THE COMMISSION HEARS FROM CITY AND PROVINCIAL POLICE

Days six and seven offered us more illuminating inquiry. The people running police operations in Ottawa knew what was coming, overestimated the size, guided protesters and their vehicles, were enforcing the law the entire time. They also tell us they neither sought nor did they need additional powers to end the protest at any time. Oh, and the event was well-attended by people identifying as Aboriginal. Was any part of this picture (the actual facts on the ground) what you understood of the situation?

DEPUTY CHIEF FERGUSON

We heard from Ottawa Police Service Deputy Chief Patricia Ferguson on day six of the inquiry. She was the executive responsible for community policing in Ottawa and also all the planning for the arrival of the convoy. And her testimony offered a flurry of revelations.

We learned that intelligence reports mentioning the coming convoy first arrived on January 13th, two weeks before anyone got to Ottawa. Once again, it was confirmed that by January 20th, provincial intelligence bureau reports, and delivered to the Ottawa police, were indicating the convoy participants had no exit plan and intended to stay long-term. We learned that, for further corroboration, the Ottawa Hotel Association provided information to police that folks were trying to book stays of a month in advance of their arrival.

Various groups and individuals have suggested ever since the invocation of the Emergencies Act that the Ottawa protest was both unpredictable and unprecedented in all manner of ways (their size, length of stay, amount of disruption, etc) thereby necessitating the measures taken. Of course, anyone who has been alive and alert for more than a decade knows this is nonsense.

Before any trucks arrived, the Ottawa police offered a special briefing on police preparedness. Ferguson was quoted in the media as acknowledging that the protest “will be a significant and extremely fluid event that could go on for a prolonged period,” adding that the city is anticipating “significant traffic delays and disruptions.” This is in stark contrast to all of the reporting and testimony every day since they arrived. This also contradicts the deputy chief's testimony, in which she asserts that she never thought the protest would last beyond the weekend.

In the same piece she also confirmed and assured the public that police were “planning for a range of potential risks, including but not limited to counter-demonstrations, blocking of intersections, interfering with critical infrastructures, and unlawful and violent activity.” In the story, she also noted that “Ottawa police have been in contact with the convoy’s organizers and so far those interactions have been ‘productive and co-operative.’” Was this the impression social media or any CBC expert interviewee, or the Prime Minister left you with?

The same reporting also offered words from Chief Sloly, who assessed that “the convoy has been peaceful and lawful as it has passed through cities across Canada, but, within the last 24 hours the Ottawa Police Service has received ‘a direct threat’ to the safety of its officers from a counter-protest source.” How markedly different from the narrative that emerged during and since the protest is all of this?

Still, Ferguson’s testimony to the inquiry was a little different than how she was quoted at the time. She offered the inquiry that all police planning was premised on the event lasting just two days. For something more than one’s memory and feelings regarding what was expected, the inquiry was introduced to the OPS Special Event Operational Plan (Version 8) from Friday, January 29th (after the convoy arrived.) Under the title Threat Assessment we read: “The most likely police matter at this time will be the vast number of vehicles on area roads.” It speaks of the potential for convoy participants to shut down roads if they desired. Then there’s a large redacted section, followed by a point about how "this event is ... less of a 'professional protest' with the usual sad players, but rather, is a truly organic grass roots event that is gathering momentum largely from the widespread population." The following point reads, "There appears to be ... a powerful manifestation of deep discontent with how people feel they are being governed." And the final point states, "there is no critical intelligence to suggest any sort of violent actions or concerns for violence."

Every bit of this is interesting as it contradicts so many public statements about the both the police and protest by everyone from the Prime Minister and other politicians to subject area experts and reporters, all across the news, in op eds and interviews, and on social media. Before most protesters left home, Trudeau and many others were assuring the public that anyone coming to Ottawa, like anyone skeptical of any COVID measure, could only be a simple-minded lowlife manipulated by misinformation. After protesters stayed beyond the weekend, we were told by everyone with a voice that the police were tragically ill-informed and ill-prepared. In hindsight, all of that seems like its own explicit misinformation.

We learned from Ferguson that police controlled the movement of vehicles and always intended to stack convoy vehicles along four downtown roads, all based on prior experience, as you would expect. Parkways were deliberately chosen over residential streets. Up until this point I had a strong impression, given to me by CBC and others reporting throughout the event and since, that the protesters were acting entirely on their own volition and directly against the wishes of police and the city of Ottawa. Ferguson also confirmed there have been large vehicle protests in the recent past, including ones with large obstructive farm vehicles.

Senior counsel for the commission, Frank Au, asked Ferguson to describe her experience of the convoy upon arrival. She offered:

So, as they arrived into town, you know, we were monitoring numbers, where it was – you know, safety, obviously, is always our first priority … And we were starting to see, you know, they were pulling into the areas that they were sent to or steered to. And then we started to see, I would qualify it as a bit of a party atmosphere, sort of festival-like. People were very excited to be there.

Counsel Rob Kittredge probed Ferguson about the necessity of the Emergencies Act. He noted the three factors she pointed to in her earlier testimony, of the Act: allowing police to bypass the requirement to swear in officers, helping them procure towing vehicles and drivers, and providing the ability to threaten folks with the seizing of their assets. Kittredge asked whether Ferguson felt the Act was essential to ending the protest or whether these factors merely made their job easier. She responded, “Yeah, useful but not necessary.” He probed a little deeper on that point, asking her to assess how much time was saved by not having to swear in officers from other jurisdictions, for example. Ferguson felt that hours were saved, not days or weeks. Kittredge then asked about tow trucks. He noted her earlier testimony about the OPS having procured dozens of tow trucks and those being on their way to Ottawa prior to the invocation of the Act. Ferguson confirmed that and stood by her previous statement. Kittredge asked about her previous assessment that the Ottawa Police Service knew that if tow trucks arrived protesters (those for whom their trucks are both a home and a livelihood) would leave the city. He asked her, “Do you stand by that statement?” Ferguson: “I do.”

Counsel Brendan Miller offered to Ferguson, “I take it that during the protests, of course, that the Ottawa Police Service, thought they weren’t, at times, enforcing by-laws or weren’t enforcing provincial infractions, they were enforcing the Criminal Code in full force and effect, right?” Ferguson disagreed. Miller added, “[The OPS was] struggling, but if a police officer saw an individual assaulting another or there was a report of an individual to a police officer that they had been assaulted, that was investigated?” Ferguson: “Yes.”

Ferguson testified about some positive actions police took during the protest. She explained that Confederation Park is located opposite City Hall and that folks were setting up in the park, looking like they were preparing to stay some time, having set up a ‘community kitchen’ and such. Ferguson described how over several days the police liaison team was able to negotiate bringing in an Algonquin elder to assist in finding a way to have this group (including members of the Algonquin Nation as well as members of Manitoba First Nations and others) leave the park.

This was a surprise to me for several reasons. Firstly, effectively all news and editorial reporting at the time of the protest and since has indicated that police were completely impotent with regard to moving protesters. And, again, this persistent inability to accomplish anything has been stated as a key reason for why the Act was imposed. Secondly, CBC and most other news here and around the world, as well as the experts and officials cited and brought in to speak about the protest, referred to the event as a militant, enthonationalist occupation. The fundraising for which was said to likely to end up in the hands of “domestic white supremacist terrorism.” At the height of the event The Washington Post offered an opinion of the convoy that read:

It is not incidental that this latest expression of white supremacy is emerging amid a public health crisis. The history of Canadian settler colonialism and public health demonstrates how both overt white-supremacist claims and seemingly more inert nationalistic claims about “unity” and “freedom” both enable and erase ongoing harm to marginalized communities.

Teen Vogue even published a piece declaring that the so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’ protest was not about freedom but white supremacy and white nationalism. More than that they added:

Watching the Ottawa occupation unfold, women of color in Canada are pointing out what is obvious to them: If they were protesting in this way, the state would be reacting differently. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation quoted Indigenous lawyer and activist Joan Jack, observing, “If our rights were as valuable — particularly as Indigenous women — to this government, this wouldn’t even be happening. Yeah, no, they would’ve called in the army on us.”

Other publications and news outlets also suggested that women and minorities were so terrified of the monstrous truckers that they were cowering in their homes. This was the tone of effectively the whole first day of testimony. Of course, not only did the witnesses contradict themselves by admitting they confronted people on the street and more, but, as I wrote about at the time, if you just looked at the footage offered by these same media outlets it was clear they were dramatically misrepresenting the situation. As they offered these assessments of being an extremist, white nationalist gathering, they showed footage of people identifying themselves as Aboriginal as well as holding and playing drums, displaying various flags (the Métis Nation, Haudenosaunee Hiawatha belt, and Mohawk warrior flags were common), signs and shirts with “Every Child Matters” and others that included imagery and language calling for a respect for personal and broader Indigenous autonomy (“My body, my choice”, “Indigenous rights now!”, and so much more.) Adding this account from Deputy Chief Ferguson, a senior police administrator, about a large Indigenous collective making camp in a central park really drove home the wilful misrepresentation of who was in Ottawa, why they were there, and what they were up to. The message manipulation becomes more apparent when it turns out that so many diverse voices were present and eager to share their views and experience. Even when the newly-evolved mission statements of so many legacy outlets is to amplify such voices (and even when elders such as Noeline Villebrun and others took the mic on central stage and addressed the crowd) you still have to seek out alternative media or individuals’ social media posts to hear from them. Apparently, even in this time of Truth and Reconciliation it's still just too much to imagine that even Aboriginal people's may have a legitimate argument against sweeping government mandates or the denial of bodily autonomy. Wild.

SUPERINTENDENT ABRAMS

Later in the day and on the following day, Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Craig Abrams was questioned. Abrams was brought into Ottawa on January 24th. He had the position of Strategic Commander during the events in Ottawa and established an Emergency Operations Centre.

Abrams explained that on the 27th of January, prior to the convoy’s arrival, the intelligence roundtable (INTERSECT, which has representatives from local, provincial, and federal police and intelligence agencies) learned that the city was prepared to accept 3,000 vehicles. (He recalled that roughly 800 total came across the country and about 400 trucks ended up being the daily average for the bulk of the protest.) He said that he and his team were not concerned about that number of vehicles nor those vehicles parking downtown as the Ottawa police “had considerable experience policing major events.” As he testified, everyone knew the plan was that “vehicles would be parking on three of the four lanes on Wellington St., and that Freedom Convoy organizers had agreed to keep a single lane open.” And that the OPS “had identified streets to permit convoy vehicles to park on as well as overflow areas.”

Abrams confirmed that the convoy leadership was in communication with Ontario from the start. They coordinated about what routes to take to get to Ottawa, how best to enter the city and get to approved locations downtown, when and where. Abrams also explained that the arrival of the convoy went smoothly, that there was no damage, no criminality, no charges laid, and participants did exactly what they said they would do.

The inquiry was shown a photocopy of notes from a phone call Abrams had with a superintendent from the Windsor police department, advising them on the situation in Ottawa two weeks into the protest. Abrams was quoted as saying "Ottawa is just trucks on side streets – not affecting livelihoods." When asked about this evidence, Abrams stated that the bulk of the city appeared to him to be operating normally and that, just outside of the immediate protest zone, one would never know anything was happening. (This is, of course, strongly corroborated by many hours of uncut Ottawalks footage, which was streamed live on YouTube as events were unfolding and are archived there now...)

I don’t think a more counter-narrative admission could be presented. This coming from such a high-level authority, with access to all the information and intelligence as well as being on the ground, seemed radical. Abrams offered that he was talking to his OPP members and business owners throughout the event and and they offered the same. He said that “if you drove the 417 through Ottawa [the major east-west route bisecting The Glebe and Old Ottawa South from Chinatown and Centretown] or used any streets south of the 417, you’d never know what was happening in Ottawa. Ottawa seemed to be functioning as per normal outside of that core area.” The following day during cross-examination Abrams was asked about this point once again. He reiterated that “That was just my personal experience, in the times I had been able to do that drive. I’m sure there were days, due to traffic backups, that there was difficulty in some areas of the city. I’m just stating in general terms, from my own experience, I didn’t see a massive impact outside of that core area, traffic wise.”

Superintendent Abrams explained that he appointed someone to monitor the situation at the regional command centre in Ottawa and report back. On January 29th (at the start of the event) the officer reported chaos and lack of communication internally. Abrams says he was told that the Ottawa Police Service was already "clearly beyond their abilities." A February 2nd email with OPP leadership indicated he felt that there was significant confusion and a lack of communication within Ottawa's command structure. Abrams explained to the inquiry that there was critical confusion around chain-of-command. He also spelled out his feeling that neither intelligence nor police liaison teams (experts in de-escalation and negotiation and who were available on the ground) were being used to attempt to find a resolution or shorten the event.

More on his assessment of pervasive chaos and confusion, Abrams explained that, for example, he learned of a major police operation on television. He spoke of an official police press conference from Ottawa's top brass on February 4th. Watching, he was shocked to learn that, due to new intelligence, police would be closing down the highway. According to Superintendent Abrams, the person who would be responsible both for conducting the operation and providing said intel, this was totally out-of-the-blue and had no basis in reality. He said he immediately communicated with Deputy Chief Bell for clarification. He said his message demanded an immediate phone call due to the huge impacts on his team and his not being given any notice or even a timeline though the action seemed imminent. In response to his questions, Abrams was told by the OPS team “No, Craig, we’re not going to do this.” When he asked about the “new intelligence” he was told “‘Obviously, there’s no intelligence, Craig. You’re the ones, the OPP, that are providing us the intelligence.’”

Then we learned about the February 6th, Coventry Road incident. There, an Ontario Provincial Police negotiation team had been building a relationship with protesters and asked them, for safety reasons, to remove a stockpile of gasoline from their site at Coventry. When protesters did as asked, Ottawa Police Service members swooped in and arrested them for transporting fuel. Abrams suggested actions like this weren’t just chaotic but significantly undermined everything they were trying to accomplish.

Abrams expressed his concern, at that time, that the Ottawa Police Service wanted the OPP members under him to engage in a plan that was so ill-conceived that it was not even vetted by their subject area experts or their legal team. He offered the inquiry that he was seriously concerned that the people he was responsible for could be endangered by the Ottawa team. He shared his concern at the time that OPP members could be asked to conduct dangerous nighttime or unplanned arrests or even unlawful ones. When asked more about the Coventry Road incident, he explained that:

I had heard that our POU [Public Order Unit] had been engaged as part of this Coventry Road exercise. So I contacted Inspector Dave Springer to say, like, “What are we doing there?” He said, “We’re just here to protect PLT [Police Liaison Team]. We’re not engaged with the gasoline. We’re just making sure nobody gets hurt.”

And in our conversation, I had understood that even some of the Ottawa Police detectives were uncertain about their legal authorities to do what they were doing. Could they seize the trucks? Could they seize the gas? Could they lay the charges?

So I wanted to talk further with Supt. Patterson to say, “Where are you getting this authority? I’m assuming you’ve consulted the Crown Attorney. What has the Crown Attorney told you about this? What was the Crown Attorney told you about your authorities? Do you have a Crown opinion letter that I could have? Because until and if I see that letter, I’m not directing my OPP members to be engaged in this type of activity, until I can be certain that the Crown Attorney supports it.”

Once again, my role as strategic commander is to protect my people from– their physical safety, but also their civil liability. I don’t want them involved in illegal arrests. It’s a difficult thing to make the connection between gasoline and a criminal offence of mischief. So there may be a memo out there, which eventually there was, the Crown Attorney was able to explain that these types of offences, as long as you can articulate them correctly, can lead to charges. I had conversations with OPP senior command either the next day or two days later, once I got the letter. Once they saw it in that conversation, they said, “No, it’s okay. OPP members can participate in this type of activity.” So then I had to work my incident commanders to build a training package for my members to say, “Hey, here’s your authorities. Here’s how to approach it.” Even down to the basics about what do you do with the seized gas. You can’t throw it in the trunk of your car. Down to that level. But we had to create a system for our own members to understand and educate them.

With regard to the necessity of the Emergencies Act, Abrams confirmed that his officers were always free to act in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act and Criminal Code. He noted that, as always, OPP officers had the “ability to stop traffic, determine what they're doing, and the ability to turn them around and/or make arrests if they feel they have the reasonable grounds to do so.” Further, he affirmed that “they didn’t need the Emergencies Act” to engage with or arrest people involved in unlawful behaviour.

Counsel Eric Brousseau asked Abrams, as somebody with a unique vantage of the 'Freedom Convoy' and the preparations for their arrival, if he could provide the inquiry some strengths and weaknesses so that we might learn from this event. Abrams reiterated:

I thought the OPP role in the initial convoy arrival in Ottawa went very smooth. We had minor issues in our smaller communities with members not obeying the mask mandates, we had some restaurants who just chose to ignore the mandates altogether; but overall, we had no assaults, we had no criminality. I wasn’t aware of any charges being laid.

[Truckers] said what they would do, they kept to one lane, they entered the City of Ottawa in an orderly fashion. We had minor issues with supporters on the roadside on the 417 getting kind of dangerously close to the side of the highway, which was a concern, but that wasn’t the convoy – the convoy participants couldn't control that. They did what they said they would do, and they didn’t damage any highways and they didn’t cause any criminality. So from that perspective, from an OPP perspective, it was a success in getting them into the city of Ottawa. That was our mission, that was our goal for that period of time, to have the convoy come through OPP-policed areas without a blockage of a highway, without assaults or damage or injury to the public, and we were successful in all those areas.

He was asked about the negatives and responded that he’s not a highly-trained public order manager, that hindsight is always 20/20, and Monday morning quarterbacking all too easy and something he didn’t like participating in. Somewhat reluctantly, he offered that they may have been better able to divert traffic to better areas to lessen certain impacts. He noted that was what occurred during the convoy protest in Toronto, but with the caveat that “Toronto admitted they learned from the lessons of Ottawa and that’s why they blocked roads and were able to clear the Queen's Park area the way they did so effectively.”

Again, what are we witnessing here with this inquiry?