The Decibel - What we’ve learned from the Emergencies Act inquiry so far

Episode Date: October 20, 2022

The public inquiry into whether the use of the Emergencies Act to stop protests in Ottawa this past winter was justified is under way. On Wednesday, we learned that the city of Ottawa and police were warned in advance that the trucker convoy protest was well-resourced and determined to remain on site until COVID-19 restrictions were lifted. But Ottawa police reportedly didn’t receive these warnings from the provincial police.Parliamentary reporter Marieke Walsh joins us to tell us what else we’ve learned in the first week of hearings.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

Hi, I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms, and you're listening to The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. And the physical trigger when I get a smell of gas, both my throat and lungs start to feel infected. That's Ottawa resident Victoria de la Ronde describing the impacts from the trucker convoy protests that took over the city's downtown core for over three weeks earlier this year. It was such an experience of helplessness, especially during the event

where the horn blowing was so loud. You probably remember that people were protesting against federal vaccine mandates. And the incessant blaring horns from big rigs is a sound that many in Ottawa won't forget. I remember being scared personally. That's Natalie Carrier, the executive director of a local Ottawa business group. Because I remember the chief saying at one point, you guys are scared, I get it. I'm scared too. And I thought, if the chief of police is scared, something much bigger is happening here than a protest.

Victoria and Natalie's testimony is part of the ongoing Public Order Emergency Commission, which has to decide if the federal government was justified in giving itself sweeping powers to deal with the protesters. Ottawa's mayor already testified, and other leaders, from the former Ottawa police chief to the prime minister, will have to answer questions about how they handled the situation. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a phone call with Jim Watson accused Doug Ford of hiding. We didn't learn that because of Jim Watson's testimony. We learned that because of minutes from a phone call that were tabled with the commission. The Globe's parliamentary reporter, Marika Walsh,

is at the public inquiry, and she'll tell us what she's learned so far. This is The Decibel. Marika, it's great to see you again. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Manika. So you were obviously in Ottawa during the protests earlier this year. I was in the city too at the time. Can you just tell me, like, what sticks out in your mind from those three weeks? Yeah, this commission is really a trip down memory lane I didn't know I needed.

I think what sticks out and what is being sort of amplified again at this commission is that there was a real sense of unease in the city. And I think that there was a real sense of discomfort in the fact that it was not a city that was in control by police and law enforcement. So we're speaking to you later on Wednesday afternoon, Marika. I wonder what stood out to you from the hearings today? What stands out to me from today is that we are seeing a building of evidence that shows that there were multiple areas in which the city of Ottawa was warned about how different

this protest would be. And the answers that we don't have right now is why that didn't translate into a different approach at the very beginning. And what I mean by that is today there was evidence and documents tabled from the Ontario Provincial Police that shows there were intelligence reports a week before the convoy arrived in Ottawa that warned that it was a highly motivated group of people, that warned that they were ideologically and financially invested in this protest, and that warned there was no exit strategy for the protest and that they wanted to stay until COVID restrictions were lifted. On the flip side, we saw documents from the Ottawa Police Board that shows in a February 11th meeting, so almost two weeks into the convoy being in Ottawa, that at the meeting it was discussed that at the time of the

convoy's arrival there was quote no intelligence that suggested the demonstration would turn into the occupation that it had become. And so the questions for the Ottawa Police Service now are, did they get this information that was sent to them from the Ontario Provincial Police? And what did they do with that information when they got it? And how was it that they still believed this would be a protest that would come and go in the span of one weekend? It is still early days in this commission. But what else have you learned from this process that you didn't know before? It's really a complete web of information that goes off in all different directions. But there are little nuggets that are coming out. For example,

the city of Ottawa keeps arguing in its testimony that it had no way to expect that the convoy would last longer than a weekend. They're really trying to present the argument that they were planning for a one weekend thing with about a thousand000 to 2,000 protesters. And that was based on the information they had. But of course, contradicting that is what we learned. A warning from the Hotel Association of the documents that was tabled at the commission this week includes a briefing from the CSIS director, so Canada's intelligence agency, saying that there were not actually foreign actors that had a large influence in the protest, that it was largely domestic, and that there was not a significant evidence or no evidence of foreign funding either by individuals or by states of the protests.

And that seems to contradict or at least show a discrepancy or a change over time, maybe, between what the federal government was saying and what CSIS was saying behind the scenes, because the government did say that there were concerns around foreign funding, foreign influence in these convoy protests. And at least midway through the protests, CSIS said there was not. I wanted to ask about the testimony of Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, who spoke on Tuesday. In part of his testimony, he essentially said that they lost control of the situation. We lost control in the red zone because we couldn't even contain jerry cans going in. You know, in one or two incidents, the chief explained to me,

the police tried to stop them and then they were swarmed by 100 truckers. How significant is an admission like that? It's significant for two fronts, just how blunt it was, but also how early on in the protests he came to that assessment is something that I think is remarkable. He came to the assessment that the city of Ottawa's police force was completely outnumbered, was another quote from him, within three days of the protesters arriving. So on January 31st, at the end of that very first weekend, he was already asking the prime minister in a phone call for more resources. And he said he had already come

to the conclusion that the police in Ottawa could not deal with this on their own. And so that just shows you how quickly it unraveled. It confirms, I think, what people were feeling at the time. But I don't think that in the press conferences, immediately following that first weekend, we saw comments that blunt in their assessment. And it again raises questions. I think for the city of Ottawa in particular, there's questions around could this whole crisis have been prevented from the outset before it arrived, before it happened? Why didn't Ottawa close roads as it could have, for example? And we don't have yet a clear understanding of what intelligence the police were operating on. But certainly the evidence in the public domain suggests that there was a lot of information to show this was not a normal protest and that there were really disruptive plans. But at the same time, you know, it's hard to imagine something you've never seen before. And I'm not sure the police could have expected, you know, pig roasts and hot tubs on the streets, which is what ended up happening.

The question is, what did they have? Why didn't they plan for a much more disruptive event? Why did they plan for what appeared to be kind of a best case scenario? One person who is missing from the witness list is Ontario Premier Doug Ford. And that kind of stood out to me when I realized that, because we're hearing from Jim Watson, the mayor of Ottawa. We're going to be hearing from federal ministers as well, including the prime minister. Why is Doug Ford not slated to speak?

That's a great question. And it's especially important because all of this actually first falls under provincial jurisdiction. Policing, cities, they are creatures of the province. They get their powers from the province. And so the province is sort of the next level of control in terms of managing policing. It's not actually federal jurisdiction. And that was certainly a question during the Ottawa protests in particular. Where was Doug Ford? Where was the province in this? And what we have been told is that Doug Ford has not been asked to testify. And that's why he's not on the witness list. But we do, for example, know that there are other senior provincial bureaucrats who will be called to testify. So I think we will get some information through that. And a lot of the information has

been coming from the documents. For example, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a phone call with Jim Watson accused Doug Ford of hiding. We didn't learn that because of Jim Watson's testimony. We learned that because of minutes from a phone call that were tabled with the commission. So I think a lot of people would be very curious to hear from Doug Ford at this commission, but it doesn't mean that we won't get the answers that people are looking for if he doesn't. I think it's just that we don't know yet. And the commission is also stressing that the witness list could still change. I'm just curious, who's actually questioning the witnesses here?

A lot of people, actually. But what's happening is that somebody within the commission's council, so there are lawyers for the commission who do the first round of questioning of witnesses. And then people like the lawyers for the convoy organizers or the lawyer who is representing former Ottawa Police Chief Peter Slowly or lawyers for the government are the ones who can then have cross-examination. Then the commission lawyers can also ask questions again if they want to rebuttal. And then on top of that, the commissioner can also ask questions if he has outstanding questions at the end of, for example, almost six hours of testimony with Jim Watson on Tuesday. Wow. Okay. So yeah, it can last for a while. It can last for a while. And

there's a lot of different players with different interests that they are pursuing or defending. And so it leads to different angles that they are looking at. For example, Peter Slowly, who resigned during the protests in Ottawa as chief of police, he has a lawyer who is trying to establish, it appears through questions, that the police were operating under extraordinary circumstances and that, for example, resources were an issue, that they needed more. Or he's challenging, for example, resources were an issue that they needed more. Or he's challenging, for example, comments that other witnesses say Peter slowly made in private meetings. So you get a sense of the angles that they're coming for and from and the interests that

they're looking to defend. We'll be right back. And so this commission has to happen. Once the Emergencies Act is invoked, as it was this year, it has to happen. What exactly, how would you define the purpose of this commission? So this commission is focused solely, the square central question that it has to answer is, did the government act lawfully, follow the laws, follow the constitution when it invoked the Emergencies Act? And so we're getting all of this testimony around who did what when around the chaos of the

protests, the confusion, the challenges of enforcing it because of the question of, did the government meet the threshold of a national emergency that is required to invoke the Emergencies Act? The second part of the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act is not just that the national security threat rises to the level of what's defined as a national emergency in the Act, but also that the existing laws in Canada could not effectively deal with the crisis. Canada is no stranger to commissions and public inquiries. We tend to have a fair number of them. But what sets this one apart from other public inquiries that we hear about? This one is set apart, I think, for two reasons. First, because it is the first one to be held under the Emergencies Act parameters, because,

of course, it's the first time that the Emergencies Act was invoked since it became law in 1988. And so that sets it apart. But also what sets it apart and what Justice Paul Rouleau, who is leading the commission, has made very clear is that the Emergencies Act puts the commission on sort of a rapid time crunch that other commissions are not subject to. Because the Emergencies Act requires the commission to report back within a year, they actually have very little time to process just an incredible amount of evidence, witness testimony, and documents. The justice said that there was more than 50,000 documents submitted to the commission. And that's why they're already warning us at the beginning of a six-week public hearing that to hear all of the

witnesses, so far about 65 are expected, we could be sitting on the weekends to make sure it actually happens. So that just speaks to the time crunch, the intensity of these public hearings, and how much there is for this commission to go through and process in order to answer the question that it needs to answer. How did invoking the Emergencies Act actually play out on the ground once it was invoked on February 14th? I think that's actually one of the questions that needs to be answered in this commission, Menaka. And the reason why I say that is because until the act was invoked, Ottawa was consistently saying that it did not have enough police resources to enforce the law to bring the protests under control. And only after the act was invoked in the days after, did we really see this massive influx of police

officers from across the country, from municipal police forces, from the RCMP? Truly, it was a really cross-Canada effort in the nation's capital to bring the protests under control and to clear them out. And so what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says, for example, is that it's a question of how do you separate those things out? The powers were there, they weren't being used. And so the question is, did the police need the extra powers granted through orders under the Emergencies Act to do the job? Or did they just need the organizational capacity and the resources to act on and use the powers they already had. And can you remind us what were those new powers that were given under the Emergencies Act? There was a few of them. One of the most controversial ones, I think it's fair to say,

is granting banks the power to freeze corporate and personal accounts that they believed were linked to the protest without seeking a court order and without giving notice to the individuals who owned those or not owned those bank accounts, but the individuals who had those bank accounts. And so that raises lots of questions around due process, of course, and certainly meant that the people who had their accounts frozen were not granted access to due process. So that's one of the main concerns that critics of the act raise as sort of an overreach by the government. But the order also ensured that tow trucks would be available until then, for example, tow trucks were refusing to help the police clear out the protests in Ottawa. And it also made protests in certain designated

areas illegal. So for example, the protest in Ottawa, in that sort of geographical zone, it was easier to then arrest people for protesting. Just lastly here, Marika, the big picture here, like once this commission is over, if it finds that the government was not justified in evoking the Emergencies Act, what actually happens? Well, it's not a trial. So nobody goes to jail or anything like that at the end of this commission. I think in terms of the implications long term, I think you could really see political implications, not just for the government, if it's established, for example, that they overreached and didn't follow the law or misled

the public, for example. We don't know what we'll find out. But you can see that there are risks for the government in this testimony, in this commission. There is also, on the flip side, risks for the Conservative Party, for example, whose MPs at times supported the protests and appeared to encourage them, in particular in Ottawa. And so depending on what information comes out about who these protesters are, what elements were in the protests in terms of criminal elements, that's already been addressed a little bit, but we haven't gotten more information yet about the extent to that. You know, it could end up being that there is more mud on the face of some politicians in Ottawa who did support the protesters in Ottawa. But those are political implications. And the question is, does the public punish politicians for this? Or do they see it as a wash in terms of something had to be done

to deal with the protests and let's move on. I think these are all questions that will come out in time, and we just don't know yet where this goes. Marika, it's always so great to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thanks so much, Mainika. That's it for today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms. Our producers are Madeline White, Cheryl Sutherland, and Rachel Levy-McLaughlin. David Crosby edits the show. Kasia Mihailovic is our senior producer, and Angela Pichenza is our executive editor.

Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.