Stephanie Bowes

Title
Counsel
Organization / Affiliation
Government of Alberta (AB)

Stephanie Bowes spoke 277 times across 14 days of testimony.

  1. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good morning. Can the Commission hear me right now?

    09-090-06

  2. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right.

    09-090-10

  3. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    My name is Stephanie Bowes. I'm Counsel for the Province of Alberta. We have no further questions today. Thank you.

    09-090-12

  4. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon, Commissioner. Good afternoon, Supt. Bernier. My name is Stephanie Bowes, for the Province of Alberta. One of the consequences of being later on the list is that all my questions have been asked and answered. Thank you.

    10-158-20

  5. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening. Can you hear me?

    18-290-21

  6. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right, thank you.

    18-290-24

  7. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    My name is Stephanie Bowes appearing on behalf of the Government of Alberta. I just have a couple of questions today. You've already been taken to the letter that was sent by Chief Mizuno to both Minister Blair and Minister Jones. I don't intend to call that up again, but I understand from your responses to Commission Counsel's questions earlier, that you were not aware of that letter. Is that correct?

    18-290-26

  8. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And in the -- one of the requests within that letter was a request for tow trucks, including heavy tow trucks for large transport vehicles. Is it fair to say that you were not aware of this request for tow trucks as well?

    18-291-07

  9. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you recall if you received any assistance in the form of tow trucks?

    18-291-16

  10. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And were you -- are you aware if there was any response ever received by the Windsor Police Service to those requests from -- to Minister Blair or Minister Jones?

    18-291-23

  11. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you. Those are all my questions today.

    18-292-01

  12. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon. This is Stephanie Bowers for the Province of Alberta. We have no further questions.

    19-145-04

  13. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Stephanie Bowes. I’m appearing today on behalf of the Government of Alberta. Most of my questions have already been answered but I would like to cover off a few areas with you today. You’ve talked a little bit about your role as an unofficial spokesperson for the protesters at Coutts. And were there any other unofficial spokespeople at the same time that you were acting in that role?

    19-271-07

  14. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I understand from your anticipated statement that you would have described the protest at Milk River as being somewhat less organized than the protest at Coutts; is that fair to say?

    19-272-22

  15. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And so that’s one of my other questions, was the composition of the protests would change depending on what day of the week it was and who was coming to the protest site; correct?

    19-274-09

  16. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Now, in your Statement of Anticipated Evidence -- and you’ve spoken about this a little bit today -- you say that if the Government of Alberta had agreed to negotiate with spokespersons, the Coutts protest could have been dispersed. And I’ll take that you still believe that at this point in time; correct?

    19-274-14

  17. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And just to be clear, do you mean just the protest at Coutts or are you including that was occurring at Checkpoint 10 near Milk River?

    19-274-21

  18. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    19-274-26

  19. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    You acknowledge, though, that you didn’t have control over any particular group of people at the protest; correct?

    19-275-02

  20. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    There were people who were at these protests that were protesting provincial health restrictions; correct?

    19-275-13

  21. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And there were certainly people there that were protesting any federal health restrictions; correct?

    19-275-17

  22. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I’ll the clerk if you could please pull up Document PB.CAN.00001333. And I’ll ask that you just scroll down to the second page to an email from Lisa Laurencelle-Peace on January 30th, 2022. I think you’ll have to scroll a little bit further. There it is there. And you'll see CBSA Intelligence provided the following in a couple of points down there. Rumours of another 800 protesters coming with heavy equipment because they want Trudeau there. Do you agree that there were people there who were looking to address Prime Minister -- or sorry -- yes, Prime Minister Trudeau with these -- with this protest?

    19-275-24

  23. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And did you see any -- and pardon my language here -- the "Fuck Trudeau" signs at the protest?

    19-276-11

  24. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Now, I understand that you spoke to Western Standard News during the protest; is that correct?

    19-276-17

  25. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And on February 3rd, you told Western Standard News that the protesters involved in the Coutts blockade would depart at 7:00 a.m. on Friday, February 4th for a slow roll convoy to Edmonton to meet with Premier Kenney; is that correct?

    19-276-21

  26. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Yes.

    19-276-28

  27. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And that wasn’t an agreement you had at that time with Premier Kenney? The plan was to go to Edmonton to try to meet with him; is that correct?

    19-277-02

  28. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Did you tell the RCMP the same thing, that the Coutts protesters would be leaving and slow rolling to Edmonton?

    19-277-15

  29. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Was there ---

    19-277-19

  30. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Pardon. Go ahead.

    19-277-21

  31. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So to understand or paraphrase your evidence, there was a group that made a decision that this would happen, that the protesters would leave to go to Edmonton. You spoke to Western Standard News and told them the same thing, and then later, you spoke to the group of protesters on a larger basis and the decision was no, we're not going to go to Edmonton; is that correct?

    19-278-28

  32. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And some confusion?

    19-279-22

  33. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Now, I'd like to talk to you about the announcement by the Government of Alberta on February 8th, and I'll ask the clerk to please go to Document ALB00001768. And you've talked a little bit about this with my friend already. I'll just scroll down to the bottom of page 2, and we'll see here, starting at the word "beginning": "Beginning Feb 8 at 11:59 p.m., Alberta will move to step 1 which includes the removal of the restrictions exemption program." And then there's other -- some other liftings of restrictions within that paragraph. And then the plan goes on to further describe various times that various COVID-19 health restrictions will be removed. Now, you talked about how the government didn’t move fast enough for you in terms of lifting restrictions. This was an announcement on February 8th that later that night, restrictions would be lifted. And then if we go to Alberta's Institutional Report, which is Document ALB.IR00000001, it's paragraph 19 on page 7 of this report, we see: "On February 8th, Alberta announced a plan for gradual easing of pandemic-related public health orders. Later that day, protesters resumed a complete blockade at the Coutts POE ---" --- which is port of entry. You acknowledge that despite Alberta's announcement about easing restrictions, the blockade resumed that day, correct?

    19-280-04

  34. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And we're still looking at paragraph 19. I'd also like to talk about the legal protest site that was made available by Alberta. Were you aware of the alternate protest site that was being provided?

    19-281-07

  35. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Did you encourage protesters to use the alternate protest site instead of blocking the highway?

    19-281-13

  36. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So you refused the protest site on the basis of government WiFi?

    19-281-21

  37. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    I understand what you're saying. I think that was just sloppy language on my part.

    19-282-02

  38. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So the -- but in any event, the protesters didn't shift over to protesting at that site; correct?

    19-282-05

  39. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    You didn't believe you could convince them to make that change.

    19-282-16

  40. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay, thank you. Those are all my questions today.

    19-282-19

  41. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    This is Stephanie Bowes. Counsel for Alberta. I think we’re getting into asking this witness a legal question about whether or not there’s anything that prevents the former Premier from swearing an affidavit.

    21-071-02

  42. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon, Mr. Degrand. Good afternoon, Commissioner. My friends have covered quite a lot of ground with you. There’s just a few areas I want to cover off. And one of those areas deals with the timing of the execution of search warrants and arrests in Coutts, Alberta. I’ll ask if the clerk can please turn to ALB00001522.

    21-124-13

  43. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And this is an email dated early in the morning, 6:36 in the morning of February 14th from John Ferguson to Dwayne Lakusta and to you. Do you know who John Ferguson is?

    21-124-20

  44. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And as far as you’re aware, he was involved in the law enforcement of the protest in Coutts?

    21-124-27

  45. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And if we look at this email, we’ll see some events noted: " At approximately 23:50, pursuant to the above activity…" -- which is described in the paragraph above -- "…two suspects who are a part of the core protesters group and have been identified as part of the security cell were arrested." (As read) Now, I take this to be on February 13th; do you understand that to be the case as well?

    21-125-02

  46. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And so then looking at the timing of those arrests, if we go down to the next paragraph: "On Monday, February 14th at approximately 01:00 hours, other key protesters within the security cell were also arrested." (As read). And then: "A search warrant was already executed at the saloon, the main meeting place for the security cell, was negative for weapons." (As read). And then again, a further paragraph down: "At approximately 03:00 hours, search warrants were executed at the residence in Coutts and the associated trailer." (As read). So all of these events involving the arrests and execution of search warrants at Coutts were occurring late on February 13th, very early on the morning of the 14th?

    21-125-16

  47. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    is that right?

    21-126-08

  48. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Thank you. Now I'd also like to turn back to record ALB -- I believe it's 00001573. And this is the letter from Deputy Commissioner Zablocki on February 3rd to Acting Minister Sonya Savage for the -- or, my apologies, it's from Minister Savage to Deputy Commissioner Zablocki.

    21-126-11

  49. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Now the last sentence of that first paragraph reads, "In my opinion, this constitutes an emergency in the Province of Alberta under the Provincial Police Service Agreement." Now the Provincial Police Service Agreement is included as a document referenced in Alberta's Institutional Report before this Commission. I take it you're quite familiar ---

    21-126-17

  50. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- with that reference?

    21-126-28

  51. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    My apologies.

    21-127-03

  52. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    For sure. I'll take it you're quite familiar with that agreement?

    21-127-06

  53. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Is there a definition of the word emergency in that agreement?

    21-127-10

  54. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    You can't recall. Okay.

    21-127-15

  55. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Right. I take it that your understanding is that the definition of the word emergency, as contemplated under the ---

    21-127-18

  56. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- Provincial Police Service Agreement ---

    21-127-22

  57. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- is different from the word emergency under either the Federal Emergencies Act or Provincial Emergency Management Act?

    21-127-25

  58. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you used that word extraordinary, which is a word that was also used in the letter from Deputy Commissioner Zablocki to Minister Savage asking for the deployment of RCMP officers under Section 9.1. To the best of your knowledge, was this the first time Article 9.1 had been used in Alberta for the deployment of RCMP officers?

    21-128-09

  59. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    What other types of circumstances has that occurred before?

    21-128-16

  60. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. And also in Alberta's Institutional Report, there's mention of other protest activity that occurred in other parts of Alberta during January and February 2022. And you've discussed that to some length with my friends already. What was Alberta's role with respect to other protest activity that was happening in the province?

    21-128-25

  61. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you mentioned with exception to protest activity was taking ---

    21-129-14

  62. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- place around the legislature. Why is that?

    21-129-17

  63. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Did you become aware of any incident involving these protests at the legislature grounds in January and February that the Sheriff's Branch was not able to handle?

    21-130-04

  64. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And one final record to take you to, that's ALB00000 -- or, sorry, 00002402.

    21-130-11

  65. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    I don't believe so, no. No, it shouldn't be.

    21-130-14

  66. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    2042.

    21-130-17

  67. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Did any police agency express to Alberta that they required anything beyond their standard policing powers to deal with any of these protest post Emergencies Act revocation?

    21-130-27

  68. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Degrand. Those are all my questions today.

    21-131-04

  69. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening. My name is Stephanie Bowes. I’m here as counsel for the Province of Alberta. Just one area to ask you a couple of questions on. Was it your understanding regarding tow trucks and Ottawa that there were providers that were hesitant to provide towing services because they were concerned about being provided with an indemnity?

    21-381-21

  70. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And was it your understanding that the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act does not grant the power to compel tow truck operators to provide towing services?

    21-382-03

  71. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But is it also your understanding that pursuant to that same Act, an order could be made in respect of procuring necessary goods, services, and resources?

    21-382-08

  72. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And that could include towing services?

    21-382-14

  73. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And also under that Act, an order could be made authorizing but not requiring any person to render services of a type that person is reasonably qualified to provide?

    21-382-17

  74. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And again ---

    21-382-22

  75. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Correct. And that again could be towing services?

    21-382-25

  76. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you also understand that the Act makes it an offence to interfere with or obstruct any person in the exercise of a power or performance of a duty conferred by an order under that Act?

    21-382-28

  77. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Well we can do that very quickly. It’s document CCF00000038. And, Mr. Clerk, if you could please go to page 10. And scroll. There we see the “offences” section, 7.0.11.

    21-383-06

  78. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you’ll see there that it does make it an offence to interfere or obstruct a person exercising a power under that -- under an order?

    21-383-12

  79. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then scrolling down again to page 13, we’ll look at section 11(1). And this section protects anyone acting under an order made under the earlier section that deals with an order authorizing services to be provided, protects them from liability, as long as they’re acting in good faith pursuant to that order. You see that there?

    21-383-16

  80. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then down to page 14, section 13.1. And subsection 3 there is compensation for loss of property. There’s a mechanism within this Act for someone to be compensated for any loss of personal property the person suffered as a result of an order made under the Act? Do you see that?

    21-383-24

  81. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So do you agree that certainly there are ways under this Act, although not to compel tow truck drivers to act, but to at least ameliorate some of their concerns with respect to financial liability for providing towing services with respect to the protest in Ottawa?

    21-384-03

  82. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And just to be clear, you’re talking about the theoretical possibility of the tow truck operator towing that vehicle to their own warehouse, as opposed to a government lot?

    21-384-14

  83. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    I’m sorry, I missed that answer.

    21-384-21

  84. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So you’re talking about an act of arson?

    21-384-27

  85. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. Those are my only questions today.

    21-385-02

  86. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Bowes for the Province of Alberta. I just have a few questions around the RFA that came from Alberta. I think, Mr. Stewart, you’re probably the one who will be answering these questions today. But certainly if this is something that both members of the panel can respond to, please feel free to do so. For now, can I ask that the Clerk please bring up the Public Safety Institution Report? That’s document DOJ.IR.00000008. And while that’s happening, Mr. Stewart, I believe you mentioned in your evidence that the RFA that came from Alberta didn’t follow the usual course. Namely, that there wasn’t discussion before it was submitted. Is that correct?

    22-172-15

  87. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you know if there had been discussion ahead of the RFA, would that have changed the response by the Federal Government in this case?

    22-173-01

  88. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And then on that Institutional Report, Mr. Clerk, can you please scroll down to page 22 and look at paragraph 75, please? And this is referring to the February 5th RFA from the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Alberta, and it says: “Upon reviewing the request, it was determined that the RFA process was not the correct mechanism for addressing the issue of additional law enforcement personnel. Requests for additional RCMP officers must be made under sub-article 9 of the Provincial Police Services Agreement and not through an RFA.” So is it true that the RFA from Alberta was interpreted to be a request for RCMP officer deployment?

    22-173-06

  89. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Is this ---

    22-173-22

  90. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. There is a mention of personnel in the RFA. I’ll just take you to that as well. That’s Document PB.CAN.00000718. And I’ll take it you’ve seen the RFA from Minister McIver before? Is that correct?

    22-173-25

  91. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And then if we look at paragraph 5 -- or sorry, paragraph 4, within that paragraph, we see: “To support this approach, I am requesting federal assistance that includes the provision of equipment and personnel to move approximately 70 semi-tractor trailers and approximately 75 personal and recreational vehicles from the area.” Do you know at the time this was received what the interpretation of personnel was meant to be? And I’m not talking from Minister McIver’s point of view. I’m asking what the Federal Government interpreted that request to be.

    22-174-03

  92. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. And we do know, of course, that there was a request for deployment of RCMP officers that was appropriately made under the Police Services Agreement that came just a few days later; correct?

    22-174-22

  93. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Now can we please take a look at Document PB.CAN.00001514? And this is an email from Mr. Dakalbab to yourself on February 13 and it outlines a meeting that Transportation Canada individuals had with colleagues from Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. And if we scroll down to the bullet points that begin with “Alberta”, we can see those there. “Alberta requests for CAF support have been denied, but they are surprised that their request to access Reservists with operational skills needed to drive towing trucks was not accepted (this part of the request is news to us and we committed to follow up on this specific point).” Do you know if there was any follow up on that point?

    22-174-27

  94. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Now ultimately, the Government of Canada was going to deny Alberta’s request for assistance; correct?

    22-175-17

  95. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Now I’d like to take you to some draft letters that were in Canada’s production for this. Beginning with PB.NSC.CAN00009547. We can see that this is dated February 7th, it’s addressed to the Honourable Minister McIver, which is the Minister of Municipal Affairs for Alberta. And if we scroll down to the last paragraph on the first page, it says: “Further, I understand that Alberta has the required […] authorities necessary to enforce compliance, as a highway is considered essential infrastructure, and it is unlawful to wilfully obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the construction, maintenance, use or operation of any essential infrastructure in a manner that renders the essential infrastructure dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective as per the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act of Alberta.” And this letter is unsigned. Do you know why it was unsigned and unsent at this time?

    22-176-02

  96. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. But you would agree that on February 7th, the Government of Canada’s position was that Alberta had the required authorities to deal with the illegal protests around Coutts, Alberta?

    22-176-26

  97. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. And then there are a number of other follow up draft letters that contain essentially the same language in it. Just for the record, I will take you to SSM.CAN.NSC00002745. And this is a memorandum for the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I understand, if you scroll down to page 2, that you digitally signed this memorandum on February 9th? Do you see that?

    22-177-05

  98. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And in this memorandum, you recommended that the Minister of Emergency Preparedness sign an enclosed reply indicating that the Government of Canada was refusing the RFA; is that correct?

    22-177-14

  99. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Well, in the enclosed correspondence on this one is actually redacted, but if we look at the body of the memorandum and we see the reasons for refusing, on page 2, the paragraph above the heading "Recommendation" says: "This remains an issue within provincial jurisdiction. Alberta has the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance." So very similar reasons for the refusal that was being outlined in the February 7th draft, correct?

    22-177-20

  100. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then if we turn now to SSM.NSC.CAN00003115, this is a series of emails from February 11th. And in the email from Radey Barrack to Minister Bill Blair, it says, "Here is the latest draft in reply to Alberta's RFA." And again, going to page 2, we see a paragraph starting with "Further, I understand," and it says, "Alberta has the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance," and then refers to the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. So again, here we are, February 11th, very similar reasons to those expressed on February 9th and February 7th, correct?

    22-178-04

  101. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And if we scroll to the very top of this, we see that Minister Blair approved the response. Were you aware that he had approved such a response?

    22-178-17

  102. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    22-178-21

  103. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you know the level of provincial official you told or the meeting in which you told them that?

    22-178-24

  104. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So very early on, the decision was made it would be refused. The reasons for refusing it seem to not really have changed throughout the course of the time when the draft response was being considered; is that fair to say?

    22-179-03

  105. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then I'm going to take you to one last draft, and that is on PB.CAN.NSC00000690. And this is an email -- my understanding is with the timestamp, this time is actually the true time that this was sent should be five hours ahead of this, so sometime in the evening on February 12th. If we scroll down to the second email there, and on the second page, we again see we've got a draft response, and again the wording is very similar, "Further, I understand Alberta has the required legal authorities," and reference to the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. So by as late as February 12th, the Government of Canada's position on Alberta's RFA was that it had the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance of any illegal protest activity occurring in Alberta. Do you agree?

    22-179-09

  106. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Now ---

    22-179-26

  107. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Can I just have one minute to clarify which Act that power comes under, Mr. Commissioner?

    22-180-01

  108. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So -- I'm sorry -- you referred to Alberta having the power to compel tow truck operators under the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. I'm going to put to you that that Act is not actually the correct Act. It is only five sections long and the Commission has heard evidence from the Assistant Deputy Minister Degrand that that legislation makes interfering with critical infrastructure an offence but it's not something that Alberta needs to invoke. Alberta does have the Emergency Management Act which does grant in it the power to compel service providers to provide services. So despite maybe having confusion about which Act that power falls under, it doesn’t change the position that Canada -- of Canada's response to Alberta's RFA; would you agree?

    22-180-04

  109. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you, that’s my only question -- those are my only questions today.

    22-180-19

  110. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Stephanie Bowes for the Province of Alberta. All of our questions have been asked and answered. Thank you.

    23-261-12

  111. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening, Deputy Commissioner Zablocki. My name is Stephanie Bowes. I am counsel for the Province of Alberta. Much of the questions I had prepared for you have actually already been covered, but I just have a few areas that I’d like to ask some questions about. So I understand that in responding to these protests, the RCMP had various tools at their disposal, the Criminal Code, the Traffic Safety Act, and the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. Is that correct?

    23-333-21

  112. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I think you talked about this a little bit in your testimony, but when you’re dealing with large protests like this, you can’t just go in right off the bat and start laying a bunch of charges. Would you agree with that?

    23-334-04

  113. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    The first step is to try to negotiate some of the various aspects of the protest?

    23-334-10

  114. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And there was some success at various points in time with negotiating with the group of protestors? Is that correct?

    23-334-13

  115. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    There were times when the RCMP could negotiate the departure of some of the trucks that were there?

    23-334-17

  116. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Times when the RCMP could negotiate the opening of various lanes to and from Coutts Port of Entry?

    23-334-21

  117. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And there were times when the RCMP were able to escort vehicles that were there for the purpose of actually accessing the Coutts Port of Entry? Is that correct?

    23-334-28

  118. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I also understand there was difficulty, though, at other times, in negotiating with the group of protestors?

    23-335-05

  119. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And is that because there wasn’t always clear leadership with the group of protestors?

    23-335-09

  120. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Did you feel that at some time the leadership eventually stabilized and there was an identifiable group that you could negotiate with?

    23-335-17

  121. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And very soon into the protest, the RCMP set up various checkpoints. The most significant one being checkpoint 10 near Milk River. Is that right?

    23-335-25

  122. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And the purpose of the checkpoint was to prevent further vehicles from joining the blockade closer to the Coutts Port of Entry?

    23-336-03

  123. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you felt at that time, or the Incident Commander felt at that time that the RCMP had sufficient authorities to set up those checkpoints to limit travel to the port of entries to only those that were there for a legitimate purpose. Is that fair to say?

    23-336-07

  124. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And eventually this changed from policing a public order event to a criminal investigation; correct?

    23-336-14

  125. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And that changes the approach to policing the protest?

    23-336-18

  126. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Right. So you had to conduct a criminal investigation alongside of policing the public order event?

    23-336-27

  127. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And your testimony today was that you were prepared to execute search warrants and make arrests related to the criminal investigation in the early morning hours of February 14th, but that those actions actually ended up occurring earlier because of the circumstances?

    23-337-03

  128. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So at that point in time, were the police confident that they had all the tools they needed to execute those search warrants, make those arrests, and deal with enforcement related to the blockade?

    23-337-10

  129. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So the authorities related to laying charges under the Criminal Code or the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, the Traffic Safety Act, but also the tools you needed with respect to heavy towing capacity?

    23-337-16

  130. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And even if equipment wasn’t quite there yet, you knew it was on the way and it had been secured for the RCMP’s use?

    23-337-25

  131. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you know when the protestors first indicated a desire to leave the protest site?

    23-338-02

  132. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So we -- our understanding from the testimony of Marco Van Huigenbos is that the protestors didn’t want the Coutts protest to be associated with the criminal element uncovered by the search warrants and laying of criminal charges. And you indicated that the protestors had attempted to negotiate their departure, and in relation to any potential criminal charges they could be facing. I’m asking the question of what -- at what point in time did the protestors first indicate to the RCMP their desire to start to leave the protest site?

    23-338-06

  133. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And did they give you any indication of what their reasons were for wanting to leave at that time? Was it simply because of the criminal investigation that had been undertaken?

    23-338-23

  134. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Now, all of this happened without the powers of the -- the powers granted under the Emergencies Act. Is that correct?

    23-339-02

  135. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I understand that at that time, some of the protestors did transition over to the legal protest site? Is that you understanding as well?

    23-339-06

  136. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Do you know how long protestors stayed at the legal protest site?

    23-339-14

  137. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And they were there even after the Public Order Emergency Declaration was revoked; correct?

    23-339-22

  138. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And after that time, with no extra powers under the Emergencies Act, there were no further blockades at any of the port of entries in Alberta? Is that correct?

    23-339-26

  139. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. Those are my only questions today.

    23-340-04

  140. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good morning. For the record, my name is Stephanie Bowes. I’m counsel for the Government of Alberta. I’ll ask the Clerk to please pull up the Institutional Report, DOJ.IR, and I believe it’s 00000006. And when that report is up, I’ll ask to scroll down to page 35. I just want to ask some questions about the accommodations made during the Coutts border closure at different ports of entry in Alberta. And I’m not going to run through this chart, other than to note that there are days during the course of the blockade where traffic was -- commercial traffic was travelling through the Coutts Port of Entry, but there were also days when there were no traffic. In particular, January 31st to February 2nd. Do you understand that that was at a time when Highway 4 was completely blockaded?

    24-086-25

  141. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then we see that again on February 9th for reasons of a blockade?

    24-087-14

  142. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then on February 13th and 14th, that was due to the RCMP request for the closure of the Coutts port of entry; correct?

    24-087-17

  143. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    The suspension, thank you. And then if we go to page 36 in the institutional report, we can see the charts for the Del Bonita and Caraway [sic] ports of entry, and those charts will track some of the changes in traffic through those ports. And there were accommodations made to try to accommodate some of that commercial traffic that would normally travel through Coutts to these two ports of entry; correct?

    24-087-21

  144. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    For example, Del Bonita, which was normally closed on Saturdays and Sundays, was opened on February 12th and 13th?

    24-088-02

  145. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And hours were extended at both Del Bonita and Caraway [sic].

    24-088-06

  146. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Carway? Thank you. I also understand that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Services permitted boxed meat to go through other ports of entry and then reroute to Sweetgrass, Montana for USDA inspection; is that correct?

    24-088-09

  147. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And Sweetgrass, Montana is basically on the other -- on the Montana side of the Coutts port of entry; is that right?

    24-088-16

  148. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And the USCBP also agreed to facilitate the clearance of livestock at any port into the United States with the carrier then diverting to a location that had USDA and veterinary services?

    24-088-20

  149. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And the CBSA allowed livestock shipments coming into Canada to be inspected at Sweetgrass and then divert to another port of entry while services were suspended at Coutts; is that correct?

    24-088-25

  150. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Now, did the Coutts port of entry experience any other protest or blockade disruptions after February 15th?

    24-089-02

  151. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Activity, but did it affect services at the Coutts port of entry?

    24-089-15

  152. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And you were asked a question by Commission Counsel about a reference attributed to you, wherein you referred to the Emergencies Act, and I believe your response was that you think you were referring to provincial powers under emergency legislation to compel somebody to render services, for example, towing services. Is that correct?

    24-089-18

  153. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Yes.

    24-089-27

  154. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you were specifically thinking about Alberta and powers that it may have under its legislation?

    24-090-01

  155. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you were ---

    24-090-07

  156. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Right. And I just want to clarify one thing because Commission Counsel put to you that it was under the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act. You said no, you believed it was under emergency legislation; correct?

    24-090-11

  157. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And if I told you that the legislation you're referring to is the Emergency Management Act, would that accord with your memory of what you were likely referring to?

    24-090-17

  158. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you, those are all my questions.

    24-090-22

  159. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Stephanie Bowes. I’m counsel for the Province of Alberta. Deputy Minister, my questions are going to be directed to you as well today. I believe your evidence earlier today was that there was a failure to find a solution to the towing challenges as of February 13th; do I have that right?

    24-239-12

  160. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But there was still work being done on the 13th to find a solution, wasn’t there?

    24-239-21

  161. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I’ll ask that the Clerk please take you to Document ALB00001429. And this is an email from Mr. Dakalbab who -- from Public Safety Canada to people in Alberta, Ontario, and Manitoba, the three provinces experiencing border blockades, on Sunday, February 13th. And in this email, he indicates that he and Transport Canada were looking to have a small group discussion on the work that they were: “...advancing to ensure a clear escalation protocol is in place to remove trucks blocking roads and bridges.” And then you’ll see in the second paragraph it indicates that there would be a presentation of the strategy before moving it up the chain for approvals. So I take it that at this time Public Safety Canada and Transport Canada had developed the strategy, that they were checking in with their provincial partners, and then they were going to seek the approvals that they needed; is that your understanding?

    24-239-24

  162. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    24-240-26

  163. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So is it fair to say that it was discussions to come up with those strategies, still?

    24-241-02

  164. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And so, then, I’ll ask that we turn to PB.CAN.00000866. And this is the tow truck vehicle removal strategy you’re talking about, is that right?

    24-241-10

  165. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And it says that this is the “Working Draft” on February 13th. You understand that on the 13th it was a five-part plan; is that fair to say?

    24-241-16

  166. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And I understand that nowhere in this document does it contemplate the use of the Federal Emergencies Act; is that correct?

    24-241-20

  167. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And I’d just like you scroll down, if you could Mr. Clerk, to page 2, and we’ll go to item number 4. This is the “Tow vehicle to a secure location” step. And if we take a look at d: “If tow trucks are available ([example] Alberta is already procuring them) but operators are not, identify and deploy municipal, provincial and federal (including CAF) employees for specialized skills” Do you know if, as of this time, so on February 13th, any work had been undertaken to identify federal employees that may have skills to operate tow equipment?

    24-241-24

  168. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    What work was done to identify those employees?

    24-242-11

  169. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And did that include the CAF?

    24-243-05

  170. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    24-243-08

  171. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Now, I’d like to look at document SSM.CAN.00000410. And the second email on this page is an email from you to Minister Alghabra, on the early morning of February 15th, with the subject line “Coutts”. You note that there was great progress by the RCMP in clearing and opening, and then note some of the comments about what happened at the protest sites. I take it that your understanding on the early morning of February 15th was that the clearing of vehicles from the protest around Coutts was achieved without the use of any powers under the Emergencies Act, is that right?

    24-243-11

  172. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And do you know if that was also Minister Alghabra’s understanding, on the basis of this email?

    24-243-26

  173. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you, those are my only questions today.

    24-244-04

  174. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Stephanie Bowes for the Province of Alberta. Just one area I'd like a little bit of clarity on. Do the assessments of economic impact of the Coutts border blockade take into consideration commercial traffic that would have normally travelled through that port of entry, but was re-routed to other ports of entry?

    25-155-20

  175. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So all those estimates were based on what you were seeing at Ambassador Bridge as opposed to specific data from Alberta?

    25-156-04

  176. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you. That’s my only question today.

    25-156-11

  177. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good morning. My name is Stephanie Bowes, and I am counsel for the Province of Alberta. Just a couple of quick questions about the RFA process. Whose responsibility is it generally to send a formal response to an RFA received from a province?

    26-093-10

  178. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay, thank you. Are you aware that a response was drafted and approved by Minister Blair to Alberta's RFA, but does not appear to have been sent to Alberta prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

    26-093-21

  179. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Do you know why it was not sent?

    26-093-26

  180. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you very much. Those are my only questions today.

    26-094-11

  181. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening. My name is Stephanie Bowes; I’m counsel for the Province of Alberta. Ms. Charette, I believe that your evidence today was that you learned about the arrests in Coutts sometime on the morning of February 14th; is that correct?

    26-302-12

  182. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And this Commission has heard evidence that the arrests and the discovery of cache of weapons by the RCMP was a trigger for the protesters involved in the Coutts blockade to indicate a desire to leave the protest and that their intent to do was communicated to the RCMP that day. Did either you or Madam Drouin learn that the protesters indicated an intent to leave the protest site?

    26-302-18

  183. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. But in terms of a breakthrough in Coutts, at least with respect to the protesters clearing the site and no longer blockading the port of entry, when did you learn about that?

    26-303-03

  184. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay, thank you. Now, in your decision document for the Prime Minister -- which, for the record is SSM.NSC.CAN.00003224. We’ve looked at it a number of times today; I don’t intend to bring it back up, but was invoking the Emergencies Act the only option presented to the Prime Minister in that document?

    26-303-12

  185. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    26-303-20

  186. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right.

    26-303-26

  187. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So at that time, the only option was Emergencies Act, yes or no.

    26-304-03

  188. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    No, I ---

    26-304-07

  189. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Yes, that’s what I -- and I’ll clarify; that’s what I mean, in the decision document.

    26-304-09

  190. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And did any of that happen?

    26-304-18

  191. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right, thank you. And Madam Drouin, I believe your evidence today was that Canada first started thinking about the Emergencies Act in the context of these protests after the DMOC on February 9th; is that correct?

    26-304-22

  192. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And then the two- track process where the Emergencies Act was identified as track 2 was started on February 12th? No?

    26-304-28

  193. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right.

    26-305-13

  194. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. And there’s nothing in the Emergencies Act that prevented the Government of Canada from beginning consultation with the First Ministers on February 9th; correct?

    26-305-20

  195. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So there was a concern there, but certainly no limit on the ability of the Government of Canada to start a consultation process?

    26-306-21

  196. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then you would agree that that concern which limited the amount of time that you felt could be given to the First Ministers before they were consulted, meant that the First Ministers weren’t able to prepare for that meeting and have briefing from within their public service, from the experts who understand the legislation, the powers, that exist in the province, the resources that exist in the province, and what the police have jurisdiction in the province might need if the Emergencies Act were going to be invoked.

    26-307-08

  197. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you. Those are my only questions tonight.

    26-308-06

  198. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening, Minister Blair. My name is Stephanie Bowes. I’m counsel for the Province of Alberta. I’d like to start with Document SSM.CAN.00006055. And if, Mr. Clerk, you could scroll down to the last email on this page -- sorry, in this document? It will be on the next page. And this is an email dated February 9th from Ms. Astravas to you. Subject line “AB RFA”. And if you scroll down to the text, please, Mr. Clerk? You’ll see the text: “On the letter itself - John Brodhead and I spoke, and I think we revise[d] the response about exhausting provincial resources and enforcing contracts and laws and we look forward to learning more on that front. So it's not a no, just more context." Now I understand Mr. Brodhead is the Director of Policy in the PMO; is that correct?

    27-298-02

  199. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you know what the reference to it's not a no is about?

    27-298-24

  200. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you. At SSM.CAN.NSC.00002689, this was a record that Commission Counsel put to you earlier today, and I'll ask the Clerk to pull that up. The version that you saw today was unredacted, and I understand that that was only recently supplied. And when we review this, this is an email from, again, your Chief of Staff on February 11th. If we scroll down, we see an email from Radey Barrack to you on February 11th. Within the next page, we see a response, "Further, I understand that Alberta has the required legal authorities necessary to enforce compliance as a highway is considered essential infrastructure..." And it goes on. "There are a number of contraventions or other applicable legislation that may also be enforced by Alberta and its police forces." So at that point in time, the reason for rejecting Alberta's RFA was in fact that the position of Government of Canada was that Alberta had the required legal authorities; is that correct?

    27-299-10

  201. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But certainly also the position of Canada was that Alberta still had authorities that it could exercise to deal with the blockade at Coutts; correct?

    27-300-21

  202. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. And if we scroll down to the last paragraph in the letter, there's reference there to, "...the use of federal resources may be reconsidered at a future date once all other provincial options and capabilities have been exhausted." What was meant by that?

    27-300-26

  203. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    27-301-10

  204. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But of course, contingent on all other provincial options and capabilities having been exhausted; correct?

    27-301-13

  205. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And that reference, of course, is to the -- at the very top when you approve this response is the response to go to Alberta?

    27-301-25

  206. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And then I'll ask you, Mr. Clerk, to please go up to the top. There's a reference to has the PMO approved? And I take the PMO to be the Prime Minister's Office; is that correct?

    27-302-01

  207. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    For sure. And was it a requirement that the Prime Minister's Office approve a response to an RFA?

    27-302-07

  208. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Do you know if the Prime Minister's Office ever did approve a response to Alberta's RFA?

    27-302-17

  209. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    27-302-21

  210. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. There is reference in the records to your Chief of Staff arranging a February 9th meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the RFA. Were you aware of those discussions?

    27-302-24

  211. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. I am over my time. I would ask the indulgence of the Commissioner for a couple more minutes just to touch on two more things, please?

    27-303-01

  212. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    For sure.

    27-303-07

  213. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Mr. Clerk, could you please pull up document SSM.NSC.CAN.00003164? And this is an email dated February 17th from you to your Chief of Staff, Minister Blair.

    27-303-10

  214. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    I'll have you scroll down a little bit to that second email. It says, "Zita This letter from Alberta is incredibly helpful. They are asking for Federal assistance. They say [...] they have exhausted all existing authorities and resources. They are practically begging for us to help. We should think about publishing this." I'll take it this is reference to the February 5th RFA that your office received from Minister McIver; is that correct?

    27-303-15

  215. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. You wanted this letter to be published as support for Government of Canada's invocation of the Emergencies Act; correct?

    27-304-02

  216. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But you were also aware prior to the invocation of the Act of Alberta's success in purchasing tow equipment; correct?

    27-304-14

  217. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you. One last record to put before you. That's PB.CAN.00001132. And this is an appearance that you -- a transcript of an appearance you had on Global News on February 13th at 11 a.m. Eastern Time. And if you scroll down, Mr. Clerk, to page 2, there's a question from Mercedes Stephenson. You can see it now just at the bottom of your screen, "Are you prepared to invoke the Emergencies Act?"

    27-304-23

  218. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Sorry, can you scroll down there, please, Mr. Clerk? There it is there. And your response is, "Certainly. I will tell you, the Emergencies Act has been under a very fulsome consideration right from the first day, as to what needs to be done." When you refer to right from the first day, what day are you talking about?

    27-305-07

  219. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But you'll agree your answer was that it under very fulsome consideration, so it's not just a background option, it's something that you were seriously considering, correct?

    27-306-06

  220. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I understand that you did ---

    27-306-15

  221. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. You will agree with me that by speaking on news programs on February 13th, you made the public aware that the federal government was considering the Emergencies Act, correct?

    27-306-20

  222. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you very much for answering my questions today, Minister Blair.

    27-307-01

  223. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening, Minister. My name is Stephanie Bowes. I am counsel for the Province of Alberta. I just have one area that I'd like to ask you questions on, and that is on your communication with the Premier of Alberta back in February of 2022. And I'll start by asking the Clerk to please pull up a summary of your witness interview. The document is WTS00000073. And then if the Clerk could please scroll to page 4. We'll just have this up in case you have to refresh your memory, Minister. Now, you were asked by the Commission Counsel and by other counsel about a text message that you shared that you were sent by Premier Kenney. That wasn't the only text message or communication that you had with Premier Kenney; is that correct?

    28-332-14

  224. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And just in your witness summary, you indicate that you recall telling Premier Kenney that there was a formal process for RFAs that you were not involved in, but that you would speak to Minister Blair or Minister Annand. Do you recall that conversation with Premier Kenney?

    28-333-11

  225. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And at that time, were you aware that the Province of Alberta had in fact submitted an RFA on February 5th?

    28-333-22

  226. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And so it's fair to say that in your ministerial role, you don't typically handle RFAs; correct?

    28-334-04

  227. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Yes, we heard evidence about that.

    28-334-15

  228. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Right. And indicating that you would speak to either Minister Blair or Minister Annand, do you recall if you did speak to either of those two ministers?

    28-334-21

  229. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. And that limited your involvement there to the RFA; correct?

    28-335-03

  230. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And then, just one other question. At no point in time prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act did you discuss with the Premier, or any other official from Alberta, the potential use of the Emergencies Act. Is that correct?

    28-335-06

  231. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. Thank you, Minister, those are my only questions this evening.

    28-335-15

  232. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good evening to this panel. My name is Stephanie Bowes. I am counsel for the Province of Alberta. I just want to start with the statement in the PMO Institutional Report, which indicates that PMO staff engaged with Premier Kenney’s Chief of Staff, Ms. Livingstone, on February 5th and 12th. I just want to confirm that during that time, the PMO did not discuss the possible use of the Emergencies Act during those engagements. Is that correct?

    30-226-03

  233. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. And with respect to the First Minister’s meeting, Mr. Brodhead, you were asked about your understanding of the various positions of Premiers at that meeting. I’d like the clerk to pull up SSM.NSC.CAN00000625. And these are some expanded notes prepared and produced by the Government of Canada describing that meeting. Once we have them up, I’ll ask the Clerk to please scroll down to page 3. Okay. So we can see here that there’s some further notes about the comments of Premier Kenney at this meeting. And I’ll just walk through some of these right now. He starts by describing the situation at Coutts and how it went from 1,000 trucks on a rolling protest to 900 going home, with 100 staying behind. And then down to a group of 40, which he described as a core group. Then you’ll see him describe the arrests at the border and indicate: “We believe the situation has been secured.” (As read) And further down there: “Have procured on market for equipment and have drivers in place. Unless an unexpected surprise, should open Coutts border crossing today.” And a little further down again: “Would be problematic to declare emergency today to take momentum of arrests last night. Declaration risks further radicalizing thousands of sympathizers in Alberta. Know you have a lot of serious issues to balance off, including in Ottawa, but I am suggesting this could create a net negative for Alberta. If we need to seize or compel people, we are prepared to use our own Emergencies Act.” (As read) So you would agree that it’s fair to say that the Premier’s position at this First Ministers Meeting was that invoking the federal Emergencies Act was neither wanted, not needed in Alberta; correct?

    30-226-14

  234. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. And I'd like to switch tracks with you and ask about what was done to prepare the Prime Minister for the February 13th Cabinet meeting, and specifically, where his inputs of information came from. So I'm going to ask you -- you can answer yes or no -- whether the PMO was responsible for providing the Prime Minister with the following information, and that's about the status of the RCMP operation in Coutts. Was it the PMO that was responsible for providing that information to the Prime Minister?

    30-228-03

  235. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And how about the status of Alberta's acquisition of tow trucks from the private market?

    30-228-14

  236. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So I'll just name off a few more, and maybe then you can tell me if there was anything in my list that the PMO was responsible for providing the information to the Prime Minister. And those are the status of the protests in Windsor at the Ambassador Bridge, the status of opening of the Ambassador Bridge, the status of the OPS operational plan with respect to the protests in Ottawa, or that the Commissioner -- Commissioner Lucki was of the view that not all tools available through existing legislation had yet been exhausted.

    30-228-18

  237. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you.

    30-229-05

  238. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And so you would agree that the Prime Minister had that information as well, that there were tools available but that they weren't being used?

    30-229-15

  239. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Thank you. I would like the Clerk to please pull up SSM.NSC.CAN 00002941. And this is a record that Commission Counsel has taken you through in some detail already. There's just a few places where I was hoping you could help me read some of the writing. So, Mr. Clerk, if you could please scroll down to page 12 -- actually, this is not something that I need clarification on the writing on but something I do have a question on. Let me just make sure I'm in the right place here. So if you see on the right-hand side, there's a note beside Brenda. And I'm assuming this is Commissioner Lucki; is that correct?

    30-229-20

  240. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And she indicates with respect to Coutts, "They were almost gone, but a pastor incited them to stay. Was 250 vehicles, now down to 40 [and] Weapons are in the protest. Need to go slow [here]." Was the Prime Minister part of this conversation?

    30-230-05

  241. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Good, thank you. And then if we go to page 23, here's where I'll need your help interpreting the writing. Thank you. So we can see about a quarter a way down the page there's an arrow and it says "specific" and what's the next word after that?

    30-230-15

  242. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. So specific something, "...draft list. Using the money as a..." And then what's that next word there?

    30-230-23

  243. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And do you -- yeah, I think you just said that this was about needing to refer in the communications. What communications are you talking about?

    30-231-07

  244. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. Now I'd like to talk a little bit about that announcement. If we can go to SSM.CAN 00002665? And if we go to the very last email in this record, there's a discussion of a press conference that was, at that time, scheduled for noon on February 14th. And we'll see the time of this email is listed as February 13th 8 p.m. Now I'm not sure if this is one of the emails that caught with the time difference related to Greenwich Mean Time, but it's either 3 p.m. or 8 p.m. on the 13th. In either event, that's before the Cabinet meeting; correct?

    30-231-15

  245. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay.

    30-231-28

  246. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And it indicates that there was going to be a press conference the next day with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Blair, Minister Mendicino and Minister Lametti. There's a bit more discussion in other emails including that Minister Lametti is there just to answer questions and that only the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will provide comments. Is this because that was the press conference that was intended to announce the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

    30-232-02

  247. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So you'll see that it says, "As you know, [the] presser is to provide an update on the federal government response to the Blockades as well as [the] Ukraine..." And I'll take it from your answer that there was some anticipation that maybe it might be about the Emergencies Act, but what other announcement was going to be made about the blockades the next day?

    30-232-19

  248. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And I understand that part of the DMO's role is to prepare speeches for the Prime Minister; is that correct?

    30-233-05

  249. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Sorry, I thought in the institutional report that there was mention of drafting speeches by the Prime Minister's -- oh, did I -- I'm sorry, by the Prime Minister's Office, yes.

    30-233-11

  250. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. I'm sorry. I misspoke there. Did the Prime Minister's ---

    30-233-16

  251. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. I'll just finish this area. Did the Deputy Prime Minister's Office draft a speech for the Prime Minister for the press conference on February 14th?

    30-233-22

  252. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    You're not aware. Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions tonight.

    30-233-28

  253. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Good afternoon, Prime Minister. My name is Stephanie Bowes. I’m counsel for the Province of Alberta. You were asked this morning if any of the First Ministers could have said or done anything to change your mind about the Emergencies Act. And I understood your evidence to be yes, if one of them had said they had alternate tools and they thought it would end the situation, if they had figured out how to obtain towing services, and if they had convinced you that the laws in Canada were sufficient to deal with the protests. Is that a correct understanding?

    31-127-14

  254. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Thank you. You would agree that this is the very reason why proper and adequate consultation is so important, and in fact, required under the Emergencies Act?

    31-128-02

  255. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Don’t you agree then that giving the First Ministers advance notice and time to prepare would have allowed the First Ministers to share with you the details and the input that you indicated to the Commission would be important to your decision making?

    31-128-08

  256. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And certainly there’s been a lot of evidence before this Commission about how Alberta solved the tow truck problem, so I won’t get into that, but you would agree that none of the engagement you had with the provinces discussed, at all, the use of the Emergencies Act and whether it was necessary in the provinces?

    31-128-25

  257. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    I’ll put to you that the way the First Ministers Meeting was arranged, which was a short notice invitation with no indication of the topic of discussion meant that the discussions you did have with the First Ministers could not possibly provide you with the details that you needed to consider.

    31-129-16

  258. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    In your evidence today you said that at the First Minister's Meeting, you heard Premier Kenney say there was a plan for Coutts but that you had heard that before and you were not convinced that morning that it would be put to use; is that correct?

    31-129-23

  259. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Minister Mendicino said at the IRG the afternoon previous, which you were present at, that there was going to be enforcement action at Coutts; correct?

    31-130-10

  260. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Yes, certainly, because what we saw was that the actions at Coutts changed from Public Order policing activity into a criminal investigation. And around 8 p.m. on the night of the 13th, Commissioner Lucki emailed Minister Mendicino and Jody Thomas and advised them that the RCMP had an enforcement plan ready for execution and that they were indeed on the cusp of enforcement in Coutts, and that proved to be true; correct?

    31-130-23

  261. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    So then why were you doubtful when Premier Kenney told you that he believed the situation had been secured and the RCMP would now proceed with broader arrests and secure the border, when exactly what you had been told the night before about RCMP enforcement did in fact happen?

    31-131-05

  262. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And you understood that the police -- the extra RCMP officers that were brought into Alberta were of course brought in under the Provincial Police Service Agreement, not under any ---

    31-132-07

  263. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- powers created under the Emergencies Act?

    31-132-12

  264. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    The Emergencies Act didn't change that though. It didn't create police ---

    31-132-20

  265. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    But it didn't create police ---

    31-132-24

  266. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- it didn't create police officers; correct?

    31-132-27

  267. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right. I'm going to put to you the fact that you did have evidence that the laws in the provinces were sufficient to handle the blockades, and I'll give you two examples. One is that the Windsor Police along with the OPP cleared the blockade and the Ambassador Bridge was reopened before you made your decision; correct?

    31-133-08

  268. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Right. So the police powers were able to deal with the problem; correct? They were able to clear the blockade ---

    31-133-22

  269. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Yes.

    31-133-27

  270. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. And of course ---

    31-134-02

  271. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Right. The other example - --

    31-134-05

  272. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    --- the other example is Coutts where the RCMP were able to safely conduct a criminal investigation, execute search warrants and make arrests; correct?

    31-134-09

  273. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And that protesters in Coutts indicated to RCMP that they wanted to leave the protest because they didn't want to be associated with the criminal elements uncovered; correct?

    31-134-14

  274. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    Okay. We've heard evidence in this Commission, so the Commission knows what one of the protesters did indicate intent was. Now these are, in fact, the type of decreases in troublesome protest activity that you had been hoping to see in the weeks prior; weren't they?

    31-134-20

  275. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And definitely examples of how existing legal tools and police powers were effective at dealing with the legal portions of protests; correct?

    31-134-27

  276. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    All right.

    31-135-03

  277. Stephanie Bowes, Counsel (AB)

    And that's okay. I think I will end there. Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for answering my questions today.

    31-135-06