Volume 1 (October 13, 2022)

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, everyone. My name is Shantona Chaudhury. I’m co-lead counsel to the Public Order Emergency Commission. Bonjour tout le monde. Je m’appelle Shantona Chaudhury et je suis coprocureure en chef de la Commission sur l’état d’urgence. I’m going to take the next few minutes to explain to you how the coming hearings will unfold. I’ll start by describing the schedule for the next two days in some detail, and then I’ll give you a broad overview of how the evidence will be led in the coming weeks. So, starting with this morning. This morning will consist of introductions to the parties who have been granted standing before the Commission and the counsel representing them. Each set of counsel have been invited to prepare a brief statement of no more than three to five minutes introducing themselves and explaining in broad terms their party’s interest in the mandate of the Commission. Given the number of parties and counsel involved, we’ve allocated approximately two hours to these introductions and we’re very much looking forward to hearing from all of you. This afternoon, Commission Counsel will present a series of overview reports and presentations designed to assist the parties and the public in understanding the issues before the Commission and the context of the evidence that you’re about to hear. So these will consist of, first, an overview report on the emergence of COVID-19 and the various public health measures implemented across Canada in response to it. Second, there will be an overview report on early protests and legal challenges to the various public health measures put in place in response to the pandemic. Third, there will be an overview report consisting of a timeline of the key events leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Quatre, il y aura une présentation qui trace les grandes lignes de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence et de son cadre juridique. Fifth, there will be a presentation of the explanation provided by the Government of Canada to Parliament, pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act, regarding its reasons for declaring a public order emergency. Now, you will frequently hear this document referred to throughout these proceedings as the Section 58 explanation. Part of the Commission’s mandate is to evaluate and test the explanation provided by the Government for invoking the Act. Ces rapports sommaires et ces présentations ont été préparés par les avocats et les avocates de la Commission. Il convient toutefois de souligner la distinction entre un rapport sommaire d’un côté et d’une présentation de l’autre. Les rapports sommaires seront formellement déposés en preuve et feront partie de l’ensemble des preuves sur lequel le commissaire pourra s’appuyer pour formuler ses conclusions de fait et ses recommandations. Avant d’être finalisés, les rapports sommaires ont été partagés avec toutes les parties afin qu’elles puissent commenter leur exactitude. Les présentations pour leur part ne sont pas des éléments de preuve, elles sont simplement des documents explicatifs créés par la Commission pour aider les parties et le public à comprendre les enjeux que la Commission abordera au cours des prochaines semaines, elles ne font pas partie de l’ensemble des preuves présentées aux commissaires. So that will be day one of the hearings and that takes us to tomorrow, day two, which is the day that the Commission's going to begin hearing its evidence. Now I should explain that when witnesses are called to testify before the Commission, they will generally be examined first by Commission Counsel, a rotating cast of Commission Counsel, as the Commissioner explained, then by Counsel for the parties, and then by the witness's own Counsel. The order in which evidence will be called over the next six weeks is as follows. And actually, I should pause and preface this by saying that the order of evidence I'm about to describe is approximate and it's subject to change as the hearings unfold. However, in broad terms, first, we're going to deal with the Ottawa protest. So the first broad area that will be examined is the protests that occurred here in Ottawa from late January to mid February 2022. These events will be examined from the perspective of the residents and the community, the municipal government, the police, and the protesters. So that evidence will begin tomorrow with three panels of witnesses speaking to their lived experience during the protests. These panelists will include residents of Ottawa, Ottawa businesses and Ottawa City counsellors. Next week, the Commission expects to spend the first part of the week hearing from various municipal officials involved in the City of Ottawa's response to the protest. We'll then spend several days hearing evidence on the police response to the Ottawa protest. Finally, the Commission anticipates calling a number of organizers and participants in the Ottawa protest. Bon, la Commission quittera ensuite Ottawa — au sens figuré, bien entendu — pour la frontière canado-américaine. Elle se penchera alors sur ce qu’on pourrait appeler de manière générale les manifestations aux postes frontaliers. Plusieurs jours seront consacrés aux témoignages des manifestants, de policiers et de responsables municipaux pour faire la lumière sur les manifestations qui se sont déroulées dans les environs de Windsor et du pont Ambassador ainsi qu’aux alentours de Coutts en Alberta. Après ça, troisièmement, il y a… ça nous amène aux gouvernements provinciaux. La Commission entend ensuite recevoir des témoignages sur la manière dont les provinces ont réagi aux manifestations en faisant témoigner des représentants de plusieurs gouvernements provinciaux, dont ceux de l’Alberta et de l’Ontario. Finally, the last two weeks, give or take, of the hearing will be spent hearing evidence from the federal government about its response to the protests and its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. The witnesses called will include senior officials from the federal departments and agencies, as well as cabinets ministers and the Prime Minister. That will conclude the fact-finding portion of the public hearings. By the time the hearings end, the Commission will have heard from over 60 witnesses, presenting all the different points of view that I've just outlined. In addition to all of the oral evidence that will be called, the Commission will be adducing a significant amount of written evidence in relation to all the areas mentioned above, including relevant documents that have been produced by parties, institutional reports that have been prepared by parties, and overview reports that have been prepared by the Commission, which consist of largely uncontroversial evidence. Introducing all of this evidence in writing will expedite the hearing, which is a necessity given the extraordinarily tight timelines under which the Commission's operating, but it's important to keep in mind that the body of evidence before the Commissioner includes not just the oral evidence, but all of the written evidence we will be adducing as well. As the Commissioner mentioned, the fact-finding hearings will be followed by a week of policy round tables discussing the many and varied policy issues arising out of the Commission's mandate and the evidence it has heard. As a reminder, the Commission has published a series of Commission papers as part of its policy review program, as the Commissioner mentioned, and parties have 30 days from a date a paper is posted to provide comments on it. With that, I echo the Commissioner in thanking the parties very much for their cooperation and their contribution to the Commission's work thus far, and especially over the next few weeks. I'll now turn the floor over to my co- lead Counsel to introduce our team of Commission Counsel.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 25 01-025-09

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Good morning. My name's Jeff Leon, and I am a co-lead Counsel of the Commissioner. Commissioner, I have the pleasant task of introducing by name to those assembled and those watching online our Commission Counsel. These Counsel are the lawyers who are justly credited for the exceptional work that you and others have mentioned. Their professional biographies are available on the Commission's website for review. But first let me introduce our senior Counsel, who are responsible for the different aspects of dossiers of our investigation that you have just heard about. Senior Counsel will lead much of the evidence over the coming weeks. So the Senior Counsel of the Commission are Frank Au; Erin Dann, who regrettably can't join us for the hearings; Gabriel Poliquin; Natalia Rodriguez; and Daniel Sheppard. We have also had the valued assistance of three regional Counsel from across Canada. They are Mona Duckett, QC from Alberta, Sacha Paul from Manitoba, and Maia Tsurumi from British Columbia. And we have a group of, if I may say, most talented and dedicated Counsel, who came together from several Canadian provinces, and who have assisted with the investigation and with preparing for these hearings. Their effort has been nothing short of extraordinary. They are the engines that have driven our investigation. First, in addition to the work they have done on the investigation and in hearing preparation, I want to introduce Eric Brousseau and John Mather, who assumed the legal operations function of the Commission that has enabled this facility and our process and procedures to result in a fully functional space and our being ready for the commencement of these hearings. The other Counsel, who as mentioned have been a key part of our investigation, are Stephen Armstrong, Misha Boutilier, Sajeda Hedaraly, Alexandra Heine, Nusra Khan, Étienne Lacombe, Allison McMahon, Jean-Simon Schoenholz, Dhalia Shuhaibar, and Guillaume Sirois-Gingras. Mr. Commissioner, if I may say, it has been an honour to work with these talented Counsel. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 30 01-030-15

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Here?

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 32 01-032-15

Robert MacKinnon, Counsel (GC)

Good morning, Mr. Commissioner. My name is Robert MacKinnon, and I, along with Donnaree Nygard, who is sitting beside me, are the co-lead counsel for the Government of Canada. Also on our counsel team are Brendan van Niejenhuis, Andrea Gonsalves, and Andrew Gibbs. There will also be times during the hearing when other counsel from our team will be appearing before you. The Government of Canada looks forward to assisting the Commission in discharging its important mandate. As we have already heard, having a rigorous, thorough examination of the circumstances that led to the declaration of a Public Order Emergency under the Emergencies Act by an independent third party is very important to the accuracy of the historical record and to the public's understanding of these events. The Commission's recommendations will provide valuable guidance for the government on several current and complex issues, such as the impact on domestic and foreign funding, including crowdsourcing platforms; the role of misinformation, disinformation and social media in these events. It is evident that the Government of Canada considers the Commission's work of great significance, as it has allowed exceptional access to information that would normally be protected by Cabinet confidence in an almost unprecedented manner. As you have made reference, Mr. Commissioner, of the 371 federal Commissions of Inquiry, only three others since Confederation were provided access to documents provided by evidence. Factual and background information, options, and analyses brought to the attention of Ministers in the context of Cabinet and committee discussions have been exceptionally disclosed so that the Commission has access to the facts that were considered by decision-makers in declaring a public order emergency. It is important for Canadians to understand the unprecedented critical situation that the country was facing earlier this year. The evidence will show that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was a reasonable and necessary decision given the escalating volatile and urgent circumstances across the country. The evidence of the Government witnesses will detail the facts and events leading to the decision to declare a public order emergency. They will describe the country-wide threats to the security of Canada; the illegal blockades; the disruption and intimidation experienced by Ottawa residents; the threats at our borders and ports of entry; and the real impacts on Canada's trade, international reputation, and the economic well-being of Canadians. The Government witnesses will outline the deliberate, step-by-step process in which careful consideration was given to all the available options which led to the declaration of a public order emergency as a matter of last resort. The witnesses will also provide evidence on how the measures taken for dealing with the emergency were proportional, effective, and time-limited. In closing, I would like to note that given the statutory deadline imposed by the Act, the Commission and all the parties have had an incredible amount of work to do in a very limited amount of time. The Government appreciates the cooperation of everyone involved in working together to assist the Commission to fulfill its important mandate, and we look forward to continuing to assist the Commission in its work.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 32 01-032-21

Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)

Good morning. My name is Mike Morris, and I'm the Director of Litigation for the Civil Law Branch of Saskatchewan's Ministry of Justice. I'm appearing with my colleague, Mitch McAdam, who is the Director of the Ministry's Constitutional Law Branch. The Government of Saskatchewan has been granted full standing before the Commission and intends to participate in both the evidentiary phase and the policy phase for the proceedings. February 14th was a very significant day from the Government of Saskatchewan's perspective. On the morning of February 14th, a First Ministers call was held. The phone call was chaired by the Prime Minister. That phone call was the first time the Federal Government told the Government of Saskatchewan that it was considering invoking the Emergencies Act and declaring a Public Order Emergency. The Government of Saskatchewan indicated that it did not want the emergency declaration applying within the province, and other provincial governments did the same. Later that day, the Federal Government proclaimed a Public Order Emergency. It was not geographically limited, as requested by Saskatchewan, and other provinces, and as we know, it remained in effect until February 23rd. For its part, the Government of Saskatchewan is primarily interested in four areas, which will be explored in this Inquiry: The first area is whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that circumstances amounting to a public order emergency existed on February 14th. The second area concerns whether the consultation requirement under section 25 of the Act was met. Saskatchewan's position is that the Federal Government had already determined that a nationwide emergency would be declared before the First Ministers' call on February 14th. The call was not so much about consulting, as it was about telling. The third area concerns whether the emergency measures were overbroad. The financial measures, for example, imposed broad responsibilities on financial institutions, with little guidance, and they created offences for not complying with those new responsibilities. The final area concerns to what extent Saskatchewan residents were impacted by the emergency measures. The Government is concerned that residents' rights may have been unnecessarily infringed by these measures. The Government looks forward to participating in the Commission and assisting the Commission in fulfilling its mandate. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 35 01-035-11

John Mather, Counsel (POEC)

Mr. Commissioner, they don’t appear to be online right now. If they’re listening to this, they can email me and we’ll get them up at a later time. But I think it’s appropriate to move to the next party.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 37 01-037-08

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Yeah.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 37 01-037-17

Mandy England, Counsel (AB)

Good morning. My name is Mandy England and I’m here with my co-lead counsel, Stephanie Bowes. We are lawyers from the Legal Services Division of Alberta Justice and Solicitor General and we represent the Government of Alberta, together with our colleagues, Hana Laura Yamamoto, Peter Buijs, and Shaheer Meenai, who will also be attending as counsel during these hearings. The Government of Alberta applied for standing as a party before this Inquiry for two main reasons. First, Alberta believes it is important to share with Canadians the facts about how Alberta was able to effectively deal with the international border blockade in Coutts, Alberta, prior to the invocation of the Federal Emergencies Act. Alberta’s evidence will show that the existing law enforcement tools that were already in place were completely sufficient and they were successfully used to peacefully restore the flow of traffic at the Coutts Border Crossing and to disperse the protest to a legal protest site. None of the powers that were created under the Federal Emergencies Act were necessary, nor were any of them used in Alberta to resolve the Coutts blockade. Alberta is also here to participate in the process of holding the Federal Government accountable for its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. Alberta has many questions about how and when that decision was reached, a decision that was made despite the objections that Alberta and other provinces expressed during a phone call placed to the First Ministers on the morning of February 14th, 2022, just hours prior to the announcement that the Federal Emergencies Act would be invoked. Since the Federal Government proclaimed that a public order emergency existed throughout Canada, the Act requires that all of the provinces must be consulted before it can be invoked in that manner, yet Alberta’s views were only asked for after the decision was apparently made, and they were basically ignored. The impact of these measures on the rights of Albertans is of great concern to the Government of Alberta. Alberta is here to find answers for its citizens and for all Canadians. We thank the Commissioner for this opportunity to appear as a party and we look forward to working with the Commission in the weeks to come.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 37 01-037-22

Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)

Bonjour. Merci, Monsieur le commissaire pour cette opportunité de nous présenter. My name is Anne Tardif and I’m here with my colleagues, Alyssa Tomkins and Daniel Chomski. We’re all lawyers with the law firm of Gowling WLG and we represent the City of Ottawa. The City is pleased to participate in this public inquiry. And again, we thank the Commissioner for that opportunity. As you are no doubt all aware, the first convoy participants arrived in Ottawa, not far at all, actually, from where we sit today, on January 28th, and they remained in our city for approximately three weeks. I expect you will hear from witnesses about the significant impacts on the City’s residents and businesses, and you will also hear about the City’s efforts to support the police-led response to the convoy, and to mitigate impacts on city services. We’re pleased to be here and we look forward to continuing to assist the Commission with its mandate. Merci.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 39 01-039-15

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Good morning.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 40 01-040-10

Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to make comments this morning. My name is Jennifer King and I am legal counsel for the City of Windsor, along with my colleagues, Michael Finley, Graham Reader, and Bevin Shores. We will be taking turns attending the hearing in a mix of both-in person and remote attendance. Our client, the City of Windsor, is a city located in southwestern Ontario on the south shore of the Detroit River. The city is host to multiple Canada/U.S. border crossings, including the Ambassador Bridge, a privately owned international border crossing connecting Windsor and Detroit, Michigan over the Detroit River. The bridge is, by far, Canada’s busiest commercial crossing to the United States, handling over 300 million of trade per day, representing about one quarter of Canada’s exports. The international bridge enters the City of Windsor, connecting directly to a municipal road here on Church Road, itself a critical economic artery for the city. There is no direct provincial highway connecting the bridge and Highway 401. Instead, bridge traffic, including 6,000 commercial trucks per day, move through local roads on their way to and from the bridge. But Windsor is more than just a road and a bridge. It is a community. The bridge and Huron Church Road are surrounded by residential homes, apartment buildings, restaurants, educational institutions, community centres, and businesses. Windsor is interested in the Commission’s work because the Ambassador Bridge blockade happened in Windsor on municipal roads with profound negative impacts not only on trade and the automotive sector, but also on the city, its residents, and its businesses. Windsor will continue to cooperate fully with the Commission and looks forward to describing the circumstances of the Ambassador Bridge blockade, Windsor’s efforts to support the response to these events, and the significant impacts on the City, its communities, schools, residents, and businesses. Windsor is particularly interested in the Commission’s policy work and looks forward to receiving any recommendations that may be made by the Commission. As a local government of the front lines of emergency response, and as the home of critical infrastructure, Windsor is interested in recommendations and planning that recognizes and supports the municipal role in emergency response and protects the international crossings in Windsor in a way that prioritizes and supports the interests and needs of the City and its residents and businesses. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 40 01-040-13

David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)

Good morning, Commissioner. My name is David Migicovksy, and with me is my co-counsel, Jessica Barrow, sitting in the second row on my left. We represent the Ottawa Police Service. As the police service for the Nation’s capital, the Ottawa Police Service is very experienced in handling demonstrations, protests, and large events attracting thousands of people. They are a fact of life in this city, and hundreds of them take place annually and are resolved without violence and without a major impact on the community. There is a well-established process, you will hear, that the Ottawa Police Service follows when protests occur. The police must respect the Charter rights of peaceful process, while at the same time, protect the community and uphold public order. To this end, police typically reach out to protestors and work with them in advance to preserve the peace and to minimize community impact. The Ottawa Police, you will hear, followed that well-established process that had always worked with protestors this time as well, and were prepared for an event, but not for the event that occurred. Why? What you will hear is that this protest was unique in Canadian history. The police had little time to prepare. The genesis of the protest had only begun a couple of weeks before it arrived in town and it gained momentum with time. The number of individuals and vehicles participating was difficult to impossible to gauge because it was -- because although the first convoy left the west coast on January 22nd, most of the convoys, because of their geographic proximity to Ottawa, left the day before, and the largest convoy, by the time it reached Ottawa, it was 40 kilometres long and had thousands of vehicles; more convoys followed. That could not have been predicted. The initial response of the convoy and the initial reports that the police received were that it would be peaceful and that most people would leave by the end of the weekend. And although many people and vehicles did leave, many more did not, and some who left returned the following weekend. The protest became dangerous, and the situation became volatile. This was an unprecedented situation, and it required an unprecedented response by the Ottawa Police Service, along with several thousand other police officers from across the country. All of the Ottawa Police Service officers and all of their partners you will hear worked tirelessly and professionally, and that integrated response by the police, led by the Ottawa Police Service and its partners, brought what had started as a protest but become an illegal occupation to a successful resolution. The Ottawa Police Service recognizes the impact on the residents and businesses in the city from the convoy, and that it was significant. What none of the intelligence predicted in the very brief period of time prior to the convoy’s arrival was the level of community violence and social trauma that was inflicted upon the city and its residents. As the demonstration came to an end, Chief Bell told the Ottawa Police Services Board that there will be lessons to be learned to make sure the events of the past are not repeated. You will hear that changes have been made to how the Ottawa Police Service and those events like this and lessons have been learned, and the Ottawa Police Service welcomes the opportunity to learn more through this process as it works to rebuild public trust. Thank you very much.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 42 01-042-13

Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)

Good morning. My name is Tom McRae. Together with my co-counsel, Heather Paterson, in the corner there, we represent Windsor Police Service, from the firm of Shibley Righton, both in Toronto and Windsor. Now, the Windsor Police Service was the first responder with respect to the Ambassador Bridge closures. We are looking forward to giving evidence as to how the Windsor Police Service fulfilled its duty to the City and its residents, all the while dealing with a protest that was, in effect, focused on blocking an international border. We did acknowledge the significant support we had from the police from across the border, and are doing so, and we look forward to working with the Commission, the parties, and their counsel in this effort. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 44 01-044-25

Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)

Good morning, Commission, counsel, parties, members of the public. My name is Christopher Diana; I’m here as counsel to the OPP. I’m joined by my colleague and co-counsel, Jinan Kubursi, and our articling student, Alice Blue (phonetic), a small but mighty legal team. As between the two of us, Jinan and I, at least one of us will be here in person through the entire course for this Inquiry. You will hear from a number of OPP witnesses during the course of this Inquiry. You will hear that the OPP became engaged well before the Freedom Convoy reached the Ontario border. You will hear about the OPP’s intelligence gathering process, and the way that the OPP disseminated intelligence to its policing partners and the timing of sharing that information as the convoy moved across Canada. You will hear about the OPP’s responsibility for highways and how it policed the areas within its jurisdiction in Ontario as the Freedom Convoy moved through Ontario. You will hear about the effectiveness and the importance of the OPP’s provincial liaison team. You’ll hear reference to PLT frequently throughout this Inquiry. And you’ll also hear about the effectiveness and importance of the -- what we call the framework for dealing with events of this nature. These were lessons learned and incorporated from the Ipperwash Inquiry many years ago that have informed OPP practice to this day. You will hear about concepts such as incident comment, public order policing, and related concepts. Even though the OPP was not the police service of jurisdiction, you will hear about how the OPP provided crucial assistance to Windsor, Ottawa, and Toronto. In Windsor, you will hear about how the OPP took on a leadership role working with the Windsor Police Service, and with the help of additional resources from other police services, successfully cleared the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge. Windsor was very much a success story in terms of how it was handled. In Ottawa, after some delay, you will hear that the OPP took on a leadership role in coordinating resources from different police services working with Ottawa Police Service, the police service of jurisdiction. Specifically, you will hear about what worked well, what may not have worked as well, and potential lessons that were learned through these incidents in Ottawa, Windsor, and across the country. You will also hear about federal and provincial emergencies’ legislation and the extent to which the OPP relied on those authorities. The OPP has significant experience in responding to protests, blockades, and similar activities. While the emergencies’ legislation; in particular, the provincial legislation provided useful tools, there was sufficient level authority in their absence to deal with the protest activities that took place over this period of time. This Inquiry is a unique opportunity for the OPP to share how it responds to protests. It’s an Inquiry that the OPP takes very seriously, and will consider any and all recommendations that arise from it. The OPP is looking forward to engaging in a meaningful way to contribute to this very important public discussion. Thank you, Commissioner.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 45 01-045-16

Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. My name is Tom Curry and together with my colleagues, Rebecca Jones and Nikolas De Stefano, we will be here representing, as counsel, the former Chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Peter Sloly. Chief Sloly also looks forward to assisting the important work of the Commission. In granting Chief Sloly standing, Mr. Commissioner, you found his firsthand knowledge of how the events unfolded here in Ottawa, and his role in framing the response, meant that he was uniquely positioned to make a contribution to your factfinding and policy process. As you have described this morning, under the terms of reference of the Commission, you’re required to examine the circumstances that led to the declaration of public order emergency, and the efforts of police -- among other things, the efforts of police prior to and after the declaration, and lessons learned to make recommendations about the matters under examination. Now, Chief Sloly will assist you in understanding the circumstances that led to the declaration of an emergency, from his perspective as a national police leader with over 30 years’ experience in Canada and abroad dealing with public order operations. He will explain, from that perspective, how this -- the events in Ottawa represented an unprecedented threat to national security posed as they were by the illegal occupation. The City of Ottawa was ground zero for the protests that occurred in February 2022, and Chief Sloly will assist you in understanding the challenges faced by the Ottawa Police Service in addressing the evolving illegal occupation. As he will explain, the events represent a paradigm shift in public protest. In particular, he will explain to you the limited resources available to the Ottawa Police service to deal with a massive occupation; the limited nature of the intelligence available to OPS about what was coming Ottawa's way; the importance of the right of lawful protest in our democracy and the limits of the authority of the Ottawa Police Service to deal with protestors; the requests made to all levels of government for additional resources to address the occupation, here in the number of 1,800, approximately, additional police personnel; the successful integration of policing partners in a joint operation between Ottawa, OPP, RCMP, and other police services; and the important contribution of the declarations of emergency by all three levels of government to the safe and successful end of the occupation. He will also tell you, Mr. Commissioner, why he signalled on February 7th that there may not be a policing solution alone to the occupation. Chief Sloly was Ottawa's first Black police chief, and he was brought to Ottawa from the outside of the OPS in October 2019 to lead a change in the way policing services were delivered, to restore it and build trust in the community. He will tell you of the pride in his work as the chief, and how proud he is of the hard work performed by the Ottawa Police Service that ended in the -- in a successful conclusion of this national security crisis without the loss of life or serious injury to the public, protestors or police. Chief Sloly knows that effective policing is only possible when a community has trust and confidence in the police service, and when the resources needed to end the occupation were present the conditions were present and plans in place to allow police to end the occupation safely, he will explain why he elected to step aside to ensure that any lack of confidence in the Ottawa Police Service held by the community that had developed over the period of the occupation did not compromise public safety. Finally, Chief Sloly looks forward to assisting you in the part of your mandate that is forward-looking, as you indicated, and seeks to learn from the unprecedented events in Ottawa that led to the declaration of an emergency. Chief Sloly has eleven specific recommendations for your consideration that he will explain, identify ways for government, police, and civil society to prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from these public order emergencies in the future. I'm grateful. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 47 01-047-22

Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)

Good morning. My name's Brendan Miller of Foster LLP, and I am counsel to Freedom Corp, which is a organisation that represents the protestors of which attended Ottawa in January and February of 2022. My colleague, Ms. Bath-Sheba van den Berg, of Foster LLP, is my co-counsel on this matter, as well as the solicitors of record, both Mr. Keith Wilson, King's counsel, as well as Ms. Eva Chipuik, who is counsel to the convoy. With respect to sort of everyone's giving an overview of the theory of their case, it is our view that there was no justification whatsoever to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act requires several things: One, it could be invoked due to espionage and sabotage. Are you going to hear any evidence about espionage and sabotage? The answer to that is no. Two, it could be invoked on the basis of clandestine or deceptive foreign influence, or foreign influence that involves the threat to a person. Are you going to hear evidence about that? The answer to that is no. It also could be invoked on the basis of threats or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property? Are you going to hear evidence of violence against persons or property? The answer is no. Lastly, it can also be invoked if there is a group or persons trying to destroy or overthrow by violence the system of Government of Canada. Are you going to hear evidence about individuals trying to do that? The answer is no. And the answer is, is that there was no reasonable and probable grounds to invoke the Emergencies Act and that the Government exceeded their jurisdiction, both constitutionally and legislatively, in doing so. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 50 01-050-16

Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)

Thank you very much, Commissioner. My name is Paul Champ, and I am counsel for the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses. I'm here with my colleagues, Christine Johnson and Emilie Taman. The Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses are community associations of people who live in Downtown Ottawa, as well as the business improvement areas of the different business sectors that were impacted by the Freedom Convoy protests in January and February. The groups came together because their interest in this Inquiry, Commissioner, is simply to have the story told. We can tell you it's just blocks from here, well, right this street. But blocks from here are the people who lived here. There are approximately 15,000 residents who live in this downtown core. People see the Parliament buildings, and they think this is all government and so forth in Downtown Ottawa, but there are people, there are children, there are schools, there's a public elementary school that's about six blocks from here. And the impact on Ottawa for those three weeks of harassment, street blockages, ear-splitting air and train horns, and general lawlessness was unprecedented. The nation's capital is naturally a site for demonstrations and protests on a wide range of issues, and these protests are not simply tolerated by the people of Downtown Ottawa, they're celebrated. People who live in Ottawa are very proud that they're the site of protest and government and the exercise of fundamental freedoms and democratic participation. Some Ottawa people participate in the protests sometimes, sometimes they don't, but they're always happy that these events are happening. But the Freedom Convoy protests that took place here were of a shape and form that were totally unprecedented, and had a severe impact on those who live and work and do business in Ottawa. Many people in Ottawa felt like they were prisoners in their own home, and they felt abandoned and they felt unsafe by the police and by all the levels of government. There were breakdowns in governance here between city, province, federal government, whomever. The interests of the Coalition is not to point out fingers, it's to get answers and to ensure this doesn't happen again. The Ottawa Coalition is not going to take a position, we don't anticipate, on the Emergencies Act, but make no mistake it was a crisis in Downtown Ottawa. There was disorder, there was chaos, there were propane tanks, there were gasoline jerry cans everywhere, there were fireworks going off at all hours of the night, pinging off buildings, pinging off windows. People could not get a -- there was no public services. Paramedics, ambulances, no busses, no taxis, grocery stores were closed. Businesses, several hundreds of businesses are closed. The Rideau Centre, the major mall in Ottawa, was closed for the first in its history for a prolonged period of time. The people in Ottawa are still traumatised, Commissioner, they're bewildered, they're upset, and I can say, Commissioner, these 30 days that you have, we could have residents line up every day to testify to tell you their stories. People who are elderly, people who have young children, people who have disabilities, and just anyone. Trying to feel safe in your own home with those horns going from 6 to 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. at night, or even later, and not just like a "honk, honk", like prolonged holding of those air horns. Four hundred commercial trucks congregated in Downtown Ottawa, and the people felt abandoned by their authorities. It's going to take a while for this city to heal internally. There's been a breakdown in trust in the local authorities and officials, and every level of government. And we're looking forward to hearing the evidence. We're looking forward to hopefully getting some answers factually about what happened and what were the breakdowns. And, you know, most importantly, that there's recommendations that hopefully come from this proceeding to ensure that, you know, serious disruptions to people's lives in Ottawa never occurs again, while at the same time, we absolutely are protecting and celebrating and ensuring that the right to protest and assemble are not unduly interfered with in future. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 51 01-051-24

Greg DelBigio, Counsel (CLA/CCCDL)

Yes, Mr. Commissioner, my name is Greg DelBigio. On behalf of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, the CCCDL, and the Criminal Lawyers Association, the CLA, my co-counsel, Collen McKeown and I are pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this Commission. The CCCDL is a national council made up of senior criminal defence lawyers. The council has existed since 1992 and has representatives in every province and in Nunavut. The purpose of the CCCDL is to enhance, support and improve criminal justice throughout Canada. The Criminal Lawyers Association has existed since 1971 and serves as the voice of criminal defence lawyers in Ontario and has over 1800 members in Ontario, across Canada and the United States. The CLA aims to educate, promote and represent its membership on criminal law and constitutional law issues impacting defence lawyers and clients. Together, the CCCDL and CLA have experience and expertise in bringing close scrutiny to the justification and use of government and police powers. The Emergencies Act should be used sparingly, or as a last resort, and only where credible evidence justifies its use. The public's confidence and trust in the fair and proper administration of law demands this. During the evidence portion of the Commission, the CCCDL and CLA hope to assist the Commission in understanding those facts which served as foundations for the important decisions that were made by police and elected officials and in understanding the ways in which those decisions considered and impacted the interests and protected rights of individuals. The evidentiary portion is important for transparency and accountability, and for ensuring that the use of the Emergencies Act was consistent with the maintenance, the rule of law, and the Charter of Rights. We are also eager to participate in the policy portion of the Commission because beyond the specifics of this particular use of the Emergencies Act, it is important that policy issues be considered, so that the balance between the exercise of government power, the exercise of police powers and protected individual rights can be considered from a broader, national perspective, and where necessary, improved. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 55 01-055-12

Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel (UBCIC)

Good morning. My name is Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, and I am here representing the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, alongside my colleagues Meagan Berlin, who is in attendance virtually, and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who will be in attendance on future hearing dates. As mentioned this morning, the Commission is mandated with examining and assessing the basis for the Government of Canada's decision to declare a public order emergency and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the government's responses to the Freedom Convoy situation. As a representative for Indigenous governments and the only type of such representative who has been granted full standing in this inquiry, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has a direct interest in the accountability of Canadian governments for their actions. All exercises of emergency, colonial, Canadian government powers fundamentally impact the relationship between the First Nations and the government, First Nations with their inherent right to self government and other protected rights under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is a representative of Indigenous governments and First Nations in British Columbia. Its purpose is to support and promote the efforts of First Nations in B.C. to affirm and defend their title and rights. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has a unique role in British Columbia and Canada and has extensive expertise in government engagement and policy development in relation to, among other things, government accountability, policing, human rights, anti-racism, and the rights of Indigenous peoples generally. With over 40 years of experience, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is uniquely positioned to share how government's decision making is connected to the Indigenous people's concerns relating to the convoy protests and to address the appropriateness and effectiveness of government's response in relation to those concerns. It will be important for the Commission to understand Indigenous perspectives about the events leading up to the proclamation of an emergency, as well as the use of the Emergencies Act itself. It's also extremely important for the Commission to understand and consider the unique context, histories, experiences of the diverse and distinct First Nations and Indigenous people across Canada. This includes a consideration of the historic and ongoing oppression of Indigenous peoples by the application of Canadian law and policy and the use of state force and powers. The Indian Act, land displacement and the reserve system, the residential school system, the 60's scoop, missing and murdered Indigenous women, systemic racism, the increasingly disproportionate incarceration rates of Indigenous peoples, the increasingly disproportionate rates of Indigenous youth and children in Canada's child welfare system, and the assault and apprehension of Indigenous land defenders, who seek to protect their ancestral lands and sacred resources from, for example, logging, commercial fisheries, gas export and hydro dams. State use of power is inseparable from the daily and lived experiences of First Nations and Indigenous peoples across this country. There are many Indigenous nations and Indigenous governments across Canada, and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs represents a portion of these communities. So I want to acknowledge all of the Indigenous peoples who have been impacted by this situation. I want to acknowledge the Indigenous territories where these events took place. I want to acknowledge clan mothers who are in this room and who I met this morning, Noeline Villebrun, Dene clan mother from Yellowknife, and Sandra McKenzie, Cree clan mother from Sucker Creek Treaty 8. The decision of the Commission, the policy discourse before the Commission and any policy recommendations made by the Commission will have longstanding impact for future use of federal government emergency powers. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is here to ensure that the government's emergency powers will be used appropriately moving forward, as they may be exercised against First Nations and Indigenous peoples. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 56 01-056-28

Jason Beitchman, Counsel (National Crowdfunding and Fintech Association)

Good morning, Mr. Commissioner.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 59 01-059-22

Jason Beitchman, Counsel (National Crowdfunding and Fintech Association)

My name is Jason Beitchman, and I am here today as Counsel for the National Crowdfunding and Fintech Association. The NCFA is Canada's largest industry association representing crowdfunding platforms and Fintech start-ups. The NCFA sought the right to participate in these hearings, so that it could provide a voice for these emerging industries and technologies. We are here to comment on the fact finding and policy review functions of the Commission with respect to two issues set out in the terms of reference. First, the impact of domestic and foreign funding, including donation crowd-funding platforms; and second, the impact, role and sources of misinformation and disinformation, including the use of social media. Our hope is that through this process, the Commission will strive to understand whether and how misinformation and disinformation about crowd funding and cryptocurrency influenced the decision to make orders under the Emergencies Act that targeted and restricted the use of these technologies. In his expert report submitted to this Commission, Professor Ryan Clements of the University of Calgary highlighted that the temporary orders made under the Act with respect to crowdfunding have been permanently crystalized in extensive regulation of the industry under the Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, and Terrorist Financing Act. These regulations were exempted from the ordinary Cabinet requirement to pre-publish regulatory proposals for public comment and consultation. The explanation provided for this exemption was that the events leading to the use of the Emergencies Act provided sufficient rational to waive the obligation of due process and to confer and consult. The use of extraordinary powers under the Emergencies Act raises questions. Questions of whether the ends justify the means. In the case of crowdfunding and fintech, the end result -- excuse me, there was an interruption there. In the case of crowdfunding and fintech, the end result is that laws were passed without public scrutiny or due process. This presents a cautionary tale for Canadians and we will all benefit from scrutiny by this Commission into whether it is appropriate to deploy these extraordinary powers when the end result may be the subtle and not-so-subtle erosion of the rule of law. The NCFA looks forward to the Commission’s efforts to examine these issues and to the opportunity to participate in that process. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 59 01-059-26

Nini Jones, Counsel (National Police Federation)

Yes, good morning, Commissioner, ---

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 61 01-061-19

Nini Jones, Counsel (National Police Federation)

--- and Commission Counsel. Thank you. My name is Nini Jones and I am here, along with my colleague, Lauren Pearce. We are both on Zoom today, and my colleague, Jen Del Riccio, who is present in person, and together we represent the National Police Federation. The National Police Federation is the exclusive bargaining agent for approximately 20,000 RCMP members and reservists below the rank of inspector. The RCMP, and by extension, the NPF’s members, were the source of the largest police response to the convoy and the blockades in Ottawa, as well as in every other location throughout Canada, including the B.C. occupation, the Alberta occupation, Manitoba, as well as assisting in Windsor. In other words, the RCMP were the police officers charged with responding to the situation created by the convoy across the country. The NFP intends to participate with a particular focus on the scope and the limits of our members’ policing authority and their policing jurisdiction and we are particularly interested in the divided jurisdiction and the issues that arose in the City of Ottawa, where police responses came from the OPP, the Ottawa Police, and the NPF’s members employed by the RCMP, along with the Parliamentary Protective Services. Those are the areas of particular interest for the NPF and we look forward to assisting the Commission and the Commissioner with those issues as they arise through this proceeding. Thank you so much.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 61 01-061-22

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 62 01-062-26

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

My name is Sujit Choudhury. I am co-counsel for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. My co-counsel is Janani Shanmuganathan. and we are both on Zoom, although we do hope to attend some of the proceedings in person. As you indicated, Commissioner, the CCF has been granted standing jointly with Professor Alford. I would ask that -- we reserved a minute at the end of our remarks for him, and we would ask that you recognize him, please, when I conclude.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 63 01-063-01

Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)

Thank you, Commissioner. And we did check in with Commission Counsel before we decided to proceed this way, and so we appreciate your forbearance in this exceptional circumstance. Commissioner Rouleau, I have four points to make in my introductory remarks. The first is that I would like to introduce the CCF. The CCF is a legal charity which is dedicated to defending fundamental freedoms in Canada, particularly the freedom to think, believe, and express controversial or dissenting ideas and opinions. The CCF would like to publicly express its appreciation to you, Commissioner Rouleau, for granting it standing before the Commission. Second, the CCF sought standing to assist the Commission because it will address questions that are core to our mandate. The emergency proclamation and emergency measures regulations severely restricted the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association. The economic -- the emergency economic measures order chilled freedom of expression by deterring donations to organizations opposed to the public order emergency, such as the CCF. For the CCF, the fundamental question is whether the condition in the final clause of section 3 of the Emergencies Act was met, that the Ottawa protests and border blockades could not be effectively dealt with under any law -- any other law of Canada, federal, provincial, or municipal. This clause codifies the requirement that the Emergencies Act is a last resort, which can only be triggered when all other legal tools fall short. Third, although the Commission will necessarily focus on recent events, a sense of history should frame how it approaches this task. The Emergencies Act is a successor to the discredited War Measures Act, which was abused during the FLQ crisis in Quebec. The Emergencies Act, especially the last resort clause, was drafted to ensure that the Act could never be used by a federal government against its political opponents. For 34 years, the Emergencies Act was never used. The public order emergency of 2022 was a historic first, but now that the glass has been broken on the Act, it can be used again. The Act was used by this government against individuals protesting vaccine mandates, but a future government of a different political stripe could use the Act in response to protests against pipelines or climate change. When the Commission asks hard questions about the Act’s use in 2022, the Commission must also focus on the Act’s potential misuse in the future and protect the right to protest, parliamentary democracy, and federalism. And what the Commission says matters not just to Canada, but globally, where the use of emergency powers is on the rise. The world will be watching our work. Fourth, the CCF would like to thank Commissioner Rouleau, and Commission Counsel for taking on this enormous task of public service in an extremely tight timeline on an issue of singular and momentous significance to Canada. We look forward to assisting you in any way possible. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 63 01-063-25

Ryan Alford, Professor (CCF and Alford)

Good morning, Commissioner. May I be heard?

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 66 01-066-02

Ryan Alford, Professor (CCF and Alford)

Thank you. Ryan Alford, Professor of Law at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law, Lakehead University. In its opening statement, the Government of Canada stated it had a reasonable basis for declaring a Public Order Emergency. Unfortunately, a reasonable basis is not necessarily a legal, let alone a constitutional basis for assuming unprecedented and destructive emergency powers. I would like to briefly quote in part the correct legal standard in these circumstances for threats to the security of Canada that constitute a Public Order Emergency. Quote: "Activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence..." Not tied to serious acts of violence in some fashion. Not in conjunction with, or somehow associated in some fashion with. Rather, directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence. We are here to receive in public the evidence from the Government of Canada related to the correct legal standard for the proclamation of a Public Order Emergency, and the rule of law requires nothing less. Thank you, Commissioner.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 66 01-066-06

Cara Zwibel, Counsel (CCLA)

It's my job to be the comic relief. So good morning, Mr. Commissioner, and good morning, Commission Counsel, members of the public. My name is Cara Zwibel, and I, along with my Ewa Krajewska, who is participating remotely, are representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. We will be participating primarily remotely starting next week, but do anticipate attending in person for portions of the coming weeks, and we look forward to participating in the fact-finding role of the Commission and expect to play a particularly active role in the Commission's policy phase and forward-looking functions. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA, is a national, independent, non-governmental organisation that is dedicated to the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada. The CCLA has been engaged in this important work since its founding in 1964, and is known for taking principled stands on difficult issues that require reconciling fundamental rights with other competing interests. The Commission is aware that the CCLA has sought judicial review of the decision to declare a Public Order Emergency, and argues that the Act's legal threshold was not met, and that the emergency orders that were put in place by the Government breached constitutional rights in a manner that was not reasonable or justified. The CCLA's interest in the Commission's work comes from our concern about the use of emergency powers that circumvent the parliamentary processes and allow the Executive Branch to rule by fiat. It is a concern that has been around for as long as the organisation has existed, and although the excesses of the War Measures Act are now well understood, during the FLQ Crisis itself, the CCLA was one of the lone voices critical of the use of that law. As a result of that experience, the organisation participated actively in the process that led to the passage of the current Emergencies Act. In particular, the CCLA encouraged Parliament to build meaningful oversight and accountability mechanisms into the Act and to require a high and judicially- reviewable threshold for declaring a national emergency. There are many issues that the Commission will be examining which are central to CCLA's work, including the lawful scope of the right to protest; the role of police in facilitating protests while protecting public safety; the relationship between policing authorities, civilian oversight bodies and government actors; and the surveillance of those involved in dissenting social movements. More broadly, the CCLA's interest in the Commission's work goes to the core of the organisation's mandate, protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians and demanding transparency and accountability from our governments. The CCLA views the Commission as an instrumental part of achieving the goals of transparency and accountability, and our participation in the Commission's proceedings will be aimed at supporting those goals. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 67 01-067-07

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Good morning, Commissioner. If there is no objection, I'd like to call my colleagues up from The Democracy Fund and Citizens for Freedom. We had all prepared very brief introductions of ourselves and our organisations, and should come in well under the time allotted for a single party.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 69 01-069-09

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 69 01-069-20

Rob Kittredge, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

I'm Rob Kittredge. I represent the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. And since 2010, the Justice Centre has defended the fundamental rights of Canadians through pro bono litigation. A team of Justice Centre lawyers were on the ground in Ottawa for the duration of the protests here, and our lawyers have been and continue to be involved in much of the related litigation. We look forward to continuing to defend the rights and freedoms of Canadians here at this Inquiry and holding the Government to account on its innovation of the Emergencies Act. It likely comes as no surprise that we view the invocation of the Act to have been an unjustified infringement on the fundamental rights of Canadians. I'm joined here today by my co-counsel James Manson, and my co-counsel, Hatim Kheir is following online. We will each be here in person at various times throughout the Inquiry. And I'll turn it over to my colleagues at The Democracy Fund and Citizens for Freedom.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 69 01-069-23

Antoine D’Ailly, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Thank you, and good morning. My name is Antoine D'Ailly, counsel, together with Amanda Armstrong, to Citizens for Freedom, representing a not-for-profit organisation representing the interests and perspectives of the peaceful demonstrators in Windsor, Ontario. We are here to assist the Commission in fulfilling its mandate, particularly its fact-finding function as it relates to the protests that occurred in Windsor, which culminated in the widely publicised demonstration near the Ambassador Bridge, and the various corresponding responses by the various levels of government and law enforcement. Citizens for Freedom is here to advance the interests of truth and transparency and to assist this Commission in producing a balanced and accurate public record.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 70 01-070-17

Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)

Good morning, Commissioner, and good morning everyone. My name is Alan Honner, and I am the litigation Director for The Democracy Fund. The Democracy Fund is a registered charity and a civil liberties organisation. As you've heard, we're sharing standing with the JCCF and with Citizens for Freedom. Our interest in this Inquiry arises from our legal work. In February of 2022, we sent lawyers to Ottawa and to Windsor to provide demonstrators with legal information about their rights when protesting, as well as the limitations of those rights. Around the same time, we were granted intervenor status as a friend of the Court, at the Superior Court of Justice in Windsor over the Ambassador Bridge injunction proceeding. Currently, we represent dozens of persons who have been criminally charged in relation to the protests at Ottawa, Windsor, and Coutts, and we represent thousands of others who have been charged under the Quarantine Act, or provincial offences related to the pandemic. We've also brought applications between -- before superior courts and the Federal Court of Canada challenging laws related to the pandemic. Our objective is to participate in the fact- finding process of this Inquiry, particularly as it relates to uncovering the truth about why the Federal Government invoked a Public Order Emergency and how they used their powers. From our perspective, the Government did not meet the requisite legal grounds to invoke a Public Order Emergency for the same reasons you heard from Counsel for the Freedom Corp. It follows that the extraordinary measures the government invoked were therefore inappropriate and indeed outside their jurisdiction. Our questions and our submissions will focus on these central issues. Thank you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 71 01-071-04

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Commissioner. To begin, I would ask our senior Commission Counsel, Daniel Sheppard, to present and adduce into evidence an overview report on the emergence of COVID-19 and the various Public Health measures implemented in Canada in response to it.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 73 01-073-11

Dan Sheppard, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Mr. Commissioner, parties, members of the public, good morning. My name is Daniel Sheppard. I am senior Commission Counsel with the Public Order Emergency Commission. Today, we will be introducing into evidence three overview reports, and we anticipate that additional overview reports will be put into evidence in the days and weeks to follow. The first is a report on the COVID-19 pandemic and Public Health responses. Next slide, please. Because we're going to be spending some time today putting overview reports into evidence, I'd like to take a moment to discuss with members of the public what an overview report is and how it works within the Commission. You have already heard that the timelines that the Commission is working under are tight, and that not every witness that the Commission might hear from will, in fact, be called. There are large bodies of evidence that exist often in writing and entire topics that need to be explored by the Commission, but it would be impracticable to call live evidence in order to put it before the Commissioner. Previous commissions of inquiry have adopted the procedure of overview reports, documents created by Commission staff that collect, corelate and summarize large bodies of information into documents that may be more or less concise, so that they can be reviewed by the Commissioner, the parties and the public to understand a particular area of relevance to the Commission. The Public Order Emergency Commission has adopted this procedure. And for those who are interested in technical details about how overview reports work, reference can be made to Rules 41 through 45 of the Commission's Revised Rules of Practice and Procedure. I've mentioned that overview reports are created by Commission Counsel. After they are prepared, they have been circulated to the parties and we've invited their comment. And for those parties who have provided comment to the overview reports so far, I would like to express the thanks of the Commission. While not all comments have been accepted or necessarily reflected in finalized overview reports, the feedback that has been provided has been invaluable in ensuring that the Commission puts forward what it believes are high- quality documents before the Commissioner that he can rely upon. Once overview reports have been finalized and are introduced, they do become evidence before the Commission that may be relied upon by the Commissioner and the parties. However, it is important to note that simply because an overview report has been prepared by Commission Counsel does not mean that the Commissioner necessarily will accept its contents. Rather, an overview report is, like all other evidence, information before the Commissioner that he may or may not choose to rely on. This means that parties are free to disagree with the content of an overview report and are entitled to challenge its contents. Moreover, in areas where an overview report may not capture relevant information, parties and indeed Commission Counsel are free to supplement the information contained in them through the ordinary process of the factual inquiry. Next slide, please. With that general introduction out of the way, I would now like to present COM.OR.2, the COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Responses. This overview report summarizes publicly available information about the COVID-19 pandemic around the world and in Canada. The Commission anticipates that a great deal of evidence that it will be hearing will be made in reference to the pandemic and public health measures implemented by various Canadian authorities. This overview report attempts to provide context so that when those discussions take place and that evidence is heard, the Commissioner, the parties and the public have a factual background to understand what public health measures were in fact in place and what statements about the current public health system around the world and the pandemic were at different points in time. It therefore provides information not only about the pandemic itself and about public health measures, it also provides information about vaccine development and particular measures adopted by Canadian governments in different jurisdictions with respect to COVID vaccines. Next slide. The overview report contains essentially four components. The first, which is found at paragraphs 1 through 39 of the overview report deals specifically with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. It does so in two ways. First, it provides a summary overview of international information about the spread of COVID-19 around the globe, and then second, provides background information about the emergence of COVID-19 in Canada. Next slide. On the international side of things, this overview report provides information about the original emergence of a novel coronavirus in late 2019 and its rapid spread throughout the world. It also provides background information about public health declarations and surveillance conducted by organizations, most notably, the World Health Organization. This includes the January 30, 2020 declaration of COVID-19 as a public health emergency of international concern and the March 11th, 2020 declaration by the World Health Organization of COVID-19 to be a global pandemic. Next slide, please. In Canada, this Overview Report discusses two main timelines. First it deals with when COVID-19 first emerged in different provinces across the country. With the exception of early provinces, such as Ontario and British Columbia, and the Territory of Nunavut, which was spared any infections until later in 2020, the Overview Report notes that most provinces began to be impacted with infections in later February, through mid-March. This Overview Report also outlines when each province and territory first declared a state of emergency under a variety of public health and emergency management statutes in respect of COVID-19. You’ll note from the slide that each of these jurisdictions declared some form of emergency throughout March of 2020. Next slide, please. The second part of this Overview Report, which is found at paragraphs 40 through 108, deals with what we term as the initial public health measures. Next slide, please. Spanning pages 16 through 50 of the Overview Report, this is a lengthy section, but notwithstanding its length, it’s important for Commission Counsel to emphasize this is not a comprehensive list of every public health measure that was implemented within Canada. Rather, it is limited in a couple of different ways. First, this Overview Report focuses on public health measures that were adopted from the early declarations of emergency in March 2020, up until the point in time when covid vaccines began to be approved for distribution and marketing in Canada. Secondly, this section of the Overview Report focuses almost exclusively on public health measures adopted by governments at the provincial and territorial level. Notably, it does not address public health measures adopted by other levels of government, such as municipalities or Indigenous governments. Finally, even within those confines, the Overview Report does not attempt to outline each and every public health measure adopted within the first year of the pandemic. That would be impossible and would turn the Overview Report into a largely useless document. To put this in context, in Ontario, the jurisdiction where I live, in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Provincial Government adopted over 200 orders in council specifically dealing with measures in respect to the pandemic. And while I have had the pleasure of reading each and every one of them, it would not necessarily be the best use of the Commission’s time to go over them in an Overview Report. Instead, this Overview Report focuses on six particular types of public health measures that were adopted broadly throughout Canada, and had significant impacts on the way Canadians live their lives. This includes restrictions on travel, both in terms of barriers to entering provinces and territories, or requirements to self-isolate, school closures and other types of closures impacting early childcare, limits on gatherings of persons, both in terms of public assemblies and private gatherings, both indoors and outdoors, closures of businesses and other locations, such as the shut down of indoor dining or prohibitions on use of outdoor recreational amenities, curfews and stay at home orders, measures that while adopted less frequently throughout Canada, did have significant impacts by restricting individuals’ rights to leave their home during particular periods or times of the day, and finally masking requirements, obligations imposed on individuals to wear face coverings in a variety of settings. Next slide. The third portion of this Overview Report deals with vaccine approvals in Canada. It is found in paragraphs 109 through 123 of the Overview Report. This section of the Overview Report deals with two broad issues. First, the Overview Report discusses the process whereby vaccines were considered and approved by Health Canada. Second, it deals with the actual approvals that were in fact made and the vaccines that became available at different points in time for marketing and use. Next slide, please. With respect to the drug approval process, the Overview Report discusses, in very general terms, how drug approval operates within Canada, under the Food and Drug Regulations, a regulation that is made pursuant to the Food and Drugs Act. Under the Food and Drugs Act, however, the Minister of Health has the authority, in section 30.1, to make something referred to as an interim order. And interim order can be made, this is the statutory language: “…if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment.” The overview report discusses that on September 16th of 2020, the Minister of Health made one such interim order with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. The interim order respecting the importation, sale, and advertising of drugs for use in relation to COVID-19 contained a number of rules that were followed by Health Canada in the assessment and ultimate approval of a series of COVID-19 vaccines. Two procedural characteristics of the interim order are of particular note. The first is the rolling application process. In the ordinary drug approval process, Health Canada expects proponents to put forward all relevant clinical information at the time an application is made. Under the interim order, Health Canada allowed for rolling applications, permitting drug companies to provide initial clinical information at the time of an application, but to continue to provide additional information as the application was assessed, and prior to final approval. The second procedural alteration was pre- positioning, a measure that permitted the importation of drugs and its positioning throughout Canada so that in the event a vaccine were approved, doses would already be located at several locations throughout the country. At this point, I’d like to pause to note that on March 17th of 2021, the interim order expired. At that time, the Government of Canada made amendments to the Food and Drug Regulations to incorporate some aspects of the interim order into the ordinary regulatory regime. Next slide, please. The interim order also set out the approval standard for the Minister of Health to apply when approving drugs for use with COVID-19. The standard and relevant part was that the Minister had to have sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID-19. Applying this standard, Health Canada approved a series of drugs for use within Canada. By today, there are currently six drugs that have gone through the approval process that began December 9th of 2020 and most recently occurred on February 24th, 2022 with a drug put forward by the company, Medicago. Next slide, please. The fourth and final section of this Overview Report deals with public health measures specifically related to vaccines and it can be found at paragraphs 124 through 180 of the Overview Report. Next slide. Once again, the Overview Report does not need to be entirely exhaustive. The purpose of this section of the Overview Report is to identify certain key public health measures that were specifically tied to individuals’ vaccination status. The focus of this section of the Overview Report is on rules imposed by governments, rules imposed by other types of actors, such as employers of their own accord, are not specifically dealt with in the overview report. Much like the section dealing with early public health measures, the Commission has also focused on a particular subset of public health measures connected to vaccine status. It is focussed on access to places, requirements for work, and limits on travel and movement. Next slide. With respect to access to places, this overview report discusses a range of rules implemented by government that tied an individual's ability to access a particular place, venue or service to their vaccine status or their willingness to provide proof of their vaccine status. Within this section, the Commission notes that there were a range of different types of public health measures adopted by different governments. So to simply provide an example to show some of the ranges of options adopted by governments, Alberta implemented something called the Restrictions Exemption Program in September of 2021. At this point in time, many types of businesses in Alberta were subject to particular forms of public health measures, such as masking requirements, limits on the number of people who could be physically present in a venue, or social distancing obligations. Under the Restrictions Exemption Program, certain types of businesses had an option. They could continue to operate under the pre-existing public health orders, or they could opt into this system, which would relieve them of the obligation to comply with several of them. However, in order to participate in the Restrictions Exemption Program, qualified businesses were required to check vaccine status of those attempting to access their venues, and to confirm that individuals were fully vaccinated. A different type of approach was adopted in Ontario pursuant to originally Regulation 645/21, though amended several times thereafter. Under this approach, the Government of Ontario imposed mandatory obligations on businesses to require that anyone accessing their premises show proof of full vaccination. There were no opt-outs that were provided. Next slide, please. The overview report also deals with a number of measures related to employment and work. In this area, governments adopted a range of different rules and measures that linked individual's ability to engage in certain types of work to their vaccine status. These measures were adopted in a variety of different ways. Some were applicable solely to the public sector, others captured private sector employers as well. Some measures applied directly to workers, other measures applied to employers and required them to implement particular policies. And the requirements under different programs varied dramatically. Some were simple obligations on workers to become vaccinated to access workplaces and others provided a variety of alternatives. Again, solely by way of example, we've provided two on this slide. The Saskatchewan Government adopted a pair of regulations. The Public Employer's COVID-19 Emergency Regulations and the Employer's COVID-19 Emergency Regulations. The former imposed an obligation on all public sector employers to implement policies. These policies required their employees to either become fully vaccinated by a particular point in time, or else to undergo weekly testing in order to access the workplace. The latter regulation applied to the private sector. It imposed no specific obligation on employers, but did give employers the legal authority to impose this type of policy on their workforce. As a contrast, the Commission has put on this slide Newfoundland's approach in its mandatory vaccination policy. This policy, which was applicable to public servants as well as contractors and vendors with the government required workers to become fully vaccinated by December 17th of 2021. Those individuals who chose not to become vaccinated by that date were told pursuant to the policy that they could be placed on a leave of absence without pay. Next slide. Thank you. The third and final area of focus in the overview report in this section deals with travel and movement. While some provinces and other jurisdictions imposed rules with respect to travel and movement that were connected to individual's vaccine status, the bulk of rules in this area were implemented by the federal government under a range of statutes, including transportation legislation, such as the Railway Safety Act and the Aeronautics Act, and also, and of particular significance to the evidence that we anticipate hearing in this inquiry, pursuant to the Quarantine Act. As many may remember, for much of the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, Canada's borders were largely closed to foreign nationals who were attempting to enter for optional or discretionary purposes. However, starting between August 9th and September 7th of 2021, Canada began to implement rules permitting individuals to enter the country for optional or discretionary purposes, as long as they were able to show proof of being fully vaccinated. However, these were rules that were targeting optional and discretionary entry into Canada. A different set of rules were applicable to individuals seeking to enter Canada for what might be termed as essential purposes. The rules were contained in a variety of orders under the Quarantine Act and were often applicable in a somewhat complicated fashion. However, taken together, the effect was that for much of the pandemic, commercial truckers were able to cross the U.S./Canada border without regard to their vaccine status. Indeed, for much of the time they did so, there were no vaccines available. Those individuals crossing the border could be exempted from a variety of otherwise applicable measures under the Quarantine Act such as the obligation to quarantine as well as certain rules with respect to testing. Next slide, please. The Commission anticipates, however, that a series of changes that began to become announced in October and November of 2021 played a significant role in the circumstances that led to the proclamation of a public order emergency. First, starting in October of 2021, the Government of the United States of America made an announcement that starting in January of 2020, all inbound foreign nationals entering the United States via land or ferry crossings would be barred from entry if they were not fully vaccinated, even if they were entering for an essential purpose. A little over a month later, on November 19th of 2021, the Government of Canada announced that starting January 15th, 2022, new rules would apply at the border under orders made under the Quarantine Act. The effect of the announced changes was that essential service providers, including truck drivers, would have to be vaccinated to enter Canada in many circumstances. Unvaccinated foreign nationals would be barred from entry. Canadians and others that had a special legal entitlement to enter the country would still be allowed entry; however, they would no longer be exempted from particular public health measures such as the requirement to quarantine. On January 12th of 2022, a spokesperson with the Canadian Border Services Agency announced that, in fact, unvaccinated Canadian commercial truckers would be allowed to enter Canada across international borders without the obligation to quarantine. However, the next day on January 13th, the Government of Canada indicated that that statement was made in error. The Government reiterated that the previously announced new measures at the border that would apply, including to commercial truckers, though not exclusively, would come into effect on January 15th. And that is essentially where the overview report ends. As the Commission anticipates that a great deal of the evidence that it will hear will deal with events taking place in early and mid-January of 2022, influenced in part by some of the measures outlined in this overview report. Next slide. For parties with standing at the Commission, this overview report is available for review in the participant database. For members of the public who wish to learn more about the topic covered in this overview report, it will shortly be made available on the website for the Commission at www.publicorderemergencycommission.ca. Mr. Commissioner, parties, members of the public, I thank you for my time. That is the presentation on this overview report.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 73 01-073-19

Dan Sheppard, Senior Counsel (POEC)

We would ask that to be done.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 88 01-088-03

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Commissioner. The next presentation will be made by Commission Counsel, Stephen Armstrong, who will present into evidence a second overview report entitled Early Protests, Activities, and Legal Challenges Relating to Public Health Measures.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 88 01-088-10

Stephen Armstrong, Counsel (POEC)

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 88 01-088-18

Stephen Armstrong, Counsel (POEC)

Good afternoon, Commissioner, Counsel, members of the public. My name is Stephen Armstrong, and I am Commission Counsel. I'm here today to present the overview report on early protest activities and legal challenges. This overview report summarises a sample protests and legal challenges relating to public health measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the timeframe is primarily 2020 and 2021, although we'll also touch on 2019 and 2022. This report is intended to provide some high level context to the very detailed evidence that we will hear in the coming weeks. What this report describes is the development over time of what could fairly be described as a mass protest movement against COVID related public health measures. The intent of this overview report is not to investigate the merits or demerits of any particular measure or of any particular protest. The report also addresses some of the legal challenges brought against these public health measures, and again it's not an investigation into the merits or demerits of any piece of litigation. Let me also say a few words on methodology. This report was compiled based on publicly available news sources that are indexed in the internet. We made a real effort to search for a variety of sources, and we tried to cover all of the regions in Canada. And given that broad scope, this overview report is not an exhaustive catalogue of all protests or all court challenges, and the absence of any event should not be taken as a suggestion by the Commission that it's irrelevant or less relevant. We've also made an effort in this report to just stick to the facts, the raw facts, the places, the dates, and numbers without any extra colour. So without further ado, I'm going to move through the report in chronological order. So I'll start at the beginning. Pages 5 to 6 of the report address a precursor event called the United We Roll convoy. On February 14th, 2014, a convoy of truckers known as United We Roll left Red Deer Alberta bound for Ottawa to protest the Federal Government's energy policies. Around 170 trucks of varying sizes left Red Deer as part of the convoy. Arriving in Ottawa on February 19th, 2019, the convoy participated in two days of demonstrations on or around Parliament Hill before dispersing. A Facebook page remains active. Although focussed on energy policy, the page still makes posts and has made posts in support of the Freedom Convoy in 2022. So turning to pages 6 to 10 of the overview report, this addresses the beginning of the protests movements in March 2020 to December 2020. And my colleague, Mr. Sheppard, already discussed the onset of COVID and the public health measures that were taken, and protests began pretty soon after those public health measures were adopted. There were protests reported in -- from major centres, such as Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Ottawa in April of 2020, and eventually we saw the beginnings of what appeared to be sort of loosely coordinated national protests by the summer. And so on, for example, July 19th, 2020, protests were held in cities all across Canada, and it was reported that these were part of a coordinated march to unmask movement opposed to mandatory masking. And momentum seemed to have grown or seems to grow from there as the protests grew in scale. On September 12th, 2020, for example, it was reported that several thousand people turned out to protest mask mandates and other measures in Montreal. As another example, in October of 2020, protestors rallied against lockdowns and other public health measures in Downtown Toronto, and it was reported that around 1,500 people were in attendance. And these protests were by no means limited to the big centres in Canada. For example, on November 7th, 2020, as many as 2,000 people marched through Aylmer, Ontario to protest public health measures, and it was reported that the protestors included many people from the town's large religious communities. And moving towards the end of the year, just another example, on December 19th, 2020, hundreds of people marched through Calgary, and as well through Montreal, and CTV News reported from Montreal that the protestors were marching in opposition to public health measures introduced by the Quebec Government. So turning to pages 10 to 28 of the overview report, this addresses events as they continue through 2021. And at the beginning of the year, Quebec had introduced a curfew, and it was reported that protests were held that same day, January 9th, 2021, in Montreal, Sherbrooke, and Quebec City. Protests were also reported in January and February in Moncton and Halifax, and as well, across the country. And these protests really seemed to pick up speed and reach a crescendo in the fall of 2021, overlapping with the federal election of that year. As well, in 2021, of course as my colleague mentioned, was around the time that mass vaccinations became available. So new measures were introduced, and protests continued in response to those new measures surrounding vaccination. And so going to the fall. From August 30th to September 5th, 2021, protestors demonstrated against vaccine mandates outside hospitals in major urban centres all across Canada, including St. John's, Newfoundland, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Victoria, and Vancouver. Thousands of people were reported to come out and attend these protests right across the country. And the next weekend as well, on September 13th, 2021, protestors demonstrated across the country, including at Toronto General Hospital, and in Barrie, and London, Ontario, and various places across the country. And this was part of the protests organised by the Canadian Frontline Nurses. And then moving into the later part of the year is when the border measures for truckers and for other persons were announced in November, as my colleague discussed. As well, in November, Canadian Border Service Agency officers stopped a truck driver by the name of Brigitte Belton at the Windsor/Detroit crossing for failing to wear her mask, and she posted a video discussing the event on TikTok, and in the event she voiced frustration and emotion with the public health measures. She would later connect with Chris Farber on social media, and these people played a role in organising the convoy to Ottawa. So further protests continued into December 2021 and the New Year, and in the report, from pages 29 to 32, we provide a very basic skeleton of certain events leading up to the arrival of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in January of 2022. And so -- and it's in January of 2022, that we see the development of the Freedom Convoy idea and its launch. On January 13th, 2022, Chris Barber, Brigitte Belton, James Bauder, and others attend the Facebook Live event hosted by Pat King. The group discussed routes and logistics with the Freedom Convoy before an audience that reportedly reached 3,000 viewers at one point. On January 14th, 2022, Tamara Lich created a Facebook page and GoFundMe campaign for the Freedom Convoy. On January 22nd and 23rd, 2022, contingents of the Freedom Convoy departed from various points in British Columbia for Ottawa, and two other convoy contingents were planned to depart from Enfield, Nova Scotia, and Windsor later on in January, on the 27th. As of January 5th, 2022, the GoFundMe campaign had raised more than $4.5 million. News reports covered the progress of the convoy on a daily or near-daily basis as it crossed the country. Thousands of trucks and thousands of participants were reportedly participating in the convoy as it made its way to Ottawa. Freedom Convoy participants arrived in Ottawa on or around January 28th and 29th, 2022, and that takes us up to the subject matter of this hearing, and we anticipate that further evidence on the origins, development of the Freedom Convoy, the protest, and blockades will be adduced during these hearings. So Mr. Commissioner, that’s the Overview Report.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 88 01-088-19

Stephen Armstrong, Counsel (POEC)

Sir.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 93 01-093-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Thank you, Commissioner. I’d now like to ask our Senior Commission counsel, Dan Sheppard, to present an Overview Report consisting of a timeline of key events leading up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 94 01-094-04

Dan Sheppard, Senior Counsel (POEC)

Hello, everyone, long time, no see. My name is Dan Sheppard, and I’m Senior Commission Counsel with the Public Order Emergency Commission, this time to present an Overview Report entitled, “Timeline of Certain Key Events”. Next slide, please. This is COMMOR00000004. The purpose of this Overview Report is somewhat different than the other ones that have been produced by the Commission. Whereas other Overview Reports are being put forward primarily as a means by which individuals can understand background information that’s relevant to the evidence that’s going to be heard, this Overview Report is intended to just serve more as a tool. It’ll become fairly clear, as evidence gets heard in these proceedings, that events were taking place across the country, often within compressed rapid timeframes, often in different parts of the country, in parallel. As individuals hear evidence about particular events, it may be useful to be able to step back and take a broader view about what was happening Canada-wide. This Overview Report is intended to therefore serve as something of a reference tool to help put the evidence that will be heard in its chronological and spatial context. You’ve heard me say, with respect to the last Overview Report that I presented, these are not exhaustive. This is very true for this Overview Report. If this Overview Report were to recount every relevant event that took place throughout the events leading up to the proclamation of a public Order of Emergency, then the bulk of the Commission’s report would already be written. This is necessarily a highly reduced timeline that deals with only some events that may be useful for participants and members of the public to have in mind when they hear the evidence that will be put before the Commissioner. I want to emphasize, therefore, that the absence of any particular event from this timeline is not a signal that the information is in any way less relevant or irrelevant. Rather, these are only some of the events that the Commission thought would be useful to be contained in a single document before all the parties, and available to the public. Next slide. So as a timeline, it is unsurprisingly organized chronologically. Within that chronological organization, the events are also subdivided by either location, when we’re dealing with an event that took place in a particular space; or by jurisdiction, when we’re dealing decisions that are more appropriately tied to a particular type of authority, like a level of government. The idea is that this will permit the reader to get a rapid sense of where different events were taking place simultaneously in different locations. It’s also important to note, as you read the Overview Report, that the actual events that are being identified are set out in very succinct and neutral terms. The purpose of the Overview Report is not to provide detailed information about any particular event; but rather to flag the existence of an event. The Commission anticipates that evidence will be heard on most, if not all, of the events identified in this Overview Report. In terms of the report’s scope, it captures the period beginning November of 2021 ,and ending in April of 2022. However, the focus of the timeline really are events that take place between January 13th and February 24th of 2022. While the time periods before and after are covered to a certain degree, it is within that narrower timeframe where the Overview Report provides something of a day-by-day account of events that were taking place throughout Canada. Next slide. Now, we are a little bit ahead of schedule, and so I’m tempted to simply read the Overview Report into evidence, but, again, I’m not sure parties would necessarily enjoy that. And so instead I’m going to take what I’ve already told you is a already non-exhaustive list of events and make it a little bit less exhaustive by just pointing out some of the events that are actually covered, divided into some rough timeframes. I mentioned that the Overview Report does begin in 2021 with some things we could style, “Pre-convoy events”; this would include, for example, what Mr. Armstrong had already discussed in terms of posts on social media that attracted particular attention with respect to public health measures and border crossings; what I had previously discussed with respect to the last Overview Report, in terms of government announcements relating to border measures and public health measures; as well as, to some predecessor protests and events that may be relevant to the circumstances leading to the proclamation of a Public Order Emergency, such as the Operation Bear Hug Convoy that took place in Ottawa in early December of 2021. Next slide. The Overview Report goes on to discuss what could be styled as convoy preparation, both in terms of those individuals involved in the convoy itself, but also preparation taking place by other actors throughout Canada. This includes the events that Mr. Armstrong has already referred to, in terms of meetings taken online between different organizers. We also see, on January 13th, 2022, the first time that the phrase, “Freedom Convoy” is mentioned in a Project Hendon Report. The Commission anticipates that it will hear a fair bit of evidence with respect to Project Hendon; what it was, what these reports were, what they contained, and how they were shared and acted upon. Many parties have made reference to crowdfunding, and the funding of protest activities. The Overview Report also talks about certain actions taken with respect to efforts by organizers to raise funds in support of the Freedom Convoy, such as the January 14th creation of the Freedom Convoy 2022 crowdfunding campaign on the GoFundMe platform. The Overview Report also then discusses the actual departure of convoy participants from locations across Canada, and what different individuals were doing in terms of responding to that, including communications within governments and police services. Next slide. The next portion of this Overview Report deals with the early protests taking place in Ottawa, and a series of events occurring simultaneously in other parts of the country. On January 28th of 2022, convoy participants began to arrive in the City of Ottawa, and at the same time, levels of government began to respond, including the Government of Ontario making requests for federal assistance, for access to certain spaces to be used for police station. It's during this period of time in which the overview report also identifies the emergence of protests at various locations along the Canada/U.S. border and in other major jurisdictions within the country, including provincial capitals. It covers early protests taking place in the City of Windsor that were styled as slow-roll protests designed to impede, although not block, traffic; a blockade that took place near Coutts, Alberta; and other protests in provincial capitals where individuals and vehicles protested a variety of public health measures. These events were largely public. The overview report also captures certain events that, while significant to the circumstances leading to the proclamation of a public order emergency, were not taking place in the public eye. Events such as the January 30th creation of the Freedom 2022 Human Rights and Freedoms non-profit corporation and briefings taking place within municipal government, discussing the possibility of seeking injunctions in response to protest activities. Next slide, please. Moving into February, this overview report deals with what we can style the protest continue and spread, as the Ottawa protests continue, to the surprise of some, and protests taking place in other parts of the country expand and become more frequent. Events that are summarized in this part of the overview report include highly notorious events such as the release of $1 million by GoFundMe, comments made by the Ottawa Chief of Police with respect to policing solutions for the Ottawa protests, and changes in the Coutts border blockade. It also deals with an increasing number of protests taking place now in locations such as Toronto, Winnipeg and Regina. Also canvassed during this period of time are continued interactions between federal, municipal and provincial governments, such as the Government of Alberta's request for federal assistance to gain access to military tow trucks to be used in the context of the Coutts' protests. And finally, with respect to Windsor, it captures the February 7th blockage of the Ambassador Bridge. Next slide, please. Moving into mid-February, this timeline deals with how protests continued and the emergence of new responses from a variety of actors. Examples of this were the February 7th injunction obtained by class action litigants in the City of Ottawa designed to prevent the honking of horns by truckers, the arrival of an integrated planning team that brought OPP and RCMP planners to the City of Ottawa. It dealt with requests for federal assistance by governments such as the Government of Windsor. And responding to some of the previous events with respect to online crowd funding, it also reviews steps taken by the Government of Ontario to restrain access to those funds as proceeds of crime. Notably in this period, this overview report also notes the first meeting of the Incident Response Group, or the IRG. The Commission anticipates that the Commissioner will hear a great deal of evidence on what the IRG is and the particular role it played in federal decision making with respect to the declaration of a public order emergency. Next slide, please. The overview report then moves to February 13th and 14th being the immediate period of time before the declaration of a public order emergency and the actual decision itself to invoke the Emergencies Act. It covers events taking place in Windsor and in Coutts, and also deals with both key meetings that took place at the federal level and between different levels of government. Next slide, please. The overview report then goes on to recount events that take place during the proclaimed public order emergency and the events leading up to the revocation of that proclamation. This includes changes in the senior leadership at the Ottawa Police Service, the creation of the Emergency Measures Regulations, the EMRs, and the Emergency Economic Measures Order, or the EEMO, pursuant to the Emergencies Act, the clearance of blockades at Emerson, and the influence of further injunctive activity before the courts. Finally, this section of the overview report chronicles parliamentary debates and the ultimate decision to revoke states of emergency that existed at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Next slide, please. Again, for the parties, this overview report is available within the participant database, and for members of the public who wish to have this before them as a tool as they listen to the evidence throughout these hearings, this overview report will soon be available on the Commission's website. And, Mr. Commissioner, I would ask that this overview report be marked as the next exhibit.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 94 01-094-11

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Yes, Commissioner, as you note, the next two reports will not be marked as evidence, but they will be presented by Commission Counsel Étienne Lacombe to give context for some of the evidence that will follow. Those reports will deal with a primer on the Emergencies Act and a review of the Section 58 explanation provided by the Government in relation to the Emergencies Act.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 102 01-102-07

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Well, they could be marked as lettered exhibits and in that term, or it could just be placed on the website. I think the best process would be to place them on the website and people can access them in that way.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 102 01-102-18

Jeffrey Leon, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Yes.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 102 01-102-25

Étienne Lacombe, Counsel (POEC)

Monsieur le commissaire, merci. Bonjour à tous. Je m’appelle Étienne Lacombe, je suis avocat de la Commission et, cet après-midi, je vais vous offrir un exposé introductif à la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Donc, je pense qu’on peut passer à la prochaine diapo. Ce que je vous propose plus précisément, en fait, c'est de résumer les deux volets en quelque sorte de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Donc, d’abord, les conditions qui sont nécessaires pour invoquer la Loi et ensuite les mesures qu’elle permet au gouvernement d’adopter. Donc, si la Commission vous offre ce résumé aujourd'hui, c'est pour mettre en contexte la preuve que vous allez entendre au cours des prochaines semaines. Il est important d’apprécier le cadre juridique de la Loi puisque le rôle de la Commission consiste en partie à évaluer les actions du gouvernement en fonction des exigences de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Donc, je vais rentrer un peu dans le détail quand même, mais ça se veut en toute forme un résumé. Donc, j’ai l’intention de paraphraser certaines des dispositions et, bien entendu, je ne pourrai pas aborder tous les détails ou toutes les exceptions qui sont prévues à la Loi — ça, vous aurez la chance d’en entendre parler au cours des prochaines semaines pendant que la Commission continue ses travaux. Prochaine diapo, s’il vous plait. Donc, essentiellement, pour invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence, il faut qu’il y ait une crise nationale, il faut que le gouvernement ait des motifs raisonnables, en fait, de croire qu’il y a une crise nationale, et la législation prévoit qu’il y a plusieurs sortes de crises nationales. Toutes les sortes de crise partagent quand même des points communs, mais elles se distinguent aussi des autres. Donc, ce que je vais faire au cours des prochaines minutes, c'est que je vais commencer par une définition large des crises nationales ou des situations de crise pour ensuite en arriver à la sorte de crise plus précise que le gouvernement a déclarée en février 2022. Donc, à la base, par contre, une crise nationale, c'est une situation urgente, comme vous voyez à l’écran, temporaire et critique à laquelle les autres lois du Canada ne peuvent répondre adéquatement. En plus, toute crise nationale doit correspondre à l’un des deux énoncés qui sont affichés à l’écran. Donc, elles doivent soit mettre gravement en danger la vie, la santé, la sécurité des Canadiens, échapper à la capacité ou au pouvoir d’intervention des provinces, ou elles doivent menacer gravement la capacité du gouvernement du Canada de garantir la souveraineté, et la sécurité, et l’intégrité territoriale du pays. Donc, quand on parle de crise nationale, on parle non seulement… on ne parle pas seulement de définition générale, on parle de quatre types possibles de crise nationale. Vous les voyez listés à l’écran : on parle des sinistres, des états d’urgence, des crises internationales et d’état de guerre. Donc, essentiellement, les critères pour invoquer la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence varient en fonction du type de crise et c'est toutefois… c'est ainsi logique de se concentrer sur le type de crise que le gouvernement a déclaré, comme je l’ai mentionné, l’état d’urgence qui est prévu à la partie II de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Je sais que ça fait quand même beaucoup de détails à date; si j’ai perdu des gens en cours de route, soyez sans crainte, je vais vous offrir un récapitulatif sous peu, mais entretemps, un dernier point avant de rentrer dans le détail, et c'est pour les états d’urgence en particulier. Donc, vous le voyez à l’écran, c'est la sorte de situation de crise qui est causée par des menaces envers la sécurité du Canada d’une gravité telle qu’elle constitue une situation de crise nationale. Quand on parle de menace envers la sécurité du Canada, on entend l’une des quatre, mettons, grosso modo, catégories qui sont listées sur la diapositive, soit : l’espionnage ou le sabotage, l’influence internationale, le terrorisme ou l’extrémisme violent. Une dernière parenthèse sur les états d’urgence. Avant de déclarer l’état d’urgence, le gouvernement doit habituellement — on parle du gouvernement fédéral ici — consulter les provinces, et ce, en vertu de l’article 25 de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Donc, comme promis, récapitulatif. J’ai essayé de rendre ça le plus clair possible, mais ce qu’on peut retenir de tout ça, c'est que pour pouvoir déclarer l’état d’urgence, le gouvernement peut le faire s’il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’une situation est urgente, temporaire et critique, qu’elle découle de menaces envers la sécurité du Canada et qu’elle met gravement en danger la santé et la scruté des Canadiens ou la capacité de garantir la souveraineté du Canada, qu’elle ne peut être remédiée par les provinces et les territoires, et qu’elle ne peut être remédier en ayant recours à une autre loi canadienne. Bon, alors je vous ai parlé à date des critères pour déclarer une situation de crise, je vais maintenant passer aux pouvoirs que confère la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Donc, quand on parle d’une déclaration d’état d’urgence en particulier, la Loi habilite le gouvernement à établir des règles concernant, en fait, plusieurs domaines que vous voyez affichés. Le gouvernement peut, lorsqu’il a déclaré l’état d’urgence, faire des règles en matière de règlementation ou d’interdiction d’assemblées publiques qui pourraient troubler la paix, de déplacement vers une zone désignée ou de l’utilisation de certains biens. Il peut aussi faire des règles pour désigner et aménager les lieux protégés, pour contrôler, restaurer ou entretenir les services publics, pour ordonner à une personne de fournir des services essentiels, et il peut aussi faire des règles sur l’imposition d’amendes ou de peines d’emprisonnement en cas de contravention de règles qui concernent ces domaines-là qui sont affichés présentement. On peut s’arrêter rapidement sur la question du fédéralisme. Donc, le gouvernement peut adopter des mesures en vertu de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence qui relèvent normalement de compétences exclusives des provinces. Habituellement, avant de déclarer une situation de crise, le gouvernement fédéral doit tout de même consulter les provinces, mais après les avoir consultées, le gouvernement peut agir sans que les provinces soient d’accord. Essentiellement, la Loi oblige une consultation, mais elle n’oblige pas le gouvernement fédéral à obtenir le consentement des provinces. Bon, la dernière partie que je voudrais aborder avec vous, en fait, c'est les protections qui sont prévues par la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence. Donc, en plus d’accorder des pouvoirs temporaires au gouvernement, la Loi prévoit aussi plusieurs protections — vous les voyez à l’écran. On compte parmi celles-ci le fait que la Chambre des communes et le Sénat doivent voter pour déterminer si la déclaration d’une situation de crise est justifiée. Il y a aussi l’obligation pour le gouvernement de déposer des décrets et les règlements pris en lien avec la situation de crise de manière claire et publique, l’obligation de créer un comité d’examen parlementaire où siègent des membres des différents partis politiques. Il y a aussi la possibilité pour le Parlement d’abroger une déclaration de situation de crise ou tous les décrets et les règlements en tout temps, et, bien entendu, comme vous le savez — vous l’avez devant vous—, après la situation de crise, une commission d’enquête doit examiner les actions du gouvernement et déposer son rapport au Parlement. Dernière protection à mentionner : les pouvoirs qui sont utilisés en vertu de la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence doivent être conformes à la Charte des droits et libertés et la déclaration de situation de crise et les mesures qui sont prises en vertu de la situation de crise peuvent faire l’objet d’un contrôle judiciaire, c'est-à-dire d’un examen par un juge. Bon, ce que j’allais vous mentionner — une dernière parenthèse, en fait —, donc, certains d’entre vous sauront que la Loi sur les mesures d’urgence a remplacé la Loi sur les mesures de guerre, on l’a entendu mentionné ce matin. Ce que j’allais vous dire en termes de derniers éléments de contexte pour les deux dernières diapositives, c'est que la Loi sur les mesures de guerre ne contenait aucune des protections qui ont été énoncées sur cette diapositive-ci ou sur la diapositive précédente. Merci. Donc, c'est la fin de l’exposé introductif. J’espère que ça vous a orientés un petit peu. Comme vous l’avez mentionné, Monsieur le commissaire, ces diapositives-là seront disponibles sur le site web de la Commission, elles sont disponibles tant en anglais qu’en français pour les membres du public et les parties qui voudraient s’y référer dans l’une ou l’autre des langues officielles.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 103 01-103-02

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

Oui, je pense que oui. C'est encore Monsieur Lacombe, en fait.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 108 01-108-27

Shantona Chaudhury, Co-lead Counsel (POEC)

C'est ça.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 109 01-109-03

Étienne Lacombe, Counsel (POEC)

Merci. So I’ll be delivering this one in English. And what I’m going provide you is a summary of the reasons that the government, the Federal Government gave in February 2022 for invoking the Emergencies Act. You’ve heard Ms. Chaudhury earlier refer to this as a section 58 explanation. That is how we’ll be referring to it going forward. And the reasons for that will become clear momentarily. So a word about section 58(1) of the Emergencies Act, it requires that Parliament review any declaration of emergency, that it be reviewed by the House of Commons and by the Senate. And for this review to occur, there has to be a motion to confirm the declaration that is laid before Parliament, ordinarily within seven days. And the motion is accompanied by an explanation of why the emergency was declared. So that is the section 58 explanation. So the Federal Government gave its explanation to the House of Commons on February 16th. It provided it to the Senate a few days later. That explanation is a document that is publicly available. The number that you see here in brackets is a reference for the parties to access that document within the party database, but the document is already publicly available on the Federal Government’s website and will be made available through our own website as well. So it’s important for me to pause here, as Commission Counsel, and to tell you that this is a summary of the explanation that the Federal Government gave. The reason the Commission is presenting it to you at this point is to contextualize the evidence that will be called in the coming weeks. So part of the Commission’s mandate is to test and evaluate the explanation the Federal Government has provided, and for that reason, it’s important to know up front what that explanation is. So this again, just like in the previous presentation, is a summary. It’s not a complete reproduction of the section 58 explanation. And as I’ve mentioned, nor is it an endorsement by the Commission. It is a summary. Okay. So the summary that the government provided sort of dovetails with the previous presentation that I just gave, in that it starts by explaining the necessary basis to invoke the Act and for a public order emergency in particular, that there be threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency. As I’ve mentioned previously, the threats to the security of Canada include threats or acts of serious violence against persons or property to achieve political or ideological objectives. National emergencies are urgent, temporary, and critical situations that seriously endanger the health and safety of Canadians that can't be dealt with effectively by the provinces or under any other law of Canada. So when it proclaimed an emergency in February 2022, the government identified 5 components of the emergency. You can see them on the screen here. We could loosely group them or identify them, rather, as the blockades and ongoing acts of violence, adverse effects on the Canadian economy, effects on Canada's relationship with its trading partners, effects on the distribution chain, and the potential for increases in levels of unrest and violence. And the way that the Section 58 is structured is by expanding on each of those 5 points that were in the initial proclamation, and that's how I'll run the next few minutes as well, by going through them one by one. So beginning with the blockades and the activities tied to serious acts of violence, the federal government explains in its explanation that there were various demands by protestors at the time. They ranged from the end of public health measures to the overthrow of elected government. It also mentioned that there were different tactics being employed. There were those related to traffic disruptions, which we've heard about, and there were others such as bringing children to protest sites to limit police intervention, at least this is what the government has said and which I am summarizing. The government also said that there were issues for other governments and themselves in securing the assistance of tow truck drivers to remove vehicles from the blockades. It also mentioned violent incidents and threats of violence, including in particular, the seizure of firearms and ammunition in Alberta. And finally, as regards blockades and serious acts of violence, the government also mentioned there was online rhetoric, increased threats against the public -- against public officials, rather, and the presence of ideological extremists at protest sites indicating a risk of serious violence. In terms of effects on the economy, the government explained at the time that the blockades were having impact on Canada's economy. It mentioned losses in terms of employee wages, reductions in automotive processing capacity and other effects on the auto industry. It also mentioned breaches of the Canada Border Service Agency's clauses and to locations, that it anticipated additional blockades springing up, and that there was media reporting about the majority of donations being made through crowdfunding site Gifts & Go originating from donors outside of Canada. In terms of effects on relationships with trading partners, the government said at the time that there were expressions of concerns from various American voices, including from the President, from the Governor of Michigan, and from the Department of Homeland Security. It further stressed disruption on supply chains and industry, and it said there was an erosion of trust -- or of confidence in Canada as a place to invest and to do business. In terms of the distribution chain in particular, the government at the time explained that there is a -- that Canada's transportation system is particularly vulnerable, given the challenges of the geography and climate conditions in this country. It said that there was an impairment of Canada's -- or of Canadians welfare from disruptions in the transport of crucial goods, medical supplies, food and fuel. And it also said that there were attempts by protesters in Ottawa in particular to impede access to the airport and to block railway lines. As for the potential of increased levels of unrest and violence, the federal government said, in addition to there being ongoing legal activities, that there were concerns about ideologically motivated violent extremism, in particular, that the number of people who supported such ideologically motivated violent extremism could be increasing and could be a source of violence, that there were efforts by people based in the United States to enter Canada who were supporters of ideologically motivated and violent extremism. It also mentioned the efficacy or inefficacy of current measures that were in place at the time, including injunctive relief and the ability of municipal and provincial authorities to enforce the law using the tools at their disposal. Finally, the government mentioned that the protests in Ottawa were impeding the proper functioning of the Government of Canada, including jeopardizing Canada's ability to fulfil its obligations with respect to the protection of diplomatic -- of the diplomatic community. So I'm at the point of conclusion here. What I'll stress again is that this is a summary of the conclusion that is in the Section 58 explanation. It's not the Commission's conclusion on the Section 58 explanation. And you can see from what's on the slide that it essentially tracks the meaning of what would be required to have a public order emergency. It says that the situation in February 2022 was critical, urgent, and temporary, that the emergency arose from threats to the security of Canada, and that the measures that were used were necessary in order to supplement provincial and territorial authorities to address the situation. The explanation also concludes by saying that the measures were tailored such that any effects on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were reasonable and proportionate. I think that's fine. So, Commissioner, that concludes the presentations of the day in its entirety, as I understand it. So I'll pass the floor back to you.

Volume 1 (October 13, 2022), page 109 01-109-08