Some late Vindication…

Posted on by Pete Cross

It took a 74 year old long-time lawyer and Justice, having spent a lifetime in security related matters, someone with two feet clearly planted on the ground, to finally call out the Liberals and their authoritarian ways. In the past week, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley finally righted the wrongs of the imposition of the Emergencies Act. It was roughly two years ago that the “Act” was imposed on February 14, 2022, with grand fanfare and a concerned grimace by the Prime Minister. His forever kowtowing Ministers, and his NDP cohorts, profusely nodding in vigorous agreement standing behind him. This group of progressive liberals launched an Act designed, as it names implies, for a National Emergency, and when imposed, dictated full control over the lives of its citizens and specifically their ability to protest. There should be no mistake, this was a move that was in this writer’s opinion purely political, a move meant to show strength and determination, and aimed specifically at a group that had the audacity to question, a group that did not support the governing Liberals–in other words, they were the enemy. To put it in even simpler terms, the Liberals and their ilk did not like these protestors, these anti-vaccine rednecks, who came from afar. They were not of them.

Judge Mosley declared in his ruling that the imposition was “unreasonable and infringed on protestors charter rights”. That it did not “bear the hallmarks of reasonableness–justification, transparency and intelligibility”. He confirmed in essence what many thought –there was “no national emergency”. The faithful readers of this blog will remember a blog some months ago entitled “Sledgehammer and the Peanuts” which argued these same points; that the blaring of horns, the smell of diesel, bouncy castle encampments, and the disruption of the workday for bureaucrats in Ottawa (who were working from home through all this because of COVID) did not fit the definition, no matter how broadly interpreted, of this being a national emergency and that it certainly did not need such an all encompassing and arbitrary legal hammer.

The protest and the reaction to it did show that in Ottawa, if you put too many police departments in the kitchen, the broth will in fact be spoiled. The frustration and lack of coordination by the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Service, combined with the Doug Ford non-response, bordered on farce.

Of course this ruling was a kick in the pants for those fearless crime fighters Trudeau and Freeland; they know that this is not good in terms of going into the next election. Freeland, undeterred by a lack of factual support for her argument, went immediately running to the microphone, saying in her pedantic kindergarten teacher voice, “the safety of individual Canadians was under real threat…our national security was under real threat”. Quite an explanation.

So the Liberal government immediately have said they were going to launch an appeal. Usually the governing party of the day and any governing party would be more cautious in challenging the judiciary, normally they would “take it under advisement” or would be “studying” the case. It demonstrates the level of incomprehension amongst these Liberals as to someone having challenged their decision making, a court saying to them, no, you were wrong, and in fact you breached the Charter of Rights. How dare Judge Mosley describe the decision making at the time, as only based on “speculation” and that it had led to “unreasonable search and seizure”. The Liberals, of course have not released their legal grounds for that appeal, so I am suspecting that the Justice Department is now assigned to go find those grounds.

It is good to remember that there are four grounds to impose the Emergencies Act as clearly written: a) a public welfare emergency b) a public order emergency c) an international emergency, and finally d) a war emergency. CSIS in the Act is the defining authority in terms of what constitutes a security emergency. Clearly the latter two conditions, c) and d) didn’t apply, so the Liberals will have to continue to argue that it was a public welfare or public order emergency on a national scale. It was very interesting at the time, that CSIS Director David Vigneault in front of the Rouleau Commission, in a classic case of double-speak, said that even though the circumstances “didn’t meet the definition of a threat to national security”– nevertheless he supported the government decision. So in the end he supported what turns out to be a serious breach of rights of Canadian citizens, when he didn’t feel that there were grounds to do so. Time for Vigneault to step down.

So what will be the Liberal strategy be to fight this public relations nightmare. They are going to point to two arguments, and they have already started down this road.

First and foremost, they will point to the earlier mandated government appointed Commission that was chaired by Justice Paul Rouleau. The “appointed” Commission predictably found that it was “a failure in policing and federalism”, that it was in fact a “national emergency”. This was a bit of sleight of hand. The Commission mandate was to “examine and assess the basis for the Government’s decision to declare a public emergency…appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures selected by the government”. It was was not in fact a “legal” finding. The Federal Court with Judge Mosley on the other hand was to determine the legal “threshold” having to be met for the imposition of the Act.

Rouleau interestingly also said that it was a “difficult decision” he came to and that the “factual basis” for his finding “was not overwhelming”. I guess the lesson there for everyone is to never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Commission was politically tainted, it appeared to have been set up purposely to ameliorate the decisions by the government of the day. The allowed testimony was not subject to being tested in terms of any extended cross-examination. The Minister of the day, now former Justice Minister David Lametti, during his testimony even refused to reveal the legal opinion which prompted their taking of the action, arguing lawyer client privilege. It was pointed out to him that he could have waved the privilege, but he would not. Mr. Lametti, who was so traumatized during the days of the convoy, that he moved back to Montreal, in a recent interview he now of course “disagrees totally” with Judge Mosely and is “confident” that they will win an appeal.

The other argument that the Liberals will bring is the example of what was going on at the time in Coutts Alberta and the roadblock there. It led to an investigation of an extremist group who wanted to attach themselves to the protest, and they were intercepted and charged by the RCMP. This Liberal argument is also disingenuous. The investigation and charges were brought about through the Criminal Code not the Emergencies Act. The police used the existing powers to bring that investigation to a close. So as Judge Mosley points out in his decision, the “existing laws were sufficient”, to deal with the Convoy protests, that the regular laws were open to the police and could handle the situation. The protestors that were charged, Tamara Litch and Chris Barber won’t necessarily be helped by this Federal Court decision, because they were also charged under the Criminal Code, not under the Emergencies Act.

Judge Mosley also added that “economic disruption cannot form the basis of extraordinary measures”. The Liberals during this “crisis” often argued that the Windsor border blockade was disrupting trade going into the United States. Ms. Freeland trotted that argument out again at her recent press conference, again arguing that Canada’s “economic security” was threatened. Maybe, she had not read the entire decision?

It is also interesting to read the various takes of those in the Liberal support groups, who were supportive of the government measures at the time. The CBC called it a “a divisive decision” and that illustrious leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh now says that he only “reluctantly supported the Act”. The Ottawa citizens who formed a civil class action against the protestors, which is seeking $290 million for their Wellington Street disruption, are still saying this ruling does not hurt them. Their lawyer Paul Champ argues that their case is about “honking, its about parking on the street, not for an afternoon of protest, but for weeks”. If one ever needed convincing that the citizens of Ottawa, and the bureaucrats who are governing this country live in a hermetically sealed environment, this is the case.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a group which I rarely find agreement with, but brought the case forward to the Federal Court, said that the actions of government in this case, that the imposition of these types of laws “…are dangerous to democracy”. This decision, if looked at in a broader scope, should be seen as an examination of the very tenuous nature of democracy. The solitary Judge showed us how thin that thread really is, and for that we owe him a debt of gratitude.

Photo courtesy of Michael_Swan of Flickr Commons – some Rights Reserved.

Fall Reflections…

Posted on by Pete Cross

“And all the lives we ever lived and all the lives to be are full of trees and changing leaves” – Virginia Woolf

Writers and poets have spent many words in trying to capture the essence of the coming of Autumn. As nature changes to reflect the shortening of sunlight and what Keats called “the season of mist and and mellow fruitfulness”, for me it is a time to pause, a lull in time when we all re-adjust and prepare for a return to the comfortable routines. It is a favourite time for many, these days of changing colours, when the sky seems bluer, the clearer air markedly cooler. In nature, it is also a time of decay, a coming to the natural end of life. So it seems as good as time as any to reflect on the good and the not so good which have come out of these last few months. They are subjective, in no particular order, and of no particular importance.

One of my over-riding thoughts is about our news, the constant stream, less and less from traditional media, as the digression to a reliance on social media seems to be accelerating at an alarming rate. Thus, the reliability of that watered down news should be of the utmost concern. This is not new, this trend has been going for several years and it is indeed worrisome, especially for anyone who historically has valued the role of the 5th Estate. The news now is in snippets, pieces of video, pieces of conversation, mixed in with fully partisan and fragmented opinions. Press releases are being issued, and then regurgitated through the media in tiny sound bites to a public, which has clearly become disenchanted, and that disinterest is palatable. Every story is purposely planned to begin with “unprecedented”, “historic” and “never seen before”. It is like television and radio have been swallowed up by the National Enquirer. This summer as we took in the sunshine and communed with nature, our phones were constantly being pinged and alerted; bombarded by the news of “soaring inflation”, “unprecedented wildfires”, and the “historic cost of housing”. Youtube video and Instagram posts are now spliced into to be part of the actual coverage, and often polarized opinion is dangerously assumed to be fact. This trend is only disturbing if one values a functioning democracy, and therefore the need for an informed populace. One wonders whether we, the consumers, who seem addicted to instant scrolling gratification are also the problem or have we just been trained?

As one reflects on the political waves of the last few months, there does seem to be a swinging of the left/ right pendulum. Has the leftist arc of the pendulum reached its pinnacle, and is it now moving back? For sure, the Federal Liberals are coming to realize that things are not quite as rosy for their fatuous leader as they originally thought. So, in recent days they have been frantically swinging their arms in a desperate effort to fan the flames of fear, the fear over those evil right wingers marching over the horizon to destroy all the good they have created.

Pierre Polivere, the Conservative opposition, has executed a dapper change in his haberdashery from Clark Kent to Superman, and is finally feeding with some effect on the overt stupidity of recent Liberal pronouncements. His biggest concern may be that he is peaking a little too soon, as the election is still a couple of years away.

That said it does seem like we are adopting the American version of an election in which the campaigning starts at least two years in advance. This will mean that we will be very sick and very tired of hearing from any of the politicians with their dumbed down commercials filled with statements of progress and diversity, of being “there for you”, “going forward” and “working together”. For her part Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who has cut some of her television cable to account for the rough financial times, will continue to stand behind Justin, and nod with vigour at every statement he makes. The flame proof Bill Blair having survived being tied to Commissioner Brenda Lucki, will try and remain hidden in his new job as Minister of National Defence. Foreign Minister Melanie Joly will continue to have her minions prepare for the unforgivable possibility of a Republican being elected in the United States; as she also “revamps” her department to make it a nice place to work. The Governor General will continue to distribute her valuable wisdom and insights to anyone who will invite her to an exotic locale, and will arrive with her twenty plus entourage in tow, but sadly will only be able to offer and provide box lunches on any future flights.

Locally, the domestic theatre of the absurd politics in Surrey continues, and Mayor Brenda Locke keeps on with her obfuscation and attempt to prolong any transition to the Surrey Police Service. Brenda it would seem simply does not want to admit defeat. Meanwhile, it is costing the Surrey taxpayers $8 million a month currently for the present state of policing, but Ms. Locke will continue to tell everyone she is concerned about future policing costs. She continues to blame the Provincial government and it would seem that most of the most recent delay is because most government workers decided to take the summer off. Apparently losing $8 million a month and getting a functioning police force in place is not enough reason to postpone anyone’s holidays.

And do you remember the campaign by the Surrey Mounties and the Mountie union, the National Police Federation, where they detailed how they were the better persons for the job, and that future staffing was not an issue? This while recently we have been watching the current Commissioner Duheme touring the rural areas of Saskatchewan, and hearing story after story from his own members on the lack of staffing and the inability to do the job. The irony is overwhelming. Duheme is even saying now that there is “a recruitment crisis” and the Mounties are now at a “cross roads” in terms of their survival in their present form. So who was lying, the present Mounties in charge in Surrey or the current Commissioner?

The Federal Mounties it seems, still have not figured it out why no one is applying for their department. They now believe that to increase recruitment, the solution will be to further lower the standards. The head of the RCMP in Saskatchewan is Rhonda Blackmore. Ms Blackmore and the brass heading the Saskatchewan RCMP have now created the Saskatchewan RCMP Indigenous Recruiting Unit; who among other things recently sponsored a three day event to recruit indigenous candidates, give them tours of Regina, and were there to “help them fill out the application forms.”

Meanwhile the Feds in RCMP Ottawa, the dreamland capital, are debating reducing the time away from the use of marihuana, before working as a police officer, down to 24 hours– from the current 28 days. By putting scientific evidence aside, there belief is that would then be able to attract those daily doobie smoking future recruits who also have an interest in crime fighting.

Here is a reflective thought. How about they try and attract future police by making the RCMP a viable and expert policing organization once again? It will take longer, it is definitely not an overnight solution, but it will work.

Unfortunately, over the last few weeks and months we continue see the baleagured and beseiged Mounties being thrown to the wolves. The most recent slap in the face was the 123 page report commissioned by the B.C. Public Safety Ministry which stated that Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, a group of over 440 officers with a budget of over $90 million “is neither effective in suppressing gang violence and organized crime nor is it providing the Province with an adequate return on investment”. They described it’s governance as a “tangle of organizations…” that its “funding is unstable”…and that there is a “lack of continuity”…and “high rates of turnover”. The RCMP response to this damning indictment on September 8 for this report that was issued on April 16th, was that they had not yet received a copy of the report. Can anyone imagine a private company or even a government department getting this kind of review and no one being held accountable? The head of CFSEU, RCMP Assistant Commissioner Manny Mann is saying nothing, so one can only hope that he is busy preparing his retirement papers.

Further to the RCMP in Saskatchewan, in the past few months it was also announced that they will be holding two inquiries. The first is the inquiry into the eleven individuals stabbed to death on the James Smith Cree Nation. There is little doubt that it will be comparable to the inquiry in Nova Scotia over the Portapique mass murders in terms of the eventual criticism and the conclusions that will be reached.

It was also in Saskatchewan that the Province is now forming a 70 person Marshall service to deal with property crime at the cost of $20 million, to supplant the lack of attention to rural property crime from the RCMP. It has not been a good time in Saskatchewan lately and it looks like they will be front and centre in the next few months.

So as we have reflected, have we learned? Not really. There seems to be a lot of sameness and it seems that the culprits of the past few months, will be the culprits of the next few months. The problems of the past are ongoing and will continue, the solutions proposed in the past, likely will be the solutions proposed for the future.

I wish I could offer more solace, but at least we took the time to reflect and take a deep breath.

Personally, I am looking forward to the Fall, but mainly because I love baseball– and there is nothing like October baseball.

Defining Terrorism

Posted on by Pete Cross

If you have been drawn to the Emergencies Act Commission in recent days, you would have seen that finally, we are now getting into the nitty-gritty of Ottawa backroom politics. There has been a delay in this blog as I dutifully awaited to finally hear from the grand master himself, Mr. Trudeau. These are the persons who determined that Ottawa was under “siege” and “occupation” and that the implementation of the Emergencies Act was in their view, sound judgement. They are the ultimate masters of circle talk, the power members who reply to questions with some combination of condescension and frustration as they try to explain what only they can see. A frowning Freeland, a puffed up Montecino, the arrogant Lametti, and the actor Trudeau, all in agreement with their righteous stance that what they did was both justified, and in fact the right thing to do. In their political view, the convoy, and the blockades was causing “threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency”.

Their evidence of those beliefs is clearly inflated but not fully revealed, as it remains hidden behind cabinet confidentiality or because of client solicitor privilege as in the case of Justice Minister Lametti. They clearly struggled with their rationale, unable to point to what caused them to come to this belief. When confronted with the exact words used in the Act, which were lifted from the CSIS definition– that there must be “serious evidence against people or property, espionage, foreign interference, or an intent to overthrow the government by violence” they are stuck. You can physically watch them spin their mental wheels in the mud of the face of actual detailed fact . CSIS themselves of course testified said that they did not find any evidence to meet the criteria. Freeland argued that the Americans, in not getting their auto parts on time from Windsor was sufficiently damaging to the economy of the country and the reputation of the country, that she felt that it constituted a national emergency and a threat to Canadian society. She also related how the Biden government was concerned and that they needed to do something because they had been told by the Americans that they needed to do something. She did not know how to answer the fact that the blockade on the Windsor bridge was removed prior the implementation of the Act.

Is it possible then that the use of airhorns and the illegal parking of trucks was stretched in definition by the Liberals, to include a convoy of truckers protesting a vaccine mandate? In essence were they a terrorist group? Were they trying to overthrow the government? It defies the imagination, but alas, this is Ottawa, a city filled with cocoon like towers of Federal bureaucrats, all huddled in their cubicles, normally free from outside concerns. In this world they speak their own progressive lingo (a terrorist is an IMVE – Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremist), they are intolerant of those with differing opinions, safe in knowing that they and only they know what is best for the country, as they spend their lunch hours wandering Sparks St Mall looking for a cheap Chipotle lunch. They are for the most part safe from dissent, or at least the dissent of the unwashed, and they are never threatened with such things as job security, or the possibility of someone living amongst their midst with callused hands and poor manners. Marco Mendocino stated that this group was traumatizing the working from home residents–the “residents are terrorized” he exclaimed early during the protest. Lametti thought maybe they should use tanks. Although he says he was just joking in the email. He felt scared to the point that he re-located to the safe confines of Montreal. They came to a decision early on that these heathens needed to be removed, along with their children and pets who were apparently part of this un-controllable siege, who according to Trudeau were using the children as protection. Freeland said it was like playing “wack-a-mole” trying to control the discontented from rising up. Trudeau testified today he was frustrated by a lack of a plan by the police, and then was confronted under cross- examination with a 73 page plan that was distributed before the Emergencies Act imposition. You may also be interested to know that the Liberal government discussed the Emergency Plan and using it during COVID.

There was lots of testimony heard about the lack of a need for the Emergencies Act from the police and others. That it was not needed nor was it requested. However, political necessity always overrides fact, especially amongst this apparently now quivering group of Cabinet members. They wanted to do something and they were clearly having bad dreams about the American events of January 6th in Washington. But, they needed to be coached through this, someone who gave credence to their plan for implementation.

Along comes 40 year civil servant, Janice Charette, Clerk of the Privy Council Office, who writes a memo to the gathered group of senior ministers in which she states: ” the public unrest is being felt across the country…which may provide further momentum to the movement and lead to irreparable harms–including social coercion, national unity and Canada’s international reputation” She goes on to say that this “fits with the statutory parameters of the Emergencies Measures Act”. Of course it doesn’t, but again why let the facts get in the way, and she gives us a hint as to the psychological incentive for the Act when she says: “god help us if we have another January 6th”. If you analyze the words of this statement it gets even a little more Orwellian. She feels the act is warranted because she is worried about “social coercion” to a non-Liberal sanctioned cause, namely the vaccine mandates. As far as Canada’s international reputation, she may want to speak directly to the Prime Minister about having hallway chats with the Chinese leadership. But that is for another time. Trudeau says that the Charette memo was “essential” in his decision.

When grilled as to the fact that none of the reporting agencies felt that the protest was a national emergency, Charette said that her job and the job of the government was to look at the “totality of the circumstances”, that even though there was no “specific site”, no “specific actor”, it was the movement itself which had her perturbed. The movement apparently in her reasoning was a monster all by itself, it breathed life on its own, it was not made up of individuals. She did say though, in her memo, that the use of the Emergencies Act “could be challenged”. Apparently even this non-lawyer knew she was skirting and widening the legal definition. But her pronouncement was apparently enough for the cowering politicos, who a couple of hours after the Cabinet meeting, decided that the Emergencies Act should be implemented.

But let’s assume she was right– and the charges against Tamara Lich and Chris Barber for mischief, and counselling mischief, and the 3000 parking tickets met the requirements to justify the use of this militarized piece of legislation. If one accepts this to be the case, then let’s compare the Ottawa convoy to something which happened in a lonely part of northern British Columbia.

Approximately 60 kms south west of Houston, B.C. there is a Forest Service Road which if you go up about 60 kms, you will find the the Coastal Gas Link pipeline being built by TC Energy. At this particular location, the $6.6 billion pipeline, which has been approved by all levels of government, goes under the Morice river.

But there is a problem. This particular area is also described as “sacred land” by the Wet’suwt’en First Nation. This particular “un-ceded area” to which they claim is made up of 22,000 square kilometres of land, and is “overseen” by no less than six elected Band Councils. However, the problem is that even though the Band Councils approved the pipeline (with the usual amount of economic incentives given to them) the “hereditary chiefs” of the Wet’suwt’en were not in agreement.

On February 17, 2022 about 20-30 white camouflaged hooded individuals decided to take matters into their own hands. These masked individuals came up the Marten Forest Service Road, in the middle of the night, carrying axes, fire sticks, an even a cordless angle grinder, used to cut through the security gates. Another similar group was attacking from the other end, closer to the Morice River drill pad, where an overnight crew was preparing the site.

The security guard in his truck was immediately attacked, windows broken out of his vehicle and axes swung at his vehicle, one which such force that it ended up in the back seat of the vehicle. He tried to escape, but the road was blocked, so he came back and was once again attacked. They then also tried to torch the back of the vehicle. The group continued with their rampage, smashing heavy machinery beyond repair, remote buildings were gutted, and bulldozers pushed on to their sides. The local RCMP was called shortly after midnight and began the journey up the forest service road. At kilometre 41 the road was blocked with tar covered stumps, wire, boards with spikes, tarps and lit fires. Some of the attackers were there as well and began throwing smoke bombs and fire lit sticks at the police. One officer was injured in stepping on a spiked board. Once past this roadblock, another 2 kms up the road, an old school bus was being used to block the road. By the time they reached the actual site of the attack, millions of dollars in damage had been done. The pictures are self-explanatory.

In the words of the then C/Supt of the RCMP Warren Brown was that this was a “calculated and organized attack”.

Of course this was not the first attack, nor are the primary suspects in these matters hidden, in fact they are hiding in plain sight.

In 2020 protestors who supported the Hereditary Chiefs, calling themselves the “Land Defenders”, blocked the work site for 59 days, and finally after receiving an injunction and an eviction notice were then forced to leave, but they did not go willingly, another police action was warranted and/or in the words of the CBC, thirty people were “violently arrested”.

In November 2021, again the protestors attacked the site, commandeering heavy equipment, trenching the road surfaces, and erecting blockades. About 500 employees were stranded and unable to leave the site.

More recently on October 26, 2022 there was an arson attack in Smithers, B.C., in the parking lot of the Sunshine Inn. A total of eight vehicles were burned, four RCMP cruisers, along with four other vehicles which included a BC Hydro truck and an ambulance. One of the RCMP vehicles was marked with the “C-IRG”. The RCMP have set up a uniform contingency group to patrol the areas, their vehicles identified by the “C-IRG” on their vehicles, who are there to safeguard from any further “energy industry incidents”. This is the hotel that the police usually stay at when working the security patrols for the pipeline. The mayor of Smithers, Mayor Atrill, admitted that there was a “temptation in the community to ascribe the crime to conflict…over the pipeline”.

So up to this date, it is currently estimated that over $275 million in economic damages have been sustained in attacks on this build of the critical national infrastructure. The RCMP at the time felt that they had identified one or two of the suspects in the axe attacks, but currently no one has been charged, even though the RCMP claim that they have had forty officers involved in the investigation. There remain no leads, nor any confirmations of the funding or methods of the attackers.

The Band councils after the axe attack at the site said: “we call on those who are inviting violent non-Wet’suwet’en people into our territories to withdraw their invitations”. A curious wording to be sure, and one could interpret this as an admission that they are aware of the suspects while at the same time saying it is not them.

Are they concerned about the economic damages? Not really. They are concerned about that this attack “…should not have any ongoing investigations negatively impact their ability to carry out their traditional practises or limit access to their territories”.

Much more recently there was a fire in Montreal in a residential driveway, where a Jaguar and a Land Rover were burned. The home was owned by Royal Bank of Canada, Michael Fortier. RBC has been involved in the financing of the pipeline, although one can only surmise that it ties into the pipeline issue.

So let’s compare Ottawa to the events in northern B.C.

What is the most terroristic act?

Could we get the Liberal cabinet ministers together for another meeting, like the one in Ottawa, and let them decide whether this set of circumstances meets the criteria for another declaration of the Emergencies Act. In northern B.C. the police clearly are being stymied, they have no other avenues of investigation left open to them, unlike they did in Ottawa. The attacks are national in scope, there are claims being made for their own governments to replace the current existing authorities, it is violent, it is causing economic harm, and it is attack on the basic infrastructure of the economy.

If the government invoked the Emergency Measures Act in Northern B.C. , maybe they could freeze the assets of the Wet’suwet’en until such time as the Bands could come forward with a more co-operative effort and a list of the suspects.

Of course, one knows this is not going to happen. Let us not mince words. There is a Go-Free card that the Indigenous pull out at every opportunity in the Canadian monopoly game. This includes the breaking of the laws of this country and committing acts of “terror”. They have been over-stepping the bounds of the law for quite some time now, and they continue to do so with impunity.

The only explanation for this is that they are the Justin Trudeau’s cause, so much so that Lametti when asked by the Indigenous lawyer representative at the Commission as to future possible use of the Emergencies Act, said they would look at including the Indigenous in the any future decision making process when in judgement as to what constitutes an act of insurrection and a future use of the Emergencies Act.

It is said that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The Indigenous are the freedom fighters, the convoy members are the terrorists. It’s all in the definition.

Photo courtesy of Flickr Commons by Ross Dunn – Some Rights Reserved

Is the World spinning Faster?

Posted on by Pete Cross

Policing issues and the stories that surround it seem to be growing exponentially, always accompanied by surrounding commentary and self-proclaimed expertise flowing from every social platform. Instagram, Reddit, Facebook and Twitter abound with the examination of the police and a professed expertise. The armchair investigators of Netflix are in full voice. In trying to understand why, I have learned that In the last few years the earths rotation has in fact been speeding up (on a normal day the earth travels at the speed of 1000 miles per hour as measured at the equator). So as I find my eyes ricocheting from headline to commission to judicial decision, blaming the earth’s rotation as being responsible is as likely an answer as any other.

In the past week to ten days we have had the start up of the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa; we have learned that 469 foreign criminals are “missing” according to the CBSA; two officers were killed in answering a domestic dispute in Ontario, ambushed by a male with an AK-47; and an Ontario court Judge has ruled that if you are an Indigenous offender you are not allowed to be cross-examined as to any previous offences. So now not only do you have the Gladue decision, you know have it dictated that the Indigenous are not to be subjected to the same trial process.

Closer to home, in the Surrey civic election the old dodger with the sore foot, McCallum, has been replaced by an equally woefully inadequate Brenda Locke. In the first 48 hours, she has already painted herself into a corner, by saying she is giving the Mounties back their job in Surrey, regardless of reality and cost.

So having to choose one story over another is difficult this week. That being said, as much as I would rather ignore it, I guess we will have to go with the Public Order Emergency Commission as the lead story, which is being headed by the Honourable Judge Paul Rouleau. This Commission (we have sure had our share of them lately) has been tasked with understanding “the Government’s decision to declare a public emergency, the circumstances that led to that declaration, and the effectiveness of the measures selected by the Government to deal with the then-existing situation”. As in all Commissions of Inquiry, one needs to be reminded that none of this is to determine criminal fault or civil liability. This is all to determine the “effectiveness” of the implementation of this draconian piece of legislation.

And like all good government Commissions, this too is filled with lawyers of every stripe and denomination: there are two co-lead counsel, five senior counsel, three regional counsel, twelve just “counsel”, three senior policy advisors, seven research counsel, and two “staff”. So including the Judge, there are thirty-two counsel and that is just on the government side of the ledger. The audience at these hearings will be for the most part other lawyers and the media. With this many lawyers there is diminishing hope that the truth behind the declaration of the emergencies act will not be watered down through all these filtering lawyers.

Judge Rouleau is a native of the Ottawa area, went to the University of Ottawa and then went on to be associated with several central Canadian legal firms such as Heenan Blaikie and Cassels Brock and Blackwell. He has been a Judge since 2002 and a strong advocate for French language rights, and would have probably been a better candidate for the Supreme Court than the new Justice O’Bansawin–but let’s put that aside for now.

The good Judge will be overseeing the evidence of sixty five potential witnesses, however do not despair and give up on your regular life schedule, as it is likely that you only need to begin to pay serious attention to the last twenty or so witnesses– which include the politicians such as Trudeau and Freeland. After all, the police have already established that they did not ask for the Emergencies Act, it has also been established that there was no real intelligence indicating that there was a foreign inspired threat in the makeup of the convoy group, nor conspiracies to commit violence, which should leave the Commission with some rather obvious starting points. There is going to be a lot of dancing to be sure. Commissioner Lucki has already done the two step in public committee hearings, where she was forced to admit to not having asked for the implementation of the Emergencies Act. As a devotee to Blair and company, she needed to backtrack, and she did this by saying what a great thing it was, once they had been given these extra powers. Justin Trudeau who spoke publicly about “foreign money” was clearly lying as the intelligence community today said there was no such evidence.

One should also remember that the government is not holding this hearing because they wish to be frank and forthright to the Canadian public, it is because the law states that they have to have an inquiry within 60 days after the enactment of the Emergencies Act. This particular group of Liberals are not fans of focused scrutiny, whether it is in the House of Commons question period or in front of a Commission. They have released some Cabinet documents but have raised “confidence” issues on them; so the general public may never be shown them.

In checking out a Commission it is always helpful to find out who has been given “standing” and “funding” in terms of appearing before the Commission, which simply put, is based on who has a direct and vital interest in the proceedings. So in this case, groups such as the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses line up for standing, and of course for the government to pay for it. These three groups were in fact granted both permission and funding.

However, there was some rather unusual decisions in this regard. Take the case of Mr. Eros who applied for “standing”. Mr. Eros is a CPA and dealt with financing and accounting matters related to the Convoy Group. He was also intricately involved in the administration of the crowd-funding campaign with this same Convoy group. He was however denied standing, as the Judge ruled that he was merely a “witness”. This may be fair.

However, incredibly, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs was granted “standing” and “funding” to participate in this matter. They argued that they had a substantial and “direct interest in the commission” based on its “role as an umbrella organization representing Indigenous governments” and that it plays a “critical role in governance in Canada in terms of its ensuring that other governments are held accountable for their actions”. Some of you may be surprised at their being Indigenous “governments” in Canada. However, to think that they are there to hold the other “governments” accountable is audacious to say the least, even under the current Federal Liberal love-in regime. So we now have a group who has supported its share of protests, such as the damaging of pipelines and the burning of rail lines which is now going to sit in judgement of the governments reaction to the Ottawa convoy.

The witness testimony has started and began with the bubble wrapped represented citizens of Ottawa talking about the nights of continuous air horns, the disruption of their businesses and the “occupation” of Ottawa. Terms are being bandied about such as a “siege” and a “horrific experience”. The lead plaintiff in the civil suit Zexi Li, is a data analyst, and the second witness. She was working for the government from home and her testimony was how it completely disrupted her life, a story which under cross-examination was by no means dramatic. Most of the city of Ottawa were at this time working from home.

In the last few days the Commission has now started to examine some of the government and police response, before, during and after this clearly “unprecedented” upheaval. What would you expect to find when you have three levels of government; the city, the Province of Ontario, and the Federal Government all weighing in on strategy and tactics with three different police forces, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ottawa City Police, and the RCMP? Now consider the Ottawa mayor who liked to have confidential discussions with Trudeau, Blair, and Mendocino, but not share those discussions with the Ottawa Police Services Board who supposedly were the designated oversight to the operations. There were Provincial and Federal concerns with the OPSB itself. Then throw in the new Ottawa Police Chief who with the other police managers from the other jurisdictions could not even agree on a “command structure” for several days. Throw in a request for 1800 Ontario Provincial officers, while at the same time consider the initial lacklustre involvement of the RCMP, and then consider an inability to even develop a policing “operational plan” for over 10 days.

Needless to say it was all bureaucracy, miscalculation and the very definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. Bill Blair was suggesting to the Ottawa Chief that he consider more bylaw enforcement, even though by that time 2000 bylaw tickets had been issued. I am sure he thanked Mr. Blair profusely. Justin Trudeau was busting on Doug Ford not doing enough, while at the same time, the OPP seemed to be the best at getting extra officers to the scene. Chief Slolys then resigned. With little doubt he was about to become the scape goat in this massive cockup.

The enacting of the act seems quite clearly to have been a reaction to a discombobulated police management action brought created by a lack of foresight and intelligence gathering, combined with meddling by the usual political group which surfaces in any calamity. It was done for the singular purpose of gaining a political upper hand in the media, to show that they were doing something, and it was concocted by the Federal government and the Liberal ruling party.

The core or the fuel for this action seems to been an inherent inability on the part of the liberal left to relate to the protestors driving these big trucks. They were seen as the working class, the blue collars. This was more than a paper exercise to the protestors. They had lost jobs and the ability to feed their families, and now they were being ignored and pushed to the sidelines. They were at times crude and in your face, willing to physically push back, but their cause was the centre of their existence. This was not a philosophical theory dealing with “systemic” complaints, theirs was a cause that affected their mortgage and their ability to make a living. They were not bubble-wrapped, did not speak in plural pronouns, and did not understand or adhere to the niceties of government levels and protocols. They were not from Ottawa, they did not look like they belonged there, they were not Liberal constituents, and most troubling of all– they drove very big immovable trucks.

So when they got to Ottawa, no one would talk to them, no one even liked them, and they needed to go, at any cost. It was hurting the images of the politicians in power. And the media were willing to report it without question or due diligence.

The protestors prevailed as long as they did because they were met with an unprepared and ill-equipped police force, governed by layers and layers of Ottawa political mandarins concerned only with optics. The politicians found themselves facing, according to the Ottawa mayor’s chief of staff, a “crescendo of collapsing confidence”.

They were also scared. They did not understand and could not relate to the visceral outpourings of the protestors. Their problems were not their problems. So this “local emergency” demanded in their view, the full force of government, the suspension of their inherent rights, and the seizure of their personal financial assets– and now they will be lying to justify it.

Photo courtesy of Ross Dunn via Flickr Creative Commons – Some Rights Reserved