Testimony by Ontario's Intelligence Bureau Commander raises serious doubts about claims of national security threats posed by Freedom Convoy or its organizers

In its first week, an independent public inquiry into the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act heard from a key witness, whose sworn testimony raises serious doubts about whether there were reasonable grounds to declare a national emergency in the first place.

Superintendent Patrick Morris, the Commander of the Ontario Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB), told Brendan Miller, the lawyer representing Freedom Corp—the entity that represents the protesters—that there was no evidence “in the intelligence” of espionage, sabotage, or foreign influenced activity that involved the threat to any person relating to the Ottawa blockade.

The Public Order Emergency Commission, led by Commissioner Paul Rouleau, is meeting for six weeks and will hear from more than 50 witnesses and examine thousands of pages of documents which will hopefully shed light on the circumstances that led to the invocation of the Act, including “the evolution of the [Freedom] convoy, the impact of funding and disinformation, the economic impact, and efforts of police and other responders prior to and after the declaration,” according to the Commission’s Web site.

Referring to espionage, sabotage, and foreign influence, Morris stated: “I saw media accounts, yes… I saw online rhetoric. I saw information on social media. I saw assertions of that type of activity. I'm aware of no intelligence that was produced that would support concern in that regard.”

Morris explained to the Commission that the role of the POIB is crime prevention, law enforcement, assistance to victims, public order and emergency management. He said that in relation to any threats of violence, “We collected all the information… Did we have any credible intelligence that it would occur? No.”

Miller asked Morris if he would have been informed of potential threats by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)—which will also be called to testify during the inquiry.

“I believe that I would have been informed,” stated Morris.

Superintendent Patrick Morris (R) is the Commander of the Ontario Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB). Brendan Miller (L) is the lawyer representing Freedom Corp—the entity that represents the protesters.

As I’ve previously reported here, and here, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) argues that the trucker convoy, the Ottawa blockade, and the border blockades did not meet the extremely high threshold laid out in the Act. The group has taken the federal government to court over the matter. The Commission granted the CCLA “standing” in the inquiry, which gives the organization the ability to cross-examine witnesses.

Before we return to Morris’ testimony, it should be noted that his insights—if verified during the course of the proceedings—provide important information about whether the high threshold required to justify invoking the Act was met.

According to the Act, “National emergency” is defined as:

[A]n urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces and territories, or by any other law of Canada.

At the time of the Ottawa blockade, I interviewed Laura Berger, a lawyer and interim program director with the CCLA. She explained that the federal government provided the following five justifications for invoking the Act:

The proclamation that the government issued and the explanation that they tabled in parliament provides five components or justifications. Number one, the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objectives within Canada. Number two, they cite the adverse effects on the Canadian economy and threats to Canada's economic security resulting from the blockades, particularly at the border. Number three, they cite adverse effects resulting from the blockades on Canada's relationship with our trading partners, including the US. Number four, they cite the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods, services and resources, and number five, they cite the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence.

Morris was also cross-examined by Donnaree Nygard, counsel for the Government of Canada. When asked about whether the arrests made at the Coutts, Alberta border blockade was “informing what was going on in Ottawa,” Morris replied, “We determined there was very little connection to Ottawa, and that therefore our assessment was there would be very little impact.”

When Nygard’s line of questioning shifted to whether the Ottawa blockade resulted in threats to individuals, Morris said, “We never had intelligence of that threat. I mean, I've reviewed the arrests and the charges to try and ascertain how accurate we were, and there was, I would say, the lack of violent crime was shocking. The fact that, even in the arrests and charges, considering the whole thing in totality, I think there were ten charges for violent crimes, six of which were against police officers.”

 Alan Honner, litigation director for The Democracy Fund, referred to an email sent by Morris on February 22nd, 2022 to Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and Organized Crime Charles (Chuck) Cox of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP). Referring to the Freedom convoy, Morris writes:

It is not comprised of Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremists (IMVEs). The actual leaders are not violent extremists with histories of violent criminal acts – although events do attract unpredictable and extreme elements. The absolute lack of criminal activity across Canada, and the minimal violent crime throughout this event illustrate this. But now the public discourse is dominated by political figures and the media – and the commentary is providing a very different picture than what law enforcement collectively gathered. It is painting a different picture – it speaks to extremism, it offers parallels to terrorism, it speaks of sedition.

Alan Honner (top), litigation director for The Democracy Fund, referring to an email sent by Morris on February 22nd, 2022 to Deputy Commissioner of Investigations and Organized Crime Charles (Chuck) Cox of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

Honner asks Morris, “In your view, were politicians and the media responsible for a certain amount of disinformation and misinformation with respect to these protests?”

Morris replies (in part):

I was leading the criminal intelligence collection of information and the production of criminal intelligence in relation to these events. I believed I was in a unique situation to understand what was transpiring. So, when I read accounts that the state of Russia had something to do with it, or that this was a result of American influence—either financially or ideologically—or that Donald Trump was behind it, or that it was un-Canadian or that the people participating were un-Canadian and that they were not Canadian views and they were extremists, I found it to be problematic because what I ascertained from my role—which is not all-knowing and certainly there may be information that is presented to this committee that illustrates the error of my ways—but I did not see validation for those assertions.

Morris explains that while there was a possibility that there was information, collected by the security establishment of Canada—the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) or the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team—that he might not have been privy to, his role as operational command of the joint force operation dubbed “Project Hendon” made the possibility unlikely. 

“I did not see information that substantiated what was being said publicly and via the media. And I found the subjective assertions, sensationalized, yes, and [they] exacerbated conflict.”

Beginning in 2019, Project Hendon was the OPP’s ongoing investigation of those protests it felt presented reasonable grounds to suspect illegal activity or threats to public safety. Morris told the Commission that the OPP had seen protest activity beginning in 2019, relating to anti-pipeline protests and rail line blockades that “caused concern about public safety.”

While Morris did not go into any detail during his testimony, he was referring to a series of protests, including the blockade of the CN rail line near Bellville, Ontario by the Mohawks of Tyendinaga. The rail blockades, which spread to various locations across the country, were in support of the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, whose remote and long-standing northern British Columbia encampment blocked the construction of TC Energy’s $6 billion Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline, which was slated to traverse their territory.

According to the CCLA, blockades are policing issues, not a national emergency, and declaring a national emergency, creating massive powers to shut down all protests across Canada, and giving government and financial institutions broad license to freeze bank accounts was not the appropriate response to Ottawa’s blockades.

Regardless of what we think about Project Hendon, it gave Morris a unique vantage point from which to view the Freedom Convoy.

Morris told the Commission that through covert operations, analysis, surveillance and other information gathering techniques, the OPP’s intelligence bureau was aware as early as January 20—a week before the convoy began—that a trucker convoy was planned and could be headed to Ottawa.** He noted the group had “no exit strategy,” and since the protesters main demand was ending COVID 19 mandates, including vaccine mandates—demands he said would not be met—the blockade would likely be long-term. “We were beginning to schedule and plan at that time for two weeks, three weeks, a month.”

Cara Zwibel (top), Canadian Civil Liberties Association asks Morris about the email he sent to Deputy Commissioner Chuck Cox.

Cara Zwibel is the director of the CCLA’s Fundamental Freedoms Program. In her cross-examination of Morris, Zwibel referred back to the email Morris sent to Deputy Commissioner Chuck Cox of the OPP, in which Morris expressed concern that the narrative being communicated was that those involved in the protests were extremists.

In the email, Morris writes that many of the discussions taking place are “highly politicized, hyperbolic, self-serving and overwhelmingly informed by media editorials.” He says the “sensationalism is leading to a quickening pace of decision-making, and public discourse, in terms of what should, and should not occur.”

By way of example, I see a marked increase in the conversation of extremists participating in these events and Canadians with extreme ideologies leading the charge. Although there are exceptions, I have not seen evidence of this -- in fact, [Project] Hendon received and reported very little of this activity. It was not in evidence at the Ambassador Bridge nor events related to the Bluewater Bridge. Further, the events in Toronto did not illustrate this. By way of example, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had very little to report -- and noted that their targets were not engaged. INSET [Integrated National Security and Enforcement Team] reported that the activity did not meet their threshold in national security. So, I do not know where political figures are acquiring information or intelligence on the extent of extremist involvement.

Zwibel asked if it was “fair to say, that at no point during the convoy protest did you receive reliable intelligence that would lead you to conclude that there was a risk to national security that would rise above that, the potential threat to national security that you identified in that report?”

“That’s correct,” Morris replied.

While Morris’ testimony is not the last word on this matter, it did provide a unique perspective into the security risks many, including politicians and journalists, claimed were posed by the Freedom Convoy. There are still nearly five weeks of testimony to go, and a number of other witnesses are anticipated with insight into this subject including Rob Stewart and Dominic Rochon from Public Safety Canada, David Vigneault and Michelle Tessier from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Marie-Hèlene Chayer from the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, and Deputy Commissioner Michael Duheme and Commissioner Brenda Lucki  from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The Quaking Swamp Journal will continue to tune in to the inquiry, focusing on whether the high threshold required to justify invoking the Act was met. Stay tuned.

**Correction: This originally read “the OPP’s intelligence bureau was aware in early January 2020 that a trucker convoy was planned and could be headed to Ottawa.”