It's been a full week of testimony from top Ottawa and provincial police officials at the Public Order Emergency Commission examining the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the "Freedom Convoy" protests.
From contradictory testimony over tow trucks and broken telephone over intelligence warnings, to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki texting her OPP counterpart about trying to “calm” ministers down amid an apparent loss of confidence in police, here are some highlights from the jam-packed hearings and latest stack of related documents.
CONFLICTING TOW TRUCK TESTIMONY
There have been several examples of conflicting testimony given between various ranks and when cross-referencing documents, but one of the clearest examples happened on Wednesday when discussing the trouble police had getting tow truck drivers to help clear the streets.
Supt. Robert Bernier, who oversaw the Ottawa police command centre for a period of time during the protests, told the commission that the government did not need the Emergencies Act to compel tow truck drivers to help move the vehicles gridlocking the downtown core, because there were arrangements already made by the OPP to deploy 34 trucks for that purpose.
He then told the commission that the "willing drivers"—a fraction of those with heavy towing trucks who were solicited— were going to be granted anonymity to guard against any protester retaliation.
However, when challenged on cross-examination by a lawyer representing the federal government about how that plan fell through and ultimately the Emergencies Act was leveraged to compel their services, Bernier said he "was not informed of that."
On Thursday, OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique was also questioned by a commission lawyer about this tow truck broken telephone. He was asked about an apparent disconnect between what he said in his initial commission interview about the Emergencies Act not being used to compel tow truck drivers, and there being documentation indicating the OPP was using authorities under provisions under the Act to engage towing companies.
In response, he sought to clarify that tow companies were organized and willing to proceed, but that providing them indemnification was a sticking point where the emergency powers became "extremely helpful."
"We were also concerned at the time that those that had agreed to provide their services would back out as we got closer to the operation. So technically, could we have compelled them? Did we provide them with information in writing that would insinuate they were compelled? Quite likely, but did we actually have to direct them? No, they had willingly agreed to assist," he said.
INTELLIGENCE AND THREAT-LEVEL BROKEN TELEPHONE?
Another ongoing point of confusion—or as Ottawa Supt. Rob Bernier seemed to describe it at one point, a "bizarre disconnect"—was why what the OPP was indicating in its successive intelligence reports leading up to the protests was not being reflected in the on-the-ground planning from the Ottawa Police Service.
Was it a weekend-long event, or were there clear indications of protesters' plans to stay long-term? The commission has heard a mix of both with answers varying depending who was asked, coupled with conflicting accounts of how seriously some of the information coming in as the convoy rolled into town was taken.
Similarly, eyebrows were raised during last week's testimony after the head of the OPP's Provincial Operational Intelligence Bureau Pat Morris told the commission that there wasn't any "credible" information indicating the protests posed a direct threat to national security.
This came in complete contradiction to OPP head Carrique telling parliamentarians in March as part of their own study of the government's use of the Emergencies Act that the "Freedom Convoy" did pose a "threat to national security."
While MPs have voted to call the OPP back to get their own explanation, during his testimony on Thursday Carrique sought to clarify the contradictory comments.
While he told the commission: "taking into consideration the totality of all events around the province and the country, that it posed a possible threat to national security," he also agreed that there were no credible threats that came to light.
"When we say 'potential threat,' the term 'threat' in a strategic intelligence report is to indicate something could happen. This is not about establishing a threshold as defined in the CSIS Act… This is talking from a strategic level… So the word potential is almost immaterial. It's like saying 'there's a threat of rain today.' Does it change the situation when you say, 'there's a potential threat of rain today?' I would suggest you it does not. What is required is further analysis of that threat," Carrique said.
"When you move from strategic intelligence into operational and tactical intelligence, and establishing thresholds for mandates and thresholds for charges, that further analysis needs to be done to determine whether it's credible, and whether that threat actually came to fruition," he said.
LUCKI ON TOOLS USED AND CONFIDENCE LOST
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki has come up a couple times over the last few days of hearings. On Tuesday, that on account for an email she sent to Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino's chief of staff just after midnight on Feb. 14, surfaced.
That was of course the day the government invoked the Emergencies Act. In the email, Lucki indicated that she did not believe officials had employed "all available tools" to dismantle the protests in Ottawa.
Then, texts she exchanged with the head of the OPP were entered into evidence on Thursday.
In one exchange, less than a week into the protests, Lucki writes that "Between you and I only, GoC [Government of Canada] losing/lost confidence in OPS [Ottawa Police Service]… We gotta get to safe action/enforcement."
She then goes on, "Cause if they go to the Emergency Measures Act, you or [I] may be brought in to lead… not something I want."
Lucki then texts as part of the same conversation on the evening of Feb. 5 that she's on a call with ministers, and tells Carrique she was "trying to calm them down" but that it was "not easy when they see cranes, structures, horses, bouncing castles in downtown Ottawa."
The exchange goes on. She asks if Carrique has any advice for calming them, seeks the latest on the number of OPP on the ground, and goes on to say that he wouldn't want to be on this call. "Not good."
TALK OF FEDERAL ENGAGEMENT WITH PROTESTERS
Five days after the aforementioned Lucki texts, Acting OPP Supt. Marcel Beaudin received an email from then-deputy minister of Public Safety Canada Rob Stewart indicating that he wanted some advice because federal political figures were considering meeting with convoy organizers. This was something that ultimately never materialized.
During his Oct. 25 testimony before the commission, Beaudin was asked about this exchange, with separate Lucki texts showing that Carrique had given the RCMP commissioner his name and contact as the one for Stewart to reach out to, saying he trusted him "implicitly."
In the email dated Feb. 10, Stewart introduces himself, saying he wanted to consult Beaudin on "federal-level engagement with the protesters," so he could provide advice to ministers.
Then a follow-up email from members of his OPP team that stated that police had identified "several leaders who are willing to engage with police," and noted that police were "unable to solve the underlying issues" but a political meeting could provide an "exit strategy."
Asked about this by a commission lawyer, Beaudin said that in a meeting he then provided Stewart a lay of the land, and some options for potential engagement, noting that police couldn't address the protesters' COVID-19 government policy grievances. It was his impression, he testified, that the federal government was interested in engagement.
"Did you understand, again, at this meeting, that the government was interested in becoming involved and they were coming to you to find out how to make that happen?" a commission lawyer asked. "Yes, I believe, yeah, a hundred percent."
Later documentation made mention of proposing a deal: "leave the protest and denounce unlawful activity and you will be heard." As Beaudin testified, "There was nothing that came to fruition from it."
"It was just a matter of trying to find resolutions where there weren't any," he told the commission.
OPP CREATED 'PERSON OF INTEREST' PROFILES ON PROTESTERS
Lastly, something that may come up next week as a series of convoy organizers are set to testify, are a series of "person of interest" profiles created by the OPP of key protest players.
Included in a series of new documents made public, there are several of these profiles published online. While redactions have been made to protect the subject's identity, the way some of the reports have been labelled by the commission offer indications of who they are about.
For example, this report on Daniel Bulford—who was involved with security for the convoy—makes clear reference to him being a former RCMP officer and appears to link to a YouTube video "Trudeau's Personal Sniper Leaves Position Over Vaccine Mandate" where Bulford is featured.
The report also notes that he resigned over the RCMP's vaccine mandate and cautioned that due to his past employment, Bulford "would have intimate knowledge of all security procedures on Parliament Hill and [sic.] well as having knowledge of the tactics used by PPS [Parliamentary Protective Service] and RCMP… Would likely have knowledge of safe rooms, escape routes, and security vulnerabilities on Parliament Hill."
Other documents indicated that the OPP was making inquiries about whether he was trained as a sniper or had other tactical advantages.
Another report—albeit much more limited— appears to be about Tamara Lich, describing her as the person who started the GoFundMe "Freedom Convoy 2022" crowdfunding account, and detailing her past political history with the Wexit movement.
PLANNING IN CASE PROTESTERS STORMED HILL
According to a summary of a pre-interview that Ottawa Police Service Inspector Russel Lucas had with commission lawyers ahead of his Oct. 25 testimony, days before the convoy of trucks and their supporters rolled into the capital, concern was heightening around what participants' intentions were.
As a result, staffing plans were adjusted in case "protestors attempted to storm the Hill."
"After learning of social media messaging evolved from indicating that the Freedom Convoy would arrive at Parliament Hill to that they would take the Hill, Inspector Lucas became concerned that the intent of the Freedom Convoy messaging was shifting. He became concerned that anti-government elements might be joining the convoy and that convoy participants might attempt to storm Parliament Hill in a manner similar to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol," reads one excerpt.
Another insight gleaned from Lucas' testimony, was that the Ottawa police decided to allow "Freedom Convoy" trucks onto Wellington Street "to protect the rest of the City from disruption."
