national security experts must absolutely get to the bottom of this horrific set of events. And prepare for the next one.” So Mr. Goodale is expressing a few things in this email, but the one thing that comes out clearly, is that he views this as a –- he sees a policing problem and views the solution as municipal and provincial with a federal overlay; is that fair to say?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was your take on that at that point, or your reaction to that conversation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, you can take that one down now. So one thing we spent a lot of time talking about this morning with Minister Mendicino, so we won’t spend a ton of time on it this afternoon, or evening, is engagement with Ontario and specifically -- and Ontario’s role in responding to these events. So, as I said, the Commission’s heard a lot of evidence about Ontario’s role over the past five weeks and attempts to essentially draw Ontario into the conversation, into tripartite meetings, into being part of the solution, and it seems that -- I’ll just try and summarize this -- Ontario’s position at first may have been, as you sort of just articulated, “Well, this is a -- it’s parliament. It’s a federal vaccine mandate and it’s happening at parliament so this is a really a federal problem.” Is that a fair characterization, do you think, of what Ontario’s initial attitude was?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And I suppose the response that the federal government would have gotten would be varying degrees of success, if we can put it that way?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we know that on February 10th you had a call with Premier Ford. Can you tell us about that call, how it came about? And before you even start, I’ll pull up the document for your benefit. There’s a readout of it at SSM.NSC.CAN00000256. So just situating in time, this would be the Ambassador Bridge blockade is in full swing; February 10th is the date of the first IRG, so we’re fairly advanced in the events of the time period we’re looking at. And scroll down. Is that the right document? Okay, yeah, there were go, “Readout Minister LeBlanc’s call with Doug Ford”. Okay so can -- what can you tell us about the call that you had with Premier Ford?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Just before we leave the readout, Mr. Clerk, can you scroll down a little bit? There’s just one thing I want to ask you about: " Minister LeBlanc informed him…" So informed Premier Ford: "…that the Americans will make it clear that anyone convicted will be barred from entering the United States." Can you tell us what that was about and what did or did not happen with that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Minister -- just taking you back, the Minister Alghabra's counterpart would be Secretary Buttigieg?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we'll hear about that tomorrow I think. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, you can take that one down and pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00002947. So Minister, this is, as it's being pulled up, I think shortly after that call you reported on it to the PMO, and so this is your text where you're conveying Premier Ford's position and: "Spoke to Ford. He is going gangbusters on truckers tomorrow. Using Emergency Order—fines, seizing trucks, arrests, suspension of licenses.. he is...hot to hammer them at a presser tomorrow at 10am. [He'll]..." Sorry: "He will introduce legislation to make sure this can't happen again—and wants us to work on plan together to secure border/critical infrastructure going forward. He will then do a presser on Monday to diminish public health measures—but tomorrow is hard on enforcing against blockades." Response comes, "Excellent". So is it fair to say that at that -- at this point, whatever happened leading up to this, Premier Ford and the Federal Government are aligned on approach?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So both of you were going gangbusters?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. I was defining "going gangbusters" as being committed to finding a solution.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Can you pull up SSM.CAN00000293. So we'll leave Ontario now, and move to Alberta. So the next on the list here, February 11th: "Premier Kenney communicated with Minister LeBlanc to express concerns that the provinces had been left with the enforcement challenge, and that there has been no response to the request for the CAF..." That's the Canadian Armed Forces, "...to help with tow trucks." And in our interview, you clarified that that message was conveyed by text. And Mr. Clerk, now, if you can pull up PB.CAN00001868. Not particularly legible, but Minister LeBlanc maybe you can confirm that this is the text exchange to which you were referring. Scroll down one page, please, Mr. Clerk. There we go. So this one reads, this is from you to -- is it a chat with Minister Alghabra and Minister Mendicino. And so you're reporting: "I got these two messages from Jason Kenney last night. Your guy has really screwed the pooch. This..." Technical term: "This trucker vax policy is obviously just dumb political theatre. Calling them all Nazis hasn't exactly helped. And now the provinces are holding the bag on enforcement. I can't get any heavy equipment from private vendors to move these freakin trucks off the border because the crazies are making death threats, and you guys turned down our request for army equipment to help us. Because apparently the Government of..." Scroll down, please: "...Canada doesn't really care about the international border being closed." Pensive emoji: "But don't worry, the RCMP commander in Alberta just told me proudly that he has secured some psychologists to do a profile assessment on the protesters. I said, 'that's great news, Deputy Commissioner. Do you any of them know how to drive a tow truck.' J." To which Minister Alghabra replies, "Speaking of bonkers", and you reply, "Totally." So is that the text exchange that's reported in the summary of engagements?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we're just going to pick apart and understand, because this is the second time this text has arisen today, so I just want to pick apart a few statements made there. First of all, when he says that "Your guy has really screwed the pooch." Is that -- is he referring to the Prime Minister or who's that a reference to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What was your reaction broadly to these texts?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Clerk, you can take that one down and pull up SSM.CAN.00000293 again. Okay. So we've been now through Ontario and we've been to Alberta, and the remainder of this document, Minister, reports on various other engagements you had with provincial premiers all around the time, February 12th through 15th, so it's February 12th onwards. And with the assistance, feel free to keep it up, can you tell us about the various conversations you were having and what you were hearing?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And in any of those conversations did the notion of invoking emergency legislation come up, either provincial or federal?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we know that Premier Ford did, in fact, invoke Ontario’s Emergency legislation on February 11th. So you mentioned that Premier Furey was expressing a concern about -- if I can put it this way -- there was no identified sort of threat to the supply chain but he was concerned that what was happening might spread and affect the supply chain in Newfoundland. Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you told him theat the federal government would do whatever it could? Or do what it could?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Whereas Premier Horgan in B.C., if you’ll see that middle sort of bullet there - - February 13th. He sort of seems to be conveying that from his perspective things are pretty under control in B.C.; is that fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Can you take that one down? So again, we’re going to skip pretty quickly in the narrative here, given time constraints. But so those consultations, most of the ones we’ve discussed, were the weekend of February 12th and 13th. We know now essentially the chronology of what happened on February 13th, so the IRG meeting in the afternoon leading to a Cabinet meeting in the evening and the outcome of that Cabinet meeting has been described to us by the Clerk as -- the decision was to call a First Ministers meeting to discuss the potential invocation of the Emergencies Act. Is that fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you'll be glad to know that, given your role as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I’m going to be focusing on that as opposed to going through all of the inputs that were received before Cabinet that night. So Mr. Clerk, can you then pull up please MAN00000048? So Minister LeBlanc, we understand the Cabinet meeting took place around 8:30 the night of the 13th. And the document we’re about to pull up is the email invitation that was sent about the First Ministers meeting. I think it was sent -- if we see the time stamp, it works out to 10:L46 p.m. EST. I have to do the conversion for time there. Scroll down a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk. It says: “Colleagues. The prime minister will convene an urgent First Ministers call. The call will take place on February 14th at 10:15. Dial-in info to follow. Please confirm your premier’s availability. I apologize for the short notice. Michael” Michael being Michael Vandergirft, the Deputy Secretary of --- the Deputy Minister, I'm sorry, of Intergovernmental Affairs.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What’s sort of conspicuous by its absence in that email is any mention of the Emergencies Act, any mention of why the First Ministers meeting is being convened. Can you tell us why that would be?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And one thing Madam Drouin said on this point when she testified on Friday was -- her words, I believe, were they knew that from the moment the government starts talking publicly about invoking the Emergencies Act, the timeline to take a decision was very short. So does that reflect the -- what you're discussing right now? It was sort of -- it was kept quiet because once it's out there, who knows what happens?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Well, I think in the end it clocked in as under 24 hours, so that was mission accomplished?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Understood. And because you mentioned it, the various first ministers conversations or calls, rather, that were had around COVID back in, I think, probably March 2020, around then, is something that’s arisen sort of tangentially in passing a couple of times in testimony before the Commission, but -- so I'll just ask you to also address it tangentially in passing. But can you tell us a little bit about how those meetings were convened and how they proceeded and what they were about, because obviously, we know that they -- those meetings touched, in part on whether emergency legislation would be appropriate in that context.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And certainly, before this first ministers' call, the idea of invoking the Emergencies Act in the context of the Freedom Convoy had not come up in conversations with any premiers?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
How am I doing for time? I completely neglected to write down when I started.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Perfect, okay. So then I want to take you, Minister, to the chronology of February 14th. And I'll ask Mr. Clerk to pull up now OPS0001456. No, sorry, 14566. So this is just a little chronological point that we'd like to clear up because if you scroll down here -- and just to let you know what these are, these are -- I think are probably scribe notes of a police meeting, so I think the participants were Commissoner Lucki, Commissioner Carrique, and Chief Sloly, if I'm not mistaken. Scroll down a -- oh, actually, you've got it. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So if you see the last bullet point there, this is a meeting that takes place at 10 o'clock in the morning on February 14th. And you'll see what's recorded about what Commissioner Lucki says is, "Lucki did not get prime minister briefed on the plan," the plan here being the Ottawa Police plan to resolve the situation in Ottawa. And then, "Prime minister will be enacting the Emergency Measures Act." So if I take your evidence and some other evidence we've heard so far, that had not been decided at 10 o'clock in the morning on the 14th, that the prime minister would invoke the Emergencies Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And to be fair, these are notes of a meeting, so it's nothing -- it's not necessarily what Commissioner Lucki said, but it's what written down about what ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So -- but in any event, that does not accord with your recollection of the chronology?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Clerk. You can take that one down. And can you pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000625? This is the readout, Minister LeBlanc, of the first ministers' meeting itself, so with the assistance of this, I'd like you to just walk us through. How did that meeting unfold, how did it take place? Obviously not every detail, but what were the various opinions being conveyed, being expressed, and how were they received?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you scroll down to the next page, please? We’re just going to go through a few of the views that appear to have been expressed by various participants on the call. So Premier Horgan sees -- he says: “Approach sounds measured and practical. We are susceptible as anyone across the country.” But then he says: “Only concern is that these measures would be implemented by [the] RCMP […] which are already fully taxed.” And then: “Concern about emboldening those losing public support. People are exhausted […], but have taken three shorts […]. Worry that too heavy a hand may embolden others.” But then he says in the end: “Would support this at this stage.” So can you explain to us, in your words, essentially, what Premier Horgan was conveying to you at the meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Scrolling down a little bit more, Mr. Clerk, until we get to Premier Cochrane says at the very last bullet there: “Would support emergency measures, but would ask for further consultation if decide to bring in [the] army.” Where does that reference to bringing in the army come from? Was that something that was discussed actively at the meeting?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And since you raised it actually, let me ask you this. The misperception of the -- between the Emergencies Act and its predecessor, the War Measures Act, is that something you were picking up a lot over these three weeks? Over the events of the convoy?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Bon, allons-y voir ça, en fait. At page -- I’m just going to find the page where Mr. Legault’s statements are made. Page 6, please. So Premier Legault here says -- this is in English, so translated, I imagine, but: “In Quebec, we are preoccupied by the situation in Ottawa. It is unacceptable. Have to do what needs to be done. Support Ford 100%. What is important to say is we don’t have this type of problem in Quebec. [The] SQ [that’s The Sûreté du Québec] has been able to control the situation so far. […] we have to be very cautious about moves to inflame […]. We don’t want the […] Emergencies Act to apply in Quebec. […] the […] Emergencies Act must only apply to provinces in agreement with the application of the Act. [We] [d]on’t need [it] and [we] don’t want [it].” So is that the -- are those the remarks that you were referring to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oui.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
En fait, c’était ma prochaine question parce que l’avis exprimé ici par le Premier ministre Legault était aussi exprimé par d’autres, en fait. Si je peux dire, why does it have to apply here? Why in our province? You may be having a problem in Ottawa, you may be having a problem at the Ambassador Bridge but we’re not having a problem in say Saskatchewan or Manitoba; that was a view expressed by several provinces. And so was any serious thought given to an approach to the Emergencies Act that would be targeted in the sense of where the measures would apply?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So it’s really those two branches or those two aims? One, the application of the financial measures and cutting off funding; and two, the preventative or dissuasive effect that in the Government’s view, meant that the Act had to apply nationally if it was going to be effective?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. You can take that document down now, Mr. Clerk, and pull up briefly SSM.NSC.CAN00003224. And you can scroll down to page three, please. So, Minister LeBlanc, as you know the consultation with the provinces is part and parcel of the Emergencies Act under section 25; it’s an obligation that must be fulfilled before the Act can be involved, So this is –- what we’re looking at right now, is the decision note prepared by the Clerk of the Privy Council delivered to the Prime Minister on February 14th. And at the bottom of the page here she talks about the consultation requirement and she says: “On February 14th, 2022 you convened a First Ministers Meeting to discuss with the Premiers and seek their views on this scenario and the measures being explored.” Scroll down a bit because we know essentially what was said during the meeting. She summarizes the various opinions that were expressed and then she says: “This First Ministers Meeting will mee the requirements for consultations with the provinces under the Emergencies Act. And then follows that with a letter. So I suppose the question to put would be so this was a –- one First Ministers Meeting and I think it lasted about an hour or something like that, if that’s correct. If this meets the consultation requirement is there anything that wouldn’t?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you take that one down now and pull up SSM.CAN00000124. So this is the report to Parliament on the consultations which I assume you’re quite familiar with, Minister LeBlanc, and it goes to the point you were just making I believe, which is –- sorry, scroll down a bit please, Mr. Clerk, so we can just see what goes –- so the first thing that’s listed here is the background and then a sub-heading that says “Engagement”. And over the next few pages –- we’re not going to go through it all; a lot of it we’ve heard about over the last few weeks, but scroll down. It describes the various engagements that were had about the political and officials’ level over the course of the convoy events. Sorry, Mr. Clerk, can you just keep scrolling for a little bit. Scroll down and we see the Prime Minister speaking to the Premiers. Scroll down again, scroll down again, keep scrolling. Keep scrolling, And then we see on page –- I’ve lost count, “Consultations on the Emergencies Act with the First Ministers.” And this describes the actual consultation with the First Ministers that we’ve just gone through. So if I take what you’re saying, and if I’m not putting it fairly, then please correct me, but the consultation requirement was fulfilled in the Clerk’s advice, and in your view, by the First Ministers meeting at which the Premiers were directly consulted about their views on the Emergencies Act but that was also, in some sense, informed by discussions that had been had broadly around the topic of how to resolve this problem prior to that.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. That’s helpful. And that actually, Minister, brings us to the end of the questions that I have for you. But before I sit down I will ask you, is there anything else you would like to add?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination, Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission. Our witness this morning is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland. Good morning, Minister Freeland.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So will the witness be sworn or affirmed.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning again, Minister Freeland. So we'll just start with a little bit of the usual housekeeping, which is you recall sitting for an interview with Commission Counsel on September 5th?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you'll recall that after that interview, Commission Counsel prepared a summary of the interview?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you've reviewed that summary and confirm that it's accurate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, for the record, that's WTS00000078. No need to pull it up. So, Minister Freeland, I'll just ask you by -- ask you to start by describing your dual role as on the one hand Minister of Finance, on the second hand, Deputy Prime Minister. The first is probably fairly well understood. The Deputy Prime Minister aspect maybe less so.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
To lean in essentially to ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Well, that leads fairly nicely into my next question actually because that dual role you had as Minister of Finance and as Deputy Prime Minister puts you in a unique position to tell us a little bit about the context in which the events that are before the Commission, the Freedom Convoy and the protests, occurred. So we spoke about this a bit in your interview and I'm hoping you can put -- situate in context from your unique perspective what was going on.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. There’s a lot to unpack there.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. In the interest of time, I’m just going to go over a couple of points and then move on. But so the last point you raised was what was going on in Ukraine, you saw a link to that, Canada’s national security. So that link may not be obvious; it’s something going on in the other end of the world. So what do you mean by that, that would be a risk to Canada’s national security?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s, I think, helpful context for -- if you’ll agree with me -- for what was in your mind, essentially, as the convoy arrived in late January. You said that that dovetailed, basically, with negotiations on the electric vehicle incentives. And in the chronology -- you can appreciate this is the second-last day of the Commission’s testimony, so we’ve been a lot of chronology of what happened in those early days, and I want to focus with you this morning on your specific involvement. And I think you’ve expressed within the interview, and you may agree or you may not, but you started to become very actively engaged in this file, in this matter around February 6th, around the second SSE meetings; does that ring a bell?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That would be the Sunday.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just to clarify; you wouldn’t normally attend an SSE meeting, is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
A standing invitation as Deputy Prime Minister?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So on February 6th, you sort of invited yourself?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. Okay. So soon after that on February 9th, your department produced an options memo. And, Mr. Clerk, if we can just pull that up quickly? It’s SSM.CAN.00003764. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So Minister Freeland, we’ve talked a little bit about this already, but I’d like you to take through the options, and how this memo came about and the two options that are outlined, which are essentially amendments to -- sorry; scroll down a bit, please, Mr. Clerk. The first option that’s outlined until you get to -- there we go. So it would be potential amendments to the PCMLTFA Act, and then if we scroll down beyond that, you’ll see amendments to the Bank Act. So can you tell us how you perceived these options, how the memo came about, and what you did with this information afterwards?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I believe that’s right.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And did you consider those viable options then?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So skipping way ahead now, so the conclusion in the end was you did not have time to legislate?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
You mentioned in the course of that, that you were having conversations and you were hearing from various stakeholders and businesspeople, et cetera, so I want to spend a moment -- and also, U.S. officials, obviously, so I want to spend actually a moment, a little while going through some of the conversations that you were having. And I think the best way to do this is with the assistance of some of the documents that we have that may remind you of the specific conversations. So we'll start with, Mr. Clerk, SSM.CAN.00001255. So this is a summary of your conversation -- while it's being pulled up, with Mr. Deese, Brian Deese, on February 10th. And you've already explained to us who Mr. Deese is, but just maybe go over that again. So would you say he's the Senior Economic Policy Advisor to the President?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Is Mr. Deese someone you talk to often?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So let's look at the summary of the conversation you had with him. Mr. Clerk, if you can just scroll down to -- so we can see that entire part of the email?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So starting February 10th, so this is you, Minister Freeland, writing. You say, "He called me. They are very, very, very worried. If this is not sorted out in the next 12 hours, all of their north eastern car plants will shut down. He said that he supposed that this proved the point [that] we had made previously to them about how closely integrated our economies are. (He did not seem to see this as a positive.) He asked what he could do to help us. I said - - Tow trucks - Make your point about banning travel to the US for participants public - Arrange a call between the PM and the President" And then you say: “He was aware of points 1 and 2 [tow trucks and banning travel] and said he would push on both. He was supportive of the idea of a call and would try to make it happen.” So can you flesh out that summary a little bit, of what Mr. Deese was conveying to you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And Mr. Clerk, if you just scroll up a bit so we can see the next email there? You say: “One final thing - […] he would like to talk to me again tomorrow and every day until this is sort out.” Did that end up happening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Just going to take you back for one second. Mr. Clerk, can you pull that one down and go to SSM.CAN.00004175? Minister Freeland, this is a text exchange you had on the 11th with Brian Clow of the PMO?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s the following day then.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yes, the Friday. And scroll down a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk. Until we see “Windsor was supposed to…” There. So you say: “Windsor was supposed to happen today. This can’t go on. We need to show some federal leadership too.” (As read) So does that go back to what you were just saying? At that point you had decided something had to be done and quickly?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We’ll go back to the stakeholders now, Mr. Clerk. Thank you. Can you take that one down and pull up SSM.CAN.00004138? So this is a text exchange with Mr. Flavio Volpe.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Explain who Mr. Volpe is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So if we just look at the text exchange, he says to you on the 9th: “The Ambassador Bridge debacle is embarrassing.” And then you say: “Let’s talk tomorrow. I would love to get your ideas. I am worried too.” So the text then skips to February 14th, but we don’t necessarily need to go -- well, actually, let’s go there. So this is at the point, I guess, where the Emergencies Act has been involved. And you say -- express to him: “I know devastating this has been and am determined that we need to take strong action. We didn’t save NAFTA only to have it undermined.” Can you tell us about the conversations you had sort of in-between these texts?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You mentioned one of the steel guys. Would that be Alan Kestenbaum?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Let's pull up, then, SSM.CAN00004171. This is a text exchange you had with him on the 11th. And what he has to say is a little bit different, I think, so it's worth going through. So he sends you this, and he says: "Hi Chrystia, I hope [you're] well...I know you have your hands full...I'm not saying anything you [probably] don't know ..but this is really impacting us badly now like many others, and I fear, that even worse, the long term consequences of shutting down auto plants because of lack of Canadian parts, will only convince the auto companies 'on shore' even more and relocate supplies..." This is a bit annoying because it's in three separate documents. So Mr. Clerk, can you take that one down, and put up SSM.CAN00004349. Record time. Okay, so that's a continuation of the text: "...relocate supplies (and our customers) to the USA. I know it sucks politically to back down and reverse course, but does it really pay to carry on the policy in support of a mandate for a vaccine that doesn't prevent the spread of omicron and which seems to be vanishing naturally anyway? Moreover this could create a resurgence of the right wing, just like it did in America. Anyway, I know this is a massive headache for you, but it could be solved by retreating and letting it fade away from everyone's memory. Just sharing my views...hoping the spreading disruption gets resolved quickly." Okay. And then the next one, Mr. Clerk, is your response, which is SSM.CAN00004170. And that response is: "Dear Alan - Thank you for reaching out. I share your concerns. We are determined to bring this to an end quickly, and we will." So what Mr. Kestenbaum is expressing there is the same concern and a suggestion that the solution to it is to alter the public health measures. So what was your reaction to that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We're now going to skip to one of the very, very crucial days in all of this chronology, which is the 13th of February. I understand that on that day you had a call with a number of Canadian bank CEOs, and I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but the chronology of that day in your world goes, call with the bank, afternoon around 1:00 p.m.; IRG meeting mid-afternoon; and then Cabinet meeting at 8:30 at night. Does that sound right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, fair enough.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, if you could pull up document -- I've lost my document. SSM.CAN1281, please. Okay. So we're on the 13th now, and this is an email from Meredith Tyler?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Tyler Meredith. I'm sorry. Can you tell us who Tyler Meredith is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So one of your staff.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And he writes, and the timestamp of this email is that wonky Greenwich meantime thing, so that means around 11:30 in the morning I believe. He writes: "Hi Chrystia, everyone is confirmed for 1pm. A list of CEOs...is at the bottom of this email. A couple of points of background for the call: The institutions are all aware we convened a call with the Canadian Bankers Association earlier this week just to check in on whether they had any advice for us in light of recent events. The message from industry (mostly speaking for..." That probably means "from": "...from their legal [counsel]) at the time was - we've got this under control and generally feel comfortable with the current regime." Then he says: "Privately...[certain banks] have...proactively said...that it might be worthwhile...[looking] at bringing [in] platforms under...AML..." That's anti-money laundering: "...Proceeds of Crime...limiting access to...payment processors." And then the last bullet is: "We [haven't] given them any indication about [what's] under consideration..." So in all of that, it's actually the first bullet that I want to focus on most, which was this message that what had been heard from industry prior to this was "we got this", "it's under control", "we're comfortable with what's happening." Is that something that you were aware of that you heard before?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So let's have a look at that group call now. Mr. Clerk, it's SSM.CAN.00008766. So this is about a three-page document, Minister Freeland, and I'm just going to take you to certain excerpts of it that I'd like you to elaborate on. So the first one, Mr. Clerk, if you just scroll -- there we go. We don't know who's speaking here, but whoever it is, it's one of the bank CEOs, says, "The big hole in our financial system is these platforms, which are effectively money service businesses that are not being regulated as such." So that -- these platforms refers to the payment processors, the crowdfunding platforms?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, I think they do. That's right. So we'll just scroll down a little bit there. I'm not sure we're going to get to crypto just yet, but we are going to get to your response here where you say, "I am very prepared to come out and speak about this. This is an attack on democracy. We need to educate Canadians about this." What do you mean by this is an attack on democracy here?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next concern highlighted there is, "Canada's reputation indeed is at risk. We need to show the world proactively that we won't let this happen again [...] our trade corridors will remain open. We should think about putting the military in place to keep the border crossings moving even after the protestors are removed. To send a clear signal." So this is about as strong a suggestion as you can get, bring in the military. And your response though here is, "Couldn't agree more with those points. We must make clear that 1) we will resolve this [and] 2) we won't let this happen again." So can you explain your response there? Were you agreeing there that bringing in the military to patrol the borders was a viable option?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So maybe the next extract I wanted to point out goes to that second point. Mr. Clerk, can you just scroll down a little -- there we go. So this is someone saying, "We need court orders to act. We had identified an individual who is an organizer who had several hundred thousand dollars move into their accounts, we flagged it to FINTRAC...started work on a court order and because of the delay of 4 hours, the money was withdrawn before we cold stop it.” And you say there, you ask: “Was the problem there...a gap in the current system or [that] it moves too slowly?” And the reply is, “4 hours was too long.” And then I think underneath that, there’s, “And let’s be clear...”; that’s the reference you were talking about: “And let’s be clear, they will all eventually move to crypto.” Okay. A little lower down -- Mr. Clerk, bottom of that page -- you mention reputational risk. That’s something you’ve talked about several times. Here’s one of those, I think, quotable quotes: “Agree with my colleagues. The reputation of Canada is at risk. Just spent a lot of time in the US last week and we were being called a ‘Joke’ by people. I had one investor say ‘I won’t invest another red cent in your banana republic in Canada.’ That adds to an already tough investment perspective on Canada.” Did that have any impact, the banana republic idea? I mean, it’s hyperbolic.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So maybe in the end not so hyperbolic, in your view?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Scroll down?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The last thing I want to take you to before we put this document down is that -- just that last little paragraph there that just came up on the screen. You say: “I am very resolute in ending this occupation of our democracy. But I will never support negotiating with those who [held] our democracy hostage. No good thing comes of that.” Can you explain that comment; you: “...will never [sanction or] never support negotiating with those who hold our democracy hostage”?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Were you referring there to the vaccine mandates, to public health measures, or more generally; ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- do you recall?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we’re going to leave the call now -- Mr. Clerk, you can take that document down -- and talk about the economic impact of the protest and the blockades as you saw it and what you conveyed to your colleagues on that front. So last week when your department officials were here, we went through, in some detail, the initial assessment they prepared on February 10th, and also the eventual February 22nd economic analysis. So we’re not going to go through that in detail this morning, but what I would like to take you to is -- actually, this is SSM.CAN0000095. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
These are the minutes of the February 13th IRG, so we’re still on the same day here, February 13th, and that was -- I believe it was around -- what was the time of the IRG again?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Early evening, around 4 o’clock, okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. I was looking at my paper, not at the screen; 4 o’clock. So in between, you had the bank call, then you had the Ukraine call that we learned about, and then 4 o’clock is the IRG. And if you scroll down to page 6, please, Mr. Clerk? Rotate there. So you’re reporting to the IRG on the economic impact, and you say: “The Minister highlighted ongoing economic losses of 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent of [the GDP] for every week the blockades continue.” We know at this point that that didn’t come from an internal Department of Finance analysis. I believe you were referring to something that had been reported in a Bloomberg article? Is that right?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
A Bloomberg ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- economic analysis.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So on the street, you mean on Bay Street? On ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Did you explain to your colleagues at the IRG the source of this number?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So obviously that was a concern that you were expressing to your Cabinet colleagues that day.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the overall economic impact, both near-term and long-term. We can take that down now. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The next topic I want to address with you is another concern that was being expressed around this time, which is the issue of foreign funding and foreign influence, and money flowing, largely, I think, up from the U.S., to fund the convoy. So Mr. Clerk, can you pull up, please, SSM.CAN.00001846? So this is an after the fact, not quite after the fact, but certainly after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, discussion that you’re having with your departmental officials. And if we scroll down a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk. Keep going. Keep going. I’ll let you know when to stop. Keep going. There we go. So this is a question that you’ve posed to your officials, and the question is: “And do we have any info on foreign donations?” And the response that comes back is: “We do not have any information on foreign donations that entered our Canadian financial systems. It is possible that FINTRAC, CSIS, or the RCMP possess information on foreign donations but that information is not shared with the Department of Finance.” So is it fair to say that at the points at which foreign influence, foreign donations were being talked about, the government wasn’t actually in possession of information to corroborate that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So to summarize that, would it be fair to say that you were operating with incomplete information at that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the last thing I want to take you to on this point is SSM.CAN00003807, please, Mr. Clerk. So this a draft, Minister Freeland, of the section 58 explanation that was reported to Parliament. I'm sure you're familiar with that, as we all are in this room right now. If we scroll down to page 8, Mr. Clerk. Bottom of the page, I believe. Okay, yeah. Sorry, here we go. So under Item Number 6 there, Roman numeral, this is a paragraph in the draft or a bullet point in the draft that says: "...there is credible evidence that significant amounts of funding for the protests come from sources outside of Canada, which raises concerns about foreign interference in Canadian affairs and questions whether they represent threats to the security of Canada." And the comment made on that underneath is: "Anecdotal reports of donations from outside Canada to support the protesters were given credence, when, on February 13...hackers of the crowdfunding website, GiveSendGo...released hacked data..." And it goes on to explain what happened there. But that bullet point paragraph there: "...there is credible evidence that significant amounts of funding for the protests come from sources outside of Canada..." Was removed from the eventual section 58 explanation. Were you aware of that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And do you have any comment on that at this point?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this would be more law enforcement/intelligence area?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We can take that one down, Mr. Clerk, and move on to... Well, it sort of goes back to what you were just addressing, Minister Freeland, what do we do about this, so the development and the implementation of the Emergency Economic Measures Order. So again, we've heard at this point quite a bit about the orders and about what was done with them, so I want to take you to a few specific concerns that have been expressed about them, the first one being that the EMO was overbroad in the sense that it might capture individuals who were not really directly involved in the protests, but people who donated to the protests and/or had adverse effects on family members. You know, if you freeze someone's bank account, it may be a spouse or a child of someone else who suffers. So my first question, was that -- is that a concern that you were aware of? Is that a concern that you had? And is that a concern that you felt was properly addressed with some of the -- with the measures that were enacted?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure. I mean, what I was going to ask you, and maybe this will lead into it, but would it be fair to say, then, that -- if it’s put to you, you know, someone -- someone is at the protest in Ottawa and gets a call, “You’ve got to come home. They’ve frozen the account and I can’t pay the grocery bill,” in a sense, that is the measure doing exactly what it was designed to do, which is create an incentive for that person to have to go home and leave the protest. That is, in effect, exactly what the measure was trying to do because the purpose of it was to avoid a -- what you saw as a worse outcome, being an enforcement action that would have potentially violent aspects to it.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I do want to talk about the donations issue. Sorry, Mister Commissioner; I saw you looking at me -- were you -- is that break time, or...?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Maybe now, might as well.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I think I have about 15 minutes left in the examination, so we may actually clock in on time.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Minister Freeland, when we left off, the next topic that we'd planned on addressing was the issue of donations. And to do that, Mr. Clerk, can you please pull up SSM.CAN.00003972? And to be clear, the issue that we're getting at here is whether donations are captured, small donors are captured by the measures that were enacted, and what we've heard in the evidence was that the position taken essentially by the RCMP was this is not who they were targeting. They were targeting influencers. They weren't targeting small donors. So this is a text exchange between, I believe, two of your staffers. Can you tell us who Alex Lawrence is there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the comment made here, if we can just scroll down a bit, Mr. Clerk, is, "Freeland highly skeptical of this. Thinks that the banks will have frozen some smaller accounts and we just won't know" Is that an accurate depiction of your thinking around this at the time? Were you concerned that small donors were -- when I say small donors, I'm talking about the amount of the donation, were being captured by these measures?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So would it be fair to say then that perhaps the intention was not to capture small donations in the measures, but they weren't crafted in order to be able to avoid that outcome specifically, and therefore, you couldn't guarantee that that had happened?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next issue I want to address briefly is, Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.00000404? You mentioned earlier, Minister Freeland, that one of the issues or one of the concerns you were hearing from the banks was being – that they were being put in the middle of this, essentially having to do some -- action having to be taken on their specific parts. As a corollary to that, -- I hope that’s the right document. If we go to the top of page 7? So there’s the banks themselves, and then there’s the issue of the bank employees themselves. So the people who are working there, who now essentially have become front-line officers in this particular area, you voice this at the -- this is the minutes of the February 19th IRG: “The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance noted that in conversations with the banks, she is hearing concerns around the safety of bank employees, especially tellers who work at branches who may be dealing with individuals who have had their accounts frozen.” So what were you conveying there? What was the concern? What were you hearing?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Do you think that worked?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The next topic I want to ask you about is, as you know, the Commission -- part of the Commission’s mandate is to examine the necessity of the measures that were taken and whether the measures that were decided upon and chosen by your government were the correct measures in the circumstances. So you’ve identified, obviously, identified at the time, choking off funding as an important part of how to bring an end to what was going on in Ottawa and across the country, funding of the convoy, funding of protestors. We know that there were a number of actions being taken on that front by various actors. So in and around the time when the Emergencies Act was being considered by Cabinet, by the IRG, and by Cabinet, and by the Prime Minister, a number of things had already taken place. So just to list some of them, GoFundMe obviously had shut down the convoy’s campaign on February 4th. TD -- and by the way, all of these are listed in the crowdfunding overview report that you referenced earlier that I can take no credit for. But the TD had frozen accounts on February 10th, I believe, and the Attorney General of Ontario had obtained a restraint order and the Mareva injunction process was in play and was eventually obtained on February 17th. So all this to say, there were various measures being taken by others designed to achieve a similar end, choking off the funding. And in light of that, and knowledge of what was going on in that area, why did you conclude that it was still necessary for the government to do what it did with the economic measures?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So essentially, if this is going to happen, the government should own it, not the banks?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Also on the topic of necessity then, there were a variety of measures enacted, some of which were barely even used. So the insurance provisions for instance. Barely -- not used at all, I believe, FINTRAC ended up seeing very few reports made. How would you say, in retrospect, those measures were necessary, given that they weren’t even used?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Please.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think you’ve coined a phrase there; we’ve been at this for seven months, and “Virtual tow truck” is not an expression we’ve yet heard. Getting back to the substance of what you were saying there, would it be fair to say the emergency was revoked within about a week, the declaration of an emergency. Did it end faster than you expected it to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Almost done. There’s a few texts I want to take you to now that consist of some discussions you had with various people after the Act was invoked. So the first one I want to pull up is SSM.CAN00004352, please. So this is a discussion you had with Perrin Beatty. And can you just explain for the Commission’s benefit, who Perrin Beatty is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
The 22nd of February.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No, no.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So let’s see what Mr. Beatty wrote to you. So presumably you were texting him about the invocation of the Act, and he writes: “Hi Chrystia. Thanks for your note. While I’m still working my way through the implications, the financial aspects you announced seem to be the most significant additional measures that the government took under the Act.” Then he goes on and says: “I certainly hope that we’ll see an early, non-violent end to the blockades although I am worried, as I know you are. There are also lots of long-term issues we need to consider once this is over, including whether we need to take other measures that could obviate the need to use the extraordinary powers in the Act in the future, and how to repair holes in our political system. [I’m] particularly concerned about the radicalization of people who would normally be law-abiding...” Mr. Clerk, could you now pull up again, it’s in two separate documents; SSM.CAN00004351, please? So scrolling down until we get to where we were. There we go. “[I’m] particularly concerned about the radicalization of people who would normally be law-abiding and focused on going about their daily lives. Glad to talk at any time.” So the first thing I want to ask, Minister, is would you agree that Mr. Beatty says the most significant additional measures taken by the government were the financial ones; is that an observation you would agree with?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the next -- the other question I want to ask is Mr. Beatty raises the issue or the possibility of considering other measures that could be taken to obviate the need for the Emergencies Act. Do you have any comment on that aspect of his ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, fair enough. And perhaps even a question for the Commission as we head into policy week next week.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Which is why you were approaching him about this at this time. Okay, so I think that's probably enough of Mr. Beatty's observations. The other person, do you recall a phone call or a conversation with Brian Mulroney, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney about this?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So if I pull up the notes will you recognise the ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- conversation? Okay. So it's SSM.CAN00008764. And the notation I believe is at page 37. There we go. So you'll have to forgive me if I butcher this in deciphering the handwriting, but, "Mulroney - you have conduct", conducted I guess, "yourself in such a way"... And then flipping to the next page. There's not much else there. "Emergencies Act - I brought it into law, so I am in favour of it. The thing (protests) are over." And then scrolling down, "I am glad I brought" -- -
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
"I am glad I brought in that legislation." So do you have any recollection of this conversation and why you would have approached Mr. Mulroney about this?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So the date of that conversation is February 25th. So that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- would probably go back to your point about there were a lot of things going on at that time.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So that brings me to the very last question I want to ask you, Minister, which is this is something that's been touched on already in the Inquiry. We haven't really spoken about it yet today. But if you look at the section 58 explanation, and I'm not going to pull it up because it's nothing specific, but in reporting to Parliament about why the Act was invoked, much of that explanation focusses on economic security and the threats to, as we've talked about today, Canada's economy that we're -- and this has been now the discussion for about two hours today. What is the link, as you see it, between the threat to economic security and the threat to national security? Because that link is not necessarily obvious in looking at legislation, and I'd really like to hear, we would really like to hear your perspective on that question.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Commissioner, those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination, Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner. Shantona Chaudhury, for the record. Our next witnesses are from the prime minister's office, Mr. John Brodhead, Ms. Katherine Telford, Mr. Brian Clow.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon. Thank you for being here. We're just going to start with a couple of routine housekeeping items, the first of which is introducing your interview summary. So you'll recall having sat for an interview with Commission counsel on October 11th of this year, and following that interview, Commission counsel prepared a summary of the interview. Have you all three reviewed that summary?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, just for the record, I know it's a bit difficult with the three of you, but someone answer yes, please.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And also present at that interview was your colleague, Mr. Jeremy Broadhurst?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can you confirm that Mr. Broadhurst as well has reviewed that -- the summary of the interview?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And that it is accurate according to all four of you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Perfect. So Mr. Clerk, for the record, that’s WTS00000083. No need to call it up. And then the second small order of business is the PMO Institutional Report, so the prime minister's office prepared that institutional report for these proceedings. That doc ID number of that is DOJ.IR.00000014, and I'd just like you to confirm again that that report was prepared by PCO and that you have reviewed it and that it is accurate, to the best of your knowledge and belief.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Okay. So the first thing I'll say is this is one of the examinations that we're doing of a panel. There are three of you. And some of my questions will be directed at one of you specifically because it's something that's within your personal knowledge, or a document or a communication that you were involved in, and some of them I will throw out more generally, and the person best placed can answer. And you can also feel free if it's appropriate and you have knowledge to add to someone else's answer, you're free to do that. So the first question I think I'll address to Ms. Telford, which is just can you explain the mandate and the structure at a very sort of general level of the Prime Minister's Office? What does the Prime Minister's Office do?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And just building on that, I'll ask you to explain, Ms. Telford, your specific role as Chief of Staff, and then I'll ask each of your colleagues to do the same.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And Mr. Brodhead, can you explain your role, please?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we're going to come back in a minute to -- you mentioned PCO. And we've heard from a few witnesses last week from PCO, so we're going to come back to the interplay a little bit between your office and PCO. But first, I'll just ask Mr. Clow to introduce himself and describe his role.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And I should mention that the reason you've all been selected to be here today is you were all involved in some way in assisting the Prime Minister in responding to the events of late January and February that are before the Commission. Certainly not just you, but certainly all of you. So just going back to that question of the interplay between PCO and PMO, I'm not sure who's best placed to speak to that between the three of you, but Mr. Brodhead, you brought it up, so maybe we'll start with you.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah. So the lines of communication and the interaction between the public service and the political side in advising the Prime Minister.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ms. Telford, do you have anything to add to that in terms of the lines of communication and providing advice to the Prime Minister?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Okay, with that introduction out of the way, we'll turn to the matters before the Commission. And starting with the very early days of the convoy, can you describe to us when PMO first became aware that the convoy was a thing that was possibly rolling into Ottawa, what your initial impressions of it were, what your sources of information were and the sort of prearrival early days.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that takes us -- Mr. Clerk, can you please bring up SSM.CAN.NSC 00002578? So, Mr. Clow, if I take this correctly, you were speaking at that point of PMO's sort of monitoring of what was going on, and I believe the 25th was the first time you got a briefing from the PCO?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we're just going to look at what the content of that meeting was. Mr. Clerk, if you can scroll down -- keep scrolling. Okay. There we go. So this is Mike MacDonald, and we know he -- actually, just refresh our memories as to who Mike MacDonald is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That's right. Intelligence Secretariate. Okay. So Mike MacDonald is explaining and briefing, essentially, on what the state of knowledge there is at the time. So he says, "Latest lay of the land -- security, coordination, [National Security] apparatus -- what do we know? Law enforcement across the country is learning more about the convoy and its organizers as they interact with them." And then there's some description of where it's coming from. The next bullet down says, "Actively monitoring -- one thing they're picking up on is chatter on social media. So far, RCMP telling us that the convoy itself is peaceful, not causing problems along the way. Their goal is to get to Ottawa, not have infractions along the way." And then, "Very small online chatter. That's where people are using disturbing language." Mr. Clerk, if you can just keep scrolling to the next page, please? There we go. "Following Jan[uary] 6[th] events last year..." Which is a reference to January 6th in Capitol Hill in the United States, "...NSIA worked with PPS, RCMP and sergeant at arms for a scenario planning for regular protests, pushed boundaries and plan out for things like an insurrection. This has been done." Then, "Ottawa Police and PPS have an MOU, have done exercises for these types of protests [...] On the federal side, we have governance in place that is up [and] running. ADM national security operations centre. Meeting every day to ensure [...] parts of [the] federal family are coordinated in efforts, and can feed information through." So does that represent essentially, first of all, the content of that briefing as you were aware of it that day?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just scrolling down a bit again, Mr. Clerk, there's a comment at the end there. So you'll see at the end it says, "Questions? Z..." And I believe that's a reference to Zita Astravas, Bill Blair's Chief of Staff?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Blair's Chief of Staff. So she says, "...curious to know how feed into political level. From our perspective, feel assured having worked in the space of all the work being done, but ministers feeling uneasy and keen on details." I'm wondering if you can help us understand what is meant there by sense of unease at the political level.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So is it fair to say then, that in Mike MacDonald's email that we just read through, the message coming through is essentially, well, we've planned for this. We did some planning after January 6th and things are sort of under control and the machine is operating as it should. But then Ms. Astravas raises a concern saying the Ministers are actually pretty worried about this. So is it fair to say that there was some unease at the Ministerial or at the political level, but it isn't reflected in the briefing?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So then just move -- thank you, Mr. Clerk. You can take that document down. So that's the sort of prearrival state. Is there -- unless there's anything else you'd like to add about what was going on prearrival, but then chronologically, the next thing that happens is the convoy arrives and doesn't leave when everyone expected it to do, and then we head into the first week of the protest, if we can call it that. So I'd like you to pull up now, Mr. Clerk, SSM.NSC.CAN00002941. And as that's being done, maybe I can ask you to just describe to us from your point of view what that first week was like and what was going on from your perspective in attempting to respond. And the notes I'm pulling up here are Mr. Clow's notes from a February 3rd meeting, which I think can fairly be described as a brainstorming ideas kind of meeting. But before we get into the specifics of the notes, can you fill in a bit of the narrative of what was happening in your thinking in your office at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And you’ll appreciate, we have an hour and a half so I’m skipping -- I know I’m skipping though weeks in chronology very quickly but it’s necessary, and thank you for filling that in. So here we go. February 3rd, there’s just a few points that I want to pick out here. So the first notation says “JB”. That’s John Brodhead, Mr. Brodhead?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oh, that’s Jeremy Broadhurst, okay. This may get confusing. Jeremy Broadhurst: "Looks like OPS won’t move. Weeks not days. Weird reinforcements problem." As read. Or something “reinforcements problem”.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ah, that makes more sense. "Behind scenes, too deferential: need bad cop: you’ve got to use tools you have. Whether to change public message is different." And then “KT”. That’s Ms. Telford?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, I can’t read the first part. The second part says: "What if anything can we do? What are options?" So that’s introducing this as a sort of a brainstorming of ideas. And then we’ll see a variety of ideas expressed here. Mr. Clerk, can you just scroll down. We see -- sorry, just above there: "Any way we can get Bergen’s help." That’s a reference to Candice Bergen.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then we have Ms. Astravas saying: "Blair doesn’t want to call Sloly [but he’s] open to calling Watson." As read. And then RFA is a reference to a request for assistance. And we’re going to come back to these in a moment but: "Ontario could only ask if they have exhausted resources." Scrolling down again, please, Mr. Clerk, until you get to the bottom of the page. So here we have an intervention. Many of the ideas that are expressed here we’ve already heard about so I’m skipping through them quickly but, at the bottom of the page here, this is Yasir, I believe?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, that same day, on February 3rd?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, so -- and what he told you was: "Clearly, Ottawa Police and City are unable to deal with this. Reinforcements coming this weekend. It’s going to really embolden these folks. My constituents near breaking point, worried people will take things into their own hands." So does that reflect, Mr. Clow, what Mr. Naqvi was expressing to you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can we scroll down to the top of the next page? Yeah, there we go. So I think this is a continuation of the phone call with Mr. Naqvi: "What I heard from Sloly: plea for help. It’s a plea for something, something political." Do you recall that reference, Mr. Clow?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s correct. It was the day before. And what I’m wondering is, can you -- what was the reaction within PMO to that statement? He we have Mr. Naqvi’s, I think, interpretation of it, which is it’s a “plea for something”, and then he says it’s a “plea for something political”. Does that reflect -- or was there any thinking among the three of you or among your office -- within your office about what Chief Sloly may have been expressing there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think we can leave those notes for now. Thank you, Mr. clerk. The next ones we’ll pull up -- well, it’s actually notes. Sorry, Mr. Clerk. Keep scrolling down until you see February 6th. Yes, there we go. So it says, "PM, February 6th, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m." So I assume this was a meeting that was with the Prime Minister attended by, as it says here, the Clerk, the NSIA, and then John, Janice, Jody, Sam. That would be John Brodhead, Mr. Brodhead; Janice, the Clerk, Janice Charette; Jody Thomas, the NSIA; Sam -- who’s Sam?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So if we just scroll down, then, until we see: "OPS trying to reduce violence, are taking some steps." And then below that: "Coutts persists but traffic is moving. AB asked for RFA. We don’t see CAF being able to help with that." Do you remember who was making that statement there? Is this the NSIA’s update there, Mr. Clow?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Were these briefings happening daily?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So the next point that I want to look at here is right at the bottom of the page here: “ON” -- that’s a reference to Ontario -- “pushed back”. And then the notation is: "PM: establish list of mandates." I can’t read the next word, something “vaccines”.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then under that, it says: "DM for SolGen…” So that would be the Deputy Minister -- Deputy Solicitor General: "…pushed back." And that takes us to an issue that we’ve canvassed a bit here in the Commission so far and I’d like to get your perspective on this afternoon, which is, what was going on in those early days of the protest, the first week and the first week and a half in terms of interaction between the various levels of government, and the federal and provincial aspects, and especially Ontario’s response, or perhaps lack of response, if we can characterize it that way. Mr. Brodhead, I believe this is probably best put to you within your purview.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, I’ll -- Mr. Clerk, can you take those notes down for a second and pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00003015, please? Mr. Brodhead, I think this is a text that goes to the point you were just elucidating. So we don’t have a confirmed date for this one but it must be ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And this is a text between you and Ms. Astravas, a text exchange, and she says to you -- I believe she’s in the blue here: "Marco…" That’s a reference to Minister Mendicino. "…hasn’t heard back from Sylvia Jones." That’s a reference to solicitor general of Ontario on the meeting with the three orders of government, reference to the tripartite. And you say, "Yeah, because we don’t want to be a part of it." And she says, "Oh, I know." And you say, "So anything I should do? We should just go ahead without them." And then it goes on. So can you contextualize that for us a little bit?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, who is Jamie Wallace, exactly?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So you had a conversation with Mr. Wallace ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- chief of staff to Premier Ford, and the message coming back to you was?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Was there any reason given for that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Were you having interactions during this time with counterparts in other provinces as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
We may come back to some of those interactions, but we'll stick to Ontario for now. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00002935? So Ms. Telford, this is a text exchange between you and Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who we know is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. And he writes to you and says, "Just got this from Vandergrift." So that’s a reference to his deputy minister, Michael Vandergrift. "Minister, want to let you know that the Ontario solicitor general has again declined the invitation to attend the tripartite meeting today on the Ottawa occupation." And you say, "I think we need to let -- shine a light on that." He says, "We'll say it." Can you explain to us what was going on in this text message and what you meant by "I think we need to shine a light on that"?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Would it be fair to say that there was some frustration with Ontario's response at this point?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s fair. Mr. Clerk, can you please pull up ONT.00000159? So I'm going to ask you here about a meeting that was held on February 6th that was a sort of tripartite but not quite, between the City of Ottawa, federal government, and provincial government. And the exchange I'm going to take you to -- we've seen this document several times in the Commission, so I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but at the end of the document, there's an exchange between the national security advisor and the deputy solicitor general of Ontario that I'd like to get your take on. So it's February 6th, an 11 o'clock meeting attended by officials from three levels of government. So Mr. Clerk, if you can scroll down to the very bottom of the document you'll see it says there: "Jody Thomas, National Security Advisor, noted that it was a positive meeting and regrets to end on this following point. Would the province be looking to the federal government if this protest was happening outside the City of Ottawa, e.g., happening in other places like Kingston?" And the response from Mr. Di Tommaso was: "This is a protest and encampment moving against the federal mandate on trucks. They came across -- they came to Ottawa from across the country for that purpose." Mr. Di Tommaso testified at the Commission approximately two weeks ago and he expressed that in his view, Ms. Thomas' -- he interpreted Ms. Thomas' comment as -- I'll quote the words here, "The federal government wanting to wash its hands of the entire matter." And so I'd just like to get your reaction in terms of whether you think that was a fair assessment of what was going on, what do you think that that was, what was being expressed there, and what Ms. Thomas was trying to express when she said, "Would this be -- would the province be looking to the federal government if this was somewhere other than Ottawa?"
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. And you can appreciate that one of the issues the Commission is looking into is the interaction between governments and -- which is not always an easy thing, but how it all played out here. Okay. So eventually, around this time, around the time of February 7th, 8th, 9th, Ontario became more engaged when the Ambassador Bridge blockade became entrenched and so we know that that has happened. And I'll take you with that point to the witness summary. I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk, it's WTS00000014, page 11. Oh, I'm sorry, 83. I'm sorry, I got the wrong number, 83. Fourteen (14) is the IR. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So if we scroll down to page 11, please, Mr. Clerk? Keep scrolling. Keep scrolling. Okay, scroll up a bit, please. What I’m looking for is the panel was asked what, in their view -- it could be that I have the wrong page number. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
While they’re looking for the reference, Mr. Brodhead, what I want to ask you about is what in your view -- you were asked this during the interview, and I’d like you to elaborate on it; what inspired the shift from Ontario? Why did it happen then, and how did that occur?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we know that there was several important phone calls that happened around time, certainly between the Prime Minister and Premier Ford, which we’ll talk about tomorrow when the Prime Minister is here; between Minister Leblanc, we talked about when Minister Leblanc was here. Leaving Ontario for a moment and talking about engagement with other provinces, I do want to ask you some questions about another topic that’s come up several times here, which is Alberta’s request for assistance. So I’m going to put to you a few facts that we know and that have come out already at the Commission, and that are also brought out in the PMO Institutional Report. So there’s a notation in your IR that PMO staff engaged with Pam Livingston. So Mr. Brodhead, maybe you can tell us who Pam Livingston is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And there were two interactions, apparently, between PMO and Ms. Livingston about the Alberta request for assistance. And that request for assistance we’ve seen several times before, so no need to pull it up, but was for, essentially, assistance in tow trucks, in removing vehicles from the Coutts blockade. There’s also a notation that the Prime Minister had a formal call on February 6th with Minister Blair to discuss Alberta’s request for assistance and the ongoing situation. And then I’m going to pull up -- or ask the Clerk to pull up Mr. Clow’s notes again, SSM.NSC.CAN00002941. So this is the notation I said we’d come back to. This is the meeting that you’re having with the Prime Minister on February 6th, and the notation -- there it is, thank you: “Coutts persists, but traffic is moving. [Alberta] asked for RFA. We don’t see CAF being able to help to [with] that.” So at that point, it’s apparently been concluded, or decided in some form, that the Canadian Armed Forces is unable to assist; is that correct, Mr. Clow?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
What I’m really wondering about all of these exchanges -- and there was a further meeting, apparently, on the 9th, where, again, this time it was Ms. Telford and Ms. Charette, the Prime Minister, and Ministers Leblanc, Mendicino, and Blair, all discussing the RFA during one of the -- the meetings that was held. Why was this RFA treated quite differently than most are? This was elevated to the level of the PMO and the Prime Minister, which most requests for assistance are not. Can you explain or elaborate on that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, that’s fair. It’s the request for assistance that we’re dealing with in the Commission, it’s the only one that we’ve seen this pattern in. But that’s a fair explanation. Okay. I now want to shift gears now and talk about what you were hearing during this process with various stakeholders and interlocuters, both nationally and internationally. So Mr. Clow, I’ll start with you. We know you had a few conversations with a man named Juan Gonzales, he’s the special advisor to President Biden. Can you tell us about those conversations, and what you were hearing from him?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you mentioned that we heard this morning from the Deputy Prime Minister that she was hearing a lot of concern from officials in the United States about what was going on, and some encouragement, if we could put it that way, to bring a swift end, given the impact this was going to have on Canada-US relations and trade. Were you hearing similar concerns from the people you were talking to in the United States and/or in other countries?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And we understand you also had some conversations with Ambassador Hillman, Ambassador to the United States. Can you tell us about those conversations?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Did that ever end up happening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Brodhead, Ms. Telford, were either of you having conversations with international counterparts? No?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. We've heard about some of that already at the Commission. You speak of the foreign funding and we explored that a bit this morning with the Deputy Prime Minister and it was found in the end that there were millions of dollars coming from the United States, from private donors. So there was no foreign state funding coming in; would you agree with that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we've also established that there was little information available to the government at the time of the convoy of how much money was coming in from the United States. That wasn't really information that was available to the government at the time. Would you agree with that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So you've taken me to what I actually wanted to ask you about, which is one thing we haven't heard much about so far is political commentary coming from the United States. So you'd mentioned prominent political figures weighing in on all of this. Can you tell us about some of that, some of what you were hearing or observing on that front?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you please pull up Mr. Clow's notes again? So that's SSM.NSC.CAN00002941. Remarkably effective note taker. Now it's going to be a little challenging to find the page here because we don't have a date for it, so just keep scrolling down until you see "talked about the Emergencies Act." So scroll down again please. Scroll down. Keep scrolling. Keep scrolling. Keep going. I think it's just after this. Keep going, please. There's a lot of blackout in this, so it's a little challenging. Oh, we're at the FMM already, so it must be before that.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Did you?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can you zoom out a little bit, please, Mr. Clerk, so we can see? Thanks. Keep going up a little bit.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, there we go. Okay. So first question, we don't have a date on this because it's sort of -- there's some blackout before that, but do you remember the date of this, Mr. Clow?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So at the meeting on February 9th and ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Why don't you tell us what ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Why don't you tell us what was happening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So around February 9th we're getting to the point of we know where the federal government felt a need to perhaps intervene in the situation and bring this to a close in some way. So as you say, "Blair spoke to [the] Clerk and talked about the Emergencies Act On the options..." Can you just read your handwriting there? "Didn't commit on the options -- Emergenc[y] could be piece [if] that Sounds like we have authority" And then a reference to Nathalie Drouin, the Deputy Clerk ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we know that the following day, the Prime Minister convened the first Incident Response Group meeting.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So I'd like you to tell us a bit about that meeting, the decision to convene the IRG and what that meant in the Prime Minister's eyes, in your eyes, and what an IRG really is.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And what is the purpose of that? Why is an IRG structured like that with direct input from officials?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So essentially, you remove sort of the layering up and instead, the prime minister has direct access to all of the input that he may want or need?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Fair enough. So we've been through the content of many of the IRGs. One theme I want to pick up with you is something that was eventually brought to the IRG on February 12th, but has been a discussion at the Commission throughout, which was the idea of whether the prime minister or anyone from the federal government should engage with the protesters and attempt to bring this to a close through either some sort of negotiation, some engagement, some speaking. So the first thing I'll bring up on that point is, Mr. Clerk, it's PB.CAN.00001184 -- or it might be 1844, sorry. Ms. Telford, this is a text exchange on February 6th between you and Minister Mendicino, so it's early days. As I said, the theme of interaction, negotiation is something that came up. Can we scroll down, please, Mr. Clerk? Keep going, keep going, going, page 8, please. Okay. Here we go. So if we can blow that up, it's really hard to read, but you'll see a notation here: "Lawyer, arbitrator, mediator offer suggested by Anne McLellan of a possible interlocutor. Again, I think it's a long shot for the reasons we discussed. Also, I noticed after we hung up that we didn’t even spend a moment on politics and readiness." Okay. So that part that may not be all that relevant. But can you -- do you remember this text exchange, Ms. Telford?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And do you remember the idea of discussing and a possible interlocutor at that point and what was going on? Can you fill that in for us, please?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So at this point, this is part of the conversation. We're still in sort of early days of the protest, and I think what you're taking us to now is what's come to be known as the engagement proposal. And we've heard some evidence on that. And Mr. Clerk, you can take that one down please and pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00002958. So Ms. Telford, I think what you've just been referencing has been canvassed before the Commission a bit, and it's Mr. -- Deputy Minister Stewart's engagement proposal that he prepared with the assistance of Marcel Beaudin from the OPP PLT. And this is now we're the evening of February 11th. It's a text that Minister Mendicino sent to you saying: "Hey there. We got some very last- minute and thin paper tonight on an engagement strategy from my deputy minister, apparently socialized it with several people including the Ontario government, not me." I'll just scroll down and see the rest of the text, please. It says it's unclear whether PCO, RCMP, or Ontario supports this, but he's flagging this as a concern about information flow. And then he says at the bottom, "Sorry, but had to let you know. Marco." So can you tell us a bit from your perspective? We've heard Minister Mendicino's perspective on it, but what was your perspective receiving this text, and do you know why Minister Mendicino was essentially apologizing, saying, "Sorry, I'm just letting you know about this"?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And we’ve seen that it ended up on the agenda, and I think you just started to tell us a little bit, but maybe you can finish that answer, why ultimately it was decided not to pursue that engagement strategy.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, you can take that one down. So we’re going to skip a little ahead in the chronology again. The following day, February 13th, is obviously key. There’s the Incident Response Group meeting in the afternoon followed by the Cabinet meeting in the evening. The decision coming out of the IRG is to have the Cabinet meeting, and then the decision coming out of the Cabinet meeting is to have a First Ministers’ Meeting to consult on whether or not to invoke the Emergencies Act. Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00002941? It’s Mr. Clow’s notes again. This time at page 22. So when Minister LeBlanc testified a few days ago, we went through some of the comments, the record of the readout of the First Ministers’ Meeting, and some of what was expressed by the provinces there. And these, I believe, are Mr. Clow’s notes of that same meeting, and I’m wondering whether we can through a bit of these. And Mr. Brodhead, maybe this is best directed at you, but -- or that you can fill in a bit of the context about what was being expressed during the First Ministers’ Meeting by these various premiers and whether or not, in your view, in coincided with what you’d been hearing up to then about solving the problem of the convoy.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Ms. Telford?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That’s helpful context in understanding comments like you just brought up, “I don’t” -- Premier Kenney saying, “I don’t quibble with the use of the Act.” Mr. Clow, do you have anything to add on that -- on this front?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You can take that one down. So we know that what happened after the First Ministers’ Meeting, which lasted about an hour. There was then, I believe, a call with opposition leaders, and then at some point that afternoon, the Prime Minister received a Decision Note from the Clerk, and fairly shortly thereafter took the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. One thing I wanted to ask, from your perspective, was any consideration given in any of this to holding a debate before parliament, not to decide, of course, but to engage in a debate over whether the Emergencies Act should be invoked?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So, essentially, that conversation didn’t happen because it didn’t have to; there was already a parliamentary process built in?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Is that fair? Okay. And I just want to turn briefly now to the topic of revocation of the Act, which I know is skipping ahead again. Mr. Clerk, if you can pull up Mr. Clow's notes again. I don't know what we'd do without Mr. Clow's notes here. SSM.NSC.CAN00002941, page 28. The only thing missing from the notes is clear page numbers. Always number the pages. So this is February 19th, it's a staff call, and right at the bottom there, you say: "Parliament's job is to confirm or revoke, doesn't impact changes." I believe: "After revocation what happens to frozen accounts?" So that's a topic we've explored a bit with Finance: "At what point do we withdraw based on what inputs?" So is it fair to say at this point this is a discussion of almost first principles. "We don't really know what the criteria are to revoke, we need to figure out what those criteria are." Was that an accurate reflection?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And there was no - - I think what I was saying was there was no playbook for it, so it was essentially a discussion for first principles of trying to figure out what these criteria should be. Would you scroll down a bit, please, Mr. Clerk, to the following day. You'll see IRG. Not that one, February 20th. Keep going. So the first notation there says: "IRG February 20th. RCMP/Officials public brief on how long emergency act is needed." Now, we're going to take this down, and bring up a different document, Mr. Clerk, which is SSM.CAN.NSC00002910. This isn't something that's recorded in your notes, Mr. Clow. What I'm going to bring up is Commissioner Lucki's key messages from that date. So it's an RCMP document, and I'm going to take you through it and ask you whether your recollection is that that was expressed during the IRG. So there we go. So the key messages are: "As I said yesterday, the situation across the country remains concerning, volatile and unpredictable. We are continuing to see a range of protest events and solidarity actions across the country, with ports of entry and legislatures the key targets. I want to underscore two key bottom lines off the top. First - as it relates to Ottawa and Ontario, there is an operational need to maintain access to these powers to ensure that we can finish what we started and prevent any retrenchment. Even for the next 2 [to] 3 weeks." And then after that: "It is important that we retain the ability to maintain the perimeter, restrict travel and ensure we can continue to choke off financial support and other assistance to the protesters in Ottawa." And then it goes on. Do you recall this having been expressed, at the IRG, that the Emergencies Act should stay in place, by the RCMP, by Commissioner Lucki for another two or three weeks?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Ms. Telford, Mr. Brodhead, do you have anything to add to that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And as we know that that's not what happened in the end. The Act was revoked three days later. So is it fair to say that that input was received but not followed by, in the end, the Government?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. One thing I wanted to ask you as well about the revocation decision is there have been some suggestions that the motion to confirm the declaration of emergency had been passed through the House of Commons but was up for a vote in the Senate, and that part of the timing of revocation may have been due to -- some perhaps lack of confidence around whether the Senate would confirm the declaration. Can you speak to that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Those are actually all the questions I have for you, since -- given that the Prime Minister will be here tomorrow, your boss will be speaking for himself. Those are the questions that I have for you this afternoon, but before I sit down, is there anything that we haven't covered here today that you would like to say now that you have the opportunity?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No, pretty quiet. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination, Commissioner.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Shantona Chaudhury for the Commission. Our next and final witness is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Shall we take five minutes.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Can the witness be sworn or affirmed?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Prime Minister.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you for being here. So we’ll start with the routine housekeeping. You recall being interviewed by Commission Counsel on September 9th of this year?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And after that interview, Commission Counsel prepared a summary of your interview.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
For the record, we don’t need to call it up, Mr. Clerk, but it’s WTS.0000084. Prime Minister, you reviewed that summary, and you can confirm that it’s accurate, to the best of your knowledge?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I’ll add there that, of course, it’s a summary; it’s not an exact transcript of your words, but it’s a prepared summary, and we’re all aware of that. So Prime Minister, as you know, you are the final witness to testify before the Commission, so at this point the Commission has heard a lot of evidence about the events of January and February leading up to your government’s decision to declare a Public Order Emergency on February 14th. But what we haven’t heard yet is your perspective, so your own perspective, your viewpoint, both as the Prime Minister leading the country through these events, and the decision-maker in the government’s ultimate decision to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time in that Act’s history. So we have two hours together this morning, and I anticipate that the examination is going to proceed in two parts. The first part will consist of fairly specific questions taking you through the chronology of events, often with reference to documents that have been adduced before the Commission, and read-outs of your own calls. And the second part will consist of some bigger-picture questions. So addressing some of the key themes that have arisen out of these events, and the government’s response to it. So let’s start with the chronology of events. And I’ll warn you, we’re going to fly through this pretty quickly. Two hours is not a lot of time to fly through everything that happened between these days, but if ever you feel like you need to add in some narrative or explanations, please feel free to do so. So we’ll start with just the prearrival days, so before the convoy arrived in Ottawa. We know that you learned the convoy was on its way a few days before, maybe around January 24th; you were briefed on it by both officials from PCO and your own staff from PMO. Can you recall what your expectation was at that point? So you’ve been briefed; the convoy is on its way. What did you anticipate was going to happen?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Vous avez parlé du… de la campagne électorale. Vous voudrez dire un peu plus sur ce sujet?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So just to sum that up -- I’ll switch back to English; I think we’ll probably be switching back and forth a few times -- you saw the protest coming and you’ve been briefed on it. And as you said, Ottawa is used to dealing with big protests, but there was maybe a hint that something could be a little bit different here. So there was a hint of worry there. And then, of course, we know that the convoy arrived on -- started arriving on the 28th and then went into full swing on the 29th. What was that first weekend like when the convoy arrived, from your point of view?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I think starting on that Sunday you made a few calls to various MPs in your Ottawa Caucus sort of checking in and seeing how people were doing because there was a level of concern there. So on that note, I’ll ask Mr. Clerk to please pull up SSM.CAN.NSC00002813. While that’s being pulled up, it’s a readout of a call that you had on Sunday, January 30th with Yasir Naqvi. Just for the benefit of everyone in the room, can you tell us who Yasir Naqvi is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, perfect. So if we can just scroll down to the text here, Mr. -- there we go. “Hey Yasir How are you PM? How are you doing, more importantly how are folks in the community?” And Mr. Naqvi says: “Very dire, community really feels under siege, you can imagine # of trucks, rigs, honking. For them it’s a party, but they forget it’s also a neighbourhood, especially low income families. I’ve been getting alot of feedback. Also been in touch with Marco [that’s Mr. Mendicino], Bill [I assume Minister Blair] and local officials, and finding a way to make sure those folks are not part of residential streets. Tonight will be very challenging.” And you say: “I feel so gutted for so many people who are just in such a difficult situation. It’s not just disruption, but a lot of hateful rhetoric going on. Are you seeing some of that?” And Mr. Naqvi says: “It’s unbelievable, the images that we see are hard to believe. Saw a life size poster on a truck of Hitler and your name underneath. This is the kind of grossness our country is subject to. I have constituents being yelled at for wearing masks while out doing normal chores. There are all kinds of other issues people are facing in the neighbourhood and they don’t know if they can sleep tonight.” And you then reply: “There doesn’t seem like there is much clarity on how long this will last.” And then you referred to an incident at the Shepherd of Good Hope. And then finally, your last comment here is: “I’m so sorry, my friend, this is just horrible.” The RCMP is concerned, everyone’s just on eggshells. “Having this going on in our nation’s capital is just totally irresponsible.” So to some extent, that’s self-explanatory, but I’m wondering if you can help us a little bit in explaining the context of that call and what Mr. Naqvi was referring to and what you’d observed yourself.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Moving on, then, Mr. Clerk, to the next document, SSM.CAN.NSC00002812. So Prime Minister, this is moving on the next day, so the Monday, the 31st. I think at some point there was some hope or expectation that the convoy might disperse by Monday, but it didn’t. And at that point, you have a call with Mayor Jim Watson of Ottawa. We’ll just look at a couple of things here. The initial reference is to a press conference you’ve done and he tells you, you hit it out of the park, hit all the right notes. And then says, “These people had their time and need to move on.” So he’s very -- and he’s been trying to get this across to the Chief of Police. That would be Chief Sloly. So Mayor Watson was obviously very focused on putting an end to the protest if he can. Scrolling down, then, last bit, JW, that’s Mayor Watson: “chief of police said it’s so volatile, but kept under control so far. Trucks are starting to leave, but some diehards chained themselves to this. Unfortunate for people living in residential neighbourhood. They just doing themselves a disservice. Chief of police spoke to Chief Lucki, and we need a few more sources.” I think that probably means for resources. And you say, “That’s for sure.” And then it goes on, you -- sorry, he says: “we have to do this with a sense of balance, these guys are just looking for a fight.” And your comment back on that -- just go down a bit, Mr. Clerk, is: “the remainders will have no choice but to incite as a counterbalance, so we all have to be careful.” Can you explain those last few comments about the balance and counterbalance you were referring to there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you. The next one, Mr. Clerk, is SSM.CAN.NSC0002814. So now we’re at Wednesday, February 2nd, and this is a called that you have with Anita Vandenbeld. So again, can you tell us, Prime Minister, who Anita Vandenbeld is?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So you remember this call?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we’ll just read through a little bit of what Ms. Vandenbeld said, starting, you say, “I wanted to check in ... how are you doing?”. She says: “I really appreciate it. I’m torn, I’m scared, but I get really mad that I’m scared. Kids with autism, the noise, it’s one of those things you feel like ok, well, it’s awful. I’m not a stranger to volatile environments, but it’s different because I know the sentiment is directed towards us, you particularly. There is this hate for liberals.” And then after that: “I do think it may deter some young women that are looking at politics, ... I don’t want anything to happen to one of us, god forbid you, before we start thinking about all of this.” And then she speaks about constituents calling about what the PM is going to do about it. It’s hard -- and she says: “...it’s hard because I know it’s not within your purview. People are frustrated and they just want somebody to do something to get the city back.” And then she speaks about some other hateful messages that she’s observed. And you say “it’s about how you balance it” again, being responsible and reasonable. So the part of this that I’d like you to speak to, Prime Minister, is where she says, “a lot of constituents are calling me” about what the PM, what the Prime Minister is going to do about this. And she then says, “it’s hard because I know it’s not within your purview”. So what does that refer to?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
I think we’re going to come back to that when I start asking about Ontario’s initial response to all of this, but we’re not quite there yet. So I’ll take you to a few more things and then I’ll ask you to pick up where you left off there. So so far we’ve been looking at some calls you’ve had with your own MPs, MPs from your caucus. The next one, Mr. Clerk, you can pull up, it’s SSM.CAN.00007738. It’s a call that you had with, on February 3rd, Candice Bergen, who I believe had just become leader of the Opposition of the House. I confess I was yesterday years old when I learned that, but I now know. Okay. So this is a call you then have on Wednesday, February 3rd with Ms. Bergen. And do you recall this? Do you remember this call, Prime Minister?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And can you tell us what inspired that call or ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Get enough sleep is always good advice. Mr. Clerk, can we scroll down a little bit where we see -- there we go. Okay. So this is the part of the conversation that you start talking about the security situation in Ottawa. You say: “The second set of briefing would be security situation in Ottawa right now. Obviously of real concern and we have lots of disagreement on causes and path forward. I would certainly like to make sure you[‘re] get[ting] briefings on safety and the situation and have you at least […] fully informed. Hopefully were all going to be able to make sure Canada’s democracy continues to run and our institutions remain strong and quite frankly the citizens of Ottawa get back to their regular lives.” Scroll down again please to the next page, Mr. Clerk. So Ms. Bergen says: “Absolutely, I agree. I’m sure you weren’t following question period today but that’s what I’d like to see some resolution. You’re right we disagree on some things, but I would agree with you the goal is [to] let’s […] find a way for people to head back home and clear things up in Ottawa. We do want the same things. If you have some ideas or some things you think could be done, extending an olive branch is one way of putting it, we’d love to be able to […] work together to make that happen.” And you say in reply: “All of us need to focus on getting the temp down [the temperature down] and getting people back to normal lives. Let’s ensure there are discussions on that and there may be opportunities to work together. Some of them [-- I think you’re referring to the protestors there --] have jammed themselves into a corner and their asks are non-starters. We have our democracy and [our] institutions that is well worth defending. There are ways we can get beyond this. I’m worried about setting a precedent where if anyone wants something they can set up a blockade on wellington st. People need to be heard and that’s part of our democracy and getting that balance right.” Ms. Bergen says she: “Agree[s] with everything you said. I think that you do have to be cautious and as PM you don’t want to set a bad precedent. I’m sure you’re talking and coming up with some ideas.” And then she offers to help. So the part of that that I’d like you to elaborate on is it appears there that you’re talking -- and I take it the olive branch is a suggestion of some engagement with the protestors, some talking to in whatever capacity that would end up being. So what comes out of this conversation that you have with Ms. Bergen and what was in your mind at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So fairly self- explanatory. There’s a willingness to discuss, but you were concerned about setting a precedent where a blockade could equal a change in public policy? Is that fair?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So thank you, Mr. Clerk.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No, no, please go on.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s a fair point of distinction. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, the next document is SSM.CAN.NSC00002819. So Prime Minister, we’re now heading into the second weekend of the protest. So Saturday, February 3rd. And our understanding is that the protest intensified again with more trucks coming into Ottawa. And on that day, on the Saturday, you have a call with the Governor General Mary Simon. Do you recall -- do you remember that call?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So here is the read out of it. And we’ll just go through some of -- quite a bit, actually, of what was said on that call. So again, the introduction, and you say: “It has been stressful. Not so much for me personally.” The Governor General says: “Yes. They seem reluctant to give it up also. Makes it challenging.” And you say: “Yep. People blame the feds but many of the mandates are not us. And for the police, well we don’t direct them. Trying to get this resolved as peacefully as possible. Want them to find a way to save face but they can’t shut down our democracy. Sorry they are trying to pull you into this also. They [just] don’t understand the institutions.” And then the Governor General asks: “To go further on that…” Actually, I’ll stop there. Do you remember what you’re referring to in that paragraph there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Understood. And was that what prompted this call?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough. Okay. So then she asked if there's any sense on how it will be resolved, and you say, something. And then: Now they are starting to do that. Bill Blair has handled a lot in the past." And we know -- we've heard a lot from Bill Blair at the Commission as well: "This is not a protest more an occupation. Hard to defuse. I will take time. Being very careful to not try to fix something, we don't have the tools for it." Then there's some discussion about the funding. Can you scroll down a bit, Mr. Clerk. Onto the next page, please. And then she's -- the Governor General says: "Yeah, some of the senior staff getting a lot of hateful emails. Asking for the [Governor General] to fire [the Prime Minister] and to create these crazy things. [It's] difficult to receive these things. They made a website in my name saying stuff. Have to let it slide off our backs." And then you discuss the security situation. So is that what you were just referring to, Prime Minister and the ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- sort of bombardment? Okay. So just generally speaking before we move on, what was your sense of where things were at on that second weekend?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You can take that one down. So speaking of getting a little upset, the next topic I want to address with you is Ontario's initial response to the protest in those early weeks. So one theme that's emerged from the evidence we've heard, and we've seen several references to it in the documents, is your Government's frustration and your own frustration with what might be characterised as a certain reluctance on the part of Ontario to engage, especially in the tripartite tables that Minister Blair I think had put together. So Mr. Clerk, can you pull up SSM.CAN.NSC00002837. This is the readout from a call that you had, Prime Minister, with Mayor Jim Watson on February 8th. Okay, so just keeping scrolling a bit, Mr. Clerk, past the key takeaways onto page 2. So just to stop there, give a bit of situation. So Mr. -- Mayor Watson here brings up the expression "whack- a-mole", which we've heard several times in the Commission, "fighting a losing battle", "we don't have enough police", and you reply that, well: "That's entirely right...I know we are looking...carefully at [that]..." "We're looking at the resourcing". And then you say: "...on the Ottawa policing side, you have seen, as I have, some concerns on how things were handled from the beginning..." And then you ask about Mayor Watson's relationship with the Police Chief and how they're working together. And you observe that there are moments where Mayor Watson is saying one thing the Chief is saying another, and ask if there's anything you can do about that. So just briefly before we go on, can you comment on that a little bit and the Ottawa policing situation to the extent that you were briefed on and aware of it?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Just keep scrolling down, please, Mr. Clerk. I'll tell you when to stop. Keep going, please. Oh, no, no. I'm sorry, I missed it. There we go. So Mayor Watson says: "I'm going to ask after this phone call whether the federal government will live up to its commitment, we need boots on the ground very shortly. It's not dying down...took over Metcalfe Street...blocked all of it." And you reply: "[L]isten, yes, [yes] you can say the federal government will be there with more resource[s], but again, [the] thing that frustrates me, and everyone is conflated... but Doug Ford has been hiding from his responsibility on it for political reasons as [you've] highlighted, and important..." I suppose: "...[it's] important that we don't let them get away from that, and we intend to support you on that." And Mayor Watson replies: "If they keep dragging their feet, I'm happy to call them out on it. [It would] be nice if we got something firmed up with the federal government to shame them. Ford didn't even make an effort to come and see what's going on." So can I just ask you, Prime Minister, to comment a bit on the politics that are going on there?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, and we'll see that the very next day you had a call with Premier Ford, and just in the narrative, what was going on at this point, in addition to Ottawa, and there were a few things, as we know, going on across the country, but by this time, the 7th, 8th, 9th, the Ambassador Bridge blockade had really heated up and was in full swing. And that seemed to be a turning point, several ways, but certainly for Ontario's participation in all of this. So, Mr. Clerk, if you can take that document down, please, and bring up SSM.CAN.NSC 00002845. So point for advocacy to make a long story short, this is a call where it seems that you and Premier Ford are engaging and deciding to work together to solve this problem at this point. You can skip over the first -- oh, here we go. The last part of that first paragraph, so PDF, Premier Doug Ford, he says, "What we can recommend and what we can work together on is [...] I've asked our AG [our Attorney General] to look at legal ways to give police more tools and exhaust legal remedies because the police are a little shy and I can't direct them. So that's one area we can focus on. We can't take their polar licenses, we checked that. We can shut down their fuel consumption and cordon off highways. That's where we're at." And ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, probably not polar, but operator licenses. Let's go with that. So then you reply, "First of all, they're not a legal protest. They're occupying a municipal street and are not legally parked. You shouldn't need more tools -- legal tools -- they are barricading the [Ontario] economy and doing millions [of dollars] of damage a day and harming people's lives. At a time we're trying to draw in investments, a whole bunch of people are looking at this and saying we can't even clear up a protest on a bridge?" So just stopping there, Prime Minister, do you remember what you were referring to when you start talking about you shouldn't need more tools?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that's actually -- it's what you end up saying in the part you can't see right now with that -- the next page, the paragraph there.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So nobody say, "The bridges and tunnels act means the federal government has..." Something. I can't read that anymore, but, "...federal government has responsibility over the bridge and border, so there is a role for us to play and we're happy to play it. But nobody can get on the bridge because they're on municipal land being blocked. So we'll give you whatever resources you['re] in [you need]. The police of jurisdiction need[...] to do their job. If they're saying they can't do it because they don't have enough officers or equipment, we need to remove that excuse as soon as possible so they can do their work and we can prevent [Ontario] becoming a laughing stock" Mr. Clerk, just scroll down to the last page, please. We'll skip over -- there's some jurisdictional discussions going on there. And then just at the top of that page, please, Mr. Clerk. So this is the sort of the conclusion of the conversation. You say, "...what are the next steps? You've said the OPP are going in. are they keeping you apprised and do they understand the urgency? They can't talk this out for 3 weeks, they need to act immediately." And I'm assuming there the concern of acting immediately is brought about by the situation on Ambassador Bridge, which we've heard a lot about from the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. Premier Ford replies, "...they'll act, but without directing them, it's hard to describe their game plan. They'll have a plan unlike Ottawa [where] they didn't have a plan. I'll get briefed tomorrow from the solicitor general [...] we'll keep you updated. This is critical, I hear you. I'll be up their ass with a wire brush." Then the next, yeah, you say -- yes, that's one of the quotable quotes of the Commission. There have been a few. That's one. The next -- your reply there is, "[Well,] we're there with resources. Bill Blair will coordinate on our side, [...] you can reach out to Leblanc [Minister Leblanc] or me. You and I need to work together on this. People will be reassured by the two of us working together [...] we need to demonstrate this is not a place of lawlessness." Okay. We can take that down. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Oh, I'm sorry.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That's fair. I took the document down before got to Ottawa, but that's right. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. That one can come down now. So shifting gears away from Ontario, we understand that there was a lot of concern coming at the federal government from the United States as well. And, again, the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday spoke about the many conversations she was having with the stakeholders in the U.S., plus officials, Brian Deese in particular. And we understand that on, I believe February 11th, you ended up having a phone call with President Biden. Mr. Clerk, we'll just pull up the read out of that call. It’s PB.CAN00000057. Okay, good. Just scroll down to the next page, please. It’s got to be somewhere. Keep scrolling until you see a readout, but in the -- oh no, there it is, I think. In any event, Prime Minister, can you tell us just the readout doesn’t actually say that much, so can you tell us about your recollection of that call?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Would you say that President Biden shared your level of concern about the situation?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, fair enough; it was happening on your side of the border, so that makes sense. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, that’s it for that one. So that sort of brings us to a pretty critical time in the narrative of what happened in February. So we’re building to a bit of a crescendo around that time, the 10th, the 11th, and we’ve heard from the Clerk of the Privy Council that on February 9th, she advised you to convene the Incident Response Group. And the first meeting of the Incident Response Group was then on February 10th. So we have heard quite a bit about different cabinet committees and what the IRG is, but I’m wondering if you could tell us, from your perspective, sitting as Prime Minister and Chair of these committees, what it means to convene an IRG and how it differs and what it gives you; what advantage it has versus other structures.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So it collapses that layer between the officials and the Ministers a bit, so it gives ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- direct access?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. That’s helpful in understanding. So we know that the IRG that you convened to deal with this particular problem met, first of all, three times before invocation, and then I think it met daily after that; we’re going to focus on that first part on the 10th, the 12th, and the 13th. And I’ll just fill in a little bit of the narrative, so you don’t have to here. But we understand that on the 10th what was discussed was two tracks for a potential federal response. So at this point, I won’t say it had been decided, but it was certainly under serious consideration that the federal government might have to act in some way, shape, or form here, and track one was what can the federal government do under its existing authorities; track two was what could we potentially do under any new authorities, including the Emergencies Act. And I just want to pause here and ask you one thing, which is in the documents, that sort of -- maybe not the first but it’s the first sort of confirmation -- official confirmation that the Emergencies Act was under discussion. But we have seen references to the Emergencies Act here and there in various phone calls or emails or discussions, et cetera, and I’m wondering if you can describe, if someone asked you when did the Emergencies Act come into play as possibility, how would you answer that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that was essentially the discussion around the table on the 12th, I believe, and then the 13th was -- the 13th was the big day in terms of deciding as a Government whether you want to take that first step and seriously consider invoking the Emergencies Act. Can you take us through, from your point of view, the chronology, essentially, of the 13th. We know there was an IRG meeting in the afternoon, I think it was 4:30, and the decision coming out of the IRG was to have Cabinet meeting in the evening to discuss the potential invocation of the Act. So how did those meetings play out?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
OK. Et l’autre partie de la décision était certainement the threshold, because as you well know, you can't just invoke the Emergencies Act, you have to meet a threshold in order to invoke the Emergencies Act. And that brings us to one of the key questions, and I'll you about this several times, but what I'm asking you right now is essentially what you can tell us about how that discussion played out in the IRG and the Cabinet meeting. And I’ll give you a little framing of it, which is of course we know that the declaration of a public order emergency is premised on the existence of a threat to the security of Canada, as defined in the CSIS Act. And we know that CSIS, in the process of assessing the protests, assessed that there was no -- the protest did not meet that threshold. They did not constitute a threat to the security of Canada, as defined in the CSIS Act. So this is one of ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Please, over to you.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Sure. Sure. You know what? We have that. one second. I will get you a document number. Oh, okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Do you want it or do you not?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. COM.00000954, please. So here, I think this pastes together the three things. So national emergency, public order emergency. Scrolling down, you’ll see the reference to the CSIS Act. And there -- keep scrolling, Mr. Clerk.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No. No. Keep going.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
There we go.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So essentially you’re saying that around the table that day, ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
--- you were looking at the inputs that were given to you by officials and by the Ministers and concluded that there was activities within Canada ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Serious violence. Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And can you elaborate on what those threats were? What led to that conclusion?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And again, we went around the table with officials from all different agencies and heads of departments to talk about this. There was the militarization of vehicles, for example. We’d seen -- sorry, weaponization of vehicles. We’d seen, you know, cars ramming into police officers or other cars at Coutts. We saw an incident like that in Surrey, I believe. We saw trucks used as potential weapons, certainly in Ottawa, with their presence and unknown interiors. There was a use of children as human shields deliberately, which was a real concern, both at the Ambassador Bridge, and the fact that there were kids on Wellington Street that people didn’t know what was in the trucks, whether it was kids, whether it was weapons, whether it was both. Police had no way of knowing those. There was presence of weapons at Coutts, as we saw. There was a concern around weapons being stolen in Peterborough, that we didn’t know, about 2,000 guns that we didn’t know where they had gone at that point. We later found out they didn’t go there, but there was -- that was a real concern that we had about what was happening to them. There were a number of others as well. There was the fact that police trying to enforce laws were met with active resistance. A group of 30 police officers trying to interdict someone or arrest someone who was carrying a jerry can into the site in Ottawa got swarmed by 100 people and they had to leave because there were threats to their safety and they weren’t able to arrest that individual. There were layers of danger that CSIS kept bringing up to us that the presence of people promoting ideologically motivated violent extremism in the convoys had a danger of triggering not necessarily them to act, but lone wolf actors or people who could be radicalized to take actions that were violent. We saw increasingly counter protests of people who were trying to take back their city, who were, for example, we all saw images of grandmothers standing in residential streets against, you know, massive trucks heading their way to try and, you know, prevent them from coming to join the convoy. There were all these things that positioned -- or presented real threats of serious violence. And every input we were getting on that weekend at the IRG was that things were not getting better. Things were getting worse. Even as it looked like there was a plan for the Ambassador Bridge to move forward, it looked like there was going to be a plan for Coutts moving forward, it wasn’t a sense -- there wasn’t a sense that things were dissipating. On the contrary, we were hearing about Fort Erie, we were hearing about the Bluewater Bridge in Sarnia, we were hearing about potential blockades in New Brunswick. We were hearing about potentials at Lacolle. We were hearing more convoys and more supporters heading to different places to take action. There were things going on in B.C. and Surrey. Like, there was a sense that this was a broadly spread thing. And the fact that there was not yet any serious violence that had been noted was obviously a good thing, but we could not say that there was no potential for serious violence, for serious violence to happen over the coming days. We were seeing things escalate, not things get under control.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You mentioned there that the Ambassador Bridge was on its way to resolution in a sense and Coutts was on its way to resolution. One of the things that’s come up in the evidence is that at this juncture, Ottawa could also, perhaps, have been said to be on its way, perhaps an earlier stage, to resolution, in the sense that a plan -- an integrated plan for policing was coming together at that point. And that may not have been something that was clearly expressed on the 13th to the IRG and/or Cabinet. So first I wanted to ask you what your understanding of that situation was at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we will get to the First Ministers Meeting, but let’s just finish off on this point with the 13th. In a lot of the evidence that has come out before the Commission, we see hesitancy and reluctance to invoke the Emergencies Act so officials advising that this may make things worse, this may inflame tension, this may embolden protestors, et cetera. And we also obviously heard from Mr. Vigneault saying and the CSIS assessment that there was no threat to the security of Canada under the CSIS Act. And then we heard Mr. Vigneault say, “But I still thought that the Act was necessary and I conveyed that to the Prime Minister.” So can you tell us, was there consensus on the use of the Act? What did you hear about whether or not people agreed with this interpretation of whether you should invoke the Act?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And when you say that, are you speaking of the IRG in the afternoon or the eventual Cabinet meeting in the evening?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, that’s the segue. So please do. Tell us about the Cabinet meeting.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And was that question of the -- whether the threshold was met, was that part of the discussion at the Cabinet table as well?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Et après… et enfin, vous avez eu la même sorte de consensus à la fin.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that brings us to what we can loosely call decision day, February 14th. And I'm just going to kind of lay out the chronology of that day and then ask you, first of all, whether that is the correct chronology of the day and then ask you to speak to various parts of it. So the First Minister's -- the decision coming out of Cabinet the evening before was to convene a First Minister's Meeting to have the obligatory consultation under section 25 of the Emergencies Act before it could be invoked. And we know that late that night, an invitation was sent out to the Premiers to that meeting. That invitation did not include the subject of the meeting, and we've heard some of your Ministers and officials speak to why, but in any event, so the First Minister's Meeting was held I believe at 10:15 the following morning on the 14th. Following that meeting, you had a call with opposition leaders, I believe, and a call with your own caucus?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No. Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Okay.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
That makes sense. Okay. So caucus call first, then First Minister's Meeting, then you spoke to opposition leaders. Then around 3:41 p.m. -- I said around, but we actually know the minute -- 3:41 p.m., you receive advice from the Clerk, and that advice, as we know, is that they recommended -- the Clerk recommends that you invoke the Emergencies Act. And shortly thereafter, there's a public announcement of it. So just unpacking that, starting with the caucus call briefly, but the focus of this will obviously be the First Minister's meeting, take us through that day.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So let me start with an initial question, taking you back to first thing in the morning. Had you made up your mind already?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
So going back to the First Minister's Meeting then, we understand it lasted about an hour and all of the Premiers had a chance to voice their opinions and their concerns, but is there anything they could have said or done at that point to change your mind?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
And you mentioned -- I mean, some of them did express opinions around the lines of, well, we kind of got -- we got it under control here. This problem isn’t really cropping up here or it’s cropping up here in a way that our law enforcement can deal with. So are you drawing a distinction there between, okay, the Premiers may say it’s under control here, but that doesn’t mean it’s under control everywhere, so they would have had to come to you with something that would have solved the big problem as you saw it? Is that ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
One very quick question. Then I’m done this entire part.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
It’s the last question I want to ask you about that day, Prime Minister. So at 3:41 you received the decision note from the clerk, the recall of the invocation memo. Technically it’s a decision note. Presumably you read it.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And was there anything in it that surprised you? Was that the advice you were expecting to get from the clerk or was it ---
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Commissioner, definitely a good time for a break.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Merci, Monsieur.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Prime Minister, you mentioned before the break that you thought it was a good thing that Commissions like this one are here to challenge your decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. I'm about to put that to the test, because as you can imagine that decision has come under a lot of criticism, and we've heard a lot of that criticism over the last six weeks of these hearings. So I'm going to put to you some of the criticisms that we've heard, and I'd like to hear your answers on them. The first one is, well actually, the first one was that the threshold wasn't met, but I think we have covered that, we don't need to go over that one again. The second one is that invoking the Emergencies Act was executive overreach. It's an anti-democratic act.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Do you think the accountability mechanisms work? Is this a proper check on that power in your view, sitting in your chair right now?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The second, or another criticism that's been levelled or challenge that's been made is that it wasn't really necessary, the situation would have resolved itself. And in the end, the way things played out, the Declaration was made the 14th. The Orders came in the 15th. And then by the 23rd, it was revoked, and everything was solved, and many of the measures put in were never even used. So how do you respond to that, you didn't actually have to do it, it wasn't a necessary measure at the time?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. There's also an argument made that this invocation -- you were dealing with an Act that has never been invoked before and now it has been. And there's a possibility that this invocation of the Act will then open the floodgates, in a sense, to the Act being used again and again and again, particular because -- and we have your point on this, but you invoked it in the circumstance where the threat to the security of Canada had not been found by CSIS. So does this in effect open the floodgates to the Emergencies Act being used by a decision -- by the executive in all kinds of circumstances?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
But do you worry about the floodgates' aspect of this, that having done this, you've now maybe unleashed the kraken?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
On the same theme but slightly different, the Act was invoked here in response to a protest, and protest is a very important part of a functioning democracy, and you touched in this on -- in one of your answers before the break, but does this open the door then to the Emergencies Act being regularly used as a tool to quell protest? Because protest is not necessarily clean. It's -- protest can be messy and can be problematic and it can interfere at times with critical infrastructure. You think of Indigenous protest, environmental protest, so what stops this from being used against that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Another criticism that has levelled is that while the protests may have gotten you may say out of hand, or snowballed, and been extremely disruptive, they weren't the actions of a small minority, but a real expression of frustration, of legitimate frustration on behalf of a significant number of Canadians who had been through -- either suffered from or felt aggrieved by years of Public Health measures. And in response to that, they wanted to engage, and they wanted you to speak to them, and they wanted to hear directly from their federal government and that did not happen. So do you have an answer to that?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
One thing we haven’t talked about yet is -- I assume you’re familiar with the section 58 report to Parliament explaining that the reasons for invoking the Emergencies Act. If we look at that report, much of it focuses on the economic consequences of the protest and the economic disruptions and the economic -- the threats to economic security. And we’ve -- you’ve spoken this morning about how the threshold for invoking the Emergencies was met because there were threats of serious violence. But we haven’t really addressed where economic security fits into this picture, so I’d like to hear you on that.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The last question I want to ask you, Prime Minister, is on the question of trust in public institutions. We know you’ve said that part of -- part of your rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act and for reacting to what you were seeing around you was you were seeing a loss of confidence and a loss of faith in Canada’s public institutions, and that factored into your thinking. Against that is put that this action has destroyed a lot of people’s faith in their public institutions, because it was seen as executive overreach. So what is your response to that; how do you see this having affected one way or the other?
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Minister those are my questions.
-
Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)
No re-examination, Commissioner.