Evidence of meeting #20 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funds.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:05 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Thank you for the question.
That's not actually true. There were blockades in Surrey. Coutts was being cleared. The Ambassador Bridge was very tenuously cleared. There was the situation on the Peace Bridge. There were threats against Via Rail lines, and intelligence about conveys being created to join and bolster what was going on in Ottawa—
7:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Ms. Thomas, I'm sorry.
Senator Carignan, your time is up.
We'll move to Senator Harder.
December 1st, 2022 / 7:05 p.m.
Peter Harder Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Thomas and colleagues, for being here.
I'd like you to describe to the committee how you formed your view. I'm not asking what it was. It's important for us to understand the process that the national security intelligence adviser goes through and to be assured that the advice given is given to the Governor in Council in an unfiltered fashion.
7:05 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
In this particular circumstance, and it was three weeks into my new job, so I'm not—
7:05 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Yes.
What we did was use the community, as is always done in national security events and is the purpose and the reason why the national security adviser was created, post-911, to ensure a comprehensive view of national security threats and defence-informed policy issues, because each individual agency in the national security community, CSIS, the RCMP, the Canadian Forces intelligence command, Global Affairs' foreign intelligence group, CBSA.... There are many. IRCC has an intelligence group. They all collect or assess intelligence in their very narrow mandates.
CSIS could see one element of the situation, and the Canadian Armed Forces—if it's foreign intelligence—a completely different perspective. What we want to do is to ensure that there is an assessed holistic view of threats, intelligence and information. We use the intelligence assessment group for foreign intelligence. We don't have that capacity, in the same manner, for domestic intelligence. We rely on assessments done by groups like ITAC and information from the national security and intelligence committee that Michael MacDonald chairs, along with Public Safety, to build an understanding and advice, because intelligence to decision-makers....
Intelligence is like a data point. It's like economic data. It doesn't tell you what to do. It tells you what might happen. It gives you indications of events that could occur and it gives you some insight into what is occurring, and you have to make decisions with that information. It never tells you what to do and it's never a certainty.
We use all of the elements of the intelligence and national security community to build the information that we will give to government. I ensure that it is agreed with by the community before it's provided.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
And that it is provided in an unfiltered fashion to all of the decision-makers...?
7:10 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
All of the decision-makers, yes.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
In that period of making the assessment—obviously an ongoing one—did you ever receive a call from your American colleagues or counterparts, asking what the heck was going on?
7:10 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
It wasn't quite phrased that way, but yes.
The deputy national security adviser for Homeland Security in the White House called me to talk about the Ambassador Bridge in particular. There was interest in the IMVE movement in general, for sure, but there was a very particular call about the Ambassador Bridge and what could be done to unblock that.
The moment I got the phone call, the auto companies had all called the White House and said, we're laying people off.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
It was a serious call on the part of your American colleague.
7:10 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Very much so, yes.
7:10 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, PSG
Why did it take to the third week? Certainly by the second week, by your earlier testimony, it was obvious that the police failure was not going to self-correct. I was here along with those colleagues who live in Ottawa and represent Ottawa.
My constant question to witnesses has been, what took you so long?
7:10 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
There is a fine balance between acting precipitously and waiting too long.
Going into the end of the third weekend, understanding the time it would take to mobilize police and plan for a police action, for example, in Ottawa, we were going into a fourth weekend if action wasn't taken. Having tried to use all of the existing authorities and levels of government that we could to resolve the situations, both in Ottawa and across the country, it was at that point that it was determined we should act.
It is a question of was it too late, or was it too early, and I think that will be debated for quite some time.
7:10 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Your time is up, Senator Harder.
We'll move to Senator Patterson.
7:10 p.m.
Dennis Glen Patterson Senator, Nunavut, CSG
Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the witnesses.
Ms. Thomas, I'd like to just refer to some of your testimony. You talked about the assessment of a threat to national security as coming from a totality of events, a broad sequence of events. You mentioned threats against public officials. Would you be able to elaborate a little bit on that and what that meant?
7:10 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
Thank you.
I know, again, that my colleague at ITAC has some information that she can also share.
We saw an unprecedented number of online threats against the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, ministers, local Ottawa politicians of all three levels of government and public officials such as federal and provincial chief medical health officers. At one point, Dr. Tam had to have close protection because of the threats against her. We'd seen online rhetoric against members of the Prime Minister's Office. They were serious threats. They were credible.
We had not seen that kind of rhetoric in this magnitude with the kind of vitriolic language that we were experiencing at that time. It started during the 2021 election, and it was growing. We really reached a crescendo with some of the IMVE leaders and people who follow those movements online. Some were in writing. It was a significant concern.
7:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre
I'd like to add something to that.
Yes, we've been seeing that trend for many months now. Last summer, you may have seen that a survey was conducted by Le Devoir, if memory serves me. Thirty-four per cent of responding federal parliamentarians said that they had received death threats. That's a growing phenomenon.
I'm concerned about it. Sometimes these threats are sent directly by email or letter. In other instances, they're posted to social media, where their reach is that much greater because many people see them and then think it's normal, indeed even acceptable, to make those kinds of comments and threats against parliamentarians and senior officials.
Even though some individuals post these threats on social media without intending to act on them, they can encourage people who hear this kind of rhetoric to take action.
We're lucky not to have seen that in Canada, but we've seen these kinds of threats carried out in other countries.
7:15 p.m.
Mike MacDonald Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, Privy Council Office
Chair, can I just add one more point of context?
7:15 p.m.
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, Privy Council Office
The threat environment was such that the RCMP protective services, the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Sergeant-at-Arms changed the way to get into the Hill and were providing shuttle services by protective policing around the core of Ottawa into the Hill. It got to that level.
7:15 p.m.
Senator, Nunavut, CSG
Thank you.
I'm going to try to get another question in, Madam Chair.
The public thought that the Ambassador Bridge blockade had been stopped when the Emergencies Act was invoked. You said that there were pop-ups to retake that bridge. What does that mean?
7:15 p.m.
National Security and Intelligence Advisor, Privy Council Office
What we were seeing was online planning to take the bridge back. The province and the City of Windsor had to keep significant police resources on site in order to keep traffic moving. The barricades stayed up for weeks, as an example.
We were taking everything we read online about potential convoys very seriously. When we saw more trucks heading towards Windsor with plans online, it meant that it was not yet guaranteed that the bridge was going to stay open. The concerns were trade and economic issues, but it diverted police resources. There was some significant thought being given to that police resources were being diverted deliberately.