00:02:00.000The public order of emergency commission is now in session.
00:02:25.000Good morning. Bonjour. So this morning we have a presentation and then it'll be followed by three witnesses. So first the presentation.
00:02:41.860Good morning, Commissioner. Jeff Leon, Commission Council.
00:02:47.120This morning we're going to shift gears and focus on what has been a very important part of this Commission's work,
00:02:57.160that is the views of the Canadian public.
00:03:00.780It's our pleasure to present to you an overview summary of the results of our public submission process.
00:03:08.520As you know, shortly after your appointment, you committed to providing an opportunity for members of the public to participate in the work of the Commission.
00:03:19.660That's essential to have a full and complete picture for the Commission's deliberations.
00:03:27.120The public submission process was launched in August.
00:03:30.220at that time you again commented on the importance of the commission receiving and i quote
00:03:37.360meaningful public input from a wide range of canadians not just those individuals and entities
00:03:44.540who have been granted standing this is in keeping with my commitment to conduct an open
00:03:50.880and transparent public inquiry that provides an opportunity for involvement by all canadians
00:03:57.500The public submission process ran until October 31st, and I'm pleased to report that it was a success.
00:04:08.660The Commission received almost 9,500 submissions from a broad cross-section of Canadians.
00:04:17.560In terms of age, respondents self-identified as being from all age groups, but primarily 25 to 44 and 45 to 64, which is consistent with Canadian statistics as being representative of the Canadian population.
00:04:35.780In terms of location, we heard from respondents in nine provinces or territories across Canada, primarily British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec, which again is consistent with the fact that these provinces contain the largest concentrations of population in Canada.
00:04:59.980In terms of those who were responded, we heard from those involved in the protests, community members affected by the protests, and members of the public who wanted to tell the Commission about their views in terms of the work that the Commission has undertaken.
00:05:23.880Indeed, the Commission undertook to review all these submissions.
00:05:28.460A final report is being prepared, and this presentation will be a summary of the matters to be covered in that report.
00:05:38.100You will see that we have been successful in collecting, indeed, a wide variety of views, observations, ideas, and experiences of Canadians on all aspects of the Commission's mandate,
00:05:51.320including the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency
00:05:57.960and the measures taken for dealing with the declared emergency in february of 2022
00:06:04.280we received submissions in three ways through an online questionnaire email and mail
00:06:11.980overall these submissions have been of great assistance to the commission
00:06:17.580in appreciating how the matters being considered affected and impacted Canadians.
00:06:24.540They provide background and context for the Commission to inform its deliberations
00:06:30.640in this inquiry, which, after all, is a public inquiry.
00:06:36.520I note that this overview that we will now present is not evidence.
00:06:41.360Like some of the other background presentations that have been tabled,
00:06:45.180it will be posted on the Commission's website on behalf of the Commission we
00:06:52.020extend our thanks to the many Canadians who generously took time and made the
00:06:57.520effort to assist in the Commission's process you have performed an important
00:07:03.220service as Canadians I will now ask my colleague Sajeda Heraldi to present the
00:07:09.560summary after which I will share with you excerpts from a few of the actual submissions
00:07:19.000we received to give a first-hand flavor of the breadth and quality of these submissions.
00:07:39.560Good morning, Mr. Commissioner for the record.
00:09:36.420...from people who felt pride in the convoy.
00:09:40.940For them, the convoy brought a sense of belonging
00:09:44.920among people who shared similar views on the pandemic.
00:09:49.760These people had a sense of obligation to participate in these protests
00:09:54.180to defend the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
00:09:57.160Some of those people also acknowledged the impact on the Ottawa residents of the protests, but in their view, the nation's capital belonged to all Canadians and they were still justified to be there.
00:10:12.720They were proud to have been part of an important grassroots movement.
00:10:21.040The same people had a peaceful vision of the protests.
00:10:25.000For example, we have here a quote, the person was moved by the respect that was seen around
00:21:04.480because some politicians chose to support the protesters
00:21:06.900for what seemed to be merely political gain.
00:21:09.800And for them, the invocation of the Act was the only possible outcome to clear the occupation.
00:21:16.360And all political debates and discussions between different political parties were unnecessary, non-collaborative, and not in the best interest of residents, especially in Ottawa.
00:21:31.520This sense of abandonment was expressed by several people who also talked about a lack of confidence vis-Ã -vis the authorities.
00:21:39.800This sense of abandonment also was towards the police and law enforcement.
00:21:53.720They wondered how three police forces could not control a protest that was highly predictable.
00:22:02.980Had the police been more organized and had they acted quicker?
00:22:06.360We also asked the reasons why regulatory tools had not been used, as in ticketing.
00:22:16.520One submission stated that the police in action prompted residents to come together to prevent
00:22:21.920more truck access to the downtown core and those counter-protests that we heard about.
00:22:35.600might not have been necessary if law enforcement had acted earlier people
00:22:42.840spoke of failures by multiple levels of government for the city of Ottawa they
00:22:49.100said that the city should have limited truck access to designated zones without
00:22:53.000the city which would have avoided the blockade what they call a blockade they
00:22:58.640also say that the Ottawa police remained inactive and despite various complaints
00:23:03.160that they received of harassment and intimidation
00:23:54.940For those who found it necessary, the invocation of the Act provided relief.
00:23:59.780The results following the invocation of the Act demonstrate its necessity, and that's how they managed to clear crowds and opening roads.
00:24:12.180The use of the Act allowed downtown residents to regain some semblance of normal life and a sense of security, and for others to return to their downtown residences that they had to vacate.
00:24:22.780The invocation of the Act was an appropriate, measured, and targeted response to end border blockades and protests.
00:24:29.780These peoples also talked to us about extremist and violent elements in the convent posed
00:24:38.520a danger to Canadians and to democracy.
00:24:43.060When all the options had been exhausted, it was a last recourse.
00:24:47.860The federal government had to act in order to protect the population by using any means
00:24:54.980We've also heard from others that the invocation of the Act was unjustified and inappropriate.
00:25:02.920For those people, the protests in Ottawa were peaceful and did not meet the requirements needed to invoke the Act.
00:25:09.700There was no serious or immediate danger to the lives, health, or safety of Canadians.
00:25:15.000The Act was invoked while all other options had not been exhausted,
00:25:20.080and that led to violent confrontations between police and protesters.
00:25:25.840These people also told us that existing laws should have been enforced by local and provincial authorities.
00:25:31.660The criminal code, notably other laws and bylaws, could have been sufficient to manage any illegal behavior.
00:25:39.140For them, the decision to use the act was a political one by frustrated federal officials who had no sympathy for the protesters.
00:25:46.280we also heard about fear at the time of the declaration of the public order emergency
00:25:58.040one person told us that when the emergency act was evoked invoked i was overwhelmed with fear
00:26:05.320will my bank account be frozen because i had shared videos of convoy on my social media i
00:26:10.920went to the bank and emptied my account would i be arrested for attending the convoy in ottawa
00:26:16.200i decided not to wait and see i fled canada and later on he said when the law was invoked
00:26:28.760they showed me that no law constitution or charters had provided the protection
00:26:35.480these fears were multiple in nature there were fears of physical violence by the police
00:26:44.600and of tear gas and the force used to move and to tow the trucks fear of being investigated
00:26:52.600interested for activities predating the invocation of the act fear of repercussion for online support
00:26:59.160of protesters, fear of loss of livelihood if bank accounts were to be frozen, and some
00:27:09.560left the country altogether. This brings us to the direct impacts of the
00:27:20.400act on the life of the protesters and those who supported them.
00:27:29.160suffered physical injury from the use of cayenne pepper buttons and anti riot gear
00:27:36.080many found themselves in a precarious situation because of their inability to access the bank
00:27:42.660accounts for various periods of times and many questioned their trust in banking institutions
00:27:48.740This lack of confidence also touched the government and other institutions, namely the police and financial institutions.
00:28:07.480For some people, the invocation of the Act created a precedent that was seen as being an attack on any group opposing government views.
00:28:18.740Some said that they would never donate to charities again out of fear of action against their bank accounts, if that charity is later opposed to the current sitting government.
00:28:33.880Perception that rights, free speech, and protest have been destroyed.
00:28:42.460This loss of trust for some also led to persistent fear of the government and of institutions.
00:28:48.740Some people expressed that they were now anxious to participate in general political discourse because of the repercussions that might have in their lives.
00:28:57.880They were scared of being monitored for their political view, and they also are now scared in the presence of police and are scared of being arrested for their political views.
00:29:08.360other people mentioned a feeling of fear for different reasons we have here somebody here
00:29:25.400as the protest continued i began to realize that they were more anti-government than anti-vaccine
00:29:32.200And this is when I began to feel frightened.
00:29:37.100These people were asking to overturn the government, and nobody was stopping them.
00:29:44.060I began having fears for my own country.
00:29:48.980And these people, in fact, had anxiety towards the potential downfall of Canada's democratic
00:29:55.440They were cynical vis-Ã -vis the continued display of anti-government rhetoric, pointing out that this was a new and disturbing phenomenon.
00:30:07.900Many urge institutions to take the threat against the country's democratic system seriously.
00:30:14.340The protests were fueled by rage and that that type of movement can re-emerge at any time.
00:30:20.000And these people saw that the protests as an alert for what could happen in the future.
00:30:28.600We have also heard about the damage and change in perception to Canadian symbols.
00:30:34.000We've heard of people who are now anxious when they see Canadian flag while they used to be proud of being Canadians.
00:30:44.100The community member told us, I want my flag back, quite simply.
00:30:50.000For these people, the image of the Canadian flag has changed. Its symbolism has been tainted, and they were heartbroken by the use of Canadian symbols by the protesters.
00:31:03.600They now associate these symbols with the protests, with hate speech, and with intolerance. And these people do not understand the casual behavior of the authorities.
00:31:20.000The use of the flag for political purposes, for example,
00:31:25.780and also the symbolic gesture of flying it upside down
00:31:29.400altered people's attachments to the Canadian flag
00:32:15.340as a nation upholding the rule of law.
00:32:17.760Others believe that the invocation of the Act was unjustified and has hurt Canada's
00:32:23.760reputation as a democratic society and wouldn't let people express their opinions.
00:32:37.760First of all, the loss of pride in Canadian identity, as we said earlier, with the flag,
00:32:44.760And because the association with extremist elements, these people felt that there was also an impact on Canada's international reputation.
00:32:56.140People also expressed worries about the relationship between Canada and the U.S.
00:33:04.500The impact of this, the impact was symbolic, economic and diplomatic.
00:33:14.760In terms of Canada's relationship with the rest of the world, some feel less secure in the rights of the ability to do business in Canada, especially after the freezing of bank accounts.
00:33:28.360we have also heard some concerns over foreign influence
00:33:34.480there was a perception that the online donations allowed foreign donors to interfere in a domestic
00:33:45.480issue and people many people believe that the conwer was inspired by the events of
00:33:51.500January 6, 2021, in the United States Capitol.
00:33:57.540There was a widespread belief that far-right ideologies
00:34:02.120and anti-government rhetoric is growing and spreading,
00:34:05.940and that that was reinforced by actors in the United States
00:34:10.640Let's look at the recommendations of the public regarding the Act.
00:34:29.120And then we'll go to more general recommendations from the public.
00:34:34.180With regard to the Act, several people told us that it should not be possible to vote
00:34:38.620the Act by simple majority in Parliament. The threshold for invoking the Act should
00:34:43.640be more restrictive, and there were several suggestions on how to do that. We were told
00:34:53.020that the authority to invoke the Act without greater oversight from other government institutions
00:34:58.280should be reduced. And finally, that the terms and the language
00:35:07.520within the Act should be better defined. We were told that the Act allowed the police
00:35:18.320forces to work together in Ottawa and to get rid of jurisdictional borders, and we were
00:35:24.180told that the law should be examined so that the interventions be adjusted depending on
00:35:33.300the seriousness of the situation. Specifically for the Ottawa region, we were told that
00:35:41.880the law should take into account the single jurisdictions in Ottawa, and more clarity
00:35:51.040was necessary with regard to the role of the various police forces and public order forces
00:35:56.960in montreal and ottawa several people told us that the threshold should be high to make sure
00:36:09.600that its use is not disproportional to the gravity of the situation
00:36:13.520Finally, let's turn to general recommendations from the public.
00:36:20.800Many people told us that future protests should always require a permit and that the use of
00:36:25.580motorized vehicles in a protest should be prohibited.
00:36:29.580We also heard that a bylaw or law to mitigate engine idling should be adopted.
00:36:40.740In times of crisis, various legal entities and government bodies must coordinate with one another to resolve jurisdictional disputes.
00:36:49.120And we were told that that should be clarified.
00:36:53.740We also were told that there should be more consequences, more legal consequences for people who deliberately spread lies, misinformation and hate.
00:37:03.640and that social media platforms that host misinformation and disinformation should also be targeted by such laws.
00:37:15.700We were told that the use of the Confederate flag and other hate symbols in Canada should be banned
00:37:20.480and that the government must do better to educate and prevent the radicalization of Canadians.
00:37:25.900laws that curtail foreign funding of anti-democratic group and movements within canada should be
00:37:33.960enacted there should be a firmer application of standards of behavior in police forces
00:37:41.800and in military forces and screening practices for hiring these personnel is necessary
00:37:48.780and finally we were told that there should be better support for the press and journalists
00:37:55.580given their essential function in countering misinformation and disinformation.
00:38:04.440I will now pass the baton back to Mr. Leon, who will conclude with a few quotations
00:38:09.040from the comments that we have received.
00:38:13.460Once again, thank you to one and all who took part in the public submissions.
00:38:25.580uh commissioner um jeff lee on commission council having heard this summary uh which is of necessity
00:38:51.420given the large number of submissions, is at a high level.
00:38:56.060It will be helpful to understand, in the respondents' own words,
00:39:01.840their views and how the events under consideration impacted them.
00:39:07.560You will hear a variety of views from across Canada,
00:39:11.560which is reflective of the diverse reaction of Canadians
00:39:19.780first i live in victoria bc in the neighborhood behind the provincial legislature james bay to be
00:39:31.780exact at the height of the freedom convoy i work part-time for a small family run retail
00:39:39.020establishment located in victoria we were forced to close the shop early three saturdays in a row
00:39:46.420due to the constant honking some of it amplified over loudspeakers the constant honking was
00:39:54.540anxiety inducing customers who did come in did not stay i do not know how much revenue was lost
00:40:02.460but winter is our busiest season saturday the busiest day the owners were kind and gracious
00:40:10.740enough to pay us, I felt bad taking the money. This is only part of how the convoy affected me.
00:40:19.300I walked to work so the entire way home, constant horns blasting could be heard blocks away.
00:40:25.940It is a half-hour walk. Once I reached my neighborhood, protesters were also on foot.
00:40:31.540They were loud, in some cases inebriated, and menacing. They exhibited behavior as a group I
00:40:39.440am sure they would not attempt individually. This behavior continued daily for months. Elderly were
00:40:46.680scared to leave their homes. I was most distressed that it took as long as it did to invoke the
00:40:52.660emergency act. Oh my god. Second, the convoy protest in Winnipeg impacted our mental health
00:41:04.560significantly. We live near the legislature where the convoy honked, blocked streets, emergency
00:41:12.480vehicles forced to take longer routes, waved offensive signs, harassed locals for wearing
00:41:19.100masks at a bus or in local food or coffee shops, parked on streets blocking locals.
00:41:26.280Never happened. The loud honking hours, long vehicle parade with flags was an assault.
00:41:34.560Our mental health was severely impacted, and any complaints to police were seen as a few complainers repeating, and therefore of no real consequence.
00:41:57.360We had to get away to a hotel for several days to keep our sanity.
00:42:02.160we felt on the edge of sanity until the emergency act finally came in and suddenly
00:42:09.000things happened with that our police would not have ended this as quick we kept hoping the
00:42:16.560federal government would enact that step because this protest should never ever ever have gotten
00:42:23.160away with this outright lawlessness and disregard for fellow citizens this lack of action has forever
00:42:32.100changed our country for the worse shaken our confidence in protection the emergency act was
00:42:38.240absolutely necessary we also believe it was ended quickly showing there was no intent to abuse its
00:42:44.700power it was the reason we finally got some relief even here in winnipeg as a lasting impact we are
00:42:52.660attempting to find a way to move out of this area because even now any significant honking on
00:42:58.640broadway hits with a fear the protesters are back hours of honking past our apartment block changed
00:43:06.360our life because no one stopped it until the emergency act came in and ottawa was being cleaned
00:43:12.880up and then and only then did our police act we were shattered that's a lie that's a lie i was
00:43:21.160here in winnipeg the entire time and that was nothing more than a love fest i'm a hospital
00:43:25.660pharmacist in Windsor, Ontario. Our border was blocked by protesters connected to the Ottawa
00:43:32.160protests. I did not personally need to cross the border during that time, but I did experience
00:43:38.960shortages of some food and commodities that are transported through the border.
00:43:45.440I am also angry that my city had to use taxpayers' money to deal with these circumstances. I resent
00:43:52.660the fact that money could have been used constructively to improve the city was instead
00:43:57.760used to manage and contain the protesters. As a health care worker, I literally risked my life
00:44:05.060to go into the hospital where I work and care for sick people who required our services.
00:44:11.680If a protester was one of the people needing my skills, I would provide it with the same
00:44:16.600diligence and empathy as with any other patient in contrast the protesters seem not to respect
00:44:23.540the needs of community members at best inconvenienced and at worst terrorized by their
00:44:29.720occupation what about the other everyone has a right to protest but they do not have the right
00:44:35.400to prevent others from carrying out daily activities having access to food or supplies
00:44:41.420or simply feeling safe in their neighborhoods.
00:44:46.360Number four, I am writing to express my sincerest opinions and experiences
00:44:52.520regarding the Freedom Convoy protest and the implementation of the Emergencies Act.
00:44:58.380This letter will provide what I hope to be a useful recount
00:45:02.680of a working-class Canadian citizen who believes in freedom
00:45:06.400and the Charter-guaranteed rights to democratic protest.
00:45:11.420In the months of January and February of 2022, I made the long drive to Ottawa from Scarborough to peacefully protest in the Freedom Convoy.
00:45:24.260As a COVID-19 unvaccinated Canadian, I had already been facing discrimination, oppression and hate for two years as a direct result of the federal government's politicization of the vaccine.
00:45:37.260I am a young, active, healthy woman who had no medical need or personal desire to take an experimental vaccine.
00:45:46.180I was ridiculed by my peers and strangers alike, banned from leaving and re-entering my own country,
00:45:53.760public transit, sports leagues, restaurants, and shopping centres, to name a few.
00:45:59.220My decision to maintain medical and bodily autonomy nearly cost me my job.
00:46:05.280these vaccine mandates were systematically being imposed sector by sector leaving hard-working
00:46:15.080canadians to be either coerced into sacrificing bodily autonomy or stripped of their livelihoods
00:46:21.720many of my covid 19 unvaccinated family and friends were horrified and panicked
00:46:27.480at the very real possibility of having to flee our own country a country which has stood for
00:46:32.880freedom and equality for over 150 years until the truckers stopped them the freedom convoy was a
00:46:40.720beacon of hope to millions of canadians millions of canadians who face threats job suspension
00:46:47.540and getting cancelled online as a result of expressing dissent through propaganda and
00:46:54.060polarization of the media myself and many others were made to believe that there was nobody else
00:47:00.440out there who held the same perspective. We were made to believe that we had no ground to stand on
00:47:06.500and that if we spoke up there would be no one there to back us up. And then came the news of
00:47:14.220a trucker convoy bound for our nation's capital and inviting anyone and everyone to join.
00:47:21.300Here was finally a place where we could take a stand and show our government that we did not
00:47:26.140agree. The Freedom Convoy protests represent a new marker in Canadian history. They brought
00:47:33.200Canadians together. They brought the world together. Inspiring protests in countries all
00:47:39.000over the world, the repercussions of the convoy spread far beyond what we could have ever imagined.
00:47:45.600Citizens of other countries waved Canadian flags, sang the Canadian national anthem,
00:47:50.680and messaged and commented on social media in support of the Canadians.
00:47:56.200We became the pinnacle of a peaceful protest.
00:48:00.600I would like the Commission to take a moment to process
00:48:04.620what that must have felt like to have spent hours, even days,
00:48:09.540waving a Canadian flag, singing O Canada, shoulder to shoulder with strangers,
00:48:14.960inviting our government to engage in a discussion about our democratic rights,
00:48:19.260and instead being labeled and criticized so harshly.
00:48:24.560Please imagine enduring the extreme cold temperatures holding a sign above your head
00:48:29.240just so you can finally have your voice heard and your life back.
00:48:33.920Imagine seeing people laughing together and dancing
00:48:36.700and standing guard on the tome of the unknown soldier.
00:48:41.120Imagine just wanting your freedom back, not more, nothing demanding,
00:48:47.540Then you come home, watch the news, and see yourself labeled as a domestic terrorist, as someone who does not represent the views of Canadians.
00:50:32.140It was a reuniting of Canadian people.
00:50:34.900It was the Canada I knew from 25 years ago when I travelled abroad.
00:50:40.520people of all provinces had gathered to become family all nationalities were represented
00:50:48.040it was wonderful it was the best canada celebrations i have ever participated in
00:50:53.960it gave me such pride for canada again such joy to be a part of the waving canadian flags the
00:51:00.840happy people singing dancing and yes there were bouncy castles for the little people
00:51:05.800There was food in the streets to feed armies. It was unbelievable. The joy I felt watching the videos of the trucks rolling down the highway for this reunification of our people who had been so isolated and trapped for two years and then seeing it set up in Ottawa to be able to partake in was phenomenal.
00:51:25.980there was no violence and the police were literally standing around everywhere trying to
00:51:31.740keep warm but in reality had nothing to do in the areas I walked around downtown there was nothing
00:51:37.720to fear and people were kind and loving all weekend two weeks later I took the trip to Ottawa again
00:51:45.280unfortunately this trip was much less enjoyable because the police had already bought blocked
00:51:51.240the downtown entrances, and we heard of the violence that had already occurred with regard
00:51:57.740to the trucks, the vandalism, the tear gas. I made it to Coventry and heard from the trucks
00:52:03.720that got out just in time. They described the violence they had already experienced and
00:52:10.280witnessed. One trucker described as having been tear gassed, his eyes were still itchy.
00:52:15.960I ran into a reporter who had been physically harmed by officers during covering the story.
00:52:24.040It got ugly due to the officers. It wasn't the supporting protesters causing this.
00:52:30.400I met many of the helpers at Coventry who had been there since day one,
00:52:35.180and the stories we were able to share with one another about the purpose of this protest were beautiful.
00:52:45.960Thank you for the opportunity to give feedback on this polarizing issue in our country.
00:52:55.600I believe that evoking the Emergencies Act was the correct thing to do.
00:53:00.040And if anything, I would like to have seen a more forceful dispersion of protesters and others who engaged in these reckless and irresponsible actions.
00:53:10.280I was not a protester myself, nor was I in the capital city at the time of this event.
00:53:16.300However, I can attest to the broad reach of this group's influence and the effects it had on other provinces besides Ontario.
00:53:26.940These individuals threatened the entire country with their negligence by attacking our already frail food chain supply through the use of blockades.
00:53:37.560Living in Newfoundland, a large concern has always been if we will have enough food shipped onto the island to make sure everyone can get by.
00:53:48.660Although this group was unsuccessful with completely stunting the food supply chain, it still did a number on our ability to get needed goods.
00:53:57.760walking into the grocery store for some time was a stressful experience as you would just have to
00:54:04.180hope that enough of what you needed made it to our isolated province this in turn created a greater
00:54:10.980pressure on truckers who were continuing to do their job to the best of their ability
00:54:16.220while having to make unnecessarily long routes to avoid the blockades
00:54:21.600seven i lived in the red zone during the convoy occupation of ottawa six blocks from parliament
00:54:31.120the abuse and harassment from the convoy was constant and unacceptable the 18 hours of
00:54:39.500honking day in day out was torment implements such as the air horns used for commercial trains were
00:54:46.800employed which were designed for announcing presence in a wide space at high speeds when
00:54:52.580used in a dense urban setting they resonate off all the buildings and penetrate walls
00:54:58.500the idling of trucks was also dangerous and destructive the air quality at street level
00:55:05.160with the 24 7 generation of diesel fumes being trapped by cold air made breathing difficult for
00:55:12.820me as someone with asthma. I live in an apartment on the third floor of my building, and even if
00:55:20.360the trucks hadn't been honking incessantly, I would still have needed to keep all my windows shut
00:55:26.240and not use my balcony because I could taste the diesel fumes in the air on my balcony.
00:55:33.140Having people shout at me when I went for groceries was frustrating as well.
00:55:37.880For all the generalizations people like to make about what it's like to live downtown,
00:55:42.820The reality is I've never felt unsafe or harassed on the street, and aside from the occasional event promoter on street corners, I've never been accosted on the streets.
00:55:55.520The convoy people made it very clear that I, by virtue of wearing a mask in public, was their enemy.
00:56:03.640On multiple nights, convoy people shot off commercial-grade fireworks from the street in the middle of the night.
00:56:09.040these were the kind of fireworks that have spread have a spread of greater than 25 meters being
00:56:17.380fired from two-lane one-way streets directly adjacent to apartment buildings with open balconies
00:56:24.080the sleep disruption of having fireworks go off at midnight literally outside my building was
00:56:30.840infuriating but the fire hazard this presented was completely unacceptable police were called
00:56:38.280multiple times every time and their response was always that they're keeping an eye on it
00:56:43.980their standing policy appeared to be to be being ready to call the fire department just in case
01:00:59.680I had to suspend ongoing treatment for a non-fatal intestinal issue,
01:01:05.200then start over when the emergency act took hold.
01:01:09.080Sleep was hard to come by as pickups and SUVs drove around our area,
01:01:13.940blasting horns and a couple of air horns.
01:01:16.980Sleep is pretty basic to human health and function.
01:01:21.3809. In living in the Gladstone Bay Area, Centre Town, there was no disruption to my life whatsoever by the protest.
01:01:33.660I could not hear the trucks or their horns at this location, and my freedom of movement on foot or by car was not affected at all.
01:01:43.220My access to the 417 was entirely unaffected by the protest.
01:01:48.220I passed through the protest a number of times, usually went out for a run, sometimes went out for a walk, and a couple of times to see the protest itself.
01:01:59.440I did not experience any harassment on any of these occasions.
01:02:04.240In terms of signage, I did not personally see anything resembling a swastika or a Confederate flag.
01:02:10.780I did not wear a mask but when observing people wearing masks within the protest I did not see
01:02:17.760them being harassed. Framing the issue as one where people such as myself who live in the city core
01:02:24.120were held hostage by the protest is in my case incorrect and unwanted. The protest in no way
01:02:32.320affected me negatively. How many people were actually affected and to what extent remains
01:02:38.000an open question for me the trucks were parked north south from wellington to slater and east
01:02:44.580west from lyon to elgin most of the buildings in this area are office buildings the workers
01:02:50.980of which were still working from home due to prior government actions there are some street
01:02:56.500level businesses most of which had been required to shut down for extended periods over the previous
01:03:02.500two years. Those that wanted to stay open during the protest were able to do so. For those who
01:03:09.620were living there, I have no doubt that the protest was incredibly annoying. The problem for me is
01:03:15.880that the concerns of a group of protesters who possibly outnumbered the residents in the affected
01:03:21.280area were ignored, dismissed, and vilified, while the inconvenience of a small number of people
01:03:27.880was made to appear as if all of us living in ottawa were being held hostage in our own homes
01:03:34.640i found and find the lack of balance disturbing and then finally i would like to express my
01:03:44.420experience with the illegal occupation of ottawa that was brought to end by the invocation of the
01:03:50.560emergency well we know how this one's gonna go i am a secondary teacher i work in ottawa
01:03:55.120and I live in Quebec. My route to work was made longer and more complicated by the illegal
01:04:02.180occupation. After nearly two years of trying to support my students through the demands of COVID
01:04:08.220crisis, I really did not need the added strain that was created by the so-called convoy. More
01:04:15.940importantly, my students did not need even more stress. I teach students who are affected by the
01:04:22.380noise of the constant hawking and the order odor from the vehicles that idled in ottawa's core
01:04:29.200as well it was certainly disheartening to see the behavior of adults as they danced in the streets
01:04:36.400while so many young people that sacrificed so much so that we could follow protocols as safely
01:04:43.480as possible hey what about the dancing doctors and nurses in hospitals during the peak and
01:04:48.540graduation ceremonies still followed the protocol some adults acted as if our public health crisis
01:04:55.460was a hoax finally it was deeply troubling to see the racist violent and threatening message
01:05:02.220coming from these occupiers i was most incensed when one organizer threatened to roll schools
01:05:10.640he did not organize a roll past my school but my understanding is that the elementary school
01:05:18.420down the street was targeted on my route to work and back not only was i delayed i also felt
01:05:29.140intimidated by the vehicles with flags of various kinds driving aggressively to and from their camp
01:05:36.220oh brother the most drastic impact that the illegal occupation had on my life
01:05:44.200was that I was unable to visit my mother on the last weekend she was alive.
01:05:50.600My mother was grieving for the loss of her son,
01:05:54.100and after my brother's death in 2019, her quality of life changed radically.
01:05:59.700While my sister, an essential worker, and her husband were primary caregivers,
01:06:04.460I tried to visit my mother every weekend.
01:06:06.940You are probably aware that those of us who live in the Ottawa-Gatineau region
01:06:11.840experienced our communities as more unified than separated. For me to take two trips to Orleans
01:06:18.340on a weekend was not on all unusual until the convoy. On both the Saturday and the Sunday of
01:06:25.680the last weekend in January, I tried to get across the bridge from Wakefield to Orleans to see my
01:06:31.540mom. I was not successful either day. The police had closed the route. While I had just seen her
01:06:39.180on the Tuesday prior to that, I felt she was slipping away and I was concerned. So these
01:06:46.140people have taken something from me that I can never get back. My mom was a dedicated educator.
01:06:53.460She was my role model. The illegal occupation of Ottawa stole my mom from me, stole from me the last
01:07:03.300moments of my mother's life. I am grateful that the federal government stepped in to end it
01:07:08.680when local and provincial authorities could not.
01:07:28.280So, that's the presentation of the public consultation results.
01:07:35.160But I'm going to take a short break just to get our next witness in and we can move to the next phase. So five minutes only to get the next witness in. Thank you.
01:07:52.380The commission is in recess for five minutes.
01:11:09.580whenever we like, for as long as we'd like.
01:11:17.340The city is not set up to accommodate that.
01:11:24.380And I believe there was an idea that came up a couple of weeks ago
01:11:27.880on the show here about some kind of a speaker's corner,
01:11:31.260a protest area where people should be able to go and fill it up.
01:11:35.120and there nothing like that exists in ottawa right now there is no designated protest area
01:11:43.420but there should be moreover there should also be some sort of accommodation area
01:11:50.360but our protesters our freedom convoy people they had to actually go and make those things
01:11:58.000As for the frightened business owners of downtown Ottawa, I'm thinking that you people should actually have been joyous.
01:12:09.060Look at all the new customers you had in your area that you completely could have taken advantage of.
01:12:16.260And the previous two years of being locked down off and on, off and on, and taking the subsistence level contributions from the government, the Ontario government.
01:12:28.000you should have been going, come on in, come on in.
01:12:31.540Yeah, I'll give you a coffee, I'll give you a donut.
01:20:56.180Now, if we can begin, suppose, with the basics, I think.
01:21:06.960A lot of what we would describe as your position and your responsibilities are already familiar to many of the parties here, but just so that those for whom it isn't familiar and for members of the public, could you describe your office?
01:21:25.900And in instance, I'm going to be taking you to some particulars, but also if you could give us an overview of the dual role you play as Minister of Justice and Attorney General and just describe how that plays out in the context of the work you do in conjunction with the government and cabinet.
01:21:44.720They are two complicated roles, and it is an important question.
01:21:49.580As Minister of Justice, I'm a member of cabinet.
01:21:52.260I'm responsible for what one might call justice policy and the development of justice policy, the curation of a criminal code, various institutions, Human Rights Commission, for example, and the Privacy Commission, other commissions that are associated with justice policy writ large in Canada.
01:34:09.900So you're in the old school with me, okay. But the end of the sentence is interesting. EA, I'm sure, is a reference to the Emergencies Act.
01:34:22.480And this is the, depending on how you count it, it's the second day of the first weekend, maybe the third day of the protest, if you count Friday as a day.
01:34:34.840so the second or third day of the protest and your mind goes straight to the emergencies act
01:34:42.180in the first text we get produced in these proceedings can you explain
01:34:46.040why that came so quickly to your mind i was being prudent i was being prudent i had been through the
01:34:55.420pandemic with my cabinet colleagues it is no secret that we did discuss the emergencies act
01:35:02.320in the context of the pandemic, and it became quite familiar with the requirements for consultation
01:35:09.740and for the standards that would have to be met before different kinds of emergencies.
01:35:16.880And so I knew that we had to begin thinking about it, whether or not it was ever going to be an
01:35:23.700option, as was the case with the pandemic. We never actually used it. So it's something that
01:35:30.040I prudently raised to, this is, there's a question mark there, as you see, something I'm prudently
01:35:36.680raising with my chief of staff to begin thinking about, to get the department to begin thinking
01:35:41.620about in case we need it. Because the worst scenario would be something explodes and we are
01:35:51.040not ready to use it because we haven't done the kinds of consultations necessary or asked the
01:35:56.920appropriate questions to the appropriate people in order to get it done so this
01:36:00.520is me being prudent and it's based on my experience and the work that I put in
01:36:05.080during the pandemic again with the Emergencies Act and the possibility of
01:36:08.920using it in that context. That's helpful thank you and we'll go to another one of
01:36:13.720these texts next this is Mr. Clerk the one with the same preceding numbers but
01:44:01.960I think I would soften it now with the benefit of hindsight
01:44:06.780with respect to the former Ottawa chief of police.
01:44:12.460It reflects, I think, the fact that my life had been altered by this.
01:44:20.560My staff was being harassed when they went to work by convoy members who took issue with them wearing masks, particularly my female staff members on my ministerial team.
01:44:33.820And I was quite frustrated, I will admit.
01:44:38.220Now, for a second, I'd like us to revert to the comments we talked about at the beginning, where your role was described as, and you acknowledged as being the Chief Law Officer of the Crown in your capacity as Deputy General and effectively Cabinet's lawyer in your capacity as Minister of Justice.
01:45:01.700And is it fair to say that you would expect your colleagues to place considerable weight on your views of the legal issues that were facing the government as it encountered the convoy, the protests, and indeed the policing situation that you just opined on in your note about Chief Soli?
01:45:23.220In these kinds of interactions, I'm interacting, first of all, with a colleague and a friend.
01:45:47.360I will guard my comments when I'm giving legal advice to my cabinet colleagues, and I do that often.
01:45:53.980In general, I think it's fair to say that when I'm interacting on text messaging with my colleagues, I'm acting as one of their contemporaries as a minister.
01:46:04.080Okay, well, let's see how that plays out with respect to the particular point that has come under discussion by a number of senior officials, a number of police officials, indeed the two witnesses at least who have preceded you, Minister Mendicino and Minister Blair.
01:46:24.860and that is the line between, I think it was perhaps first Commissioner Lucky who called it the line between church and state,
01:46:34.480but it's generally understood as the appropriate role for governance or oversight of police forces
01:46:41.000and that it's not tread too far into the realm of directing the police and their activities.
01:46:49.240So that is, I take it, that is a topic on which you as the Attorney General of the country would have and would be expected by your colleagues to have fairly well-developed views. Is that fair?
01:47:03.760Absolutely. And you'll see that in these exchanges, I'm in no way saying we need to direct the police.
01:47:09.880Well, the Ipperwash inquiry was clear in that regard, although we can identify as a government, according to that inquiry, priorities for us, but we can in no way make operational decisions for police and jurisdiction.
01:47:25.040Well, let's look at these texts and we'll come back to exactly that question of where you were relative to the line.
01:47:33.560Mr. Clerk, could we call up 7851? Again, same prefix, but with the last four letters, 7851.
01:47:40.860if i'm following this correctly is february 2nd so the wednesday of the first week of the
01:48:07.320convoys presence in ottawa and again if i'm following the bubbles correctly uh you are
01:48:13.980having a text conversation uh with minister mandicino and you are in blue and he is in
01:48:20.280gray have i got that right that's correct and the comments you make at the top of the first bubble
01:48:27.400and again though we'll take it yet that you are texting here and not submitting a memo to
01:48:36.860minister mendicino you're sending him a text but time is short events are unfolding quickly and you
01:48:43.800are entering into if not already in a crisis situation and your first comment is you you
01:48:50.620marco need to get the police to move right and then if we look at another text this is the
01:49:01.520justice minister talking about the government trying to direct police apologize for the wow
01:49:07.840these these are just not filed in order so i have to go through various documents the next one i
01:49:12.880want to talk to you about is mr clerk it is uh again same prefix seven eight five four
01:49:24.640it's possible they could be joking so we're going to go from you need to take everything
01:49:34.500into consideration again this is the attorney general of the minister of public safety of
01:49:40.020canada now at this time i think you're aware but correct me if i'm wrong uh minister lametti
01:49:54.980that minister mendicino has become in effect the interface between the federal government
01:50:03.320and the city of ottawa the mayor and the ops correct i believe so and i i would add i spoke
01:50:09.820the province of ontario as well yes but here you're speaking to the minister of public safety
01:50:18.060whom you know is the government's interface with the ottawa force and city and you say to him
01:50:25.260actually that i i i'm not going to accept that i i know that he is interacting with minister blair
01:50:33.260and i presume at this stage that brenda lucky is having a role in these interactions so i'm
01:50:42.080i'm in no way certain that he is directly interacting with the ops i know that he's
01:50:48.220interacting with the ontario government i know that he's interacting with minister blair
01:50:52.040and minister lucky but it's it's it's not a fair presumption to say that i know he's got direct
01:50:58.540you you might not have known it if i reminded you that he actually had a discussion with the mayor
01:51:03.240in respect to the mayor of Ottawa, in respect of additional resources being
01:51:07.140provided by the federal government and confirmed to cabinet that he had
01:51:11.220authorized that. With political actors, yes. I knew he was having those
01:51:16.620relationships, but you had mentioned the OPS, that's quite different. Thank you,
01:51:20.460and that's a fair qualification. But with that in mind, again, the Attorney
01:51:25.500General speaking to the Minister of Public Safety, who is the liaison to the
01:51:32.100mayor of Ottawa and this is what you say at the bottom of this text to just
01:51:39.480scroll down a bit more thank you spoke to Doug Downey and here again you're
01:51:47.580speaking these words to Minister Mendicino needs slowly to be quick quick
01:51:54.120quick. Now, I guess the question I would pose is this. Do you think that the question of whether
01:52:08.120Chief Slowly should be dealing with the Ottawa protesters quick, quick, quick, or wait until
01:52:15.560he believes he has the resources to perform the operation safely? Do you think the decision
01:52:21.660between those two options is an operational decision for chief slowly or a decision that
01:52:27.140should be influenced by you and minister mendicino that's definitely an operational decision remember
01:52:32.220i'm interacting here as a colleague and minister of justice around the cabinet table i'm not
01:52:37.000interacting as attorney general minister mendicino and i have a close relationship there's some
01:52:42.220banter here there's some humor here that's a reference to my favorite christmas movie
01:52:45.680uh the quick quick quick part um and so i think i think we could take the temperature down here
01:52:53.220we as a government according to the ipra wash report uh can identify our priorities uh to
01:53:02.600police services that's the role that that a minister of public safety has in this case
01:53:08.180possibly also the minister of emergency preparedness but we can't make operational
01:53:12.280decisions we know that and remember i'm not the one interacting with the police um and i'm assuming
01:53:18.280that that minister mandicino is uh is working with cabinet colleagues uh on a on a level of principle
01:53:25.720and and happily for the point that you've just made minister lemedi you do get uh sort of air
01:53:34.920time for that point and the texts that were filed and so i'll ask the clerk to call up
01:53:39.080same prefix, 7853, and I believe this is an extract of a text between you and Doug Downey,
01:54:08.380is that right that's correct can you remind us who doug downey is he's the attorney general for
01:54:13.820ontario okay and uh the words that are on the screen read for themselves that's the second
01:54:22.940bubble that i'm interested in and i think at the end of the second bubble you make roughly the point
01:54:29.100that you were just making to me uh unprompted uh you say we can't make operational decisions but
01:54:36.460solgen can make government priorities clear in these situations as per hipper wash report
01:54:45.660um and so i'm gonna you i think you've made the point already and i just wanted to
01:54:51.900in fairness to you point out that you'd indeed been adopting that position at the time in in
01:54:57.020your own words although maybe even though this is a text will elevate them to uh to a to a
01:55:04.300at the level of seriousness, because you've actually incorporated reference to a commission
01:55:24.500And on that point, we've heard from a couple of your colleagues and a number of senior officials, including police officials at all levels of government, police at the RCMP, OPP and municipal levels,
01:55:48.280about this question of the topics discussed in the Ipperwash report
01:55:55.700and in Justice Linden's report and in the Morden report
01:56:00.700with respect to the G20 protests in Toronto.
01:56:04.080And your colleagues who've spoken before you
01:56:12.780have expressed an opinion on this very point you make here in your text.
01:56:18.280We can't make operational decisions, but Solgen can make government priorities clear in these situations as per Ipperwash report.
01:56:26.360Now, I think the commissioners set the precedent here that I have to give spoiler alerts in fairness to you that this question was put by me to Minister Blair about whether it would be appropriate in the case of competing problems in different parts of the province.
01:56:48.280if it would be appropriate for government or the Solicitor General in Ontario to advise the
01:56:57.140Commissioner of the OPP if we take that jurisdiction though presumably it could also apply in other
01:57:01.500contexts to advise the Commissioner that among the two public order situations facing the province
01:57:11.940the government of the day or the solicitor general in particular considers city x to be the priority
01:57:19.520situation the example might be as between ottawa and windsor windsor is causing huge impacts
01:57:25.900on the national economy and so the province considers that the priority
01:57:31.780objective for public order getting public order back under control leaving it to the police to
01:57:40.140decide if they want to do anything about that input and if so how they would do about it they
01:57:45.480might decide that they can't address that priority expression but the question is is it fair that that
01:57:52.980priority be perhaps even appropriate and necessary that that priority priority be expressed to the
01:57:59.840police and minister blair seemed to think not that that would be going too far even to express
01:58:07.120a priority i think we're seeing from your text here that you're going to differ
01:58:12.500but again spoiler alert minister mendicino also had a view on it though i think his view
01:58:20.740covered the spectrum from all the way at no to all the way at yes depending on which part of
01:58:26.940his answer you focused on so you don't have to worry about disagreeing with him
01:58:31.300uh so what would you say about that scenario where uh uh there are competing priorities and
01:58:42.700put it at the federal level if that's something that that you can identify with more appropriately
01:58:47.300uh where the federal government is facing public order issues perhaps not public order perhaps
01:58:55.800environmental issues that have caused the need for policing resources but in one way or another
01:59:13.120I mean, I think I'm probably, in most contexts, probably closer to Minister Blair in the answer that I'm going to give.
01:59:20.460Although there will be some contexts where I might move towards a more flexible answer.
01:59:27.340In all cases, the operational decisions will be made by the police of jurisdiction. In all cases. What I was referring to in the Ipperwash report and what the Ipperwash report was referring to, it is legitimate for government to say we have an important public security situation here. We need to have something done about it. And then it ends there. Then it's up to the police of jurisdiction to take care of it.
01:59:52.500And the scenario that you have given me is a person or articulate as a member of the federal government, say we've been done in X place or Y place.
02:00:09.540And I think the inference in your question is that there may be a different priority elsewhere.
02:00:17.300That's a premise of the question, not just an inference.
02:00:19.580It's always going to be, first of all, the Solicitor General of Ontario in the jurisdiction that we're talking about right now, who is going to articulate that priority.
02:00:31.740And then, again, the operational decisions will be made by the police.
02:00:35.180So, we're an input into that decision-making process in the province.
02:00:41.580So I'm probably closer to Minister Blair on that.
02:00:45.120Although there will be, I believe, situations where we may have to say as a federal government,
02:00:52.260look, something is quite urgently happening here.
02:01:33.700it sounds to me like you'd feel comfortable answering the question.
02:01:36.700I guess what I would say is I would commend everyone to read the IPRWASH report, quite frankly, because it's nuanced and tries to deal with the variety of these kinds of situations.
02:01:48.700Well, we're hoping that the Commissioner might be able to add something to the IPRWASH report by his observations on the events here.
02:01:59.000So we'd really benefit from more than just punt to IPRWASH if you could give some…
02:02:04.500Well, I'll be honest with you, it's hard for me to answer hypothetical questions.
02:02:08.480I am suggesting to my colleagues that we make our priorities known to the Solicitor General of Ontario.
02:02:18.520In a situation where a number of people felt Ottawa was being neglected with respect to the occupation that was happening on Parliament Hill,
02:02:28.540um i'd rather to be honest as as a prudent uh as a prudent uh attorney general i would rather
02:02:37.160avoid giving public legal opinions on hypothetical situations but but the nuance is there in the
02:02:44.520report uh there isn't i believe a black or white answer other than to say that that that operational
02:02:52.020decisions will always be made by the police of jurisdiction. The identification of priorities
02:02:59.640is a much more complex matter. Okay, thank you for that. I'm going to take you to another series
02:03:06.060of texts, and this does get messy, so I'm not going to bother with a whole bunch of document
02:03:11.040numbers. I'm just going to read these in, Mr. Commissioner, and if parties want to try to
02:03:18.280follow just because i i figured out the sequence of them and it helps follow the there's a series
02:03:24.120of texts between you uh minister lametti and your chief of staff and you have to jump back and forth
02:03:30.800between his set of texts and yours to get the sequence right so i won't ask you mr clerk to
02:03:37.360call these all up i'm just going to read them in and then i'll ask you if you can remember what
02:03:41.320I'm talking about, Minister Lamedi. They are 7861, then 7864, then 7863, then 7860. And that
02:03:54.460takes us to a series of texts between you and your chief of staff.
02:04:02.080Council, do you mind if I see them? This is going to be very difficult for me.
02:04:06.400That's a fair point. Certainly the first one, because I think that will twig what we're
02:04:11.300talking about here mr. Kirk could you call up 7861 now it's the morning of
02:04:27.300Sunday the 13th so this is leading up to the IRG meeting at which serious
02:04:36.620consideration is going to be given and ultimately conclude with the decision
02:04:41.540being given ad referendum to the to the Prime Minister and you you you am I
02:04:53.620correct that you're in the grey there have I got the yes it is right so you
02:05:00.300you you observe that you we by which I assume you mean the government are on an
02:05:06.080inexorable march to the ea not enough happening in windsor and then i will just again to help you
02:05:13.280because i can appreciate that you want to be accurate on this just uh i'll mention that this
02:05:19.040is a series of texts in which you are anxious to know the status of two things whether the
02:05:24.320windsor bridge the ambassador bridge is getting cleared and whether the plan the ottawa police
02:05:30.780plan to clear the city of the protesters is coming to maturity and you you appear to want
02:05:38.140in this morning of the 13th the most up-to-date information you can get on those two points so
02:05:44.560mr clerk if you i can see the first point i i'll wait and sure on the second but let's let's let's
02:05:50.220see let's see we'll skip ahead to 7863 mr clerk if you can bring that up because there you
02:09:03.960The one thing about Rouleau through the entire commission so far is that he's been willing to go late and provide lawyers cross-examining with extra time.
02:09:14.820But because of constraints today with the three witnesses, I mean, yesterday, honest to God, Mendocino was up there for eight hours.
02:09:22.960And then LeBlanc came on for three or four hours after that.
02:09:27.000So they had a 12 or 13 hour day yesterday.
02:09:29.560And I would expect just as long, if not longer today.
02:09:32.880So this makes me think already, if I'm going to stay with this live stream all day today,
02:09:37.300that I'm not going to be having a regular show tonight.
02:09:41.120But we will have an episode of Ask the Funeral Director with Mike Boydjakis of Voyage Funeral Homes at the regular time tonight,
02:09:48.420which will be 9 15 um central time and mike has been investigating these strange
02:09:57.100blood clots that other funeral directors across the world have been talking about
02:10:02.760and he's seen the movie uh died suddenly in the last couple of days which was released on monday
02:10:10.520and so that made him curious and he started asking around and he's doing some investigating so
02:10:19.080he may want to mention that tonight at 9 15 central on a new episode of ask the funeral director
02:10:26.100what did they say they're taking a 15 minute break here so i'm going to leave this stream
02:10:31.740open you guys but hey before before i just check out for a bit here and i'm not going to check out
02:10:36.400completely, but I am trying to do a few different things at once. I just got a phone call that I'm
02:10:43.120going to have to return from a representative for Posties for Freedom. Now, this is a group
02:10:50.540of postal workers, obviously, who were removed from their jobs for not complying with the
02:10:58.240you-know-what mandates. The union did not help them. I think the union would have been
02:11:04.020cup w sorry qp and so they if my understanding is correct they have had to take their union to court
02:11:15.520for misrepresentation or lack of representation and then if they win that case then they'll be
02:11:24.260allowed to take canada post to court for what they feel would be unlawful dismissal
02:11:31.600so i may try and set that interview up for friday night or early next week um and tomorrow night
02:11:40.720i've got an interview with the author of how the prime minister stole freedom for his new book as
02:11:48.120well so yeah guys this is going to be this is already a jam-packed weekend we're only halfway
02:11:53.240through so let's see what your comments and also i want to ask you guys
02:11:59.360and before i say this i want to preface it with this simply that uh we know that the liberal
02:12:09.440cabinet ministers who were testifying this week are trying to obfuscate from the truth or lying
02:12:14.900outright or they believe their own truths that have been rolling around in their heads for the
02:12:21.860last seven or eight months since the convoy happened and they have a completely delusional
02:12:27.040view of reality having said that i want you to at least try to keep an open and centered mind
02:12:37.880on what they're saying don't immediately and i watch the comments and i see what you guys are
02:12:43.200saying don't immediately jump to the conclusion that they are lying all right give them at least
02:12:52.280a little bit of room and let's make it clearly obvious let before we even make a comment let's
02:12:59.700perceive that it's clearly obvious that they're lying about something or other and these commission
02:13:05.000lawyers you know this mckinnon guy the guy who's stammering i saw that he's kind of like the lawyer
02:13:10.920from my cousin Vinny, you know, the Mr. Tipton, that guy. These commission lawyers are not going
02:13:24.800to, you know, this guy appears in fairness to be trying to get some kind of semblance of truth
02:13:30.680out of Lamedi so far. But these commission lawyers are supposed to be balanced in their
02:13:39.220approach okay so they're supposed to be bringing out uh information from both sides of the equation
02:13:45.640sadly because we have such a divided country right now socially and everything else um but what we're
02:13:53.120going to see later on when brendan miller takes his opportunity to cross-examine lamedi and then
02:14:00.920anita anand after that and then omar algabra and they're going to talk about the arrive can app at
02:14:06.340some point later on today. That's when you'll see them sweating. That's when you'll see them
02:14:12.080fidgeting. That's when you will definitely see them lying. And I also understand that Miller
02:14:18.300has got some more explosive evidence to bring out later on today, too. So this is going to be a long
02:14:23.300day with this, guys. In my opinion, I know it's a lot of boring nonsense in between the good parts,
02:14:29.120but it's almost like a nationwide viewing party right and i know that the comments give you a
02:14:37.940chance to commiserate with other canadians who feel the same way and i think that's great
02:14:42.480it brings us together as a community but let's not get caught up in our own beliefs
02:14:48.420we're all supposed to be a bunch of critical thinkers here right so let's not do presuppositions
02:14:55.760before anybody even has a chance to open their mouths.
02:14:59.940That, ultimately, is what's going to separate us from them in the long term.
02:15:07.600And that will give us the moral ground we need to be able to defend what we believe.
02:23:30.820unless the minister wants to make reference to it.
02:23:36.140But we'll just put it on the record so it's there in case any other,
02:23:39.020so that it's an exhibit on this examination
02:23:41.800in case any other party wants to have access to it.
02:23:45.500Now, Minister, history that you and I lived through in our early law careers, and that was the invention or the development of the CSIS Act out of the McDonald Commission report in the early 80s.
02:24:08.340If you weren't familiar with that before you took your current role, you're probably pretty familiar with it by now, correct?
02:24:15.500that's true and uh you're aware that the cesus act was born out of a very long uh royal commission
02:24:26.220of inquiry and longer i think in its product than even this commission will be able to produce
02:24:37.180in terms of the volume and scope of its recommendations one of which
02:24:40.860was the invention of canada's first secret intelligence agency first national security
02:26:31.720Even if you weren't following it at the time, you can see from the terms of the Act now, one of the major points of contention was to make sure that the scope of investigation that CSIS was permitted to engage in would be very tightly defined, right?
02:26:48.260I can only base, I'll take your word, I can only base what I see in the Act and the rules of thumb that we see from people from CSIS who have testified, so I think that's right.
02:27:01.720Now then, along came, a few years later, Parliament and its interest in another new development, and that was the creation of a new Emergencies Act to replace the War Measures Act.
02:27:15.480and you'll agree with me that again parliament was faced with the challenge
02:27:22.360that it was about to create in this case a power rather than an institution
02:27:28.160that had to be treated very carefully in a constitutional democracy right that is the power
02:27:35.140that the emergencies act would give to cabinet to create extraordinary authorities in advance of
02:27:42.820their approval by parliament right i think that's right the potential power was great and therefore
02:27:48.340seemed to be very serious and you'll agree with me that parliament could have gone pretty much
02:27:55.080anywhere it wanted to find the threshold that it thought appropriate before cabinet was able to
02:28:02.580exercise that power certainly and what it went to we now know was the cesus act where they had just
02:28:12.420had a similar situation of wanting to make sure that extraordinary powers were appropriately
02:28:18.760controlled, right? I think that's fair. And the way they did that in the Emergencies Act was to
02:28:28.380make part of the threshold for the declaration of a public order emergency, the existence of
02:28:36.960a threat to the security of Canada, as that term is defined in the CSIS Act, right?
02:34:24.840Try not to make them, but go right ahead.
02:34:26.680Has anybody suggested that the Emergencies Act delegates to CSIS the decision as to whether Cabinet can invoke the Emergencies Act or declare a public order emergency?
02:34:41.100When you say has anybody suggested, we have to be concerned about Cabinet confidence as well as solicitor-client privilege.
02:34:48.000So when you say anybody, it would be helpful to specify what you're asking about.0.98
02:34:53.320That's just nothing but a bunch of crap.
02:34:54.920Has anybody who's a party to this proceeding, let me put it that way, advanced the argument you just purported to debunk that Parliament had delegated the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to CESIS?0.97
02:35:13.140even if a delegation is is one end of the extreme but even effect even using the same standard
02:35:20.140uh or or purporting that it be the same standard that is contained the actual the actual substantive
02:35:26.760standard that's contained in the cesus act is effectively doing the same thing
02:35:30.040the substantive standard contained in the cesus act is the one that parliament said
02:35:37.000is assigned to the meaning of that standard
02:36:04.940And so there's a very serious, and you pointed it out yourself, sir, in the preparatory statements that you made about the CSIS Act and citing Mr. Boravoy.
02:36:17.760There's a very serious matter going on here when we are allowing a Canadian agency to investigate Canadians on Canadian soil.
02:36:28.220So it is, and the rules of thumb that they have developed since that time are very, very different, I think, I would suggest, than the kind of decision that we had to make under the Emergencies Act.
02:36:46.080And I would suggest that proper rules of statutory interpretation gets me to this conclusion.
02:36:52.380for a second there i thought you were arguing my case because you were trying to tell me
02:36:59.360how important the threshold was in the cesus act before parliament would let a secret intelligence
02:37:08.820agency investigate canadians in a democracy that's right we totally agree on that and then a few years
02:37:15.300later parliament adopted that definition as the threshold for the invocation of the act
02:37:19.600it said the very same threshold right the threshold as applied as you've seen in testimony
02:37:26.080before this commission has evolved the rules of thumb for interpreting that have evolved
02:37:31.940the purpose of that act is very different so while the while the words were incorporated
02:37:36.760and i would and i have put to you how the magnitude of importance was conveyed um and
02:37:44.460and the kind of threat was conveyed um given a different decision maker given a broader set of
02:37:51.600inputs the very same words will have this is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo bottom line is
02:37:58.020black and white in black and white none of the thresholds to enact the emergencies act
02:38:03.760and i think that i think he's trying to suggest areas that is the interpretation that that i would
02:38:10.700put to you as as the one that that best bears out in practice and is correct let me see if i can
02:38:17.660approach it this way um again just as we all i won't ask you opinions on legal matters i just
02:38:29.000want to see if you if you agree with me for the purposes of this discussion that section 16 of
02:38:35.860the Emergencies Act 16 and 17 require is what lawyers sometimes refer to as a combined subjective
02:38:45.460and objective test. That is, cabinet has to have had a belief that the threshold was met,
02:38:52.420that there was a threat to security of Canada, and that belief has to have been on reasonable grounds,
02:38:56.880right? That's correct. Mr. Commissioner, I am concerned that we're going down the road of
02:39:01.220arguing the case. Minister Lamedi is here as a fact witness. There will be a stage to come after
02:39:08.700this evidentiary portion of the hearing where legal arguments are submitted. The Government
02:39:14.180of Canada will be submitting detailed legal arguments and I am concerned that having Minister
02:39:20.200Lamedi on the stand is not the opportunity to be arguing the case. Mr. Commissioner, I think I can
02:39:26.060approach it in a way that addresses my friend's concern, though, to his credit, Minister Lometty
02:39:33.320was fully able to answer my question and answered it the way I'd have expected him to. But to
02:39:39.300address my friend's concern, I'll simply read section 17 of the Act to him and then use that
02:39:45.100as a preface for my point. When the governor and council believes, and we'll just stop here to say
02:39:51.640that if we speak compactly and effectively we're talking about when cabinet believes can we work
02:39:57.520with that premise yes you're nodding that's fine thanks when the governor and council believes
02:40:03.640on reasonable grounds that a public order emergency exists so this is why i say that lawyers especially
02:40:10.900so highly qualified lawyers as as you see that the governor and council has to believe
02:40:19.360doesn't just have to have reasonable grounds it has to believe and that belief has to be on
02:40:26.740reasonable grounds so it's now mind you i don't want to you're
02:40:32.660if this is pushing the level where you're comfortable talking about it but that you
02:40:38.940can see that those are two additive things one they have to have believed it and that belief
02:40:43.040has to have been on reasonable grounds and i'm just reading the words of the act
02:41:11.480And that has, and I'm just reading from the Act, an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, right?
02:41:20.740So would you agree with me this far, what your Section 58 explanation has in it are the grounds upon which Cabinet formed its reasonable belief that a public order emergency existed, right?
02:41:36.960Okay. Now, if you were asked to, could you, sorry, I'm going to back up a little further. The Section 58 explanation, that is an explanation, that's not an ex post facto justification of the invocation, is it?
02:41:56.020The Act says that it is to stipulate the reasons that the emergency was in fact declared, right?
02:42:03.800and that section 58 explanation then is where the commission parties to the extent they're
02:42:14.960exploring the issue can find all of the facts on which cabinet relied to come to its conclusion
02:42:23.280that it had reasonable grounds to believe that it had formed a belief and that that belief was
02:42:30.240on reasonable grounds correct the facts yes okay now that section 58 explanation is going to include
02:42:36.260other material isn't it because it's going to include the material on which because the threat
02:42:41.640to the security of Canada is the starting point and then what arises from again to use the words
02:42:47.760of the act the threat to the security of Canada is an emergency of such a scope that it's a national
02:42:52.840emergency and I'm just trying to follow the framework of the act I'm not asking for opinions
02:42:58.640But as I'm saying, that's why there'll be more in the Section 58 explanation than just the threat to the security of Canada, right?
02:43:08.460It is true that there is more in that Section 58 explanation.
02:43:11.740And probably in the Section 58 explanation, you would have included the reasons why existing authorities weren't adequate to deal with the situation, correct?
02:43:23.380Now you're pushing me to an area where this may or may not have been covered by a legal opinion, or you're pushing me to a point where I'm going to rely on solicitor client privilege.
02:43:36.480I'll leave the argument to be made by our lawyers.
02:43:39.980I'll just see if I can move you a bit by taking you back to Section 5080 of the Act.
02:43:48.720It is in your Section 58 explanation that you are supposed to have the reasons for issuing the declaration.
02:43:57.640So I was just following through the three things that one might expect to find in a Section 58 explanation.
02:44:04.620The grounds for the threat to security of Canada, the reasons that arising out of that threat,
02:44:13.640we had a national emergency, and the reasons why existing authorities were inadequate or
02:44:21.740insufficient to deal with it. I'm not trying to be technical here, but those would be the three
02:44:25.260topic areas. If you're not comfortable going along with me there, what I'm just trying to find...
02:44:30.260I'm actually not comfortable. I'm not sure I accept the premise of your organization of the
02:44:35.760Section 58 itself. I'm not sure. I don't believe you've had experience drafting one.
02:44:43.640I think this was the first time. So, I think what is important is what is in Section 58, which are the facts upon which the Governor and Council based its decision. And for the rest, the legal argument and the legal interpretation, I will leave that to my lawyers and rely on solicitor-client privilege.
02:45:02.200okay um we is that because it you consider it too subtle or complicated because the the act
02:45:15.420sort of lays it out so formulaically about the process by which cabinet comes to this decision
02:45:21.000finds a threat to security Canada out of which from which arises a national emergency
02:45:26.220and existing authorities are inadequate that's sort of exactly what you'd expect and frankly
02:45:32.460when you read your section 58 explanation that looks like what you're trying to do
02:45:35.720so i'm pausing by by if there's some way we can move ahead with this that you're more comfortable
02:45:42.540with i think you're i i think the section 58 uh text speaks for itself that we were we were
02:45:49.800as the law requires, we put out the reasons for which we arrived at the conclusions we arrived
02:45:58.560at, and the conclusions are there. As for the process that got us to those conclusions, I'm
02:46:03.500going to leave that to the final argument of my lawyers. That pushes me into an area where I
02:46:08.140can't really answer the question without infringing on solicitor-client privilege.
02:46:14.160So you're putting me in an awkward position, and I'm going to have to rely on that privilege.
02:46:18.900And I'm going to respect your decision to rely on it. What I'm going to ask you is, again, a factual question in a sense. Presumably, you could, you could have by now, or you could in final submissions, or one could, the parties could, identify in the Section 58 explanation,
02:46:43.220those facts on which cabinet relied to conclude that there was a threat to the security of Canada.
02:46:52.140In addition to this proceeding, there are other legal proceedings upon judicial review, for example.
02:47:00.880So it would be derelict of my duties as attorney general to pronounce on that here.
02:47:07.100i'm going to let lawyers in each particular context whether it be here or whether it be
02:47:12.440in those other proceedings so i'm going to let them do it he's not going to answer as they should
02:47:16.040no matter how many times my question didn't ask you to go as far as actually doing it what i was
02:47:22.780asking you was if you could confirm that it should be possible for your council frankly could have
02:47:30.780been possible before we started this whole thing but it's at least possible now for them to go into
02:47:36.140the section 58 explanation and tell the commissioner perhaps in their final submissions where in that
02:47:43.360section 58 explanation one finds the grounds on which cabinet formed its reasonable belief that
02:47:49.660there was a threat to the security of canada mr commissioner the section 58 report it's there
02:47:55.680is there it's in the record it certainly will feature closing submissions i'm not sure there's
02:48:03.620much to be done about what is or isn't in the report it speaks for itself it doesn't speak for
02:48:10.220itself that's the point can we can we at least agree on this minister these lawyers are the worst
02:48:16.600if there are or to the extent there were to the extent cabinet did have
02:48:21.860reasonable grounds to believe that there was a threat to the security of canada
02:48:26.720the commission will find them in that section 58 explanation right the commission will find the
02:48:32.680factual basis for it in the section 58 report in the factual basis will be in the section 58 report
02:48:39.220and that is that is outlined there thank you and uh with that uh answer which was helpful thank you
02:48:45.020minister uh with that answer commissioner i uh will end my examination of the witness okay good
02:48:50.980cross so uh don't take the break we can now go to the next phase the cross examinations first
02:50:43.020Yes. And you might have, I'm sure you've got it, that in a ruling yesterday, Commissioner Rouleau ruled that the Department of Justice, nor the parties, were able to produce any legal authorities for the GOJ to redact records on the basis of parliamentary privilege. Are you aware of that?
02:51:01.680um i'm not particularly aware of that that normally the parliamentary uh privilege is dealt
02:51:09.480with uh by others uh such as the clerk uh and that's an ongoing discussion so i'm not aware
02:51:15.700of the particulars of that rule so what justice rouleau ruled was that there's just no authority
02:51:21.400for redacting documents on the basis of a parliamentary privilege so i'm wondering if
02:51:26.640under your powers under section 5 sub d of the department of justice act if you can direct that
02:51:31.500the Department of Justice release all the records that they've provided in this proceeding
02:51:36.140with the redactions for parliamentary privilege unredacted? Mr. Commissioner, I don't think that's
02:51:42.020an appropriate question. It doesn't suit the purposes, fall within the purposes for which
02:51:46.380Minister Lamedi is here to testify. My friend is well aware that you have made a ruling and this
02:51:52.000is something to be dealt with through the normal commission processes and not through a witness.
02:51:56.580And from being a lawyer and a law professor and attorney general, I take it you have an intimate understanding of solicitor-client privilege, is that correct?
02:52:09.180And of course, you also have an understanding of Section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and Cabinet Confidence. Is that fair?
02:52:15.440Again, a reasonably good understanding.
02:52:17.100Now, one of the documents produced by DOJ in the record, and I'm assuming it was just produced to prove it was done, is the redacted legal opinion.
02:52:26.820It's just the document itself that was given to Cabinet. It's fully redacted.
02:52:31.400But, of course, you agree that Cabinet received a legal opinion about the Emergencies Act. Is that fair?
02:52:39.900I'm going to object to this question. It gets into areas of solicitor-client privilege.
02:52:43.680okay um now we have evidence in this proceeding uh from the privy council office and miss jody
02:52:51.160thomas that the government of canada's position is that of course as you said that section two
02:52:56.660of the cesus act has a different meaning in that it has a different scope based in its reference
02:53:01.500in the emergencies act that's right i will neither confirm nor deny that i i spoke uh giving giving
02:53:07.460an opinion based on the text of the act. That is, as I was careful to point out at the time,
02:53:13.920that that was neither a waiver nor a confirmation of any advice that was given based on that text
02:53:22.520and based on the facts that were given. I took great care to not link the two. And I have no
02:53:29.000comment on what Ms. Thomas said. I will leave that to our lawyers to discuss in final argument.
02:53:35.260Right. And you've testified to the same thing. You're going to leave it to counsel. And I take it that as a lawyer and preparing for your testimony here today, you reviewed all the relevant records and documents that you had access to and in your possession and power to obtain. Fair?
02:53:56.200In the record and the proceedings and the documents that you reviewed and the ones that we have available unredacted, can you point to me of a document of a record in this proceeding that existed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act where there's any recording whatsoever or discussion that there is a broader scope of Section 2 of the CSIS Act when it is applied to the Emergencies Act?
02:54:24.780Can you point me to a document that says that?
02:54:26.760Mr. Commissioner, I think that's an inappropriate question.
02:54:29.440There are thousands and thousands of documents in the record.
02:56:53.300I have a responsibility to rely on solicitor-client privilege,
02:56:56.180and the Supreme Court has effectively held that this is one of the highest forms.
02:56:59.540I'm not going to ask that question again.
02:57:01.600But I take it, you know, as an eminent law professor, an academic, with many publications you have, that between February 13th and 14th, when you were considering this decision, you didn't personally, personally believe that Section 2 of the CSIS Act was any different in the Emergencies Act, did you?
02:57:31.120Again, you're asking me to give legal advice or advice that I might have given to the Governor and Council.
02:57:38.320No, I understand, but I'm asking you what you personally believe is a member of CAPMET.
02:57:42.580I am, in this case, I can't distinguish that because of the dates and the context that you've given me.
02:57:49.620You're asking me to apply facts to law, and I can't do that without breaching solicitor-client privilege.
02:57:56.080I'm not sure you've understood the point.
02:57:57.580I understand. But, sir, we all know as lawyers that sometimes we give advice and it's not followed.
02:58:03.480And I'm not asking you to tell me what you advised.
02:58:07.360I'm asking you as a member of Cabinet, was it your personal belief that on February 13th or 14th,
02:58:14.960did you personally believe that Section 2 of the CSIS Act had a different scope in the Emergencies Act as now being argued?
02:58:26.120Mr. Commissioner, the problem here is that asking that personal belief of the Attorney General of Canada inherently gets into matters of solicitor-clothic privilege.
02:58:40.800Sir, I'm asking his personal belief of the Social Member of Cabinet.
02:58:43.160He is trying to separate the two roles Lometty holds, and they're not allowing him.
02:58:47.340He's there as Attorney General, as a member of Cabinet. That's the problem, I think, that we're running into.
02:58:53.580But again, you understand in your Section 4 of the Department of Justice Act, it's your duty to see that the administration of public affairs is carried out in accordance with the law.
02:59:06.300And if you were to ask me the factors that were going on, the events that were going on across Canada that I deemed to be important as a member of that cabinet, I would answer the question.
02:59:17.560But you're asking me to interpret facts through the law, which is the kind of advice an attorney would give, and I won't do that.
02:59:23.580Right. And I don't want to know about what you would give as an attorney, but with respect to what you actually gave, but when you're advising on whether to waive solicitor-client privilege, what factors do you consider?
02:59:43.700They're not going to get anything out of this guy. What you're going to see is a lot of lawyers saying, I give up my time. This guy's going to get off the stand very quickly, I believe.
02:59:51.260Virtually all cases advise that it shouldn't be waived,
02:59:53.820simply because it is such an important fundamental principle.
02:59:57.860But you can agree that it's been waived in the past by the government?
03:04:26.580And you mentioned about concerns for your staff,
03:04:29.220And I think earlier you told us about concerns specifically for female staff, that they were reporting concerns for their safety to you.0.98
03:04:36.320Mr. Clerk, if we could pull up, please, document SSM.CAN.00007840.
03:04:47.720And while this is coming up, Minister Lamedi, I can tell you that this document is a series of text messages between yourself and Minister Anon,
03:04:56.180where it looks to be that you're discussing the situation of threats to your staff.
03:05:03.760Unfortunately, we don't see a date on these texts.
03:05:08.160But if you take a moment to review it,0.93
03:05:11.100I'm going to ask you whether you can confirm for me that you are the Blue Bubbles?
03:05:47.560And, you know, we've heard that you were able to move residences in Ottawa and then go to Montreal,
03:05:54.560But you would obviously be aware that there were many residents of downtown Ottawa who unfortunately didn't have that luxury or the means to move elsewhere and were stuck in the midst of this convoy.
03:06:04.740Yes, that's right. I mean, a number of friends who live in the Ottawa area with whom I am very close.
03:06:13.000And is it fair to say then that you didn't need government intelligence to tell you whether the convoy was causing harm to people and businesses in downtown Ottawa?
03:06:21.780that you saw this, in fact, for yourself with your own eyes?
03:07:31.680Towards the end of your evidence to my friend Mr. Cameron's, in response to my friend Mr. Cameron's question, you described the circumstances of Cabinet towards the period of time when it was deliberating, I suppose, about the Emergencies Act invocation.
03:07:47.680I think you said it was rapidly, a rapidly evolving situation.
03:08:02.300And that you were, as a cabinet, I think you said, trying to do your best to get information upon which you could make decisions and take action.
03:08:29.020And that the very same things that you experienced as a cabinet at the in and around the last meetings that you had prior to the invocation were the very same circumstances in which the Ottawa Police Service and Chiefs slowly found themselves at the beginning.
03:08:49.520In part, yes. I mean, I also witnessed as an Ottawa resident, OPS officers standing idly by while people wheeled cans of gasoline down Wellington Street.
03:08:59.880Yes. Now, you've not, I don't know enough about your background to be 100% sure, but I'm pretty confident you've never served in a police service.
03:12:51.440forthcoming or plans were in the offing and they didn't seem to materialize.
03:12:55.340Yes, although, of course, you're not entitled to review an operational plan for Justice or the Attorney General.
03:13:01.040Just wanted to know the existence of them.
03:13:02.920Yes, and as to that, just in the time I have remaining, I take it that you didn't know what no one was providing you with information about what the OPS had as a plan or didn't have as a plan at the Cabinet table, correct?
03:13:18.260Not the details, but we were getting reports from the Commissioner of the RCMP about the OPS and its development of the plan.
03:13:28.020And do you now appreciate that some of the information that you received from the Commissioner up through the Commissioner of the RCMP was not accurate?
03:13:35.760I can't speak to that. I'm not in a position to say.
03:13:38.040But suffice it to say that you were relying on what was told to you about what resources were available and whether the ends of that.
03:13:49.580Okay. Last thing, if I may, you sent a note to the Attorney General, your opposite number now, Attorney General Downey in Ontario, to urge him to speak to the Solicitor General about priorities, Windsor and Ottawa.
03:14:06.060Well, it was, no, it was more that the priority, the reason why I reached out was the perception that Ontario was not looking at, not dealing with federal counterparts, and that the Solicitor General should be at the table with others.
03:14:25.600That was it. It had no way, it wasn't in any way meant to direct them, but we could identify priorities across Ontario, and there were many.
03:14:36.680And I share your, for what it's worth, I share your view that that is the role of government to set priorities and for police to make decisions afterwards.
03:14:45.520But just as to that, did you have an appreciation that there was a kind of unfortunate agreement between the federal government and which government was the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service to receive resources?
03:15:07.620My understanding is that, as a matter of jurisdiction,
03:15:11.380well, I'm going to see the Indian chiefs, please.
03:15:33.520Good afternoon, Minister Lamedi. My name is Cheyenne Arnold Cunningham, and I'm counsel for the Union of BC Indian Chiefs.
03:15:44.680This inquiry is, among other things, considering the extent to which state emergency powers or exceptional policing powers should be used when there's a public order event.
03:15:57.940For Indigenous peoples, it's often been the case that they must assemble and organize into a social movement to seek attention to the denial of their rights or even advance the recognition of their rights.
03:16:10.860Sometimes the response of police and the government of Canada has been to target or punish Indigenous peoples for organizing, for speaking up for their rights, for upholding their traditional laws, and treating these events as emergency events.
03:16:30.640Should the approach to public order events,
03:16:33.680specifically when it's indigenous peoples involved
03:20:39.800So my name is Janani Shen-McGonathan, and I am counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
03:20:46.000And the issue I would like to talk to you about today is the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the Emergencies Act, okay?
03:20:53.920So we know that Section 16 of the Emergencies Act refers to the definition in the CSIS Act and says, threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
03:21:11.960Now, we heard from Mr. Vigneault earlier this week, and he's the director of CSIS, and he told us that CSIS has a very clear understanding of what threats to security of Canada means in the CSIS Act based on legal interpretation, jurisprudence, and federal court rulings.
03:21:33.100And we also heard from him that as far as CSIS was concerned, in terms of what was going on during the convoy, the definition of threats to the security of Canada in the CSIS Act had not been met.
03:21:48.840Now, are you aware of his evidence on this point?
03:21:51.860I am, but then the CSIS director did go on to say that he supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act in this context.
03:22:00.840So you'll agree that as far as CSIS was concerned,
03:22:04.840the definition under the CSIS Act had not been met?
03:25:09.560And so I want to now shift and take you back in time to look at what Minister Beattie, the Minister of National Defence, who is the sponsor of Bill C-77, the Emergencies Act, said about the definition in the Emergencies Act when the legislation was introduced.
03:25:27.220So if I can ask to bring up POE.CCF603, and just for context, this is a speech that Minister
03:25:40.820Beattie gave to the House of Commons debates during Bill C-77, when Bill C-77 was debated.
03:25:48.080And specifically, I'd like to go to page five, please.
03:25:57.220is that page five perfect so i just want to take you to the the highlighted portion perhaps if we
03:26:19.620can make it bigger so that um i'd prefer it smaller uh so that i can see the context please
03:26:27.220So the highlighted portion where it says likewise, what Minister Beattie says is likewise, it has been said that probably the most contentious clause in this bill is the one that deals with public order emergencies.
03:26:50.080This is the type of situation which gave rise to the use of the War Measures Act in 1970.
03:26:56.200This clause takes its definition of threat from the Canadian Security and Intelligence
03:27:13.680He goes on to say, I would remind members of this House that the definition of threats
03:27:18.240to the security of Canada received exhaustive scrutiny by Parliament in 1983 during deliberations
03:27:26.100on the CSIS Act. The language in this definition has therefore already received Parliament's
03:27:32.140blessing. So I pause here to note that what Minister Beattie is saying is, you know, we are
03:27:37.840specifically incorporating the definition that's found in the CSIS Act because this is a definition
03:27:44.440that Parliament has already blessed. Is that fair?
03:27:48.060Commissioner, again, going to Hansard's is something that is frequently done
03:27:54.700in the course of legal argument to interpret a statute.
03:27:59.240It's my submission. This is not a matter of fact evidence.
03:28:03.720This is a matter of argument which will be done at the end of the case,
03:28:07.920and it's not a proper line of questioning for this witness.
03:28:11.340so i would i would say in response that you know this is um something that i'm asking
03:28:20.720minister lametti to to explain about how you know he's offered an explanation for why
03:28:27.200there's a different interpretation under the emergencies act because the purpose for that
03:28:33.380that definition is different or determining the purposes is different and what i say is well
03:28:39.000I'd like to look to see what was described as the purpose
03:28:43.060under the Emergencies Act and why they use that particular definition.
03:28:47.040So I would say that it is an appropriate line of questioning.
03:28:51.080I think it's appropriate to ask him what the purpose of the CSIS Act is,
03:28:57.060if that's what you're doing, as I understand it.
03:28:59.560And I'm not sure that that requires anything beyond his understanding.
03:29:07.420I mean, if it's a legal interpretation of what the CSIS Act means, that's different.
03:29:13.360So what is it you're trying to get at from him?
03:29:17.320So what I'd like to do is I would like to go through Hansard and have him confirm what the understanding was in terms of what Hansard said about why they used the CSIS Act definition and incorporated it into the Emergencies Act.
03:29:30.600I'm not sure he can interpret any more than read the words,
03:29:35.240but I think that's the best you can get from him.
03:29:41.040Well, the point that I was going to make, Commissioner Rouleau,
03:29:52.900And that changes the scope and the decision maker has changed
03:29:58.280and that's all really I'm comfortable saying.
03:30:00.600And sorry, Justice Rouleau, or Commissioner Rouleau, you know, Minister Lamedi has referred to a following passage in the highlighted portion, and if I could, I just want to go to the next passage so I can ask him a couple of questions about it, because he's now commented on that.
03:32:53.400uh did i miss something i'm sorry guys i'm sorry i uh i was talking to the founder of
03:33:07.220posties for freedom on the phone there so i missed everything that got said there in the last
03:33:11.240write down in the comments what did i miss i want to know what i missed like i saw a lot
03:33:17.100of comments that went oh and that kind of intrigues me so let me know please let me know
03:33:22.940I'm going to shut this off for now, the public hearings, because I've been having a little bit of an issue with Internet for some reason this morning.
03:33:34.460It seems to be really choppy, and that's not an issue that I've had in the past.
03:33:41.120Usually it's been the system, but the upgraded system in the last couple of weeks seems to have handled all that stuff, except for today.
03:33:47.520So, uh, I will be rebooting during this lunch break, but let me know what, what happened
03:48:18.560is also part of the government, right?
03:48:22.580The Senate members are also aligned with their political counterparts within the House of Commons.
03:48:28.800So if you're a conservative in the Senate, you're a conservative in the House, you are a member of the opposition, technically speaking.
03:48:36.460So, yeah, we don't have enough checks and balances in our system to stop these tyrants from moving forward and further eroding our institutions.
03:48:46.380you know with with the dabbling in to the justice system to the court system with the snc lavalon
03:48:54.680case uh the rcmp uh were toyed with regarding that mass shooting in nova scotia a couple of
03:49:04.520years ago we've seen this happen these are the institutions that we think as canadians should
03:49:11.080be apolitical never mind any of that but what about the bureaucracy we have seen in the last
03:49:18.000week that the privy council which is supposed to be an apolitical bureaucratic system