Juno News - November 14, 2022


Full cross-examination of former deputy public safety minister by Convoy lawyer

Topics
reasonable grounds vs suspicion
Mentioned
Stewart
Are our rights and freedoms under threat？ China is walking all over Canada and Trudeau

Episode Stats


Length

16 minutes

Words per minute

147.62

Word count

2,412

Sentence count

99

Harmful content

Hate speech

2

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Deputy Minister of Public Safety Stewart Stewart testifies on behalf of the Freedom Corp, the organization representing the protesters that were in Ottawa in January and February of 2022. He is a former finance officer at the Ministry of Finance and served as the Director of the Financial Intelligence Division at the Department of Finance. He has been in charge of the Public Safety Department since December 2019. In this testimony, he talks about his background in law enforcement and intelligence, as well as the difference between reasonable and probable grounds.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 Good 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.
00:00:14.600 Thank you for coming here today and testifying.
00:00:17.200 First, before I begin, sir, I am going to be referring to one document that I believe I need to leave before I do so.
00:00:23.380 It 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.
00:00:38.400 It's the statement from the CSIS panel.
00:00:40.200 Well, 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.
00:00:55.220 So I would ask for leave to be able to refer to that document through my examination.
00:01:01.420 Okay, seeing no objection, that's fine.
00:01:03.480 Thank you, sir.
00:01:04.680 So just to begin, Deputy Minister Stewart, you've been the Deputy Minister of Public Safety since December of 2019. Is that fair?
00:01:13.940 Until just recently, yes.
00:01:15.180 Until just recently. All right.
00:01:16.720 And 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?
00:01:28.120 Let's say I learned on the job.
00:01:29.440 You learned on the job, right. And because prior to that, you were with finance, is that correct?
00:01:33.480 That's correct.
00:01:34.120 Right. 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?
00:01:49.640 Not entirely.
00:01:50.540 Not entirely?
00:01:50.980 In the world of finance, there were criminal issues.
00:01:53.320 Right. Exactly. So financial intelligence within the criminal sphere of the Ministry of Finance.
00:02:00.600 Anti-money laundering, securities crimes.
00:02:03.180 Right, 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.
00:02:14.100 Okay?
00:02:14.360 So 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.
00:02:29.200 Are you familiar with that term?
00:02:31.860 Reasonable grounds to suspect, yes.
00:02:33.360 Yeah. 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?
00:02:42.320 I would not agree.
00:02:43.720 Okay. 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?
00:02:56.140 I, I would say it's reasonable grounds to suspect.
00:03:03.100 Right. And so reasonable grounds to suspect is different than reasonable grounds, generally. You understand that, correct?
00:03:10.860 No.
00:03:11.180 All right. So you, you don't know the difference between reasonable grounds and reasonable grounds to suspect?
00:03:19.640 I don't understand what you're trying to drive up here.
00:03:22.440 So there's two, there's two thresholds in Canada with respect to investigations criminally and in intelligence.
00:03:29.400 We 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.
00:03:37.480 Yes. Reasonable probable grounds is a higher threshold than reasonable suspicion. You understand that?
00:03:43.880 I would have gone the other way.
00:03:45.460 Pardon me?
00:03:46.380 I would have put it the other way. So this just shows what I know.
00:03:49.060 So your understanding is that reasonable suspicion is a higher threshold than reasonable grounds?
00:03:54.220 If, if you're going to suspect something, you're going to have a particular act in mind.
00:03:58.740 Okay. And it's the same thing with reasonable grounds, right? You also have a particular act in mind.
00:04:02.960 Can 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?
00:04:13.100 Can you agree with that?
00:04:14.060 Yes.
00:04:14.640 All right. So whereas reasonable suspicion, it just requires a reasonable suspicion, right?
00:04:20.940 It's a lesser threshold than reasonable grounds.
00:04:23.440 Can you, can you agree?
00:04:24.500 And you know that.
00:04:27.400 I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm a little, uh, uh, concerned about getting into a discussion about legal terminology, which I'm not an expert.
00:04:35.980 All right. And so can you agree, though, that it is CSIS, who is a main agency that administers the CSIS Act?
00:04:43.940 Yes.
00:04:44.600 All 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?
00:04:53.040 Yes.
00:04:53.340 Yes. 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?
00:05:07.700 Yes.
00:05:08.720 And they're not required to meet the higher threshold of reasonable grounds.
00:05:15.080 To open an investigation.
00:05:17.160 Do you want to call it?
00:05:18.480 Well, for Section 12, they, they, they would have to get a warrant.
00:05:21.640 For Section 12, and that's reasonable suspicion. That's what it says.
00:05:26.420 Again, I'm not an expert when it comes to, uh, CSIS, uh, CSIS Act.
00:05:30.380 When they, when CSIS, uh, gets a warrant, they have to bring a case to a judge, a federal judge.
00:05:38.320 Right.
00:05:38.460 So there's going to be more than just reasonable grounds in that case.
00:05:40.680 Okay. So can I bring up, uh, WTS 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, please.
00:05:49.500 and can we scroll down to page five
00:05:56.760 okay and can we scroll down to the heading intelligence
00:06:09.320 and just the first paragraph i'll give you a moment to read that
00:06:19.500 would you help me with the pronunciation of uh minister david's uh last name we've all been
00:06:28.320 debating about how to pronounce it properly vigno vigno all right so david vigno he stated
00:06:34.000 that at no point of the service being cesus assessed the protests in ottawa or elsewhere
00:06:39.180 those referred to as the freedom convoy and related protests and blockades in january and
00:06:43.620 february 2022 constituted a threat to the security of canada as defined in section 2 of the cesus act
00:06:49.440 and that cesus cannot investigate activities constituting lawful protests and i take it
00:06:54.880 uh you were advised of this correct correct all right and can we scroll down then to uh page seven
00:07:03.220 and go to the heading foreign interference
00:07:10.740 so director vigno explained that the use of the term foreign influence under section 2 of the cesus act
00:07:19.200 refers to foreign state interference as the term is used within the national security community
00:07:24.020 just slow down right uh cesus assessed there was no indication of foreign state interference occurring
00:07:30.720 in the course of the protest cesus did not assess that any foreign state supported the protest through
00:07:37.320 funding that foreign states deployed covert or over disinformation techniques or that any foreign
00:07:43.980 state actors attempted to enter into canada to support the protest and i take it that you were
00:07:49.420 advised of that by cesus and director venue is that correct that is correct all right and if we can go
00:07:56.060 down to page number eight and the heading recommendation to cabinet
00:08:02.700 there director venue states that he learned that the ea referenced the threat definition set out in
00:08:12.060 section two of the cc at cesus act once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the
00:08:18.140 ea between february 10th and 13th he requested that the service prepare a threat assessment on the risks
00:08:24.380 associated with the invocation of the ea he felt an obligation to clearly convey the services position
00:08:30.700 that there did not exist a threat to the security of canada as defined by the services legal mandate
00:08:37.020 the threat assessment prepared by the service was that the invocation of the emergencies legislation
00:08:43.020 risked further inflaming imv rhetoric and individuals holding accelerationist or anti-government views
00:08:50.220 you were told that is that correct that is correct all right so can we now please bring up document
00:08:56.620 number 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
00:09:17.900 so in this document which is already actually in evidence i just want to scroll down to page five please
00:09:26.620 so there again on february 3rd ceases success there's no indications of known imve actors uh were
00:09:39.660 planning to engage in violence and it's on february 13th uh i believe that this is the the document that
00:09:47.580 uh director vigno is referring to that states that you know it could have been a risk if you invoke the
00:09:55.100 uh emergencies act to making things worse is that correct yes okay and you knew about that i did right
00:10:02.940 and so did cabinet they knew about all of this correct yes right okay if i could bring up uh the next document
00:10:12.140 uh 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 1.00
00:10:35.660 now before i i get into this uh you can agree that it was clear to both you and cabinet that
00:10:47.500 cesis did not have reasonable suspicion that there existed a section two cesis act threat during the
00:10:53.180 protest is that correct it is was clear to me and i believe it was clear to ministers right i can't say
00:10:59.980 with that with authority and i also understand uh that the canadian security establishment the cse
00:11:07.340 they never advised you or the government or cabinet that they had identified a section two cesis act
00:11:11.900 threat either is that correct that would be correct right and both the rcmp and the opp
00:11:19.980 from at least their evidence and things we've seen to date they never identified or advised the
00:11:24.300 government that there was a section two cesis act threat right to the best of my knowledge no right
00:11:28.860 right and so the entire intelligence apparatus and law enforcement apparatus within canada
00:11:39.180 tells the cabinet and the government that there is no section two cesis act threat is that right 0.99
00:11:48.460 no that is not right
00:11:49.980 cesis and i you know a director vigno will be here to speak speak for himself cesis assessed
00:12:01.660 according to their standards under their act nobody else was assessing under the standards under the
00:12:07.580 cesis act you asked me did they tell anybody it had met a standard they weren't they wouldn't use
00:12:12.700 the cesis act that wouldn't be their tool they would be looking at broader national security issues
00:12:16.700 okay so what intelligence bureau or agency or law enforcement agency told the government here's
00:12:28.460 the evidence of reasonable and probable grounds or reasonable grounds of a section two cesis act threat
00:12:37.660 and you know i take it now because it's advised to you that that's required to invoke
00:12:42.860 the emergencies act it's in the documents you were advised of that yes right so what agency gave you
00:12:50.780 the evidence and the intelligence that said hey we have reasonable grounds of a section two cesis act
00:12:57.660 threat there wasn't one was there
00:12:59.420 so let me um explain uh nobody uh bringing advice to the table other than c cesis is uh assessing
00:13:13.580 that against that threat nobody advising the cabinet the cabinet is making that decision and their
00:13:19.580 interpretation of the law is what governs here and the advice they get and their their decision
00:13:26.460 was evidently that the threshold was met and i understand that but you understand that when
00:13:33.980 ministers or administrative agencies etc are entitled to make a statutory decision whether or not
00:13:42.140 a statutory requisite is met they do so based on the evidence that is before them in the submissions
00:13:48.060 before you know that and indeed they had they had a lot of evidence right and you have
00:13:55.980 the rcmp you have cesis you have the entire intelligence apparatus in the federal government
00:14:02.860 and none of them said that this threshold was met did they they weren't asked okay
00:14:10.860 so and with respect to the the ministers making the decision when you're talking about ministers you're
00:14:19.100 talking about the elected executive correct i am all right so the prime minister among others right
00:14:25.660 to your knowledge what training in national security and law enforcement does the prime minister have
00:14:32.620 i couldn't answer that question yes can you agree with me that he doesn't have any to your knowledge
00:14:36.780 i couldn't answer that question i'm sorry all right and what about uh minister uh mendicino uh he he i
00:14:45.580 understand has training as a crown prosecutor at least is that right that was his former job yes
00:14:51.020 right and minister blair he was the chief of police for the toronto uh police service that's correct
00:14:57.420 right and when did minister blair first tell you that he was thinking about invoking the emergencies act
00:15:03.660 uh minister blair didn't tell me it came up in discussions at the officials level and then it
00:15:09.980 came up in discussions at the ministerial level there's a record not yet in evidence that states
00:15:13.900 that ministers blair strategy was from february 4th on to invoke the emergencies act were you aware of
00:15:19.020 that no okay can you please bring up the uh next document which is uh oh we have the the input and i'll
00:15:29.580 just ask you about these these are the if you can scroll up to the top please i take it that this is
00:15:38.060 the input that cesus gave to your ministry public safety with respect to the key messages they thought
00:15:44.860 should be put out with respect to the convoy is that right uh presumably i don't have a date on this
00:15:52.300 document so i'm not really sure where it falls and they'll rescue things okay so i'm just going to go
00:15:57.020 through it with you then but you're you're out of time so you're going to have to do it very quick
00:16:01.340 right i'll be quick this document you agree that none of the messaging from this document was actually
00:16:09.260 incorporated into the messaging from public safety was it wow really i wasn't the spokesperson for public
00:16:16.060 safety my colleague right thank you very much for answering my questions you're welcome