David Shiroky
David Shiroky spoke 52 times across 3 days of testimony.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Good morning, Mayor Dilkens, Commissioner. David Shiroky for the Government of Canada. So in your evidence in-Chief through the Commission Counsel you had indicated the City had supported an Interim Injunction that was granted on the 11th of February. I'd like to pull up the reasons for that interim injunction, which I think can be found at a number of places, but OTT00007333. And as that's being pulled up, you'd indicated in your evidence in-Chief that there was concerns about vigilantism leading up to enforcement and that was a factor that went into seeking the injunction. Is that correct?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Where were these concerns coming from?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And were you aware of any organized efforts either through that social media or through announcements through the official groups?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so we have the document open which are the reasons that were for the injunction granted on the 11th of February, and specifically I’d like to go to page 9 and, in particular, paragraph 46 of the decision. And so paraphrasing a bit, the Court finds that there’s no question that the blockade had caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Windsor. Would you agree that the harm that’s being discussed here by the Court and, in fact, the harm that the City of Windsor was talking about in supporting this injunction was the harm caused by a continuous blockade and not temporary increases in traffic?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And is it your understanding that roughly around midnight either the night of the 13th or the 14th, the blockade was cleared and the bridge reopened to traffic?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And with respect to the timing of that enforcement, in your evidence in-chief you indicated that there was a delay in enforcement due to the arrival of children at the protest.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
What were you hearing from police about the impact of the presence of children at the protest?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
All right. And sort of in a similar vein, I’d like to take the witness to WIN00002238, please. And while that’s coming up, you’d indicated the city had asked for an extension of the interim junction and that was an indefinite extension. Is that correct?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And the document that we’re pulling up, again, are the Court’s reasons for granting that indefinite extension to the injunction. If we could go to page 8, in specific paragraph 47. And at the bottom there, I think it’s at (iv), the Court found that the City of Windsor had established a continued threat of a new blockade. And with respect to, again, the evidence and the submissions that were being brought to the Court to extend this injunction, is that the concern? Was it either a continued blockade or a re-emergence of the blockade?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so the city provided a number of affidavits in support of this injunction extension, and I believe the application record from the city is at WIN00000925. And I won’t ask that that be brought up. It’s a very long document. I just would like to refer to it, that there was evidence provided that spoke to this continued risk of a blockade re-emerging. And so a document that I would like pulled up is WIN00000803. I’ll just wait for that to come up. Mr. Mayor, what are we looking at here in terms of geographically within Windsor?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
If we could scroll down briefly. So there’s an indication there are no local traffic beyond this point, and that’s the period -- you spoke of sort of a tunnel. I know there is a literal tunnel, but the tunnel leading down Huron Church Road to the Ambassador Bridge, that’s the area you’re speaking of?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And if I told you that this was a map of the traffic structure on the 16th of February, would that sound about right to you?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
So this was a closure of a major municipal road in Windsor, wasn’t it?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And it impacted residents in nearby homes and neighbourhoods.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And you’d indicated the specific neighbourhood of Sandwich Town as being to the west of Huron Church Road.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And there were no access to groceries for the residents of Sandwich Town as a result of the blockade and then the subsequent closure of the road.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so the city had to provide alternative bus services to those residents so that they could go about their lives.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And you would agree with me that the city and the police would not choose to continue to limit access by residents to Huron Church Road unless it believed there was a real risk that a demonstration could return.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And I know you said that you were uncertain on the date at which point these traffic closures stopped, but you would agree with me that the measures to prevent the re-establishment of a blockade remained in place after the 23rd of February?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
So Commission counsel took you to WIN00000972. And I’d actually like that to be brought up, please. And I’ll take you to a similar portion where you refer to it remaining a national security situation. If we could scroll down, there’s bolded text. There it is. And so this is the situation that, again, it says here, “prevented reopening Huron Church Road”, and that’s the closure we were just looking at on that map.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
If we could go to page 3. And so it says here, “We cannot ignore these ongoing threats because of the inconvenience that’s being caused along Huron Road Church.” With respect to these “ongoing threats”, can you speak a little bit about -- I know you said the information was coming from police, but what were you hearing during that time period?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so you referred in the statement to it being a national security situation. Did you see the events in Windsor as being connected, ideologically or otherwise, to other events happening nationally?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And with respect to the specific topic of security, were you aware of the arrests that took place in Coutts, Alberta in the 14th of February?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And how did you become aware of those?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And what’s your understanding of those events?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And acknowledging, of course, that Coutts is quite geographically distant from Windsor, Ontario, reading that with respect to, again, talking about security, were there any concerns that were raised in your mind at that time?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so you said both in your evidence in-Chief and in your witness statement, your understanding or belief that the invocation of the Emergencies Act sent a signal that the federal government was taking the blockade situation seriously.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And that it may have discouraged the reestablishment of the blockades, particularly with respect to the Ambassador Bridge?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And that's -- is that still your view?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Moving on to economic issues, I'd like to take the witness to SSM.CAN00000495_REL, and in particular, page 2. And while that's coming up -- well, actually, we'll start on page 1, just so we can identify the document. Now this is likely not something you've seen. This is a backgrounder report with respect to the impact of the road blockade on the Ambassador Bridge that I believe was prepared by Finance Canada. So if we move to page 2 -- the reason I'm bringing this up -- if we scroll down, now there's a discussion here about both the exports, and I think the exports have been well covered in your evidence. What's your understanding about the items or goods that are imported from the United States into Windsor?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so going back to the report in the last paragraph that's on the screen there, it speaks to Canada importing $4 billion worth of pharmaceutical products and $2.4 billion in medical equipment that go through the Ambassador Bridge and that was in 2021; is that a figure that would be surprising to you?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
You also mentioned the bridge's impact regionally. Would you agree with me that the imports that come in through the bridge don't stay in Ontario in their entirety?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And that it's part of a national supply chain?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
I'd like to now take the witness to WIN00001628. And this is a statement that my friend -- Commission Counsel took you to earlier that was delivered on the 9th of February. And if we could scroll down to, I believe, the top of the second page. So it's the statement here again that, "If Canada becomes known as a difficult jurisdiction to do business with -- to move goods in and out, for example -- then supply chains will evolve and reconfigure to remove this element of risk and avoid Windsor-Essex." And was that your concern at the time with respect to Canada, or Windsor specifically's reputation as a place to do business?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Oh, acknowledging that I'm just at my 15 minutes, if I could just briefly take the witness to one more document and wrap up would that be acceptable? Thank you.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
It's PB.CAN. -- sorry, yeah, .00000023_REL. And while that's coming up, I'll provide some context. This is another document that you may not have seen. It's a February 10th email chain between employees of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. and the Consulate General in Detroit. And specifically, I'd like to go to page 2. These are a series of Tweets from a U.S. representative Slotkin, who I understand is the congressional - eighth Congressional District Representative in Michigan. And I -- if the Commissioner will allow, I'd like to give the witness some time to read. There's a series of Tweets that go down the page, so if you could take a look and let the Clerk know when you can scroll a bit further.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
It's the upside of a Tweet is at least they can be read quick.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And so you would understand these statements to be a political representative from the U.S. saying that we would need to move manufacturing to the U.S. as a result of incidents like the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And my friend with Commission Counsel took you to some texts that you had with Premier Ford, and in the interest of time, I won't ask that they be brought up again, but do you recall him texting you that he had every major company all over him?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Do you understand what he meant by that statement?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
What was your understanding of that statement?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
At the risk of pushing my luck, Mr. Commissioner, if I was to add two more questions?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Thank you very much. You would agree with me that a blockade at the Ambassador Bridge would be more economically damaging than blocking the Detroit/Windsor tunnel?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
And that an experienced truck driver would know that they could not use the tunnel?
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Those are all my questions. Thank you very much for that indulgence, sir.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me, sorry, just to step in, David Shiroky, counsel for the Government of Canada. I believe that it’s PB.CAN. ---
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
---00001835. I think there may have been an NSC ---
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
--- in the previous reading, but there’s no NSC.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
It’s just PB.CAN.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Apologies. David Shiroky, Government of Canada. Again, it’s the minus five hours thing. So I think we’re on the 26th in the evening.
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
David Shiroky for the Government of Canada. Just a brief objection of that last question. And I understand that a response has been given. The witness has testified that he’s not inherently familiar with the document and the question that was just asked is to provide his opinion as to the purpose of certain sections of the document within a legal opinion. And given the testimony we’ve had, I’m not sure that’s ---
-
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
--- an entirely proper question to be asking this witness.