SOME KIND OF INQUIRY

Much has been learned in the opening days of the Emergencies Act inquiry. Many surprises have come out, too. I’m so glad I wrote about the Ottawa protest as it was happening, as a result. All the observations I spelled out and details I recorded around the endless strange contradictions have proven to be essential context for most of the evidence on offer. My perspectives and annotations, all of which seemed outlandish at the time, have only been revealed as insufficiently skeptical and paranoid – and not in the ways you might suspect.

Right from the opening testimony, day two, the entire narrative (offered to the public by the fullest spectrum of authorities and disseminated across every available channel) has been resoundingly shattered. I did not anticipate that. In fact, I imagined the exact opposite. My assumption was that we would be privy to a veritable avalanche of security reports, internal emails, and witness statements all exposing the darkest underbelly of this ugly occupation. I thought we'd have a host of victims coming forward with harrowing tales (or even just some shocking pictures or video.) What is most astonishing is that this flip, this turning over of the whole narrative resulted not from an application of tremendous resources but, instead, the most tepid of cross-examinations. Lawyers simply asked witnesses if the evidence they offered was a rumour they heard or saw on Twitter or something they personally witnessed. Often it was simpler still, merely the very contradictory communications these people themselves shared with the world. Regardless and almost unbelievably, right from the outset we have a completely different picture of this whole event coming to light.

Critically, keep in mind that this inquiry is about determining whether there was justification for the declaration of a national emergency. (Key words: NATIONAL and EMERGENCY.) More specifically than that, it's worth spelling out that the invocation of the Act requires there to be an urgent situation that:

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

So what did we hear on the first day of key witness testimony?

INDEPENDENT CITIZENS

The day began with the questioning of two residents framed in the media, and marched out in front of cameras, as vulnerable, still-traumatized, and still-suffering victims of a conflagration of the nation's most vile forces. You'll recall this was, according to chair of the Ottawa police services board, "the most boorish, and ugly, hateful behaviour that one could ever expect … really an insurrection" and "an attack on our democracy, an attack on our federal government," one with "a lot of international elements to it…” And we were also given the strong impression all along that these victims coming forward were random Ottawa residents, people who had suffered great hardship during the protest and who volunteered to present their case because they wanted to let Canadians know what they experienced. Well, behold:

THE FEDERAL DATA ANALYST

Zexi Li, a 21-year-old resident of downtown Ottawa, was the first to face cross-examination by Brendan Miller, counsel for the convoy. Li confirmed that at the time of the event she was, as now, a salaried data analyst for the Government of Canada. But it got stranger still. When Zexi was asked what Ministry or department she was with, commission counsel, Jeffrey Leon, interjected on her behalf. “Objection. What’s the relevance of this line of questioning, commissioner?” Commissioner Rouleau allowed the question and Li responded “Well, I personally don’t feel there’s – I – the actions I took was in my capacity as an individual citizen of Ottawa and not related to my work or any other activities.” She eventually answered, responding “Shared Services Canada.” She was then asked “Okay, and what Ministry does that come under?” To that, Li responded “I’m not sure.”

Wouldn't you agree that this is a weird starting place? Yes, Ottawa is full of government employees. True. But given the volume of potential witnesses, Ottawa being a city of one million, and ten or twenty thousand in apartments right downtown in the action, I couldn’t have imagined anyone actively being paid by the feds to be an eligible witness. What, the commission was unable to find a single plumber, teacher, security guard, barista, taxi driver, or food delivery guy that saw or heard anything? How is this different than if we learned the witness was a salaried employee of one of the truckers? Well, I'm not sure it is. So what is going on? And then this whole interaction, one under oath and that lands as the opening salvo of the inquiry, is also perfectly bizarre. Q: “Wait, you work for the feds? Who’s your boss?” A: “I don’t see why that’s relevant.” Q: “Well, who does your boss work for?” A: “I don’t know.” Why is the first witness being evasive about a simple fact of relevant context? And why is lead counsel for the Commission seeking to obfuscate who this person works for? How was any of this a transparent attempt at uncovering the truth? All of it felt to me like quite the red flag. But it got stranger still.

As it turns out, Li is acquainted with other key figures: Ottawa city councillor Catherine McKenney, provincial NDP MP Joel Harden, as well as lawyer Paul Champ, who represents the coalition of community and business associations in downtown Ottawa for this very inquiry. We learned Champ came to Li at the time of the protest, seeking her to become lead plaintiff in a class action against the convoy. Later we found out Harden and McKenney used that class action as a tool to threaten protesters, approaching people and telling them that if they walk away they wouldn't be found guilty and charged with terrorizing the population. We also learn that Li's role as lead plaintiff earned her a civic award, gifted to her by McKenney.

Li was then asked about a pair of videos she made around the time of the protest. In one of those, Li refers to the protest as “insane,” “the strangest Twilight Zone/Purge scenario,” full of “right-wing extremists.” Having witnessed first-hand what she declared for the record was terrifying, murderous insanity, Li is asked if she ever interacted with these people (folks who pundits and professors and politicians were on all television and social media outlets labelling as not less than a foreign-backed, militant, white supremacist insurrection bent on overthrowing Canada's government.) She had interacted with them. It turns out this person, who described herself as “a small Asian woman” too scared to leave her home, confronted this mad band of neo-Fascists all on her own. Again, these are people reported not in editorials but in news reports and communications from leading politicians as "racists" and "extremists" engaged in “unprecedented violence”. Miller asked her, “And when you confronted those protesters, do you remember saying to them, which was recorded, ‘Go back to where the fuck you’re from!’?” Li responded with typical obliqueness “I may have said that.” In her testimony Li also mentioned in passing other activity such as "the egg-throwing." Counsel for the Commission caught that and inquired, "sorry, can you describe what you meant by 'the egg-throwing'?" She responded:

Well, you know, there were very large trucks parked everywhere, and in some of these instances they were parked right next to some high-rise condo buildings. And as a result, someone-- some people may have gotten some cartons of eggs and, you know, had their little retaliation in frustration because, really, what else could they do?

Li, a key witness of the murderous insanity (her assessment) that took over the city – and someone who became a local hero (or, rather, a “superhero”, according to the Ottawa Citizen), as one of the brave few “who stood up for justice and peace” against the barbarous lunatics (and may have been throwing eggs at protesters) – was then asked if she personally saw any of the many thousands of truckers and protesters who were in her city for many weeks physically harm or even so much as intimidate anyone at any time. No, she didn't. (Wait, what!?) Li was asked if she saw anyone even damaging any property of any sort at any time over the month-long “siege” by this unbridled hoard of ne're-do-wells. She admitted that she didn't. (Hold on. What!?) She was asked if she saw anyone engaged in any sort of activity that could be classified as sabotage or espionage. She seemed to think this was a crazy question, as if her words and accusations have no meaning or impact in the world. She told the inquiry she hadn't seen anything of the sort. Though living at the epicenter of what we are told was total unrelenting lawlessness, an occupation by militant extremists, occupying the city for many weeks, she observed nothing that could raise to the level of a serious concern found at every large Canada Day, Halloween, and New Years celebration. And she told us she even went out, like Batwoman, and personally confronted the vehemence herself. Still, not one frightful glimpse of anything? Not one pic from her phone? No Instagram video to share? Nothing? Curious. But don't worry, it gets weirder still.

Rob Kittredge, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, asked Li about the noise she experienced in her apartment. For Li, this government employee working from home, the noise issue was what animated her. And, of course, she was brought forward to help argue that the threat to her safety, health, and life by this noise was so serious and sustained that local and provincial governments, as well as all of the many combined law enforcement agencies therein, were insufficiently appointed and equipped at the time of the Act's invocation. Li explained that she used two different apps on her phone (which, curiously, she cannot name and most studies say are not accurate and reliable enough for serious purposes.) She says “the decibel readings, from my memory, ranged from approximately 75 decibels to at times 85 or 90.” Right. She is telling us that, to be rigorous and accurate, she downloaded multiple apps and took many recordings with both. This federal government tech analyst pairs this with being so absentminded and uncomfortable with technology that she failed to take a single screen shot when using either app. And she did not jot one number down across multiple readings at any point during an event she refers to as being weeks of torture. So we have an unstated device, two unknown apps, and a set of approximate values, if her memory serves, with a huge range. (Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, so 75dB is not experienced as anything like 90dB.) No. Sorry. No. I don't understand how this is presented as evidence of anything relevant to the inquiry. It's probably worth noting that 75dB is in the realm of conversation at your office or the hum of a dishwasher or air conditioning unit. 85dB is said to be the noise of a downtown street (Ottawa, perhaps?) from inside a car (or, perhaps, a tenth-storey apartment?) Or another way to think about it is that 75-105dB is the range at which most people listen to their music. So, I would happily argue that the decibel level was not the objectionable bit. In fact, her class-action notes that she responded to the noise by putting in earplugs and blasting her music, adding to the noise. But, by Li’s persistent evasiveness and lack of serious evidence, and even just her own testimony, I would also wager her actual experience was nothing like what she reports. What we learned from Li was something like 'I was annoyed by some noise, got an award and gained much continued public notoriety, including the over-night status as a community leader (gifted by city council, no less) for being encouraged by a lawyer to join a lawsuit.' Wow.

THE FORMER FEDERAL LAWYER

With this, what do you think the witness accompanying Li had to offer? After some opening background, confirming that Victoria Del La Ronde, a visually impaired senior, was a member of the bar in both Ontario and the state of New York, Miller queried “And I understand that after becoming a member of the bar you began to work for the Government of Canada, is that correct?” “Yes,” De La Ronde confirmed. (What is going on?!) She explained that she worked in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and then later for Veterans Affairs. She did so for around 25 years. Then she was asked about the company she incorporated in 1985, called De La Ronde International Inc. She was asked if the company is currently a federal government contractor. She said that it isn’t. Miller then asked “But it does do government contracts and assists with, I believe, a lot of First Nations work. Is that right?” De La Ronde: “It could, yes.” (Her LinkedIn page notes that she is the current owner of the company and that the company’s mission it to “provide services that lighten the heavy loads on governments and business.”) Miller continued, “And you worked as a lawyer for the Government of Canada, is that right?” De La Ronde responded “No, I was working on the policy side of the picture; I was not just a lawyer with the Government of Canada, I was an executive.” When asked how she became involved in the inquiry, she testified that she didn't come forward on her own but had "a phone call from the Commission, Commission solicitor" asking her to be a witness. Her testimony is that she was traumatized by the convoy, particularly their noise. And, of course, what she experienced wasn't personal-, civic-, or provincial- but national emergency-level trauma, apparently. Folks in New Brunswick and Alberta needed to be involved in orders related to noise complaints inaudible just six blocks from her apartment. Makes sense.

Again, out of the million declared "victims" of unrelenting terrorist-level military-grade torture, what we get are two folks very intimately tied to the federal government, neither of whom came forward but were offered up? Oh my! Good start. I haven't looked yet, but I'm left to wonder if the PM's wife is also set to give testimony about how she felt during the protest and what she saw on Twitter. I also wonder if we'll have a whole day of testimony from folks in Winnipeg or Whitehorse offering their opinion that the Act was unnecessary, and how that will be weighted. Given these two witnesses, why not?

BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

Next up were two witnesses, Nathalie Carrier and Kevin McHale, both of whom represent different Ottawa business improvement associations and sit on the board of a coalition of local business improvement associations. Their accounting was just as odd as the first witnesses. In their official written testimony and during examination, they made a range of claims about how devastating the convoy was to area businesses. They said things like “businesses were completely crippled,” “there were no clients in stores,” and “there was no Uber Eats.” And to highlight how blindsided all businesses were by this “occupation” they offered, “we received very little information prior to [the event]” and “communication as quite minimal.” Now, what do you thing the chances are that any of this testimony holds up to even an initial barrage of the most obvious questions?

Even before the lawyers get involved we know this makes no sense because, of course, social and legacy media were in a tizzy about the convoy long before it arrived in Ottawa and even the Prime Minister was talking about in font of cameras. I believe CBC, the National Post, and other local media reported on the convoy, of “hundreds of trucks” on their way to Ottawa and backed by a fundraising of “more than $3 million,” a full week before they arrived. More than that, in evidence is an email from Ottawa’s Deputy Chief of Police Ferguson to the witnesses’ business coalition, spelling out the likely impact to traffic and businesses, and clearly stating that the event “will be a significant and extremely fluid event that could go on for a prolonged period.” The situation report goes on to say that “resident and visitors can expect to see a large police and emergency services presence in the downtown core and on major highways and roads. Traffic delays and congestion will occur and may occur on a large scale.” The email also offers four separate ways, across various platforms, to stay in touch and be informed about the situation in real-time.

Most curiously, these two witnesses undermined their whole account by pairing the above testimony with further stories about stores like Canadian Tire selling out of all their camping equipment: gas cans, propane tanks, rope, bear spray, knives, and the like. They also report these businesses selling out of Canadian flags and noise-makers. All of this was highlighted as a threat to the community, evidence of protesters' ill-intent and plan to dig in. And, of course, we heard in the media (even international media) about endless streams of gasoline and diesel fuelling the protest, too. The witnesses also expressed frustration with how different from a normal city event this protest was. They noted a lack police escort, people parking anywhere they like, a lack of washroom facilities, and other activities that would normally require permitting and would receive scrutiny from by-law enforcement.

When cross-examined, counsel Miller started by inquiring about the $30 million in federal and provincial compensation for Ottawa businesses who had to endure the convoy protest for three weeks. We can all recall news reports from the time offering that the impact to retail alone was "very severe" and robbed the local economy of up to $200 million. Miller offered that only a fraction, less than $10 million, looked to have been allocated to date, eight months after the event. Neither witness knew anything about where the money had or had not gone. Miller then offered to the witnesses that later in the inquiry he would be showing that Uber Eats was operating for the duration of the protest and that we know this because they were delivering food to protesters downtown. Miller asked if what Carrier and McHale reported was just rumour or if they themselves were unable to access food delivery during the protest. The response was that they did not use Uber Eats at the time. We were also reminded that the city still had mandates in place and no one was permitted to dine at restaurants when the convoy arrived. If that was the case then, of course, the city could be seen as actively engaged in keeping businesses from operating, which is what some in the convoy were in Ottawa objecting to. Further to the busyness of businesses, Miller asked “And were you aware that on January 25th, 2022, the city of Ottawa received and email from the Hotel Association … stating that truckers and protesters had booked stays for over 30 days?” The witnesses admitted that they were aware of the numbers. And with regard to the lack of permits and washrooms and such, Miller asked if the witnesses were aware that the truckers applied for and were granted permits for porta potties, for example, but had those permits pulled after protesters were preemptively labelled by the Prime Minister as something tantamount to terrorists. Neither McHale nor Carrier knew that.

Miller also reflected on a pair of videos (day and night) played during their examination, ones shot and shared online by Carrier. These videos showed a kind of protest hub, home to trucks, trailers, campers, and festival tents and filling an entire stadium parking lot. The images were meant to show the numbers of people, their coordination, and their intent to stay. Miller asked Carrier, “would you agree that there was no honking or noise in the background in those videos?” They responded, “Not in those particular videos…” Of course, we were told by these and the previous witnesses that noise was ceaseless and reaching a sustained level approximating a ceaseless stream of jet planes taking off; and yet here we have two videos shot by a disgruntled resident, at different times of day, in a protester hub full of trucks, which appears silent at both times. So why is every witness so far so allergic to accuracy? Miller also queried the witnesses about knives and bear spray being sold out and whether either of them saw any knives or bear spray anywhere at any time. Neither Carrier nor McHale had. They were also forced to admit that, of course, they didn’t know if it was evil truckers from Alberta or local grandmothers buying up the city’s camping supplies and maple leaf flags. (And apparently this is so irrelevant, or is so unfavourable to the government position, that the RCMP won't look into it and volunteer this information to a Parliamentary inquiry.)

What Miller didn’t ask about was whether “selling out” of a whole variety of products was a regular event or closer to a rare one for such a big chain; and whether or not this was a bump in business and profit or closer to being emblematic of the economic catastrophe they testified the whole city experienced as a result of the convoy. They also weren’t asked if the tens of thousands of people attending protests and related events boosted the business of hotels, grocery stores, coffee shops, and street vendors. Miller didn’t ask about the endless stream of fuel, whether the witnesses knew if all of that was purchased from local depots or siphoned from cop cars and garbage trucks. He also didn’t ask if police cutting off the fuel supply benefited or harmed the profits of local service stations. The witnesses also seemed unaware that the truckers had been in communication with local police prior to arrival and were directed where to drive and park. You would think all of this would have been a bigger deal.

CITY COUNCIL

Later in the day, Ottawa city Councillor Catherine McKenney and fellow Councillor Mathieu Fleury, were cross-examined. These two councillors are the elected officials for the wards said to have been most impacted by the protest. We learned that, in a letter to the Ottawa mayor, council, chief of police, and police services board, on February 2nd, McKenney and Fleury wrote:

Mayor Watson and Chief Sloly, Ottawa’s urban core is in crisis, for six days and nights downtown residents have been under siege. They have faced unprecedented noise and pollution. Wearing a mask in public means being threatened with violence and sexual violence, of being spat at and screamed at.

And on February 3rd, McKenney alone authored a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau and Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, telling them that “For six days and nights, residents living in downtown Ottawa continue to experience unprecedented violence on their local streets and in their neighbourhood.” The letter continues, asking the federal government and RCMP to assume control of the situation. Armed with rumour and supposition, in a feverish attempt to undermine the effectiveness and authority of city police and from the highest level, McKenney also intended to bring a motion before city council with the same request. In evidence and response is an email from Christiane Huneault, general counsel for the Ottawa Police Service, explaining to city council the relevant portions of the Ontario Police Services Act, how jurisdictions work, and what the law is — suggesting that if the city council seeks to disable the municipal police service they are welcome to do so and noting that there are prescribed procedures for doing so within the Act.

About the unprecedented levels of violence noted in the councillors’ email, counsel Natalia Rodriguez asked McKenney and Fleury if either observed any acts of violence, threats to safety, or even so much as any unruly behaviour themselves. They reported witnessing none. The inquiry’s written interview summary for Fleury and McKenney states that:

They felt most in danger while walking home through residential areas of downtown Ottawa. During these walks, Councillor McKenney encountered people that were threatening to them. McKenney described these people as not belonging to the core Convoy group, but as sympathetic to the extremist ideology that had come to the City to cause trouble.

The councillors explained to Rodriguez that they work for their constituents and received many complaints of all sorts from business owners and others and, as their role demands, ensured those were reported to the appropriate authorities. When asked to elaborate on the specific acts reported to them, Fleury responded:

I describe them as microaggression, because they— you know, it wasn’t the punching in the face, but it was all these microaggressions in transit, walking to businesses, childcare, homeless shelters. A number of incidents that created an unsafe environment for residents and business operators in the area.

Then they get into the difference between the weekend protest and what downtown residents experienced on weekdays. Fleury offered:

On weekdays it was more, let’s call them, ‘permanent occupiers’ with the larger rigs. As the weekend approached, it was pickup trucks that would be parking anywhere and everywhere and kind of add to the existing weapons that were on the street and that tension that was existing.

Taken aback, Rodriguez questioned “Sorry, what do you mean by weapons?” Fleury explained, “Well, for us, you know, having the physical truck on the street created a big weapon in the spirit of the noise, the pollution of the fumes, the ability for folks to operate their businesses, to open, for us to offer services…” Both city councillors talked more about what they saw on the street and, specifically, pickup trucks not parking where they should. Rodriguez then asked Fleury:

…you had used the term “weapons” when describing the trucks, and here in this video we see some unsafe behaviour. It appears to show a truck driving in the wrong lane against traffic on the sidewalk. Did you observe any kind of unsafe use of the trucks? Or what did— can you expand on this notion of weaponizing that you mentioned earlier?

His response was:

Sure. I was describing earlier the ByWard Market, where on weekends there would be the surge of folks. … The rules of parking were not followed. People would park in any direction, would park on sidewalks. … So there’s that, those incidents of people not following the rules of the road in pickup trucks, which is a different vehicle, which is a weapon in itself. But the weaponized description to me is really the rigs who take up space on the street and make noise through the horns that you’ve show in video. … So that’s the description of the weapon is that that truck took space on the road. The truck itself created an environment that was unsafe for their immediate neighbours …

Counsel Rob Kittredge probed the subject of parking further. He asked, “If illegal parking could be stopped, what you call ‘the occupation’ would have ended; correct?” Fleury replied, “If the city of Ottawa’s truck routes were followed, and if fluidity of movement on the roadway was respected, and if parking rules were followed, you’re correct.” Both have more back-and-forth. But Fleury appeared to change his mind, stating that the problem is not the trucks but the people in and around them. Kittredge asked, “So you’d be happy to have the vehicles remain on the streets of Ottawa indefinitely? You’d be okay with that?” “It’d be a different issue,” said Fleury, “A vehicle without people is not an issue. A turned off vehicle, in itself, can be easily moved by authorities.” He said the problem is the combination of people with their big rigs and the environment they compose together that activates a kind of “fortress”, and that hostile fortress is the “weapon” he describes. Fleury was then asked to confirm that, like every city, Ottawa has laws and bylaws prohibiting illegal parking (and other unruly activity) and is also equipped with a capable police force both willing and able to enforce those laws. He agrees.

When it was his turn, Brendan Miller asked about what Fleury meant by microaggressions. It’s quite the interaction. Miller offered a dictionary definition, “verbal and environmental slights”, and asked if that was how Fleury understood and used the term. Fleury, who to this point had been speaking in perfectly fluent English, better English than myself and with no detectable accent, slid into French. “J’m' francophone”, he declared to the room. Then he explained, in French, that his knowledge of English terminology is insufficiently sophisticated to effectively elucidate all the complexities of such a word in his non-native language of English. Amused, Miller offered back, “Je m'appelle Brendan.” Fleury, who pretended to be insulted, suggested (back in perfect English again) “I am doing my very best to answer clear questions in English. You asked me for a very specific question on a definition; I’m saying, ask me— clarify in French and I am glad to specify if it ‘yes’ or ‘no’; the specificity of the nuance of a word,” Fleury gestured with his hands, pinching his fingers together, to emphasize the excruciating labour of delving into multilingual semantic minutiae, “I am uncomfortable in responding to your question in English.”

Miller stopped the proceeding to get a set of headphones so that he could hear Fleury’s testimony translated from his native French. Having already defined the term, Miller asks for clarification, “What of the words that I put to you, and there’s a few: ‘means’, ‘verbal’, ‘and’, ‘environmental’ and ‘slights’ is confusing?” Fleury shrugged and threw up his hands. Miller persisted “Which ones are you confused about?” In French, the councillor refused to define the term. He talked about not being a lawyer and not having a narrow definition of specific words but instead coming to the inquiry to share what he saw and the information he received. Instead of a definition he spoke of specific incidents of microaggressions he heard about. He talked of, for example, a “homeless person” being beaten up. Miller then asked the commission to provide Fleury with a headset so that his questions could be translated from English into French for the councillor. Fleury refused the device and the translation. Miller then responded to his statements. He said, “You referred to beating up a homeless person as a microaggression.” He offered that such an act would be an assault, not anything like what anyone understands to be a verbal or environmental slight. Miller went on, asking for details, such as whether or not Fleury witnessed the incident. Fleury explained that he saw nothing and that, instead, the executive director of a shelter in his community told him about the incident. Miller then asked if there were charges laid. Fleury: “I have no clue.” Miller: “And who was the individual who was beaten?” Fleury shrugged, “I have no clue.”

What a stunning set of witnesses. None of the above evidence or testimony was anything like what I imagined we would hear. With all these folks having phones and being on social media? Not one TikTok video or YouTube livestream of anything? Not one photo of bloody nose? Not one fire being set? Not one police report? I’m not even sure how anyone considered these folks suitable witnesses when none reported witnessing anything that could have justified invoking the Emergencies Act. Most of their testimony failed to rise to the level of an attempted validation of their own sensationalist social media posts. So, what will we get in the coming weeks?