THE PM

We heard from many sources that the Emergencies Act needed to be invoked, in part, because authorities could not access the tow trucks and drivers essential to clearing the protest in Ottawa. The Act, they said, enabled them to compel drivers to assist. This was debunked from the very start of the inquiry. It was shown that law enforcement has the authority to act under local by-laws, the provincial Highway Traffic Act, and federal Criminal Code. Senior members of law enforcement also testified that, in fact, dozens of trucks and drivers were acquired by provincial police and even arrived in Ottawa prior to invocation. And then, as you might expect, every government official who was questioned on the matter was sent into a tizzy of denials when asked if they felt the government compelling citizens to act against their will – under an action that many, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, already considered to be an abuse of power – was a breach of the Charter rights of Canadians... So an element of the matter was put to the Prime Minister.

COUNSEL: Right. So one of the measures that you put in place through the emergency measures regulations was an ability to compel tow truck drivers to provide towing services; wasn’t it?

TRUDEAU: Yes, it was.

COUNSEL: So I would say it’s relatively important. Would you agree with that?

TRUDEAU: It was important in, yes, solving the emergency situation, yes.

COUNSEL: And so a discussion of tow trucks is relevant to this discussion we’re having right now?

TRUDEAU: Yes.

COUNSEL: Great. So you wanted to make sure that the relevant matters were visible to Canadians. Can I pull up POE.JCF.2, please? So this is a document, as it’s coming up, we’ve been having a bit of argument over the last little while about some redactions that were made in the documents disclosed by my friends for Canada [the lawyers defending the actions of government]. And there were some disputes about Parliamentary privilege and irrelevance. … I wonder if you could look at that first redaction on the original disclosure and see if you could see the reason for the redaction that’s highlighted in the black box there?

TRUDEAU: It appears to say "irrelevant"...

COUNSEL: Could you identify on the other side [on the unredacted page, which lawyers had been fighting for access to for weeks and only arrived moments before this cross-examination] what information was blacked out as "irrelevant" by your government?

TRUDEAU: ‘Americans offering tow trucks’

+ + +

The Prime Minister and other senior administrators repeatedly argued that transparency, within reason, is essential. To support that, they have stated that they are doing everything in their power to provide all relevant information and make themselves available, and note the fact that this Commission is taking place as the clearest sign of the accountability essential to our democracy. All of this is said alongside significant evidence over many weeks that lawyers have not had access to documents or time to consume them prior to key witnesses taking the stand, and even reports large, last-minute dumps of documents from the federal government being full of unjustified redactions.

COUNSEL: Prime Minister, this morning in your testimony, you addressed the policing plan that was prepared by the OPS, and I believe you stated, "We should read it, we should look at it, because it wasn't much of a plan." Is that fair?

TRUDEAU: That is my understanding of it, yeah.

COUNSEL: So, sir, I’d like to pull that plan up on the screen, please.

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: I object to that. … This is putting the Prime Minister in an odious position. We had no notice that they would attempt this in cross-examination. These things require careful consideration, do not lend themselves to decisions in the moment, and we maintain our objection.

COUNSEL: This was in our document list that we circulated within time to Counsel for the Attorney General. They had notice that we would be putting this document. And the question is a fair one in response to the Prime Minister's testimony this morning, that he said you should read it. … You said we should read the plan, but I think you would agree [that, because every useful page of the document has been entirely redacted,] we can't?

TRUDEAU: Indeed. I– as I said, I haven't read the plan, but we were in a situation where, as can be imagined, I have access to unredacted information, and what I know and my understanding of this plan was, and I'm happy to testify to that, that it was not a complete plan of engagement.

COUNSEL: And, Prime Minister, I think I would like to raise this again. And I'm looking to Mr. Gover [Counsel for the Government of Canada] in anticipation of his reaction. As you know, there's a legal opinion that over which solicitor/client privilege has been asserted. We asked Minister Lametti [the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada] to release that opinion. And in a public statement this week, he said he couldn't because he lacked the authority to. That would be up to his client. And he then clarified that his client is the Governor in Council [the Prime Minister].

So again for the record, sir, and this has been an issue for all week, not just this morning, would you advise that that opinion be released in the interest of transparency?

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: [OBJECTION]

COMMISSIONER ROULEAU: Okay. Well, I think you have a refusal by Counsel, so I think you're going to have to move on.

COUNSEL: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.

+ + +

The Prime Minister and others in government told this Commission and the public that the Act needed to be invoked because there was never any fulsome plan to clear protesters and law enforcement needed additional powers and tools. The Commission has heard testimony and been given evidence by all levels of law enforcement, most notably the Commissioner of the RCMP, that the assertion was inaccurate. So that was put to the Prime Minister.

COUNSEL: And we also heard that Superintendent Bernier from Ottawa Police Service took over as Event Commander on February 10th and established what he referred to as an Integrated Command Structure, which we heard described from him as including experts from subject matter areas, such as negotiations, public order, intelligence, et cetera. Were you aware of that?

TRUDEAU: That sounds reasonable, yes.

COUNSEL: Okay. And the experts involved in both the Integrated Planning Cell and the ultimate Integrated Command Structure included senior and specially trained officers from OPS, RCMP, OPP and other municipal police services. Would you agree with that?

TRUDEAU: Yes, I was aware of that.

COUNSEL: And as you indicated, you would, of course, leave it up to those experts to draft, review, and approve Operational Plans. Is that fair?

TRUDEAU: Yes.

COUNSEL: Okay. I'd like to bring up OPP1851, please. So let's just start with the title page. This is called "Integrated Mobilization Operational Plan". And if we could scroll down to page two. You can see at the top that the plan was written by the Integrated Planning Cell that has multiple services listed there, it's dated the 13th. And we see that there is sign-off here from Superintendent Phil Lue of the RCMP, Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy of the OPP, and Acting Superintendent Rob Bernier of the Ottawa Police Service. You see that?

TRUDEAU: (Inaudible response)

COUNSEL: Okay. And if you look at the bottom of the screenshot here, you can see that this is a 73-page document. You see that?

TRUDEAU: Okay.

COUNSEL: Okay. And so obviously, we don't have time, unfortunately, to fully digest this entire document, but is it fair to say that prior to the police operation on February 18th-20th, as well as prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, you had never seen this document?

TRUDEAU: No.

COUNSEL: Okay. And so you suggested multiple times in your evidence this morning that to your knowledge the Operational Plan that existed at the time of February 13th was "by no means an actual plan to actually end the protests in Ottawa." Is that a fair representation of your evidence?

TRUDEAU: That was my understanding, yes.

COUNSEL: Okay. And you also testified that it was not a plan that you or the RCMP had confidence in. Is that correct? At least that was your understanding.

TRUDEAU: If there wasn't a plan then–

COUNSEL: Well, I can tell you that the experts on the plan have testified, and they have testified that this was the plan that they were acting on on the weekend of February 18th when they completed the POU [Public Order Unit] operation. Would you have any reason to disagree with that?

TRUDEAU: I think evaluating various testimonies is the job of the Commissioner.

COUNSEL: Fair enough. And so to circle back to the comments you provided in relation to the readiness of police plans as of the 13th, I take it you would agree with me that perhaps there was a little bit more substance to the plans than you were aware of on the 13th?

TRUDEAU: I’m unable to speak to that.

COUNSEL: Okay. And we’ve heard evidence that the Ottawa Police were required to acquire approximately 2,200 additional police officers from across the country to support this plan and to successfully complete the POU operation that occurred on the weekend of February 18th. Would you have any reason to disagree with that?

TRUDEAU: I wasn’t aware– I wasn’t following that presentation of evidence, so I can’t comment on it.

COUNSEL: Fair enough. And you may have heard, or not, this was the largest POU operation in Canadian history? Were you aware?

TRUDEAU: That I was aware of.