I’m sitting the ornate Winifred Bambrick Room, inside Library and Archives Canada, waiting for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to take the stand at the Public Order Emergency Commission.
This has been 10 months in the making. From the moment that a rag-tag crew of anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, truckers, and anti-government types hatched a plan to drive a convoy of trucks to Canada’s capital and occupy it until their demands were met, to Trudeau’s decision to enact the never-before-used Emergencies Act to put an end to it: It’s all brought us here.
Rather than livetweeting, I’m going to try out a little live blog, right here on my Substack. There’ll be a few longer posts about what’s going on, a few pithy remarks, and lots of space for you folks to weigh in and respond if you feel so inclined.
Really appreciate your work - you do an outstanding job getting to the truth, explaining the facts to us. As the Brits say, “Well done you.” Have enjoyed every one of your articles, tweets, etc.
I left Twitter - couldn’t stand Elon Musk one more second! Am sure glad you are still on it as your tweets are so informative, interesting, and sometimes humorous. Thanks!
Was looking for an email address for you, so I could show my appreciation for your brilliant work, and I came across this platform.
It is great you’re doing your important work, as we must defeat the evil monsters like Putin and Xi. They cannot be allowed to win their despicable, depraved war on democracy. I heard there are fewer democracies than there used to be. Countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Sudan, the Saudi nations, Syria, Belarus, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Cuba cannot be allowed to suppress, monitor, beat, imprison, torture, and murder innocent children, women, men.
There are too many people who believe in the likes of those barbaric, sadistic, controlling, corrupt, arrogant, manipulative, narcissistic, misogynistic, evil despots who rule these countries through the most extreme intimidation, violence, and hatred. They become billionaires on the backs of innocent citizens, who live in the most abject poverty. Of course their equally corrupt, monstrous, and dishonest allies and cronies who got them into power, and who keep them there, are equally as dangerous and disgusting. These criminals are cut from the same cloth. We, who believe in the rule of good law and fair, humane governmental institutions, must stop savage depraved men who rule through phenomenal violence, cruelty, corruption, injustice, intimidation, deception, bribery, and abuse.
Thank you again, Justin, for doing your part in helping to protect our precious democratic way of life. You are a gem.
Caught you on As It Happens last night - you talked A LOT in the short time you had but it was all good. In fact, VERY good. New host let you go for it. Great host. Thanks for doing this chat and for following closely all convoy news and developments and reporting back. I will catch up today with the other interviews/apperances you've done post and re: POEC.
Many thanks to Commissioner Paul Rouleau. A man who was slow to anger has depths of patience and gentle humour. Thanks also to his team and the many people who contributed to bringing this inquiry to us as quickly and completely as they did. I’m impressed and grateful.
Whoever the current lawyer is showed that the 'plan' from the 13th just referenced an empty appendix for the details. But he's basically just been going through details of a bunch of documents without really getting anywhere and has been called out for not getting around to actually asking questions. So, not really. But it was interesting to see what was (or wasn't) in the OPS plan that their lawyer referenced. Not that it's very relevant.
Now my connection settles down and stops stuttering. All I got was a word or two from both of them and an objection to something the lawyer said. I’ll have to find it tonight when they post today and the transcripts.
Does this “plan” actually exist somewhere?
Has it really been 6 weeks?
Snarky cheers from the peanut gallery after they break. Can’t help themselves I guess.
Yeah, this lawyer's been sort of all over the place looking at specifics of different documents without seeming to have a point. Other lawyers have been annoyed as well.
I don't get a lot of these lawyers - they list a whole series of facts and get the person to answer they agree, and I get the feeling they are leading to a big 'gotcha'. And often that final moment falls flat, as they must have known it would.
because they are trying to get certain elements read into the record and agreed to.. so that they can make a closing submission and try and include those.
But the Inquiry is not a trial. I understand wanting to tie up loose ends and having things on record but the “attaboys” and the “gotchas” don’t seem particularly helpful in my mind.
Will they even make closing submissions? The poor judge having to sit through that!
The B story of today's testimony is that Trudeau and his cabinet seemed very sure that the Ottawa/OPP plan wasn't worth much.
Various parties today have tried to get Trudeau to admit that the plan was, in fact, super great.
I'm not sure they really succeeded. Because you can read the reports, they're in evidence. They do seem quite aspirational and missing some really key parts, including securing tow trucks.)
She keeps getting thrown under the buses... I can't see how she can be renewed when her term comes up for renewal... too many blunders in this case and many others.
I've covered this guy a long time. I think he has a real habit of reverting to condescending pablum. But when he gets put in the hot seat, he actually speaks clearly, explains his reasoning, and talks to the country like they're adults.
We're unfortunately seeing that version of the PM more and more rarely.
Counsel for the city of Ottawa is out on a quest to see why Trudeau didn't do enough to lambast Ford.
Again, a lot of this cross is blame-shifting and reputation-defending. Which is not reaaaaaally the point of this Commission (but which was always going to be the reality)
I'm a bit surprised at how little brouhaha was assembled for today. The public gallery was certainly full — a mix of pro-convoy and seemingly anti-convoy types.
Outside, there's a few ornery protesters, including a guy with a massive three-flag flagpole, but that's it.
Oh, Trudeau is pushing back on it: Says it breaks his heart to speak to people who sat on their loved one's bedside as they died — people "who believed that the vaccines were more dangerous than the vaccines."
The crowd is getting increasingly incredulous, but still staying pretty quiet.
Chipiuk is now reading statements from unvaccinated Ottawa residents about how vaccine mandates destroyed their life and the "patriotic" convoy restored their hope.
Can't believe they have 15 minutes to cross-examine the prime minister and THIS is what they're using the time for.
Even if those stories are true, that still did not give them the right to occupy Ottawa or the border crossings. It has absolutely no bearing on whether invoking the Emergency Measures Act was justified or not.
I agree so much money and so much time to prepare, and this is what the Convoy wants to say. I guess they are satisfied that Tamara and others got to speak at length earlier in this investigation.
And we're on to cross-examination from Freedom Corp! It's not Brendan Miller, but instead Eva Chipiuk. (She's been involved with some of the legal issues wrt to the convoy since early on.)
She's going for a very tame line of questioning, pointing out that there had been an agreement between Mayor Jim Watson and some of the convoy organizers to move trucks out of the downtown core.
Trudeau and Chipiuk spar over exactly what that means. Trudeau points out (rightly) that the agreement only covered some trucks, in some parts of downtown, and many truckers said they would not abide by the deal.
"Where did you learn that? On Twitter?" Chipiuk says.
She then suggests it was police who were blocking trucks from moving out of downtown. (What she means is: Police blocked them from moving between one part of downtown and another.)
Trudeau points out the cops were letting the trucks leave whenever they wanted.
Chipiuk seems to think Wellington Street means "outside of the downtown residential areas." Which, if you know Ottawa at all, is flat-out wrong.
Dumb question time: Is all of this about anything other that public opinion in the next election?
Is that the only court that can hold a government accountable for, in the opinion of a commission, incorrectly (insufficiently?) bringing down the EA? Can the commission make a referral to justice to have Trudeau arrested for some crime on the books, like the Jan6 bunch in Congress referring Trump for sedition charges, or whatever?
Because, if this is just about calling out Trudeau as having overreacted, abrogated civil rights without sufficient cause, Bad PM! Bad! .... then it was all over in late February. Because the public were way, way, way in favour of ending the occupations. Authorita is ALWAYS forgiven transgressions upon the rights of the unpopular.
Trudeau was challenged with evidence that the blockades were starting to lift so why not let the OPS roll with their plan? His candid answer included some realpolitik - If he had decided not to invoke the EA and the chaos had lingered on, how many of the legal purists would have stood by him with declarations of "he did the right thing!"? Answer - Precious few, and fewer still Canadians would have cared. He would have been hung out to dry and he knew it. Good call. Let future lawmakers take advantage of this experience to sharpen the wording of the Act for the next event.
Think of it more like an after action review than a hearing that's trying to get to the bototm of something. It's a requirement of the act to have an inquiry after to look at how it was used appropriately, if it was effective, and if legislation should be modified.
Counsel for the Alberta government is trying to get Trudeau to admit that the Emergencies Act wasn't necessary — pointing to effective enforcement actions that disrupted an alleged murder plot in Coutts and clear other border blockades. Trudeau pushing back. Kind of a draw.
Brendan Miller, by the way, isn't even in the building. Word apparently went out last night that he would not be cross-examining the PM today. Not quite sure who will be standing in for Freedom Corp, which represents the convoy organizers.
Anyone else find that the cross-examination didn't really go anywhere? The lawyer for the group before OPS's deal is I guess "everything's redacted so there's no transparency". And pulled up a 5 page redacted document that he seemed to imply was the policing plan (doing work with this on in the background so I'm missing bits and pieces). And used his time to basically just ask questions that were always going to be objected to, just to have it in the record that he asked them. Not sure that the inquiry really cares, but ok.
Then the OPS lawyer pulled up a completed different document which was apparently the most recent plan, so what was the previous lawyer looking at? And while that document had a lot of pages, it looked more like an outline for a report with like 8 sections per page to be filled in later. I missed if they actually scrolled to around pages 13 or 14 or if they said that each of the sections referenced an appendix or other document or something. My initial reaction was the similar to Trudeau's. The table of contents itself gives the impression that nothing was adequately planned out. Weird as well to bring in meeting minutes from a day prior where it was agreed that there wasn't a suitable plan developed. Was sort of confused about what they were trying to accomplish there.
I think there's real value in needling at how the government over-classifies information. The Trudeau government is *notorious* for this. Was a cross examination with the prime minister the best place to bring that up? Probably not.
Worth remembering about some of these lawyers is that they're not entirely interested in getting to a resolution about the Emergencies Act or the occupation itself. OPS's counsel and Chief Sloly's lawyer, for example, are really out there to defend their clients' reputations. Did the OPS lawyer succeed? Not really, no.
Yeah, makes sense. After watching the OPS lawyer I was thinking that it didn't really seem like it made her client look like they had their act together.
I suspect that when the Emergencies Act was written, nobody had in mind a crisis of absurd inaction, one of powers going unused and plans going unmade in the face of an extremely loud Somebody Else's Problem field.
My guess is that the political and legal questions will, eventually, converge, as they did during the pandemic – where, you will recall, there were all kinds of “legal” challenges and all kinds of “rights talk” raised about vaccination, including invocation of the Charter of Rights. But in the end, the government will be judged upon whether its actions were reasonable and whether they were effective.
My only point is that that is also the test in the Emergencies Act itself. Moreover, the whole structure of the statute – with its checks and balances and consultation and compulsory review – suggests that the drafters of the law did not think that these questions were easy or that the assessment was a black and white exercise.
Despite the assertions of certain pundits and partisans in the media.
In other words, the scheme of the legislation, read as a whole, gives the political decision maker the benefit of the doubt, so long as they are acting “reasonably”. Which in the legal world is not at all unusual.
So, I look forward to the Judge’s analysis of these questions – not that I am under any illusion that partisans will accept it, because there have already been snide Trump-like assertions that the process is unfair or rigged or biased. That is inevitable in today’s world.
There will likely be a test of the Emergencies Act in court — specifically, were the regulations and orders made and implemented in a way that infringed Canadians' Charter rights? The answer will almost certainly be "yes." Then, of course, comes the s.1 Oakes test: Were those infringements reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances? I think the answer will likely be "yes," although certain aspects of those orders may have been written too broadly.
Now the other test is whether the government met the threshhold set out in the act. That's really where this Commission is going to focus on. So, yes, they have to have reasonable grounds to believe there was a threat to the security of Canada. But if this Commission finds that those reasonable grounds were not met, then that's an issue. So, at the risk of getting a bit convoluted, it doesn't matter if Ottawa was 'reasonable' in its quest to make the case it had reasonable grounds to believe. Either the threshhold was met, or it wasn't.
Further complicating matters: We don't actually know how to assess that treshhold. CSIS has the benefits of decades of case law from the Federal Court. We've never invoked this act before, so we don't actually know how to assess that threshhold.
I agree with you on this. But I don't think we can know how a Court would interpret the elastic escape clause in section 1 of the Charter, nor, of equal importance, whether any remedy would flow from such over-reach. Remember that the ES is empowering and it does not, necessarily, oust the normal rules that apply in a civil or criminal proceeding. A breach of the Charter doesn't necessarily lead to a remedy for the aggrieved felon, who is otherwise guilty of a civil or criminal wrong.
My bet is that by the end of the day, the partisan focus will shift to attacking the enquiry process and the Judge himself. And everyone will forget the real issue in this case: which is about the rule of law and the ability of partisans to cause disruption and economic loss to others, with relative impunity, winning partisan applause along the way. And of course, what to do about it when it happens again, as it most certainly will.
Because in my view, all that has happened here, is that the illegal tactics of aboriginals (like in Caledonia, or railway blockade in 2020), or green progressives, have, in this instance, been embraced by a populist cause, which was then seized upon by opportunistic politicians.
And the lesson remains what it was been since 1995: so long as you are (mostly) non-violent, you can unlawfully impose economic and social costs on other citizens and businesses and you will almost certainly get away with it.
Just keep shouting “freedom!” and referring to that magic talisman the “Charter of Rights” ; and your illegal nuisance will become protected speech and insurance against having to compensate those whom you were damaged and discomfited.
That was the lesson for the local Ottawa citizens who started to organize themselves to block access to their neighbourhoods, in order to prevent their occupation by protesters, because the local police would not do so. And it seems to me that that erosion of trust is a very dangerous development.
Since the Ipperwash enquiry (which was mentioned in this one), police have privileged keeping the peace over enforcing the law, which does not properly protect the rights of bystanders and until that balance is struck, I suspect we will see more of these problems. Because "the right" has recognized the utility of the tactices pioneered by "the left".
We saw the same development in the labour relations world when plant occupations became the tactic of choice to avoid the closure of floundering firms.
Format feedback - this is an interesting alternative to Twitter feeds - more commentary but maybe less reach, being on Substack. Free access is a feature here (thanks) but if pay-per-view substacks use this, it then restricts commentary and idea sharing to only supporters, which might restrict a wider exchange of ideas.
Yeah this is a little test. Substack is about to roll out chats, which is a better format for this kind of thing. (But is only available on iOS at the moment.)
I'm going to occasionally do some paid-subscriber-only chats, but there'll always be some free content.
Lawyer for the Ottawa Police Service is now going through the operational plan put together from the various police departments. Earlier, he bashed this as a total lack of a plan.
OPS seems to have a plan to get him to say the plan was a plan. Counsel is showing him the table of confidence to show how robust the plan was!
"The entire deployment plan fits onto one page?" Trudeau says, rather snarkily.
If you've been following along, you know that this testimony is a bit of a brain-bender.
The Ottawa Police service is trying to simultaneously say that it is thankful for the Emergencies Act and that it was super helpful in clearing out the occupation, while also making the case that everything was fine and the city police force was doing its job and it didn't need any help, thanks.
I'm a bit surprised that Rouleau said anything, to be honest. The crowd has been reacting to some of the testimony, but keeping it pretty chill. A few gasps, a few murmurs, a few disapproving sighs. But people are behaving themselves!
Ooh. Counsel is putting Trudeau on the spot, asking him to make an order to unredact a heavily-redacted document — the operational plan to end the occupation. One that Trudeau earlier said was woefully insufficient, and required the Emergencies Act.
The Attorney General counsel objects to that.
Rouleau says it's unfair to demand Trudeau wave his wand from the witness stand: "I would be very surprised if the federal government would order its release without consulting with other police services," Rouleau says.
It's a bit weird, because we actually do have a version of this plan, filed by the OPP. So it's not like this stuff is superduper secret, but it's also not like counsel can't find this info elsewhere.
This seems like a bit of flourish on the last day.
I'd have to go back and re-consult those plans. But I know the initial OPP plan had a lot of holes in it. The next version struck me as comically optimistic.
It would be the Privy Council Office (with input from various agencies and departments) making the redactions. But it's cabinet/Trudeau who can decide to waive those various privileges.
We're seeing some cabinet documents at this commission because Ottawa waived cabinet confidence, which is very rare.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is onto a cross-examination that is a bit muddled. Counsel seems keen to make the case that Trudeau didn't show the CSIS assessment — the one concluded that the occupation was not a threat to the safety of the country — to his whole cabinet.
Counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is interrogating Trudeau on why some documents were redacted. He shows the same document side-by-side — one redacted for "unrelated information" and the other one unredacted (as of this morning.)
The sentence, which was redacted and then unredacted, reads: "Americans offering tow trucks."
As I read the Emergencies Act, the Cabinet decision to invoke that law, turns on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions for doing so existed, at the time that it chose to act. NOT that those conditions did, in fact, exist; but rather whether there was a reasonable basis for believing that they did.
This is a bit like the police power to do a personal search if they reasonably believe a crime has been committed, even though the proof of that allegation will be sorted out, later, and, in a criminal setting, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, the EA trigger engages a reasonableness test, not a correctness test; moreover it is one in which both the affirmative and the negative answers to the question (should we act or not?) rest on degree of speculation, along with the meaning of some words that are open to contextual interpretation. And of course a factual context is not static, but dynamic and evolving and subject to uncertainty.
It is therefore entirely possible for Cabinet to have been mistaken and still to have acted both properly, and in good faith and, of course, in a way that was effective and beneficial. Especially if the EA is read as a prophylactic tool that is intended to avoid harm, not just a reaction to what has already happened. That is, relying on the precautionary principle, that surfaced, so often, during the pandemic.
Because of course, the political game (and to some extent the medial game) is about assigning or avoiding blame, and has very little to do with an objective assessment of the public interest.
But the issue at hand is: If CSIS thinks that they would not have had reasonable grounds to cite a threat to national security to tap a convoy organizer's phone, why did cabinet think it had reasonable grounds to invoke the Act?
I'm not sure that the answer is Ottawa was wrong to invoke the act. But it's a tricky issue.
I take no position on the point. But it is not at all unusual for a form of words in one one statute or legal context, to mean something different, or be used in a different way, in another legal context. To take a simple example, you can be an "employee" for some purposes and not for others. Words take their meaning from the context and purpose for which they are used, so it is not wrong to pay attention to the setting. And yes, it is tricky, particularly because, as I said, it requires a degree of speculation about what is likely to happen if you do nothing or if you do something. And because, as here, the government is empowering OTHERS to take action, or not, in accordance with THEIR judgement about whether the new tools are needed. Finally, there is the psychological impact of the declaration, which was obviously significant, in the way that a mere injunction from a Judge was not.
First up is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Their counsel is building up the case that the Act was unnecessary — that many of the wheels were in motion to clear the blockades prior to the Act being implemented, and that many of the most effective tactics were enabled by existing authority and legislation. She's highlighting that there was a feeling in various law enforcement agencies that they could have implemented a plan to retake Ottawa, and that there were more tools that hadn't yet been used.
Trudeau digging into this line of thinking a bit. Says "the ability of the police to resolve it was not there" and that while there may have been unused authorities, that was on the police for being unwilling/unable to use them.
The cross got a bit lost in the middle. But counsel gets to the $1,000,000 question at the end:
Counsel puts to Trudeau that the Emergencies Act threshhold "cannot be any lower than when CSIS proposes to surveil one person." Do you agree?
Ewa Krajewska, a civil liberties lawyer, is up now. Very precise and organized, good cross-examination. BTW - love that subtle Irish(?) accent she has ;-)
Asked whether invoking the Emergencies Act might have worsened peoples' faith in public institutions, Trudeau flips it around — the inability of governments, cities, police to regain order and keep people safe is even more corrosive to trust in our system.
"They were very much heard," Trudeau says of the protesters. There were political parties pitching their preferred policy measures — ending mandates, discouraging vaccine use.
"It was clear that it wasn't that they just want to be heard, they wanted to be obeyed."
That elicits some gasps and head-shakes in the room.
Not really sure how you argue with that statement, though. As Trudeau points out, even after Ford and Kenney lifted some mandates, the occupations in Ottawa and Coutts continued.
Just rules of the road: Feel free to chime in with your own thoughts. Disagree and get a bit punchy, if that's what you feel like.
But be civil to each other, please. I *can* ban you.
Hey Justin,
Really appreciate your work - you do an outstanding job getting to the truth, explaining the facts to us. As the Brits say, “Well done you.” Have enjoyed every one of your articles, tweets, etc.
I left Twitter - couldn’t stand Elon Musk one more second! Am sure glad you are still on it as your tweets are so informative, interesting, and sometimes humorous. Thanks!
Was looking for an email address for you, so I could show my appreciation for your brilliant work, and I came across this platform.
It is great you’re doing your important work, as we must defeat the evil monsters like Putin and Xi. They cannot be allowed to win their despicable, depraved war on democracy. I heard there are fewer democracies than there used to be. Countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Sudan, the Saudi nations, Syria, Belarus, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Cuba cannot be allowed to suppress, monitor, beat, imprison, torture, and murder innocent children, women, men.
There are too many people who believe in the likes of those barbaric, sadistic, controlling, corrupt, arrogant, manipulative, narcissistic, misogynistic, evil despots who rule these countries through the most extreme intimidation, violence, and hatred. They become billionaires on the backs of innocent citizens, who live in the most abject poverty. Of course their equally corrupt, monstrous, and dishonest allies and cronies who got them into power, and who keep them there, are equally as dangerous and disgusting. These criminals are cut from the same cloth. We, who believe in the rule of good law and fair, humane governmental institutions, must stop savage depraved men who rule through phenomenal violence, cruelty, corruption, injustice, intimidation, deception, bribery, and abuse.
Thank you again, Justin, for doing your part in helping to protect our precious democratic way of life. You are a gem.
Yours sincerely,
Caarra Morzby
Caught you on As It Happens last night - you talked A LOT in the short time you had but it was all good. In fact, VERY good. New host let you go for it. Great host. Thanks for doing this chat and for following closely all convoy news and developments and reporting back. I will catch up today with the other interviews/apperances you've done post and re: POEC.
Many thanks to Commissioner Paul Rouleau. A man who was slow to anger has depths of patience and gentle humour. Thanks also to his team and the many people who contributed to bringing this inquiry to us as quickly and completely as they did. I’m impressed and grateful.
I know we’re done here, but man, Eva Chipiuk is a poor closer.
They should have let Branden wrap it up. She is a sorry substitute.
She reminds me of Lucy in the “merry Christmas Charlie Brown” episode
“Beethoven never had his picture on bubble gum cards. How can you be famous if you aren’t on bubble gum cards?”
I could absolutely hear her utter that now
😁
Really enjoyed this forum today. Great comments. Who the hell needs Twitter, when you partake in this?
“Fulsome”! Just a pet peeve, but the word is used incorrectly (again) — or maybe not. The judge has sat through a great deal.
Yeah you’re right.. it should only be used when naming a prison , that Johnny Cash wrote a song about
😂
Alright I'm going to wind down this liveblog. I'm going to try and catch the closing statements, but I'm running around doing some interviews.
If you're interested, I'll be on CBC's As It Happens a bit later, and Global's The West Block this weekend.
If you enjoyed this liveblog, be sure to subscribe to the newsletter.
Thanks for joining, everyone. I really enjoyed this! Thanks for contributing.
Great job, Justin. Thank you.
Thanx for taking the time and effort to set this up. Job well done
Alright I'm back. Did I miss anything good?
Wrapping up. Recess, and final submissions to come.
Whoever the current lawyer is showed that the 'plan' from the 13th just referenced an empty appendix for the details. But he's basically just been going through details of a bunch of documents without really getting anywhere and has been called out for not getting around to actually asking questions. So, not really. But it was interesting to see what was (or wasn't) in the OPS plan that their lawyer referenced. Not that it's very relevant.
it was the Government of Canada lawyer
The white-haired guy was GoC? I don’t think I’ve seen him before.
Ok, missed that. Makes sense based on what he eventually got around to.
Glad someone brought it up!
The PM certainly seems testier than Ieft him
Now my connection settles down and stops stuttering. All I got was a word or two from both of them and an objection to something the lawyer said. I’ll have to find it tonight when they post today and the transcripts.
Does this “plan” actually exist somewhere?
Has it really been 6 weeks?
Snarky cheers from the peanut gallery after they break. Can’t help themselves I guess.
Yeah, this lawyer's been sort of all over the place looking at specifics of different documents without seeming to have a point. Other lawyers have been annoyed as well.
Is this your hair?
Yes
Is this side of the hair, your hair?
Yes
Spinning the hair 3 degrees
Is this side of the hair, your hair?
Yes
Spinning the hair 3 degrees
Is this side of the hair, your hair?
Yes
Spinning the hair 3 degrees
Is this side of the hair, your hair?
Yes
Spinning the hair 3 degrees
Is this side of the hair, your hair?
Yes
Nice hair.
Ha!
I don't get a lot of these lawyers - they list a whole series of facts and get the person to answer they agree, and I get the feeling they are leading to a big 'gotcha'. And often that final moment falls flat, as they must have known it would.
because they are trying to get certain elements read into the record and agreed to.. so that they can make a closing submission and try and include those.
So they all still have to get up and make a closing submission to summarize their point?
But the Inquiry is not a trial. I understand wanting to tie up loose ends and having things on record but the “attaboys” and the “gotchas” don’t seem particularly helpful in my mind.
Will they even make closing submissions? The poor judge having to sit through that!
So they do get final summations. Okeydokey.
.
zing. that lawyer actually looked like he was impressed with that clarification
I'm offline for a few minutes recording an interview. Keep each other updated!
Is the Saskatchewan lawyer could be a crazy bugger..
The B story of today's testimony is that Trudeau and his cabinet seemed very sure that the Ottawa/OPP plan wasn't worth much.
Various parties today have tried to get Trudeau to admit that the plan was, in fact, super great.
I'm not sure they really succeeded. Because you can read the reports, they're in evidence. They do seem quite aspirational and missing some really key parts, including securing tow trucks.)
Brenda, Brenda, Brenda...
As in bye-bye Brenda?
She keeps getting thrown under the buses... I can't see how she can be renewed when her term comes up for renewal... too many blunders in this case and many others.
Yup, she's toast.
Not exactly much in terms of fireworks. And Trudeau managed to throw in there that Kenney called the protesters irrational and extremists.
The likelihood of fireworks is definitely declining as this goes on.
"So you in fact actually love Chief Sloly"
I’m no fan of the PM, but you gotta hand it to him.. he held up pretty well, maintaining his poise in what must be a helluva long day.
I've covered this guy a long time. I think he has a real habit of reverting to condescending pablum. But when he gets put in the hot seat, he actually speaks clearly, explains his reasoning, and talks to the country like they're adults.
We're unfortunately seeing that version of the PM more and more rarely.
when you see him in this format.. he really does look competent and under control
Agree. He is so much more convincing when he speaks like a normal person. Can't say I have every seen him do that before today.
Indeed.. we could use more adulthood in our politics generally
Yeah, he's been pretty steady.
Counsel for the city of Ottawa is out on a quest to see why Trudeau didn't do enough to lambast Ford.
Again, a lot of this cross is blame-shifting and reputation-defending. Which is not reaaaaaally the point of this Commission (but which was always going to be the reality)
OPP counsel reading out Trudeau's comments about how great the OPP is. This isn't superduper helpful.
how much does it drive the reporters nuts how much they are wasting the rare opportunity to publically question a sitting PM?
Oh god it's maddening.
I'm a bit surprised at how little brouhaha was assembled for today. The public gallery was certainly full — a mix of pro-convoy and seemingly anti-convoy types.
Outside, there's a few ornery protesters, including a guy with a massive three-flag flagpole, but that's it.
I have to leave the conference room to run off and do an interview. But I'll be following remotely!
The final question: "When did you and your government start to become afraid of your own citizens."
Woof.
There's some very light clapping, which pushes Rouleau to threaten to oust half the room.
So she's like "oh man, I really want to say this line", and spent the rest pretty much just wasting time? Well that was productive.
Agreed. She’ll be a folk hero to the clowns..
Maybe she used it more of a commercial, so they'll hire her next time they do something stupid.
Bawhahaha
was the whole goal of their time to get that sound bite in? not many chance you get to have a PM on the stand..
Another Law and Order moment by a Convoy Lawyer.
Might we see a few of these used in the next election as "citizen commercials"? You betcha!
Oh, Trudeau is pushing back on it: Says it breaks his heart to speak to people who sat on their loved one's bedside as they died — people "who believed that the vaccines were more dangerous than the vaccines."
The crowd is getting increasingly incredulous, but still staying pretty quiet.
I guess her plan was to allow Trudeau to equally grandstand? but because hes way more trained/skilled, not sure this is going how they want?
"in the mist" umm.. thats.. not the saying.
Chipiuk is now reading statements from unvaccinated Ottawa residents about how vaccine mandates destroyed their life and the "patriotic" convoy restored their hope.
Can't believe they have 15 minutes to cross-examine the prime minister and THIS is what they're using the time for.
Even if those stories are true, that still did not give them the right to occupy Ottawa or the border crossings. It has absolutely no bearing on whether invoking the Emergency Measures Act was justified or not.
This is truly unbelievable to watch and listen to.
She just read out a statement from a resident claiming that her husband, a veteran, got PTSD — not from serving, but from Trudeau.
Sheesh.
"I am moved," Trudeau says.
a "pfffft" ripples through the crowd.
This is painful.
I agree so much money and so much time to prepare, and this is what the Convoy wants to say. I guess they are satisfied that Tamara and others got to speak at length earlier in this investigation.
And we're on to cross-examination from Freedom Corp! It's not Brendan Miller, but instead Eva Chipiuk. (She's been involved with some of the legal issues wrt to the convoy since early on.)
She's going for a very tame line of questioning, pointing out that there had been an agreement between Mayor Jim Watson and some of the convoy organizers to move trucks out of the downtown core.
Trudeau and Chipiuk spar over exactly what that means. Trudeau points out (rightly) that the agreement only covered some trucks, in some parts of downtown, and many truckers said they would not abide by the deal.
"Where did you learn that? On Twitter?" Chipiuk says.
She then suggests it was police who were blocking trucks from moving out of downtown. (What she means is: Police blocked them from moving between one part of downtown and another.)
Trudeau points out the cops were letting the trucks leave whenever they wanted.
Chipiuk seems to think Wellington Street means "outside of the downtown residential areas." Which, if you know Ottawa at all, is flat-out wrong.
Whether it existed is one thing; whether he knew of its existence is another; whether he believed it is the key question
OMG I was waiting for Brendan. I guess he was outside chasing down witnesses.
This cross-examination is not going well.
its not really going in any sense.
That moment when you discover Brendan Miller was actually their number one choice/option....
Good one!
Did the convoy organizers change lawyers.
yes. but didnt exactly upgrade in terms of competence.
She might have been woken up this morning with the news she was point on this.
What a bizarre move! And all of these convoy lawyers look like they are walking straight out of Central Casting!!
Dumb question time: Is all of this about anything other that public opinion in the next election?
Is that the only court that can hold a government accountable for, in the opinion of a commission, incorrectly (insufficiently?) bringing down the EA? Can the commission make a referral to justice to have Trudeau arrested for some crime on the books, like the Jan6 bunch in Congress referring Trump for sedition charges, or whatever?
Because, if this is just about calling out Trudeau as having overreacted, abrogated civil rights without sufficient cause, Bad PM! Bad! .... then it was all over in late February. Because the public were way, way, way in favour of ending the occupations. Authorita is ALWAYS forgiven transgressions upon the rights of the unpopular.
Trudeau was challenged with evidence that the blockades were starting to lift so why not let the OPS roll with their plan? His candid answer included some realpolitik - If he had decided not to invoke the EA and the chaos had lingered on, how many of the legal purists would have stood by him with declarations of "he did the right thing!"? Answer - Precious few, and fewer still Canadians would have cared. He would have been hung out to dry and he knew it. Good call. Let future lawmakers take advantage of this experience to sharpen the wording of the Act for the next event.
Think of it more like an after action review than a hearing that's trying to get to the bototm of something. It's a requirement of the act to have an inquiry after to look at how it was used appropriately, if it was effective, and if legislation should be modified.
I would hope that it leads to a re-examination of the wording of the various acts and regulations to better reflect current times.
Yes, and I would anticipate this work will begin even before the Commissioner publishes his findings. Revisions and updates are clearly needed.
True, they were given very little time at the beginning of the hearings.
Counsel for the Alberta government is trying to get Trudeau to admit that the Emergencies Act wasn't necessary — pointing to effective enforcement actions that disrupted an alleged murder plot in Coutts and clear other border blockades. Trudeau pushing back. Kind of a draw.
Alright we're back.
Brendan Miller, by the way, isn't even in the building. Word apparently went out last night that he would not be cross-examining the PM today. Not quite sure who will be standing in for Freedom Corp, which represents the convoy organizers.
Maybe he got a TV series offer?
Ha ha!
Possibly out chasing down a bus because he saw some guy who kinda looked like Fox in it when it drove by?
Perhaps it dawned upon his clients that he was not advancing their case very effectively?
Anyone else find that the cross-examination didn't really go anywhere? The lawyer for the group before OPS's deal is I guess "everything's redacted so there's no transparency". And pulled up a 5 page redacted document that he seemed to imply was the policing plan (doing work with this on in the background so I'm missing bits and pieces). And used his time to basically just ask questions that were always going to be objected to, just to have it in the record that he asked them. Not sure that the inquiry really cares, but ok.
Then the OPS lawyer pulled up a completed different document which was apparently the most recent plan, so what was the previous lawyer looking at? And while that document had a lot of pages, it looked more like an outline for a report with like 8 sections per page to be filled in later. I missed if they actually scrolled to around pages 13 or 14 or if they said that each of the sections referenced an appendix or other document or something. My initial reaction was the similar to Trudeau's. The table of contents itself gives the impression that nothing was adequately planned out. Weird as well to bring in meeting minutes from a day prior where it was agreed that there wasn't a suitable plan developed. Was sort of confused about what they were trying to accomplish there.
I think there's real value in needling at how the government over-classifies information. The Trudeau government is *notorious* for this. Was a cross examination with the prime minister the best place to bring that up? Probably not.
Worth remembering about some of these lawyers is that they're not entirely interested in getting to a resolution about the Emergencies Act or the occupation itself. OPS's counsel and Chief Sloly's lawyer, for example, are really out there to defend their clients' reputations. Did the OPS lawyer succeed? Not really, no.
Yeah, makes sense. After watching the OPS lawyer I was thinking that it didn't really seem like it made her client look like they had their act together.
There is a kid here in a Scarface sweater.
Like who made a Scarface sweater in kids' sizes???
Maybe this "leel fren" is imaginary?
An algorithm, of course. #designs X #sizes = #orders
That T-shirt manufacturing order came from a spreadsheet.
I suspect that when the Emergencies Act was written, nobody had in mind a crisis of absurd inaction, one of powers going unused and plans going unmade in the face of an extremely loud Somebody Else's Problem field.
I'll opine when today is over, but it's going to be incumbent we amend the act.
My guess is that the political and legal questions will, eventually, converge, as they did during the pandemic – where, you will recall, there were all kinds of “legal” challenges and all kinds of “rights talk” raised about vaccination, including invocation of the Charter of Rights. But in the end, the government will be judged upon whether its actions were reasonable and whether they were effective.
My only point is that that is also the test in the Emergencies Act itself. Moreover, the whole structure of the statute – with its checks and balances and consultation and compulsory review – suggests that the drafters of the law did not think that these questions were easy or that the assessment was a black and white exercise.
Despite the assertions of certain pundits and partisans in the media.
In other words, the scheme of the legislation, read as a whole, gives the political decision maker the benefit of the doubt, so long as they are acting “reasonably”. Which in the legal world is not at all unusual.
So, I look forward to the Judge’s analysis of these questions – not that I am under any illusion that partisans will accept it, because there have already been snide Trump-like assertions that the process is unfair or rigged or biased. That is inevitable in today’s world.
So I think there's two things to that.
There will likely be a test of the Emergencies Act in court — specifically, were the regulations and orders made and implemented in a way that infringed Canadians' Charter rights? The answer will almost certainly be "yes." Then, of course, comes the s.1 Oakes test: Were those infringements reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances? I think the answer will likely be "yes," although certain aspects of those orders may have been written too broadly.
Now the other test is whether the government met the threshhold set out in the act. That's really where this Commission is going to focus on. So, yes, they have to have reasonable grounds to believe there was a threat to the security of Canada. But if this Commission finds that those reasonable grounds were not met, then that's an issue. So, at the risk of getting a bit convoluted, it doesn't matter if Ottawa was 'reasonable' in its quest to make the case it had reasonable grounds to believe. Either the threshhold was met, or it wasn't.
Further complicating matters: We don't actually know how to assess that treshhold. CSIS has the benefits of decades of case law from the Federal Court. We've never invoked this act before, so we don't actually know how to assess that threshhold.
Clear as mud, eh?
I agree with you on this. But I don't think we can know how a Court would interpret the elastic escape clause in section 1 of the Charter, nor, of equal importance, whether any remedy would flow from such over-reach. Remember that the ES is empowering and it does not, necessarily, oust the normal rules that apply in a civil or criminal proceeding. A breach of the Charter doesn't necessarily lead to a remedy for the aggrieved felon, who is otherwise guilty of a civil or criminal wrong.
My bet is that by the end of the day, the partisan focus will shift to attacking the enquiry process and the Judge himself. And everyone will forget the real issue in this case: which is about the rule of law and the ability of partisans to cause disruption and economic loss to others, with relative impunity, winning partisan applause along the way. And of course, what to do about it when it happens again, as it most certainly will.
Because in my view, all that has happened here, is that the illegal tactics of aboriginals (like in Caledonia, or railway blockade in 2020), or green progressives, have, in this instance, been embraced by a populist cause, which was then seized upon by opportunistic politicians.
And the lesson remains what it was been since 1995: so long as you are (mostly) non-violent, you can unlawfully impose economic and social costs on other citizens and businesses and you will almost certainly get away with it.
Just keep shouting “freedom!” and referring to that magic talisman the “Charter of Rights” ; and your illegal nuisance will become protected speech and insurance against having to compensate those whom you were damaged and discomfited.
That was the lesson for the local Ottawa citizens who started to organize themselves to block access to their neighbourhoods, in order to prevent their occupation by protesters, because the local police would not do so. And it seems to me that that erosion of trust is a very dangerous development.
Since the Ipperwash enquiry (which was mentioned in this one), police have privileged keeping the peace over enforcing the law, which does not properly protect the rights of bystanders and until that balance is struck, I suspect we will see more of these problems. Because "the right" has recognized the utility of the tactices pioneered by "the left".
We saw the same development in the labour relations world when plant occupations became the tactic of choice to avoid the closure of floundering firms.
Format feedback - this is an interesting alternative to Twitter feeds - more commentary but maybe less reach, being on Substack. Free access is a feature here (thanks) but if pay-per-view substacks use this, it then restricts commentary and idea sharing to only supporters, which might restrict a wider exchange of ideas.
True, yet I certainly appreciate the more thoughtful tone of the debate here.
I'm really enjoying the back-and-forth between everyone!
Yeah this is a little test. Substack is about to roll out chats, which is a better format for this kind of thing. (But is only available on iOS at the moment.)
I'm going to occasionally do some paid-subscriber-only chats, but there'll always be some free content.
Yeah, sometimes you've got to refresh the page to get everything normal again.
I'm really excited for this chat function to launch, because I think it'll be a lot more responsive.
I normally use this thread function for Q&As/AMAs/conversations with subscribers.
We're on lunch break! I'm going to figure out how to secure some lunch. Feel free to keep chiming in while we're on break.
Jumping on this now....and we're off to lunch...ffs.
At least I can go through these comments and get up to speed.
CBC is doing their commentary/analysis now .
Lawyer for the Ottawa Police Service is now going through the operational plan put together from the various police departments. Earlier, he bashed this as a total lack of a plan.
OPS seems to have a plan to get him to say the plan was a plan. Counsel is showing him the table of confidence to show how robust the plan was!
"The entire deployment plan fits onto one page?" Trudeau says, rather snarkily.
If you've been following along, you know that this testimony is a bit of a brain-bender.
The Ottawa Police service is trying to simultaneously say that it is thankful for the Emergencies Act and that it was super helpful in clearing out the occupation, while also making the case that everything was fine and the city police force was doing its job and it didn't need any help, thanks.
Can you kiss-and-tell about the comments/heckles/comments from the gallery that the Commissioner is talking about? They don't reach any microphones.
I'm a bit surprised that Rouleau said anything, to be honest. The crowd has been reacting to some of the testimony, but keeping it pretty chill. A few gasps, a few murmurs, a few disapproving sighs. But people are behaving themselves!
Ooh. Counsel is putting Trudeau on the spot, asking him to make an order to unredact a heavily-redacted document — the operational plan to end the occupation. One that Trudeau earlier said was woefully insufficient, and required the Emergencies Act.
The Attorney General counsel objects to that.
Rouleau says it's unfair to demand Trudeau wave his wand from the witness stand: "I would be very surprised if the federal government would order its release without consulting with other police services," Rouleau says.
It's a bit weird, because we actually do have a version of this plan, filed by the OPP. So it's not like this stuff is superduper secret, but it's also not like counsel can't find this info elsewhere.
This seems like a bit of flourish on the last day.
Does the OPP version show the same list of TBD lines in the annexes to the initial version of the plan?
I'd have to go back and re-consult those plans. But I know the initial OPP plan had a lot of holes in it. The next version struck me as comically optimistic.
It would be the Privy Council Office (with input from various agencies and departments) making the redactions. But it's cabinet/Trudeau who can decide to waive those various privileges.
We're seeing some cabinet documents at this commission because Ottawa waived cabinet confidence, which is very rare.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is onto a cross-examination that is a bit muddled. Counsel seems keen to make the case that Trudeau didn't show the CSIS assessment — the one concluded that the occupation was not a threat to the safety of the country — to his whole cabinet.
Not exactly a Perry Mason moment, here.
Counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is interrogating Trudeau on why some documents were redacted. He shows the same document side-by-side — one redacted for "unrelated information" and the other one unredacted (as of this morning.)
The sentence, which was redacted and then unredacted, reads: "Americans offering tow trucks."
[Law & Order cha-chung noise]
As I read the Emergencies Act, the Cabinet decision to invoke that law, turns on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions for doing so existed, at the time that it chose to act. NOT that those conditions did, in fact, exist; but rather whether there was a reasonable basis for believing that they did.
This is a bit like the police power to do a personal search if they reasonably believe a crime has been committed, even though the proof of that allegation will be sorted out, later, and, in a criminal setting, beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, the EA trigger engages a reasonableness test, not a correctness test; moreover it is one in which both the affirmative and the negative answers to the question (should we act or not?) rest on degree of speculation, along with the meaning of some words that are open to contextual interpretation. And of course a factual context is not static, but dynamic and evolving and subject to uncertainty.
It is therefore entirely possible for Cabinet to have been mistaken and still to have acted both properly, and in good faith and, of course, in a way that was effective and beneficial. Especially if the EA is read as a prophylactic tool that is intended to avoid harm, not just a reaction to what has already happened. That is, relying on the precautionary principle, that surfaced, so often, during the pandemic.
Because of course, the political game (and to some extent the medial game) is about assigning or avoiding blame, and has very little to do with an objective assessment of the public interest.
You're quite right.
But the issue at hand is: If CSIS thinks that they would not have had reasonable grounds to cite a threat to national security to tap a convoy organizer's phone, why did cabinet think it had reasonable grounds to invoke the Act?
I'm not sure that the answer is Ottawa was wrong to invoke the act. But it's a tricky issue.
I take no position on the point. But it is not at all unusual for a form of words in one one statute or legal context, to mean something different, or be used in a different way, in another legal context. To take a simple example, you can be an "employee" for some purposes and not for others. Words take their meaning from the context and purpose for which they are used, so it is not wrong to pay attention to the setting. And yes, it is tricky, particularly because, as I said, it requires a degree of speculation about what is likely to happen if you do nothing or if you do something. And because, as here, the government is empowering OTHERS to take action, or not, in accordance with THEIR judgement about whether the new tools are needed. Finally, there is the psychological impact of the declaration, which was obviously significant, in the way that a mere injunction from a Judge was not.
Next on cross is the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Lots of towtruck-based questioning.
Probably the most a sitting prime minister has ever been interrogated about tow trucks.
Annnnd we're into cross-examination. The fun bit!
First up is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Their counsel is building up the case that the Act was unnecessary — that many of the wheels were in motion to clear the blockades prior to the Act being implemented, and that many of the most effective tactics were enabled by existing authority and legislation. She's highlighting that there was a feeling in various law enforcement agencies that they could have implemented a plan to retake Ottawa, and that there were more tools that hadn't yet been used.
Trudeau digging into this line of thinking a bit. Says "the ability of the police to resolve it was not there" and that while there may have been unused authorities, that was on the police for being unwilling/unable to use them.
The cross got a bit lost in the middle. But counsel gets to the $1,000,000 question at the end:
Counsel puts to Trudeau that the Emergencies Act threshhold "cannot be any lower than when CSIS proposes to surveil one person." Do you agree?
"Yes," Trudeau says.
That's an interesting answer.
Ewa Krajewska, a civil liberties lawyer, is up now. Very precise and organized, good cross-examination. BTW - love that subtle Irish(?) accent she has ;-)
Asked whether invoking the Emergencies Act might have worsened peoples' faith in public institutions, Trudeau flips it around — the inability of governments, cities, police to regain order and keep people safe is even more corrosive to trust in our system.
"They were very much heard," Trudeau says of the protesters. There were political parties pitching their preferred policy measures — ending mandates, discouraging vaccine use.
"It was clear that it wasn't that they just want to be heard, they wanted to be obeyed."
That elicits some gasps and head-shakes in the room.
Not really sure how you argue with that statement, though. As Trudeau points out, even after Ford and Kenney lifted some mandates, the occupations in Ottawa and Coutts continued.