YOUR DEFINITIVE SOCIAL SCIENCE EXAMINATION (OF TREMENDOUS SIGNIFICANCE AND PROPORTIONS)
EMERGENCIES ACT COMMISSION EDITION
This is a special test. It's a learner-centered knowledge assessment in which studying and marking occurs simultaneous with the taking of the test. It's like magic. You just choose the best answer, in your mind, and go on to the next question. Bon appétit!
SECTION ONE - THE ACT
The Emergencies Act (Loi sur les mesures d'urgence) was given royal assent:
A) By King Philip, the Prudent, in 1581
B) In 1881, by Queen Victoria
C) On July 21, 1988
D) "Actually, if you must know, the Act never even got royal assent. Like, read a history book, or something! Like, oh my gah!"
The Emergencies Act is a nation-level catastrophe prevention instrument.
A) It’s a government-sized axe you don’t just mount on the wall, safe and out of the way, but also have placed behind glass to prevent misuse and, of course, with the hope that no one ever has to use it
B) It is much like the protective goggles you have at work; the ones you hang on your shirt collar until something splashes you in the face, at which point you throw them on pretending a miracle has occurred depositing acid behind your eyewear. #WorkersComp
C) No different than the ubiquitous password protection systems which make it far easier to reset your password every time you need to log in than it is to remember the 357 fantastically long and unique passwords you have in your life
An instrument like the Emergencies Act is intended to be used:
A) Whenever any issue raises concern among enough of the benevolent actors and systems put in place within Canada, the oldest and wisest of all democracies
B) To resolve political grievances among cantankerous parliamentarians
C) During a national emergency
Any temporary measures enabled by the Emergencies Act are “subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…” These protected rights include but are not limited to:
A) Freedom of association, peaceful assembly, conscience, opinion and expression, and mobility
B) Well, as a matter of fact, given your status as a non-lawyer, a bunch of stuff you just aren’t privileged to know anything about
Section 63 (1) of the Emergencies Act states: “The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency.” The purpose of this mandated inquiry is to provide oversight and accountability. But accountability for what, to whom, and when?
A) That’s a really good question!
B) The purpose is to spell out the failure of government and law enforcement to prevent or mitigate a crisis
C) The inquiry will illuminate and propose measures to address the tragic consequences of media-induced government overreactions
D) The whole thing is about providing the illusion of accountability. Is there anything more than a report and some potential recommendations? Who will even be made to read the report? Is anything binding?
E) The purpose of the inquiry is not the inquiry itself or its findings but to act as a little birdy on the shoulder of people in government, causing them to pause a moment before pulling the trigger. (A function this government just nullified by establishing that not even such a Parliamentary inquiry can offer the public needed insight into government motivations and actions)
The Emergencies Act considers a “national emergency” to be an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature, which cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada, and 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
C) Involves a sufficiently large and clamorous number of citizens exhibiting the incivil temerity to voice disagreement with their superiors’ dictates outside of a ballot box, or
D) Achieves some unstated economic or political threshold not made explicit in the Act itself and only arrived at in secret by Cabinet and their lawyers (who, under oath before the very Commission required by the Act itself and convened to ascertain the justification for the invocation, will use solicitor-client privilege to ensure a perfect lack of transparency, will claim that having an inquiry is itself sufficient evidence of a robust democracy, and will assert that if the public doesn’t like it they can tell the government four years from now at the next election)
E) A and B
F) C and D
Rather than offering its own unique interpretation, the Emergencies Act derives its definition of possible “threats to the national security of Canada” from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act. Those potential threats include:
A) Espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage
B) Foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person
C) Activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state
D) Activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada
E) All of the above
The predecessor to the Emergencies Act was the War Measures Act. That older Act:
A) Was used during two world wars and in response to the leftist terror attacks, kidnappings, and killings
B) Permitted five years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine for saying something negative about the government
C) Saw the unemployed and the poor, Pacifist Mennonites and Jews, Communists, Socialists, and Fascists, as well as Eastern Europeans thrown in prison camps. The Act was so sweeping it even allowed for, and saw, the imprisonment of landlords who had tenants found with banned Socialist literature or doctors who treated avowed Communists
D) Convinced many Japanese Canadians that their government was little better than the Nazis
E) Yeah, all of that
F) Stop with your lies! It's all damn LIES!
When the War Measures Act was being renegotiated, the Working Paper that resulted in the Emergencies Act stated:
A) “Our intent is to broaden the scope of the Act such that any action or inaction could fall within its purview, enabling the executive to crush any form of dissent, like sewer cockroaches under a shovel *Ka-pag!*”
B) These revisions will ensure that the Act “will not again be invoked during peacetime unless there is ample evidence of an urgent threat of a serious insurrection akin to a coup d'etat”
C) Just page after page of: “Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat”
After the rewriting of the Act, legal scholars poured over the document. Some responded by publishing papers in law journals pointing out all the many ways that the powers deemed too broad in the War Measures Act were now, under the Emergencies Act:
A) “Significantly curtailed and in better accord with the public’s modern sensibilities”
B) Far broader still, in fact “four times the War Measures Act.” They warned that the Act could now be used for any purpose at any time, pointing to how any Canadian citizen found supporting South Africa’s ANC and their attempts to end apartheid would be, according to the new Emergencies Act, a “threat to the security of Canada”
C) None of the above
Within section two of the CSIS Act, which is used to define “threats to the national security of Canada”, very deliberately there are no mentions of the terms:
A) Financial, economic, trade, currency, or money
B) Poutine, beavertail, caesar, or double-double
C) Pandemic, coronavirus, quarantine, or vaccine
D) Gaslight, perpetuate, microaggression, or literally
E) All of the above
The Emergencies Act states that invocation may only occur if a situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
A) True
B) Turé
C) Teru
Canada’s run-of-the-mill, day-to-day, non-emergency Criminal Code covers serious acts such as:
A) Unlawful assembly and riot
B) Treason, sedition, and sabotage
C) Kidnapping and murder, as well as any attempt at either
D) All of the above
E) None of the above
The city of Ottawa’s by-laws cover minor infractions such as:
A) Nuclear holocaust, germ warfare, alien invasion
B) Mean tweets, phishing scams, dick pics, and spam
C) Burnt toast, weak coffee, soggy cereal
D) Parking and traffic, street care, and noise
Our Liberal government, bless their souls, sought to invoke the Emergencies Act back in 2020:
A) Of course they did. But what the hell for?!
B) That’s Green Party misinformation – and you blindly ate it up and regurgitated it. Nice job
C) The above is an example of Conservative disinformation, traced by intrepid investigative reporters from CTV to a Russian troll farm operating at the direction of oligarch Leonard Blavatnik
D) What is the Emergencies Act?
When in 2020 Trudeau put forward his proposal to put himself and his Cabinet in charge of all jurisdictions in Canada and with sweeping new powers (for our health, safety, pleasure, and benefit):
B) He shaved off his whole beard and moustache except for a little patch immediately below his nose
C) The premiers respectfully declined his generous offer by stating, unanimously and in writing, that doing so was “neither necessary nor advisable”
D) He did so in text, signing off with his ‘90s hip-hop persona “JT (aka DJ Tru-dat, aka Pri’Mizzl of Just-us ‘n’ Tru-thizzl”)
SECTION TWO - THE CONVOY TIMELINE
The Public Health Agency of Canada announced new border measures requiring Canadian commercial truckers entering Canada to be vaccinated if they wished to avoid quarantine requirements. The new rules were:
A) Announced the day vaccines began being administered, in December of 2020 and the new border restrictions came into effect soon after, in March of 2021. So by the time truckers were protesting in Ottawa, they’d had nearly a year to get a shot and had technically been breaking the law that whole time
B) Shared with the public on Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam’s TikTok on Jan 1st 2021. (You’ll remember, Tam partnered with Tim Hortons and the Terry Fox Foundation to produce a series of cute clips featuring Justin Bieber (in a furry suit), the now-disgraced Julie Payette, and a three-legged dog named Ralph)
C) Announced on November 19, 2021 and set to be imposed in early January of 2022
On Dec 10th, 2021 the president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, Stephen Laskowski, sent a letter:
A) To the prime minister and federal ministers of finance, labour, health, agriculture, transport, infrastructure, international trade, and public services
B) He shared the Alliance’s concerns that the sudden changes to cross-border trucking could cost 30,000 essential workers, severely imperil our already fragile supply chains, and hurt almost sector we rely upon to keep civilization running
C) Reporting a 40% vaccination rate among drivers in key sectors such as agriculture, agri-food, livestock and those servicing rural and remote communities, who “would face unimaginable stress”
D) All of the above
E) None of the above. Representing a band of domestic terrorists, Laskowski actually sent each of the above ministers a Christmas gift of an explosive flower basket containing carefully crafted artisanal house blend of anthrax and turkey poop
On Jan 13th, 2022 an Alberta trucker hosted a Facebook Livestream. In it:
A) The first plans for a trucker convoy to Ottawa were discussed. On the same day the first mention of “Freedom Convoy” magically appeared in an intelligence report disseminated to law enforcement across the country, including the Ottawa Police Service
B) Plans were made to obstruct and demolish critical infrastructure (including airports, dockyards, power plants, hospitals, coffee roasters, and the distributed server cluster housing PornHub) using stolen Tar Sands industrial equipment and tears from the children of anti-vaxxers (who don't want to be injected with Bill Gates' mind-control bots)
C) They organized to crowdfund Dogecoin for the purchase of long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea and explosives from an entity they referred to as “Diagalon.” There was also a WhatsApp message thread about trips being made to meet with warlords in the Somali capital of Mogadishu
On Jan 14th, 2022, convoy organizer Tamara Lich:
A) Bought a journal from Chapters and started writing in it with her favourite green pen
B) Enlisted in an urban warfare training camp for Western separatists just outside of Fort McMurray, Alberta. (Unbeknownst to her it was an intelligence operation established by federal counter-terrorism agents)
C) Started a now-famous GoFundMe campaign, the stated purpose of which was “to help with the costs of fuel, food, and lodgings” of convoy participants
Donations to the convoy’s GoFundMe:
A) Were used mostly to counter the GameStop short squeeze and bury pernicious hedge funds
B) Enabled the purchase of Botticelli’s “The Man of Sorrows” from Sotheby’s. The truckers then gifted the renaissance masterpiece to Extinction Rebellion activists who invited reporters to document as they hot glued their anuses to the painting before dousing themselves in Campbell’s cream of mushroom soup. #TheSoupThatEatsLikeAMeal
C) Arrived with such volume and speed that within hours GoFundMe was alerted to the campaign. Soon organizers established that any excess funds would be donated to a veterans charity. GoFundMe also had Lich sign a Letter of Attestation, agreeing that all funds would be held “as a fiduciary for the ultimate benefit of the Convoy Participants and any charitable organizations chosen to receive any remaining funds.” Along with that, the convoy established corporation with a board and a five-person Finance Committee (including a secretary, two bookkeepers, and a First Nations advisor), as well as convoy Road Captains, participant registration forms, and plans for fuel receipt collection
On Jan 15th, 2022 the new border restrictions with vaccination mandates for commercial truckers came into effect.
A) True
B) False
On Jan 22nd, 2022 convoy participants:
A) Organized satanic rituals to rid their trucks of non-evil spirits
B) From Detroit, Chicago, and Boston began fundraising to support the convoy and organize their own shutdown of the Canada-US border at critical crossings
C) From BC started to leave for Ottawa
On Jan 27th, 2022, Justin Trudeau went on television, declaring Canadians:
A) “Are bad little boys and girls and should be expecting a visit from Krampus this year, not Santa”
B) Are to “be leery of silence; it doesn't mean you won the argument, oftentimes people are just busy reloading their guns”
C) “Are not represented by this very troubling, small but very vocal minority of Canadians who are lashing out at science, and government, at society, at mandates and public health advice.” (We only learned during the Commission that the protest was tremendously popular and that, long before truckers arrived in the city the PMO staff formalized a strategy to discredit the convoy as a dangerous minority. Trudeau parroted the bullet points from PMO emails in this speech...)
The same day, Jan 27th, convoy participants and their supporters:
A) Reported being contacted by the ghost of JFK’s nanny, who high-fived everyone and told them their destiny was in Ottawa
B) In coordination with Chinese, Russian, and Iranian agents, launched their actions to exacerbate the Canadian pandemic and domestic economic turmoil
C) Began departing Nova Scotia and making their way to the nation’s capital
On Jan 28th, 2022:
A) Protesters began arriving in Ottawa
B) Pro-testing COVID wimps began demanding free PCR testing. #ItsJustTheFlu
C) Protestants first perceived errors, discrepancies, and abuses within the Catholic Church
By Feb 1st, 2022 the convoy's crowdfunding had accumulated more than $10 million (we later learned 89% of which came from Canadian sources, so not "foreign backed") and GoFundMe released $1 million to convoy organizers. The following day:
A) GoFundMe paused the campaign
B) GoFugYourself, the fashion-related comedy blog, mysteriously deleted their feature on Canada's Minister of Justice David Lametti’s fabulous tie collection
C) As so often happens nowadays, GoPunMe (the fictional AI tool that turns any image into an unreasonably elaborate play-on-words) was shut down in real life and the creator arrested. After his trial and conviction, Doug (the generator of a fictional AI), was sentence to prison. There he received a letter from his ailing mother. The letter read, “Dear Douglas, In your absence, my dear boy, I will be unable to plant my prized vegetable garden for the first time in 37 years. Too old and frail, I simply cannot do all of the digging on my own. Yours parsnipslessly, Mother.” Doug responded, “Dearest Mother, As it turns out, you are right to not dig up the garden this season as I’ve hidden my encryption ciphers somewhere deep in your vegetable beds. Please, just be patient until my release. Then you will have your parsnips and I the world. Yours lovingly, Douglas” The following morning the police showed up at Doug’s mother’s house with shovels. Later in the week a letter arrived in the mail. “Dearest Mother, You’re welcome. Douglas”
On Feb 4th, 2022:
A) After seeking firsthand accounts by speaking with the mayor of Ottawa (who highlighted his concerns about property damage and violence) and Ottawa Police Service Deputy Chief Bell (who noted an escalating situation and the opening of investigations around violence), GoFundMe ended the fundraising campaign and refunded all donations [ you'll want to keep these details in mind: evidence of property damage and violence ]
B) After communicating its decision, GoFundMe learned the action was being broadly misunderstood and misreported, with suggestions of fraud and misappropriation of donor funds
C) Lich responded by expressing that demonstrators were in Ottawa "for the love of our families, our communities, and our nation", that she was offended by the portrayal of herself and other participants as racists, misogynists, and terrorists and countered by offering that these "average peace-loving and law-abiding citizens from all walks of life are fed up with being disrespected and bullied by our government"
D) All of the above
E) None of the above
In response to all of this, protests broke out:
A) Literally nowhere; there was never any sympathy for anyone with any grievance against the federal government. (And that’s no surprise given that there is no precedent for such anywhere in Canada at any time in our short history)
B) Into a dance competition, leading to a full-blown dance frenzy across the city of Ottawa, one reminiscent of the Strasbourg Dancing Plague of 1518
C) All over the country, including gatherings of many thousands in cities all across Quebec and Ontario, in Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and Victoria. (Oh, and around the world from France to Australia)
On Feb 6th, 2022 CBC brought in an expert, Dr. Michael Kempa, a criminology professor from the University of Ottawa. He shared his learned, evidence-based perspective that:
A) This was not a protest but a disorganized gathering of dangerous radicals unconcerned with vaccine mandates; an anti-democratic insurrection, now deeply embedded, seeking to replace our elected officials, by force if necessary, with a far-right authoritarian regime – and that it was totally appropriate to call in the military to deal with them
B) “This was not a poo test but a gathering of undescended testicles”
C) None of the above
On Feb 7th, 2022 NDP leader Jagmeet Singh held a news conference to explain to Canadians that:
A) “It is clear that this is not a protest; this is an act to try to overthrow the government, and it is getting funded by foreign interference…”
B) “It's clear: if there is no good reason for enviousness, the denominator of the fraction of happiness is brought to zero and the fraction is transformed into a glorious infinity”
C) “If it's clear and yella', you've got juice there, fella. If it's tangy and brown, you're in cider town. Now, there's two exceptions and it gets kinda tricky here: it can be yellow, if they're using late season apples; and, of course, in Canada, the whole thing's flip-flopped”
Also on Feb 7th, Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board, Diane Deans, reported to Canadians that:
A) “There was no sense that these people were coming to occupy the nation’s capital and had no intention to leave.” She added, “there was a negotiation and an expectation that they would be heading out on Sunday night [of the first weekend]”
B) Citizens of Ottawa cannot “go to work or open their businesses, they cannot sleep, walk, shop, go to medical appointments…”
C) Truckers and other protesters were not citizens but actually mercenaries engaged in “the most boorish and ugly, hateful behaviour that one could ever expect”
D) What became clear to her was that this was not a protest or even anything directed at the city of Ottawa but “an insurrection, an attack on democracy, an attack on our federal government [with] a lot of international elements to it…”
E) All of the above
On Feb 10th, 2022 Ontario’s attorney general:
A) Was out at his cottage and took a nap in the sun with his toothless, 21-year-old Maine Coon named Lunch-Bucket
B) Had her nephew open a series of overseas numbered companies through which to launder billions in proceeds from real estate-related fraud
C) Blocked other convoy fundraising operations
On Feb 11th, 2022 Trudeau had a phone call with President Biden. Ontario also declared:
A) A state of emergency
B) That it too wanted to chat with Joe
C) February 31st a provincial day of mourning for the Terry Fox statue in Ottawa having been briefly draped in a Canadian flag and with a hat displaying the Canadian hockey team logo placed on its head
On Feb 14th, 2022 a national public order emergency was declared under the Emergencies Act for the first time in its history.
A) True
B) False
On Feb 21st, 2022 a motion to confirm the declaration of a public order emergency was tabled in the Senate.
A) Yes
B) No
On Feb 22nd, 2022 Senate:
A) Prepared to consider the motion to confirm or reject the declaration of a public order emergency
B) Organized committees for next year’s Christmas party
C) Went on holiday
Feb 23rd, 2022 the national emergency declaration was lifted, the motion in the Senate withdrawn before consideration, and the provincial state of emergency was dropped.
A) True
B) False
BONUS QUESTIONS
At no time before or after the invocation of the Emergencies Act did anyone attending the protest in Ottawa receive:
A) A hug from a guy in a “FREE HUGS” t-shirt
B) A copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from a protester
C) Free coffee, hot chocolate, fresh fruit, and hotdogs
D) A charge of unlawful assembly (the threshold for which is "to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that the assembly will disturb the peace tumultuously")
Since the convoy left Ottawa, Wellington Street (the street in front of Parliament whose slight reduction in traffic by protesters for three weeks was said to be devastating and had seemingly every pundit and politician in the country enraged) has:
A) Remained free and clear, thank goodness
B) Unlike during the protest, been fully closed to all traffic – and for ten months now
C) Been renamed “Freeze Peach Landesstraße”
Cross-border vaccine mandates for truckers:
A) Remain in place today and have been in place since the winter of 2020
B) Are only in place for truckers from Alberta and any that honked a horn in Ottawa in January or February of 2022
C) Were lifted even before the Emergencies Act Commission heard from its first witness, after being in place for mere months out of this years-long pandemic. It’s almost like there was no point and it did far more harm than good, just as the Trucking Alliance had cautioned
SECTION THREE - COMMISSION TESTIMONY
PRIVATE CITIZENS OF OTTAWA
There are about one million residents of Ottawa. Roughly 20,000 of them live in apartments downtown, within blocks of the Parliament. How many of those residents do you think came forward on their own volition to share their experience with the Emergencies Act Commission and were then brought in to testify?
A) None
B) 33
C) 416
D) 1,007
E) 21,855 (...the entire region was terrorized for a whole month!)
Of the Ottawa residents sought out and brought before the Commission, how many were not current or retired employees of the Government of Canada?
A) 11
B) 1
C) None (*wink* *nudge*)
D) 2
E) 22
Of the lawyers who worked for the Government of Canada for 25 years or more and who testified (most erroneously, I must say) as independent private citizens before the Commission, how many currently run companies accepting federal government contracts (and whose LinkedIn profiles explain their mandate as being to “provide services that lighten the heavy loads on governments and business”)?
A) All (Where do we live, in Turkmenistan? FFS!)
B) Half
C) Three sevenths
D) Six thirty-ninths and some change
About her experience during the protest, the above government lawyer and Ottawa resident testified that:
A) “[She] partied like it was 1999”
B) She couldn’t believe all the work she was going to have
C) The long-term effects she has experienced resulting from the convoy have included: a loss of balance (even today a “vertigo triggered by the sound of any horn … and certain music”); a brutal physical response (“both my throat and lungs start to feel infected”) at any whiff of gas; and hearing loss (there was no mitigating action of any kind she could take and nowhere in her apartment to go even to lower the excruciating decibel levels, and she couldn’t leave town either, so she was forced to accept this permanent disability)
When the only other resident witness, a salaried Government of Canada employee, was asked during cross-examination what federal ministry she works for:
A) She offered, under oath, “I’m not sure”
B) “I’m not telling and you can’t make me,” she snapped
C) She responded, “Natural Resources”
D) She barked, “the Ministry of Go F*ck Yourself!”
E) None of the above
F) The answer is 'A' (Aren't you glad we don't live in one of those backward countries whose governments are maintained only on absurd conspiracy and corruption?)
When asked what department or agency she worked for:
A) One of the lawyers for the Commission, not her own, blurted “Objection! What’s the relevance of this line of questioning, Commissioner?”
B) She stated, “Well, I personally don’t feel there– 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”
C) She reluctantly explained that she worked for Shared Services Canada, the agency responsible for all of government’s information technology
D) All of the above. (For real, I kid you not)
Both witnesses were primarily concerned about the noise during the three-week-long insurrectionist siege of downtown Ottawa. This federal government IT specialist testified that she:
A) Took many decibel readings over that time using two different apps on her phone
B) Could not recall the names of the apps either in her written statement or while questioned under oath, and couldn’t pull them up on her phone either
C) Didn’t take a single screenshot of the many readings she took and, thus, offered no evidence of her own with the Commission
D) Wasn’t actually sure what the decibel readings were but said that, if her memory served, she believed they “ranged from approximately 75dB to at times 85 or 90dB”
E) All of the above. (Yup. That happened)
This same witness testified that, as a “small Asian woman”, she was so terrified of being harassed by the militant Fascist insurrection unfolding outside (one she described on the record as being Purge-like – as in The Purge, the dystopian horror film series set in a civilization in which on one day every year murder is permitted) that she was “unable to leave home except when it could not be avoided.” In cross-examination she also testified:
A) “I was never deterred from going outside … I thought it was really important for me to walk the streets and experience things first hand. So I did. I did that almost every day, and I took pictures, and I took videos, and I remembered what I saw. And I spoke with people”
B) “At no point did I step outside. I never had to. I’m a government office worker who was working from home”
C) “Don't push me cause I'm close to the edge. I'm trying not to lose my head. It's like a jungle. Sometimes it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under”
The witness was asked if (with her weeks exhaustively documenting all the activities at the epicentre of the occupation of downtown Ottawa by barbarous thugs engaged in “the most boorish and ugly, hateful behaviour that one could ever expect” and attempting to overthrow the government by force) she observed any: espionage or sedition; sabotage, arson, or property damage; assaults, murders, or threats of such. She testified:
A) That she did not witnessed anything
B) “Murder and arson, but mostly murder. Like I said, it was Purge-like, a free-for-all, daily executions on every block. The streets ran with blood for weeks while the police looked on”
C) “As tools of the patriarchy, facts and evidence support the Fascist agenda not peace and justice”
This witness was asked about a video captured of her yelling, “Go back to where the fuck you’re from!” When asked if it was her using the artful rhetoric of anti-immigrant bigots against her fellow Canadians, the witness responded:
A) “I may have said that”
B) “You lawmen can’t pin nothin’ on me, I’m innocent. I’m innocent, I tells ya!”
C) With a little handwritten note that read:
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name
In passing, during her testimony this downtown Ottawa resident also mentioned “the egg-throwing.” Commission counsel caught that and asked, “sorry, can you describe what you mean by ‘the egg-throwing’?” Her response was:
A) “Revenge is a greasy cheese and mushroom omelette best served from on high!”
B) “Pots of water seemed too simple and cheap, you know? Like, given we were still in a pandemic, still facing restrictions and supply chain issues and couldn’t go out for food and such, we wanted to show them we were serious. Every time they honked a horn, we– I mean, someone threw an egg”
C) “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?”
OTTAWA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS
The Commission heard from not one but two representatives from local BIAs. They testified that:
A) “Businesses were completely crippled”
B) There were no clients in stores
C) There was no Uber Eats and food couldn’t get through
D) All of the above
E) None of the above
During the most tepid cross-examination (like asking for times, dates, names, and whether what they were offering was first-hand or a rumour on Facebook) the pair was forced to admit that:
A) The city and province had pandemic-related closures, restrictions, and mandates in place when the convoy arrived, and had for some time, so the convoy changed little
B) Stores like Canadian Tire sold out of many goods, including Canadian flags, after the convoy arrived
C) The local Hotel Association reported the city’s accommodations were filled with bookings of a month and longer and businesses that remained open did quite well due to a dramatic increase in foot traffic
D) They didn’t use Uber Eats themselves and didn't verify any information (they only heard rumours that they were offering as direct and substantive evidence of a crime to a national emergency inquiry) and were also unaware that protesters were happily getting food delivered; however they also did witness protesters setting up catering tables and offering free food and drinks to everyone who walked by
E) All of the above
These members of the Ottawa business community spoke of the terrible financial hit the whole of the local economy took as a result of the Trucker Convoy. CBC and other major media outlets cited a class-action affidavit estimating up to $207 million in lost sales and wages. Even before the convoy left town, provincial and federal governments created a $30 million compensation pool. Of that sum:
A) No funds remain and businesses are now seeking another $177 million #MoMoney
B) Just $8.6 million has been collected, even after extending application deadlines. ($8.6 million is quite different from $207 million and compensation did not require demonstration of real losses)
C) That didn't happen. Why are you lying?
One of the above witnesses submitted two TikTok videos into evidence. One was taken during the day and the other in the evening, both from the epicentre of the convoy hub situated at the stadium parking lot. These videos show:
A) Her daughter blowing bubbles in her soup. Ooops!
B) All manner of debauchery accompanied by the unrelenting blasts from hundreds of truck horns and other noisemakers
C) Police in riot gear tear gassing, clubbing, and cuffing protesters after discovering a cache of weapons and explosives, bricks of heroin and piles of cash
D) A scene quieter and more orderly than your local farmer’s market, with not a hint of a single horn blast in either clip, despite rampant testimony that “the noise was unrelenting” “day and night” and in the 90dB range
OTTAWA CITY COUNCIL
In their written interview summary for the Commission, Ottawa City Councillors Fleury and McKenney stated 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.
A) False
B) True
C) Neither false nor true
At the start of the maniacal foreign-backed occupation, McKenney authored a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau and the Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki. It began, “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 then requested the federal government and RCMP to assume control of the situation and the city.
A) True
B) False
C) Neither true nor false
Of all the serious crimes and credible threats that both Councillors experienced personally and were unfortunate to have witnessed in their community, the most common were:
A) Espionage, sabotage, and sedition
B) Property damage and destruction
C) Physical and sexual assault
D) Murder or attempted murder
E) None; neither experienced or witnessed anything of the sort at any time
We should do nothing to encourage folks who call for the fullest application of state powers because they don’t like what they see or hear or because they report feeling uncomfortable walking through certain neighbourhoods.
A) Obviously
B) No, to the contrary, subjectivity is everything and one perceiving a threat, or just being able to frame anyone or anything at any time as such, is indistinguishable from being curb stomped by a neoNazi thug. #MyExperience
C) I really don’t know
A noise complaint, of any volume or duration and restricted to a single neighbourhood, falls below the threshold of a national emergency (one tantamount to engagement in a world war between superpowers or a years-long terror campaign by separatists seeking to usher in a Marxist revolution by exploding more than 200 bombs and compelled by the benevolent conviction that "decolonization is always bloody." #GetCrackin)
A) That’s fair
B) That’s not true, not true at all. And you weren’t there!
C) It’s complicated
Having testified to observing no serious violence or threats of violence during the whole three-week-long ordeal, the Councillors were asked what disturbances they did observe that were so serious that federal agencies needed to be called upon and the Act invoked. Councillor Fleury replied:
A) “I describe them as microaggression, because they– you know, it wasn’t punching in the face, but it was all these microaggressions in transit, walking to businesses, childcare, homeless shelters”
B) “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”
C) “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…”
D) All of the above
E) None of the above
Taken aback when hearing about “weapons,” counsel for the Commission inquired further, asking Fleury, “You used the term 'weapons' when describing the trucks … Did you observe any kind of unsafe use of the trucks?” His response was:
A) “Sure. I was describing earlier the ByWard Market, where on weekends there would be this surge of folks. … The rules of parking were not followed. People would park in any direction, would park on sidewalks”
B) “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)”
C) “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 shown in videos. … So that’s the description of the weapon: it’s that that truck took space on the road”
D) All of the above
E) None of the above
In cross-examination, Fleury was asked if there were local parking by-laws, and laws at every level of jurisdiction, allowing law enforcement to act upon the kinds of violations he witnessed.
A) Fleury vehemently disagreed
B) He agreed that there were, and that there were also police on the ground in large numbers
C) He pretended to be offended by the question and refused to answer
D) Fleury said that he could not answer the question in English, but also refused to answer in French
Another cross-examiner wanted to know more about microaggressions and how those led to reports of “unprecedented violence” to the federal government and federal police commissioner (helping to precipitate a national emergency.) Fleury was asked if he was going by the dictionary definition, of “verbal and environmental slights”, or something different. His response was to:
A) Look as though he’d had his good name besmirched. (Had this been the seventeenth century, he rightfully would have sought to repair his honour by challenging the offending lawyer to a duel with poison tipped rapiers)
B) Transition from what had been near-perfect, accent-free English into his native French; then to state that as a non-native English speaker he could not possibly elucidate a response of the complexity and nuance required by the question and this Commission – and that if counsel wished to ask his question in French he may, perhaps, be able to abide
C) State in English that:
I am doing my very best to answer clear questions in English. You asked me a very specific question on a definition; I’m saying ask me– clarify in French, and I’m glad to specify “yes” or “no”. On the specificity of the nuance of a word, I’m uncomfortable in responding to your question in English
D) All of the above (I kid you not)
In response, Fleury was asked which of the three words put to him in English (verbal, environmental, or slights) he needed Commission translators to interpret and put to him in his mother tongue. He responded by:
A) Ignoring the question entirely
B) Delivering a long rant in French, while being coached by the witness next to him, that failed to include a definition but did mentioned “battre un sans-abri” (the beating of homeless person)
C) Repeating the dictionary definition given to him earlier
D) Standing upon his chair, pulling down his pants, squatting over the desk and depositing before the inquiry his own rendition of that Halloween classic: the Oh Henry! bar
E) A and B
F) C and D
Counsel asked Fleury: if he considered a violent assault against an unhoused citizen a “microaggression”; whether he personally witnessed any assaults; if he could provide the Commission with the names of any persons harmed at any time during the protest in Ottawa, and if he knew of any charges laid in any such cases.
A) Fleury defined terms, described the many assaults he saw, submitted a list of victims’ names, couldn’t recall all of the charges laid but informed Commission counsel of where they could find that information, and was generally a tremendous help to everyone
B) Fleury transitioned from French to the Western Ibero-Romance language of Galician and started reciting ancient poetry while plucking discordantly on a lute he’d been hiding under his coat
C) Fleury refused to answer the question and demanded to see his mommy
D) Fleury testified once again that he witnessed nothing, could offer no additional information for the Commission, and was generally clueless
Parking- or protest-related microaggressions, by any definition and of any volume, cannot possibly be interpreted as a coup d'etat.
A) Given the centrality of the automobile within the North American lifestyle, how can you see mass parking infractions as anything less than a crime against humanity? What kind of barbarian are you?
B) Wrong. These are so serious. Surely you understand that everything is always the slipperiest of slopes and can snowball into genocide or even global mass extinction without effort. It all begins with a negative thought. #शांति
C) The only reason one would make such an argument is if they were in league with this militant insurrection
D) Fair
Later in the inquiry, due to the constant accusations but total lack of evidence, counsel for the convoy organizers demanded the Commission bring forth any witness they could find who was victim of any serious crime or observed anything of the sort and also any person seen carrying any hateful symbols:
A) Despite having names, photographs, and video in evidence, the Commission and all lawyers representing the City of Ottawa and Government of Canada refused to bring anyone forward
B) And did they ever! Oh man! The victims were lined up down the street. This easily added a full 200 hours to the Commission
PROVINCIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE BUREAU
Superintendent Morris is the Commander overseeing Ontario’s Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau (POIB), with 270 members engaged in intelligence gathering and reporting, covert operations, protective services, anti-terrorism (including a hate crime and extremism unit), and an integrated national security enforcement team.
A) Fact
B) True fact
C) False
D) Super false
Morris testified that information-gathering from all levels of law enforcement and intelligence allowed them to provide detailed reports to all relevant authorities. Via “Project Hendon”, these biweekly intelligence assessments went out to dozens of law enforcement departments across the country, including hundreds of key individuals.
A) No way, bro
B) Sure. Fine
C) Do you have any evidence of this? Has there been a peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trial?
Morris explained how “the narrative was that people who felt a certain way were a small number of people, ‘the fringe’ so to speak.” He testified that all the information gathered by law enforcement, through overt and covert means, told them:
A) “This was an accurate assessment and portrayal meant to keep the public informed”
B) That there was no sense whatsoever to be made of the random chaos of the universe
C) That this couldn’t have been more off-base. The Hendon reports noted uncommonly rapid and unprecedented sums being donated, hundreds of thousands of Canadians (more than 10% of the population) joining affinity groups online, along with throngs lining highways and overpasses in the dead of winter and waving Canadian flags from British Columbia to the Maritimes and everywhere in between. “We definitely felt there was widespread support”, said Morris
In his written statement and verbal testimony, Morris explained that the intelligence assessment of the convoy protest was that:
A) “This was nothing more than a few unvaccinated truckers, libertarian types who are fiercely independent and like to be difficult. Being suddenly unemployed by their own stupidity, this handful of ne'er-do-wells had nothing better to do than to drive to Ottawa”
B) “There was not a single, large all-encompassing movement; rather, there were many entities, movements, associations: from church groups to ideological components to people whose employment was impacted”
C) “There were too many bouncy castles and saunas for this to be a serious protest movement with legitimate grievances”
On the potential for violence coming from the convoy:
A) Law enforcement was far less concerned about protesters than the likelihood that this gathering, as with any large event, could draw an attack from “an independent asymmetric threat” (aka a lone wolf)
B) The RCMP stationed snipers on rooftops throughout the city in an unprecedented operation. Their mission: to spot, track, and potentially take out the convoy leadership, known to include international terrorists, arms dealers, and human traffickers
C) Due to recent cut-backs, law enforcement and intelligence did not conduct conventional surveillance and instead relied upon their crack team of volunteers who followed the social media outputs of convoy participants, waiting from a safe distance for evidence of criminal activity (and/or thought crimes)
At the time of the convoy protest (and still today) Morris has continually asserted:
A) That no chicken ever crossed any road
B) “My palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy. There's vomit on my sweater already: mom's spaghetti”
C) That there was never a hardened group of extremists intending to harm government, the people of Ottawa, or local business
The Commission saw an email from Superintendent Morris to his superiors, dated February 2nd. The communication was about being inundated by requests for surveillance and to use all the powers of the state against citizens. He wrote that:
A) “There appears to be an incredibly heightened appetite for any/all information on entities that cause discomfort to the status quo...”
B) The requests arrived from inappropriate sources, expressed unreasonable urgency, and lacked any legitimate justification (highlighted individuals were not engaged in criminal activity nor were there reasonable grounds to believe they would become so.) As such, Morris felt these requests were both legally and ethically indefensible
C) “Just yesterday, this occurred with input from a regional health office through multiple levels of government about an activity that was not occurring”
D) “Often, in times of social turmoil, anxiety breeds fear and demands for information. I am reminded, and cognizant, of the mass demand for information on ‘terrorists’ that succeeded 9/11 (resulting in the O’Connor Commission; and the McDonald Commission in relation to the RCMP Security Service over-zealousness that resulted in the creation of CSIS.)”
E) All of the above and more
Morris was asked if there was any information at any time from any law enforcement or intelligence agency about any form of “foreign influenced activities” involving a threat to any person. He asserted that:
A) There was not
B) One could never know such things. “How many archangels on the prick of a pin? How many macrame tea cozies circling Uranus?”
C) “So many threats. Too many. We had to call upon US, UK, Australian, and New Zealand intelligence for assistance.” #FiveEyes
Given its broad popularity and support, and general grievances toward government over pandemic policy being so universal, Project Hendon asserted that the protests in Ottawa could:
A) “[D]evelop into a national civil disobedience movement”
B) “[R]esult in Nintendo becoming an unstoppable social and political force by learning from the convoy how to weaponize and gamify grievance using their Pokemon Go platform
C) “[C]ause the mass resignation of doctors and nurses. Of particular concern: anesthesiologists, who would be most likely to take up careers in cross-border trucking or supply-chain logistics”
The Commission was shown an email from February 8th 2022 (Trudeau invoked the Act on the 14th), between Superintendent Morris and a group of inspectors. The email discusses protests popping up in locations other than Ottawa and whether or not there was a threat to national security developing. The email reads, in part:
A) “Dear beloved Sir, My name is Dr. Makare Batundabodo, I am corresponding with you at this time with the regards too the IMF (International Monetary Funds) relinquishing upon you of $900,000,000 (American) into your checkings account…”
B) “I agree with the potential for [threats to] officer safety and public safety but INSET [the Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams] and CSIS concur … there are no national security concerns. Confirmed today”
C) “The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour. Why is this?”
D) “Christopher Wallace, known professionally as the Notorious B.I.G., was gunned down in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles, California in the early hours of March 9, 1997. The woman who pulled the trigger can be clearly seen in this photograph. (See attached)”
Morris noted that government may have felt there was “potential concern, in terms of sovereignty in our border crossings, and our economic integrity, in terms of trade and ‘national security’ in that regard. It might also have to do with analytical assessments of threat to reputation by virtue of coverage in the international media…” Though acknowledging such considerations and potentials existed, Morris was adamant when he offered that:
A) “There was no need for government lawyers to engage in an secretive and ad hoc rewriting of existing laws”
B) “I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love. Tell me you have no need for diamond rings. Tell me that you want the kind of things that money just can't buy. I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love”
C) At no time was there any credible intelligence supporting the existence of a threat of the sort required to invoke the Emergencies Act
On February 22nd, the day after most protesters had been removed from Ottawa, Morris wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police. As someone not merely aware of but personally responsible for all the Convoy-related intelligence and its bi-weekly dissemination, he writes:
A) That the convoy was neither led by nor composed of ideologically motivated violent extremists or those with histories of any violent criminal acts. He added, “The absolute lack of criminal activity across Canada, and the minimal violent crime throughout the event illustrates this”
B) About his concerns that people “far from expert”, including decision-makers and leaders in policing, are making “outlandish, inaccurate claims … not based in any intelligence or evidence that I am privy to.” People with no involvement or understanding, he says, are offering “highly politicized, hyperbolic, self-serving” proclamations overwhelmingly informed by opinion editorials and not facts. He describes, for example, people insisting there are violent extremist elements at work in Ottawa and elsewhere that he has seen zero evidence for. And he says this “sensationalism is leading to the quickening pace of decision-making” and to uncalled-for actions impacting all of society
C) How law enforcement in Canada is at another inflection point, akin to US intelligence in the '50s and ‘60s, the RCMP in the '80s, and both following 2001. As one of the nation’s most experienced and respected intelligence officers, Morris ends his letter, “I am deeply concerned for the role of contemporary law enforcement and balance in the application of the law to our citizenry”
D) All of the above and more. #WTAF
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
OPP Superintendent Craig Abrams:
A) Is the man whose name adorns America’s main battle tank
B) Founded Bad Robot Productions in 2001 and has been writing and directing blockbuster films ever since
C) Was brought in by the OPP to assist Ottawa police operations as Strategic Commander at their operations centre
Abrams testified that prior to the arrival of any truckers, INTERSECT (the intelligence roundtable composed of representatives from local, provincial, and federal police and intelligence agencies) learned that the city was:
A) Prepared to accept 3,000 vehicles
B) Unprepared to accept any number of trucks and moved to block all highway off-ramps
C) Having by-law officers digging trenches and contractors laying landmines and rows of razor wire, while the mayor appealed to Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence, to recall our shipments of M-777 howitzers from Ukraine. Ottawa was now on a war footing
Abrams reported that:
A) Roughly 800 trucks travelled across the country and about 400 remained the daily average for the bulk of the protest in Ottawa
B) “10,000 heavy vehicles, including trucks, construction equipment, and military-style resources were slated to travel to the nation’s capital. Closer to 35,000 such vehicles arrived on just the first weekend”
C) At no time did any trucks enter downtown Ottawa
In suggesting that at no time was he or his team concerned about the number of vehicles, nor those vehicles parking downtown, Abrams explained that the Ottawa Police Service had:
A) “Considerable experience policing major events”
B) Been informed by Cabinet insiders that Trudeau would “never allow an insignificant, fringe group of undesirables infected by wrongthink from travelling freely within Canada.” So, the idea that they would make it all the way to Parliament seemed “highly improbable”
C) “Enlisted sniper teams from the RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces to take out truckers and their supporters long before they arrived in Ottawa. That was done as planned. I am not at liberty to tell you any more. You know, national security...”
Superintendent Abrams affirmed that the Ottawa Police Service “had identified streets to permit convoy vehicles to park on as well as overflow areas.” And that everyone knew the plan was always to have protesters “parking on three of the four lanes on Wellington St., and that Freedom Convoy organizers had agreed to keep a single lane open.”
A) Fact
B) Misinformation
C) Dis- or malinformation; keep your filthy Russian lies to yourself
Abrams testified that:
A) Convoy leadership was in communication with authorities even prior to leaving for Ottawa
B) Protesters coordinated with police about how best to get to the city, what routes and times were optimal to make their way into town, and how best to get to city-approved parking locations downtown
C) The arrival of the convoy went as planned, without a hitch. There was no damage, no charges laid, and participants did exactly what they said were told they would do
D) All of the above
E) None of the above
In cross-examination, the Commission was shown a copy of notes from a phone call between Abrams and a superintendent in Windsor (where another protest had broken out.) The note, from February 10th, just days before invocation and after weeks of hoopla in local, national, and international media, shows Abrams reporting to his colleague:
A) “Ottawa is just trucks on side streets – not affecting livelihoods”
B) “This is it. Ottawa has fallen. The Fascists have won. Blow the bridges! I love you and hope to see you again”
C) “Valhalla!!!”
When asked if the note from the phone conversation was accurate and what he could add, Abrams explained:
A) That he was talking to OPP members and business owners across the city throughout the event and that this was their message
B) “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”
C) “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”
D) All of the above
E) None of the above. You: “I watched the CBC and was on TikTok. The city was overrun by a racist mob, all its arteries blocked by massive trucks, violent insurrectionists ransacking local businesses and homeless shelters, and calling for the violent overthrow of the federal government. I mean, Jagmeet even tweeted as much! A law professor spelled it all out on the evening news!”
Abrams spoke about law enforcement bringing in a local elder to negotiate movement of a large Indigenous cohort from an encampment erected across from city hall.
A) That happened
B) That did not happen. That's police propaganda. This was a white supremacist rally and everyone knows it
C) The opposite happened: police targeted and brutalized Native protesters while leaving the non-Native truckers alone
With his unique vantage point atop the law enforcement apparatus overseeing operations during the protests in Ottawa, Abrams was asked about criminality during the protest. He offered:
A) That there were only minor issues with protesters and restaurants not obeying mask mandates. He said, “We had no assaults, no criminality. I wasn’t aware of any charges being laid”
B) “You saw it on your television, there was so much arson and other property damage, and right from the moment the convoy arrived, that we had to call upon emergency services from both Quebec and New York State. It was a catastrophe. A national catastrophe. It almost spilled over into a continent-wide insurrection. Halleluja, Biden was willing to use his nation’s strategic napalm reserves on citizens in Canada’s capital”
C) A
D) B
When asked about the necessity of invoking the Emergencies Act, Abrams confirmed that:
A) His officers were always free to act in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act and Criminal Code. To stop traffic, determine what folks are up to, turn them around and/or make arrests, they didn’t need the Emergencies Act, only reasonable grounds
B) “The Emergencies Act was critical. What we all saw with our own eyes was an insurrection motivated by and spreading hate, like a BSL-4 virus upon a naive population, and seeking no less than the replacement of our Charter system with authoritarian rule. It had to be stopped”
C) It was the opinion of law enforcement that the Trucker Convoy movement was “akin to the FLQ and their nearly decade-long terrorist attacks (with thefts, bombings, kidnappings, and murder) but to the power of Hitler’s Germany – only in the social media age and condensed into just three weeks”
Every law enforcement officer who came before the Commission was asked whether invocation of the Emergencies Act was necessary or useful.
A) The unanimous response was "useful but not necessary"
B) Also 'A' but one line down
Various levels of government had said the Act needed to come into play because police could not otherwise secure the tow trucks necessary to help move protest vehicles and procure more officers to assist in doing that safely. Both were essential and both were only made possible by invocation.
A) This was always bullsh*t
B) They had towing services and procured more, to the tune of dozens of trucks and drivers, from all around the province and those arrived in town prior to invocation
C) Multiple authorities within law enforcement testified that officers were held up only because outside agencies wanted to see a more developed plan from the Ottawa Police Service before committing their own staff, and that the invocation helped only by streamlining a few hours of paperwork
D) All of the above
PROTESTERS AND ORGANIZERS
Two protesters were brought before the Commission. One of them was a military veteran.
A) As a former Russian demolitions expert and convicted weapons smuggler, Olen Kristoferovich (aka “Chris Deering,” “Red Beast,” “рыжая бестия”) was a CSIS target long before he got involved in online conspiracy communities and the militant Trucker Convoy terror cell
B) He is a New Brunswick native who served in the Canadian army and was deployed in Afghanistan until a truck he was travelling in was blown up by an IED, disabling him and killing all of his squad mates
C) This US Space Force captain and flat earth proponent snuck across the border to Ottawa in a ‘50s era flying saucer
Deering articulated some key concerns that resulted in his travelling to Ottawa. Those were:
A) “A concerning lack of inexplicable overreach by municipal, provincial, and federal governments during the pandemic”
B) “Mostly a love of trucks. I really love trucks. No, you don’t understand, I f*cking love trucks. Of all kinds. Sh*t. Big ones, little ones, I don’t give a f*ck. Monster trucks, dump trucks, pick-up trucks… If it’s a truck I love it. Always have, always will”
C) That pandemic mandates prevented him from travelling (alone in his pick-up truck) to place flowers (outside) at the gravesites of the men who died beside him in Afghanistan. Eventually his unvaccinated status resulted in him being harassed, intimidated, and feeling like a second-class citizen – something he believed his government was both endorsing and engaged in themselves. He also noted his long-time family physician, someone caring for many veterans and their families, losing his licence due to his ethical concerns with the vaccine passport system
Speaking about his time in Ottawa, Deering described taking offence at:
A) People with “My body, my choice” signs, “All Children Matter” shirts, and “F*ck Trudeau” flags
B) A lack of free beer and there being not enough saunas to go around
C) Media allegations that the War Memorial and Unknown Soldier’s Tomb had been “desecrated.” He expressed particular dismay that such politically-motivated sensationalism would allow anyone to erect a fence around a memorial that everyone should have access to. He shared that he was part of a team of vets who removed fencing they saw as being placed only for propaganda purposes and not due to any defacement or damage
It was Deering’s understanding that the Emergencies Act did not suspend or supersede the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He believed that, as a Canadian, he maintained the right to peacefully assemble and protest. Though correct, no one at any time told him or any other protesters where in Ottawa or Canada they could continue to peacefully assemble and continue their Charter-protected protest of the federal government and its policies. He also:
A) Found himself being kneed in the ribs and thrown on the snow where he was knelt upon, beaten, and kicked while holding his hands in the air yelling “I’m not resisting.” (The Commission saw video of this take-down)
B) Was cuffed, made to stand in the -20 for some hours, then to sit in the back of a truck for more hours. Without being charged with anything (not riot, not unlawful assembly, nothing), he and several others were driven 45 minutes outside of town and dumped in a yard in the middle of nowhere and told not to return to the city
C) All of the above
D) None of the above
The other protester who testified alongside Deering was:
A) Ada Brown: cross-border trucker with a passion for Confederate memorabilia and anything QAnon-related
B) Mary Popouts: former Catholic nun, artisan homeopathics entrepreneur, and dark web trader of illicit 3D printed gun parts. #PewPew
C) Maggie Hope Braun: a mother, homeschooler, and hydrotherapist
She testified that:
A) The pandemic was difficult enough and that vaccination and work-from-home mandates threw her whole family into chaos and was seriously damaging their relationships
B) She was inspired to go to Ottawa when so many came out to encourage the convoy, a moment of unity after years of division and forced separation, as it passed through her town of Peterborough
C) After watching a Global News report stating that authorities in Ottawa “did not have official numbers on how many rapes had taken place in the city since the convoy arrived”, she couldn’t believe it and had to see for herself
D) All of the above
Hope Braun recounted for the Commission how she was astonished to find the media referring to the protesters, including herself, as:
A) Terrorists
B) Canadians
C) Chicken-hearted, dunderheaded, fop-doodle go-alongers
She explained her experience in Ottawa as being:
A) Not unlike the camps she trained at in the Sahel back in the early 2000s
B) Perfectly peaceful, as expected, full of generosity and togetherness
C) Absent any of the hateful signs or symbols reported in the news and instead overflowing with signs and symbols of acceptance and oneness
D) Spent mostly in an underground work camp with other women, sewing uniforms for the coming revolution
E) A and D
F) B and C
Swift Current, Saskatchewan, resident Chris Barber:
A) Is the persona currently being used by Satoshi Nakamoto
B) Did 23 years for drugs and weapons smuggling. In 2016 he was recruited from prison as a CIA contractor helping to move people and black market arms for rebels in Syria. His whereabouts were unknown until January of 2022
C) Is an independent trucking business owner and driver who specializes in moving agricultural equipment. He also helped organize the convoy to Ottawa
Barber became animated:
A) When, without a vaccine passport, he could no longer play at either of his local golf clubs
B) When he saw far-right movements making ground all across Europe during the pandemic
C) When people in his industry were threatened with losing their jobs, freight started backing up at the border, and the government claimed only a small percentage of cross-border truckers were impacted (his estimate was closer to 40%). He also testified that mandates did little if anything to protect truckers or their communities from the virus while ensuring small, local, independent businesses like his own lose out to the largest operators
The Commission heard testimony about and read transcripts from organizer meetings on how COVID mandates and closures were:
A) No big deal for anyone
B) Put in place after thorough consultations and only as an essential solution to a specific crisis
C) Particularly difficult for truckers who are as essential as nurses but, unlike nurses, are always isolated and away from home and as such rely upon a network of accessible washrooms, food, and lodging. Adding a vaccine mandate, very suddenly and after years without, was senseless and threatened not just supply chains and individual livelihoods but also rural communities and the nation's economy
When asked about the convoy, its connection with other protests around the country, and their motivations, Barber testified that:
A) As folks for whom passing without a hitch through international borders three times a week is critical, sabotage of bridges, highways, and border crossings was always key to their whole strategy. US Customs and Border Protection agents always love to see mischief and terrorism convictions pop up on their screens
B) Blockades at border crossings, such as Windsor and Sarnia for example, were independent and had “nothing to do with” what they were doing in Ottawa and that such things were not an objective of Freedom Convoy
C) “This one time at band camp we weren’t supposed to have pillow fights but we had a pillow fight and it was so much fun; and this one time we all lost our music and we were supposed to play this song but we didn’t know it so we just made it up…”
Noting a TikTok in which he is heard saying “The last thing we need is a January 6th style insurrection”, Commission counsel asks Barber what he meant by that. He responded:
A) “America! F*ck yeah!!!”
B) “After consulting our lawyers and spiritual leaders, and reviewing the footage from Jan 6th, it became apparent that all this country needed was a rampage of murder and mayhem to win over public opinion and change the minds of government policy-makers”
C) That because the federal government demonized any dissenting opinions and announced they didn’t want to engage in dialogue prior to the convoy arriving in Ottawa, the government’s only option was to continue to demonize. “And so I pushed out the message constantly, daily: peace, love, community…”
On the convoy’s engagement with law enforcement, Barber noted:
A) “Well, it all went sideways when we noticed them planting cocaine in trucks at Coventry Road”
B) “We had daily meetings with police, whether it be OPP or OPS, and everything was positive”
C) “F*ck those f*cking jackbooted Fascists”
Barber was asked about convoy-related social media posts and the official daily newsletter they sent out while in Ottawa.
A) Counsel noted weather and news reports, daily inspirational quotes and cartoons, often poking fun at Trudeau, a CTV poll about support for the Emergencies Act, and a running list of COVID mandates being dropped in each province. He also noted a curious absence of any calls for violence
B) Counsel pointed to repeated celebrations of the federal government arming Ukrainian neo-Nazis and the truckers’ consternation at them failing to provide any homegrown ultranationalist and white-supremacist groups, like themselves, with artillery systems, drones, or ballistic vests. #TaxpayerDollars
C) That was no surprise because the “Official Daily Event and Safety Report” was put together by a former military intelligence officer who worked with the RCMP, sat on the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team, and is currently a leading expert on terrorism for federal and criminal courts
D) Which, if we’re being honest, is a legitimate beef
E) A and C
F) B and D
When asked about the convoy’s disruption of local businesses, Barber offered:
A) That those businesses wishing to make money were busy with locals and protesters. He recalled personally frequenting the nearby shawarma shop, Iconic Cafe, and Tim Hortons
B) “The government forced businesses to close for two years. We came with $25 million, a million a day, to spend at local hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, and gas stations. They didn’t just snatch away our fundraising dollars but then had the chutzpah to blame us for hurting business”
C) “You can’t make an omelette…”
Alberta lawyer Keith Wilson:
A) Is a litigator specializing in the environment, land rights, and constitutional law and works with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
B) Was called a revolutionary in the pages of the Tyee by Andrew Nikiforuk (author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent) for having exposed a $16B utility scandal
C) Was part of the legal team working with the trucker convoy during their protest
D) All of the above
Wilson testified that the main convoy leadership, including himself, Barber, and Lich, continually had to fend off folks attempting to manipulate the group to get their hands on the fundraising money. He noted having repeated interactions with:
A) Yo’ mama
B) A lawyer representing Donald Trump and OJ Simpson
C) Everyone from a self-styled “coven of witches” to QAnon conspiracy groups as well as a number of unrelated protest groups who had been drawn to Ottawa
Questioned about the convoy’s activities in downtown Ottawa, Wilson was asked why the convoy blocked off all of the main streets and imposed total gridlock of the city with 30-ton trucks. Wilson responded:
A) “There was no ‘gridlock’. I’ve described how I was able to travel freely” He also noted that since the convoy left Wellington Street has been blocked off entirely by the city. (Suggesting that it could not be that limiting traffic to one lane or two lanes for a period of three weeks, as dictated by city police, was an existential threat to the nation. Or even that it was an economic and transportation catastrophe, disastrous for Ottawa, its citizens, and businesses, and warranting tens of millions in immediate compensation from multiple levels of government…)
B) Something else
Wilson was asked about an event on Feb 8th at the intersection of Rideau and Sussex. Wilson explained that:
A) Convoy organizers had been asked by police to move trucks from the intersection. Organizers spent some time negotiating with the truckers there to move them up to Wellington Street. When enough truckers agreed, convoy organizers returned to police, who needed to move the jersey barriers preventing trucks from leaving. There they learned the plan had been axed by higher-ups
B) Not the above
Wilson was asked by Commission counsel about officials labelling the protest as unlawful. He responded that:
A) He has always wondered when they started to believe that and on what basis, because it appeared to arrive without any explanation or triggering event
B) The convoy was welcomed into Ottawa, told when and where to drive and park, and were barricaded in place with city and police vehicles and later large concrete “jersey barriers” and orange crowd-control fencing
C) At no time did the mayor or any justice read the Riot Act, which they were always free to do if justified. Wilson noted that not even the precursor to a riot (an unlawful assembly: a gathering of three or more people deemed likely to become a disturbance of the peace) was ever declared
D) The protest was neither one-dimensional, highly coordinated, nor policing who attended; but also that the convoy had been very vocal about maintaining a civil peaceful protest at all times
E) All of the above
On unlawful activity, Wilson cited the aforementioned intelligence expert and his daily reports:
A) Warning protesters that both the prime minister and NDP leader “have worked to create a political space where violence against the Freedom Convoy appears acceptable”
B) Describing how ideologically motivated violent actors intended to vandalize property and harass residents while pretending to be with the protest
C) Noting that Antifa was organizing on social media and came down in groups at night and vandalize trucks, cut their air and gas lines, and slash people’s tires
D) All of the above
Wilson testified that after such events, convoy organizers would call police to report property damage and folks being terrorized. He explained how the response was:
A) Stronger police presence and surveillance of the area. Law enforcement cracking down hard on local vigilantes vandalizing the property of lawfully assembled peaceful protesters
B) That police would turn around and announce during their morning press conferences that ‘overnight there were three charges for property damage in the downtown core.’ This, of course, was then translated by the media, government, and the broader public as evidence of protesters terrorizing residents
With regard to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, Wilson (a lawyer) asserted that he and five other lawyers with the convoy legal team understood the language being used by officials in government and policing to describe police and government powers under the Act was wildly inaccurate and nothing like what the law states. The team was certain the Charter still applied. Canadian citizens always remained:
A) Free to peacefully assemble, to protest and decent, and to hold a sign in front of their Parliament, and that is what he and others counselled protesters
B) Under the boot of anyone with “Minister” in their title, more so during a crisis
C) Free to go f*ck themselves
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association lawyer asked Wilson about the financial measures under the Emergencies Act. He responded:
A) No accounts were ever frozen
B) Accounts were frozen but there was little impact on protesters or organizers
C) By describing family members, not convoy participants, being unable to purchase food, gas, or prescriptions. He also spoke about how even after revocation of the emergency orders, folks were having credit applications denied. He noted the Canadian Banking Association testifying that these persons would remain flagged for life
Another organizer, Tom Marazzo:
A) Is a veteran Canadian Army engineer who earned a degree in software development and an MBA after retiring from the military and was working as an instructor at his local community college when the pandemic hit
B) Given the absence of informed consent, he questioned the ethics and legality of the college’s COVID vaccine policy and lost his teaching job after writing to human resources about his concerns
C) Got involved with the convoy after COVID policies and those imposing them stopped making sense to him and started looking more like an abuse of power. He spoke of mandates allowing him to buy a case of beer but not clothes for his child. He noted watching Toronto police attacking folks in a park and Calgary police pulling out their tasers on a child playing street hockey
D) All of the above
Marazzo was asked about his “unlawful protest.” The lawyer questioning him cited the poster police took around, suggesting there would be “severe penalties” if folks did not “cease unlawful activity” and remove vehicles from “unlawful protest sites.”
A) Marazzo noted Justice McLean’s injunction and renewal (on Feb 6th and 16th), which affirmed that all Canadians “remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful, and safe protest”
B) He himself was neither parked illegally nor engaged in an unlawful protest, and was working on the communications team out of a downtown hotel. And we know that before the truckers arrived in Ottawa they told the whole world they had no intention of leaving before mandates were lifted, that knowing that police had given them route maps and rules to obey, told them where to park, and also barricaded them into those locations
C) He spelled out that, among the abundance of conflicting information and flagrant disinformation, he opted to take the advice of the legal team on their side, who confirmed that the Charter always took precedent and this protest remained lawful so long as they continued to refrain from interfering with critical infrastructure (bridges, airports, hospitals) and were not encouraging anyone to engage in illegal activity
D) Marazzo repeated that the situation was presented as zero-sum: go home or go to jail. He testified that no one ever explained, as protected in the Charter, how they could continue a peaceful protest against what they saw as an abuse of power
E) All of the above
F) None of the above
With regard to consequences of the invocation, Marazzo was asked if he had any of his personal bank accounts frozen. He testified:
A) Everything was frozen, including a joint account with his ex, with whom he has a child but had been separated from for more than a decade
B) He wondered how anyone was supposed to leave town (pay hotel bills, buy gas, purchase a bus, train, or plane ticket) without operable credit or debit cards or online access to accounts
C) That at no time did anyone from any bank explain that this was going to happen, that it had been done, or when the freeze would be lifted
D) That if his spouse hadn’t had cash on hand she wouldn’t have been able to purchase their son’s heart medication
E) All of the above
F) None of the above
THE PM AND HIS MINISTERS
Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence, was asked if she agreed that the Public Order Emergency declaration in February of 2022 did not meet the threshold set out in the Emergencies Act.
A) She agreed
B) She disagreed and said that the threshold was, in fact, met
C) She neither agreed nor disagreed
She was then asked if she understands the principle of Cabinet solidarity and that and that if she publicly disagrees with or repudiates government decisions she has to resign her position as a Cabinet minister. She responded:
A) “I understand the oath that I took and I understand the principles on which our Parliamentary democracy are based. And one of those principles is that the executive branch of government makes decisions collectively.” And with regard to being unable to dissent she says “I am not aware of that principle, and I think that it is not relevant at this time”
B) B
Counsel noted that at no time in her written interview summary, her oral testimony, or in cross-examination before the Commission did she make any clear statements of support for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He asked her pointedly if “At any point since Feb 14th, have you considered resigning your post as Minister of National Defence?” She responded:
A) “I most definitely have not”
B) “Perhaps”
C) With a wink
Counsel pulled up Anand's text messages, noting her almost gleeful sharing of tweets and op-eds about the protest (by military historians who describe themselves as "enjoying bad movies about the end of the world.") Almost mockingly, she is asked if as Minister of National Defence she bases her decisions upon evidence and assessments given to her by intelligence experts and security analysts or social media influencers:
A) We all know the answer
B) She assures us that she is "a rational decision-maker" and does "welcome advice
from experts"
Counsel then called up text messages between the Attorney General/Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Safety in which Anand is mentioned. At the height of what many suggest was an unprecedented national emergency, the two discuss making a request to “Anita” to call in the military and for tanks to be deployed in Ottawa. Her response was:
A) “All our tanks were sent to Ukraine, so even if we wanted to flatten thousands of Canadians demonstrating opposition to government policy we had no capacity to do so”
B) “If you ain't blood to me you bothering. And if you ain't cuz to me you cluttering. And I been really tryna be mo' tolerant, mo' positive. Prolly need to switch up countries (But you know why I'm here). I might go beast mode”
C) To suggest that her colleagues take their work very seriously, everyone was doing their very best, and that the text messages were made in jest
Counsel noted the Attorney General/Minister of Justice blew off the statement as a joke in the same manner and noting he considers calling in the military as a last resort. Counsel asked Anand if she agreed.
A) She replied “I think that’s accurate”
B) “At a moment of grave crisis, when violent and fanatical men are attempting to destroy the unity and the freedom of Canada, there must be a response. A military response is occasionally appropriate”
C) “His pager's beepin', he's got in deep in. Whatever he can move on in, you know that kid's a creepin'. Black coat, white shoes, black hat, Cadillac. Yeah, the boy's a time bomb”
Counsel wondered aloud what Anand and the Attorney General meant, given that the Emergencies Act cannot be invoked unless there is no other law of Canada available to deal with a threat. He notes the National Defence Act, that it is a law of Canada and permits the deployment of troops (under Part VI - Aid to Civil Power) – to help prevent or suppress any disturbance or threat of disturbance upon request by any provincial attorney general. He’s asking how the Emergencies Act was invoked prior to the deployment of troops in the streets. They went back and forth for some time and then Anand responded:
A) “I believe you’re splitting hairs now and you’re misconceiving the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that the Emergencies Act is a legislative mechanism of last resort”
B) “Look bro, they're gonna rip it off. Taking their time right behind my back. And I'm talking to myself at night because I can't forget. Back and forth through my mind, behind a cigarette. And the message coming from my eyes says, ‘Leave it alone’. I’m going to Wichita”
C) By offering her sense that “and I think you’ll agree, paramilitary units (in camouflage body armour, sporting high-powered assault rifles, and backed up by armoured vehicles and snipers teams) all with a visible ‘Police’ patch just feels different than all of the same but with a ‘CAF’ patch. Just imagine that. Use your mind’s eye. ‘Police’ or ‘CAF’. See? Different! One is unconscionable and the other pedestrian”
Counsel asked, “To clarify my understanding of your testimony here, are you [the Minister of National Defence] telling me that the National Defence Act is not a law of Canada?” The Minister’s response was:
A) To tap her toe and sing, “I had a little woman workin’ on that National Defence. Just because she was workin', makin' so much dough, that woman got to the place, did not love me no mo’”
B) “Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right, not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved”
C) “I believe I’ve already answered that question”
Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland was asked why the Emergencies Act needed to be invoked.
A) Freeland rambled on about her upbringing, a trip she took to Malta in 2003, and her favourite Lampuki pie recipe
B) Citing the classic Dr Dre album Chronic, and therein the lyricists cogent articulation of the perennial human struggle with interpersonal communication, Freeland yelled “Deeez nuuuts!” before throwing her mic to the floor and walking out
C) Like a man with a hammer to whom everything appears a nail, Freeland noted, most horrifically and unflabbergastingly, “economic consequences”
Counsel reminded the minister that the Act requires “threats to the security of Canada” as defined in section two of the CSIS Act. She also noted the government specifically citing article C of section 2 as their justification. She called up the section for the minister. It reads:
(C) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state
Counsel then asked Freeland, “So you see that?” Freeland responded:
A) “I do”
B) “I do not. See what?”
C) “Deeez nuuuts!”
Given that there is no obvious plain reading or precedent legal opinion making the link, Counsel asked Freeland to delineate for the nation and the Commission her understanding of “economic consequences” as they relate to “serious violence…”
A) She explains, “Deeez NUUUTS!”
B) Curiously, she cites a Statistics Canada report from April 6th, that concludes:
As a result of trucks being diverted to other border crossings, the overall impact of the blockades was less pronounced, and the total number of trucks entering or returning to Canada from the United States was down 5% year over year in February
C) As though entirely unprepared, she rambled for some minutes on points debunked by the top brass in law enforcement, intelligence, and many others every day for the last six weeks. Freeland then noted the horrific act of violence she witnessed on the streets of Ottawa. As she retells it:
I do remember one morning I was walking from my hotel to my office, I walked past a parked truck and there was a young woman walking there too. And the truck honked really loudly, and she shouted something not very nice and made an obscene hand gesture, and the truck honked again really loudly. And I was really glad that I was there, and more importantly, that the RCMP was there, because I thought this is exactly the kind of thing – like, imagine no-one had been there, it was just this small, young woman, and this big truck, and a person in it. And she was mad, and I just thought, you know, there are dozens and dozens of these things happening every day, and you know, God forbid that one of them should actually flare into violence and physical harm
When asked why financial institutions, referencing the Emergencies Act, were combing social media and creating blacklists of members who did not commit any crime but merely supported the Trucker Convoy in some unspecified manner and even after revocation, Freeland explained:
A) That this was a misunderstanding of the Order, not what anyone intended, and not her responsibility
B) “Deeez nuuuts, deeez nuuuts, deeznuts-deeznuts-deenuts”
C) That she recently returned from Ukraine and felt the $3.4 billion Canada has committed (in the form of armoured vehicles, artillery, surveillance and communication equipment, medical supplies, and financial assistance) was not nearly enough and that next year the giving would have to be closer to another $8 billion. #Героям слава!
Freeland was asked if she considered convoy organizer Tamara Lich to be a terrorist.
A) She responded, “In terms of designating who is a terrorist and who isn’t, that’s not my job as Minister of Finance or Deputy Prime Minister”
B) “Obvs!” she blurted, “Like- she’s like literally a terrorist. Like literally.”
C) “I’ve not observed anything or been briefed on any activities of hers that would put her in the category of ‘terrorist’”
Counsel responded, “Right. So it’s not within your authority to designate Tamara Lich, Chris Barber, Tom Marazzo as terrorists?” Freeland:
A) “Yes. We have intelligence services whose job it is to determine who is a terrorist. And that’s entirely appropriate”
B) “It’s not my job. But they’re all terrorists. Nothing could be clearer. I mean, I didn’t just read it on Facebook but I heard it on the CBC, too. I mean, they self-designated didn’t they? I mean, what would you call it when they brought bouncy castles and ‘My body, my choice’ signs to Ottawa? What would you call it when they allowed Indigenous people to participate and speak on stage? This was no protest. They were trying to overthrow the government”
C) “It’s complicated”
Counsel then called up a document in evidence (SSM.CAN.00008764_REL_001). It was a copy of Freeland’s own notes. On page 12, in a phone conversation with the Director of CSIS, Dave Vigneault, she writes:
A) “→ We need to move faster!
We need a new playbook
* You need to designate the group as a terrorist group
* Seize their assets + impair them”
B) “Please, whatever you do, don’t tell me anything about the convoy. I will surely be put before an inquiry in the coming months…”
C) “Doz baaallz”
When asked to explain, Freeland says:
A) “I can assure you that was not a meeting with the Director of CSIS. I did not have a meeting … That meeting is not an account of a meeting with Dave Vigneault, because I didn’t have a meeting with Dave Vigneault”
B) “Look, who makes the rules? Do you make the rules or do we make the rules? And what right do you have to question us? We were elected to keep Canadians safe”
When asked what other “Dave”, if not Vigneault, she could have been speaking with and ordering terrorism designations, Freeland says:
A) Nothing. Time ran out and the Commissioner did not force her to give a response
B) “Chappelle. He and I have conversations all the time. Most people don’t know this but, aside from being a comedian and cultural commentator, Dave is a policy and national security analyst for the Government of Canada”
C) “Dave NUUUTS!”
On the final day of the Emergencies Act Commission, Prime Minister Trudeau took the stand:
A) That happened
B) Nope
Like so many witnesses before him, Trudeau either pleaded ignorance or argued that some code of confidence or secrecy prevented him from speaking on any pertinent issue.
A) That’s a vulgar misrepresentation of events
B) Totally
On this secrecy, counsel asked the PM why the government was inappropriately redacting every relevant document. He was asked if one of the measures put in place during the emergency orders was the ability to compel towing services (because they claimed they couldn't get enough) and if he felt such was important to solving the crisis and relevant to the Commission. He responded:
A) “Yes, it was. It was important in, yes, solving the emergency situation, yes”
B) “No, piss off”
Counsel pulled up a federal government document the Commission had been trying to get unredacted for weeks (POE.JCF.2). Trudeau was shown the redacted and unredacted documents side-by-side. He was asked to read the words that had been kept from lawyers for the entirety of the Commission on the grounds that they were “irrelevant”:
A) “Americans offering tow trucks”
B) “No one is offering sh*t”
C) “These kids are not alright; none of us are, right? I'm tired, but I won't sleep tonight. I still feel alive. You can call me irrelevant, insignificant; I won't call on you at all”
Counsel: “Prime Minister, this morning in your testimony, you addressed the policing plan that was prepared by the OPS, and I believe you stated, 'You should read it, you should look at it, because it wasn't much of a plan.' Is that fair?” Prime minister:
A) “That’s my understanding of it, yeah”
B) “Negative, captain”
Counsel: “So, sir, I’d like to pull that plan up on the screen.” *Shows PDF of the very document the PM says the lawyers at the Emergencies Act Commission should read*
A) Beyond the title page and introduction, the document contains only fully blacked-out pages
B) A
C) Also A
D) A and B (and perhaps C and D as well)
Trudeau was asked why he invoked the Act. He testified that the Act had to be invoked, in part, because there was “by no means an actual plan to actually end the protests in Ottawa.” Counsel called that poppycock, noting that every level of law enforcement testified before the Commission over six weeks and disagreed. Trudeau:
A) Disagreed
B) Brought his thumb to his nose and wiggled his fingers at the Commissioner
Counsel then pulled up the 73-page “Integrated Mobilization Operational Plan”, dated prior to invocation. She noted the sign-off page and that it was jointly developed and approved by all three levels of law enforcement: Acting Superintendent Rob Bernier of the Ottawa Police Service, Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy of the Ontario Provincial Police and Commander of the Integrated Planning Cell, and Superintendent Phil Lue of the RCMP. She notified Trudeau that, if he was unaware, all of law enforcement had testified before the Commission that this was the exact plan they implemented AFTER he invoked the Emergencies Act. Trudeau:
A) “Okay. I think evaluating various testimonies is the job of the Commissioner”
B) “But was it in both official languages?”
C) “I’ve had bromances with the best of 'em: Obama, Macron, and so many others. Has anyone acknowledged that here today? Go look, it's in all the papers. That will be my legacy”
Counsel said to Trudeau:
As you know, there's a legal opinion over which solicitor/client privilege has been asserted. [The legal opinion offered to government supporting invocation of the Act.] 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 authority; that that would be up to his client… 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?
A) The response was an objection from counsel for the Government of Canada, not a word from the PM, the Commissioner telling the counsel to move on, and counsel responding “Okay, thank you Commissioner”
B) Trudeau pleading with people to cease their coordinated obfuscations so that the public might learn something, anything really, about why the government took the measures it did and how their actions were legal – given that no such thing came to light over six weeks of testimony and with many thousands of pages of evidence
C) “All my enemies, they just fall in love with me. Whoa, J. Edgar Hoover wore a white mink stole, his enemies are what made him whole. Three-headed monster swallows Tokyo; her enemies are what make her whole. All our cries were cried, now there are no sides: try selling that one to an angry mob”
Comments