PUBLIC SAFETY MINISTERS

Counsel Miller questioned former Deputy Minister of Public Safety Rob Stewart. Stewart had testified about the threshold needing to be met for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in Canada to open investigations on people or entities.

MILLER: “Alright. Can you agree though that it is CSIS that is the agency that administers the CSIS Act?”

STEWART: “Yes.”

MILLER: “Alright. And they’re the agency that’s primarily responsible for determining if there is a section 2 CSIS Act threat to the security of Canada; right?”

STEWART: “Yes.”

MILLER: “And under section 12 of the CSIS Act, CSIS is only required to have a reasonable suspicion that there is a section 2 CSIS Act threat to open an investigation; is that fair?”

STEWART: “Yes.”

MILLER: “And they’re not required to meet the higher threshold of ‘reasonable grounds’ to open an investigation?”

STEWART: “...when CSIS gets a warrant they have to bring a case to a federal judge so there’s going to be more than just ‘reasonable grounds’ in that case.”

MILLER: “Okay.”

Miller then called up the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Integrated Terrorism Assessment Center interview summary. The sections he highlighted were:

Page 5, Intelligence:

Mr. Vigneault stated that at no point did the Service assess that the protests in Ottawa or elsewhere … constituted a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the CSIS Act, and that CSIS cannot investigate activity constituting lawful protest.

Page 7, Foreign Interference:

Mr. Vigneault explained that use of the term ‘foreign influence’ under section 2 of the CSIS Act refers to foreign state interference, as the term is used within the national security community. CSIS assessed there was no indication of foreign state interference occurring in the course of the potests. CSIS did not assess that any foreign states supported the protests through funding; that foreign states deployed covert or overt disinformation techniques; or that any foreign state actors attempted to enter into Canada to support the protests.

Page 8, Recommendation to Cabinet:

Mr. Vigneault learned that the EA [Emergencies Act] referenced the threat definition set out in section 2 of the CSIS Act once the federal government began to seriously consider invoking the EA [between February 10th and 13th]. He requested that the Service prepare a threat assessment on the risks associated with the invocation of the EA. He felt an obligation to clearly convey the Service’s position that there did not exist a threat to the security of Canada as defined by the Service’s legal mandate.

The threat assessment prepared by the Service was that they invocation of emergency legislation risked further inflaming IMVE [Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism] rhetoric and individuals holding accelerationist or anti-government views.

Mr. Vigneault discussed the draft version of this assessment at an earlier meeting of the Incident Response Group on February 13, 2022. The document was also available for distribution for the Cabinet meeting…

A declassified CSIS assessment document was then called up.

Page 5, Cabinet Advice

CSIS attended three Cabinet meetings in the period prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act (EA); namely, one Safety, Security, and Emergencies meeting and two Incident Response Group meetings.

On February 3rd, CSIS assessed there were no indicators that known IMVE actors were planning to engage in violence --REDACTED--

On Febrary 13th, CSIS advised that the implementation of the EA would likely galvanize the anti-government narratives within the convoy and further the radicalization of some towards violence, referencing the increase in violent rhetoric following the declaration of a state of emergency in the Province of Ontario. Furthermore, CSIS advised that the invocation of the EA would likely increase the number of Canadians who held extreme anti-government views and push towards the belief that violence is the only solution to what they perceive as a broken system and government.

Following the invocation of the EA, CSIS briefed Cabinet and reiterated the potential for the EA to increase anti-government views and violent ideologies, including those not yet radicalized.

MILLER: “You knew about this, and so did Cabinet; they knew about all of this?”

STEWART: “Yes.”