00:00:00.000Good morning. My name is Brendan Miller. I'm counsel to Freedom Corp, which is the organization that represents the protesters that were in Ottawa in January and February of 2022.
00:00:14.600Thank you for coming here today and testifying.
00:00:17.200First, before I begin, sir, I am going to be referring to one document that I believe I need to leave before I do so.
00:00:23.380It has been referred to in the notice I gave already, but because it is a witness statement with a witness who has not yet testified, but it's relevant to this, it's WTS00000060.
00:00:38.400It's the statement from the CSIS panel.
00:00:40.200Well, the relevance and materiality of that is that these gentlemen were essentially the consumers of information, and there is a lot of statements in there with respect to what the government was told and when, and I'm intending to put that to them.
00:00:55.220So I would ask for leave to be able to refer to that document through my examination.
00:01:01.420Okay, seeing no objection, that's fine.
00:01:16.720And when you took over that portfolio, I take it that you had familiarized yourself with the process of law enforcement and intelligence agencies with respect to investigations. Is that fair?
00:01:34.120Right. And prior to your appointment into the portfolio of public safety, is it fair to say that other than financial intelligence, that you had not worked in the area of law enforcement or the intelligence field? Is that fair?
00:02:03.180Right, right. And so in your evidence here today already, you've spoken about the thresholds for investigations in your chief, and I want to discuss that for a moment.
00:02:14.360So you understand, I take it, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Canada, the threshold that you're speaking of with respect to opening an investigation, it's referred to in Canada as reasonable suspicion.
00:02:33.360Yeah. So there's, and we'll get into that. And you can agree with me that that's a pretty low threshold, is it not, in law enforcement terms?
00:02:43.720Okay. And you're aware that the law recognizes, though, that reasonable suspicion essentially requires more than a mere suspicion, but something less than a belief based on reasonable grounds. Is that your understanding?
00:02:56.140I, I would say it's reasonable grounds to suspect.
00:03:03.100Right. And so reasonable grounds to suspect is different than reasonable grounds, generally. You understand that, correct?
00:03:11.180All right. So you, you don't know the difference between reasonable grounds and reasonable grounds to suspect?
00:03:19.640I don't understand what you're trying to drive up here.
00:03:22.440So there's two, there's two thresholds in Canada with respect to investigations criminally and in intelligence.
00:03:29.400We have the lower threshold of reasonable suspicion, which you call reasonable grounds to suspect, and then reasonable grounds, which is also called reasonable and probable grounds.
00:03:37.480Yes. Reasonable probable grounds is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion. You understand that?
00:03:46.380I would have put it the other way. So this just shows what I know.
00:03:49.060So your understanding is that reasonable suspicion is a higher threshold than reasonable grounds?
00:03:54.220If, if you're going to suspect something, you're going to have a particular act in mind.
00:03:58.740Okay. And it's the same thing with reasonable grounds, right? You also have a particular act in mind.
00:04:02.960Can you agree that reasonable grounds require some reliable information, that there is a reason to believe a person or group could have committed an offense or pose a threat to the security of Canada?
00:04:44.600All right. And they're the agency that's primarily responsible for assessing if there's a Section 2 CSIS Act threat to the security of Canada, right?
00:04:53.340Yes. And under Section 12 of the CSIS Act, CSIS is only required to have a reasonable suspicion that there is a Section 2 CSIS Act threat to open an investigation. Is that fair?
00:05:56.760okay and can we scroll down to the heading intelligence
00:06:09.320and just the first paragraph i'll give you a moment to read that
00:06:19.500would you help me with the pronunciation of uh minister david's uh last name we've all been
00:06:28.320debating about how to pronounce it properly vigno vigno all right so david vigno he stated
00:06:34.000that at no point of the service being cesus assessed the protests in ottawa or elsewhere
00:06:39.180those referred to as the freedom convoy and related protests and blockades in january and
00:06:43.620february 2022 constituted a threat to the security of canada as defined in section 2 of the cesus act
00:06:49.440and that cesus cannot investigate activities constituting lawful protests and i take it
00:06:54.880uh you were advised of this correct correct all right and can we scroll down then to uh page seven
00:07:03.220and go to the heading foreign interference
00:07:10.740so director vigno explained that the use of the term foreign influence under section 2 of the cesus act
00:07:19.200refers to foreign state interference as the term is used within the national security community
00:07:24.020just slow down right uh cesus assessed there was no indication of foreign state interference occurring
00:07:30.720in the course of the protest cesus did not assess that any foreign state supported the protest through
00:07:37.320funding that foreign states deployed covert or over disinformation techniques or that any foreign
00:07:43.980state actors attempted to enter into canada to support the protest and i take it that you were
00:07:49.420advised of that by cesus and director venue is that correct that is correct all right and if we can go
00:07:56.060down to page number eight and the heading recommendation to cabinet
00:08:02.700there director venue states that he learned that the ea referenced the threat definition set out in
00:08:12.060section two of the cc at cesus act once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the
00:08:18.140ea between february 10th and 13th he requested that the service prepare a threat assessment on the risks
00:08:24.380associated with the invocation of the ea he felt an obligation to clearly convey the services position
00:08:30.700that there did not exist a threat to the security of canada as defined by the services legal mandate
00:08:37.020the threat assessment prepared by the service was that the invocation of the emergencies legislation
00:08:43.020risked further inflaming imv rhetoric and individuals holding accelerationist or anti-government views
00:08:50.220you were told that is that correct that is correct all right so can we now please bring up document
00:08:56.620number uh ts dot nsc dot can dot zero zero one zero zero zero zero zero zero two zero six underscore rel underscore zero zero zero zero one
00:09:17.900so in this document which is already actually in evidence i just want to scroll down to page five please
00:09:26.620so there again on february 3rd ceases success there's no indications of known imve actors uh were
00:09:39.660planning to engage in violence and it's on february 13th uh i believe that this is the the document that
00:09:47.580uh director vigno is referring to that states that you know it could have been a risk if you invoke the
00:09:55.100uh emergencies act to making things worse is that correct yes okay and you knew about that i did right
00:10:02.940and so did cabinet they knew about all of this correct yes right okay if i could bring up uh the next document
00:10:12.140uh t-s-n-s-c dot c-a-n dot zero zero one dot zero zero zero zero zero zero zero one six zero uh underscore rel underscore zero zero zero zero zero zero one
00:10:35.660now before i i get into this uh you can agree that it was clear to both you and cabinet that
00:10:47.500cesis did not have reasonable suspicion that there existed a section two cesis act threat during the
00:10:53.180protest is that correct it is was clear to me and i believe it was clear to ministers right i can't say
00:10:59.980with that with authority and i also understand uh that the canadian security establishment the cse
00:11:07.340they never advised you or the government or cabinet that they had identified a section two cesis act
00:11:11.900threat either is that correct that would be correct right and both the rcmp and the opp
00:11:19.980from at least their evidence and things we've seen to date they never identified or advised the
00:11:24.300government that there was a section two cesis act threat right to the best of my knowledge no right
00:11:28.860right and so the entire intelligence apparatus and law enforcement apparatus within canada
00:11:39.180tells the cabinet and the government that there is no section two cesis act threat is that right