Bill Blair, the Minister for Emergency Preparedness, is the first in a string of Cabinet Ministers to testify to the Public Order Emergency Commission.
You may need some strong (but legal) stimulant to stick with his hours-long testimony. For some reason, Commission counsel, Gordon Cameron again, decided to spend a lot of time going over Bill Blair’s past history as the Police Chief of the City of Toronto, (2005-2015), including his views on the handling of demonstrations and on police oversight. An interesting history lesson—but not for today. That took an hour.
Then we crept closer to the present in questions to Minister Blair about governance of the RCMP. Not his bailiwick. Blair had to remind counsel about this.
Finally we got to some questions about Blair’s outlook on the Freedom Convoy. He was invited to criticize the Ottawa Police. He obliged by saying he thought the initial Ottawa Police response to the Freedom Convoy was a mistake—that is to let the Freedom convoy embed themselves in downtown Ottawa. I don’t think that statement will shock anyone.
Blair seemed frustrated that local police of jurisdiction in Ottawa and Windsor weren’t getting on with it. He didn't seem to be a big proponent of trying to negotiate with the protesters, but Commission counsel didn't explore this to any degree.
The lead examination of the Minister continued on its meandering course. Next we heard about the spat between Alberta and the feds with regard to an Alberta request for assistance with tow trucks. The government had an empty cupboard in that respect. The Alberta Minister mistakenly believed that maybe the Canadian armed forces had some heavy equipment that could tow trucks (this was a speculation that also travelled through the media at the time). As it happens the CAF has a limited capacity to transport tanks, but it wasn't fit for purpose. The letter back to Alberta got lost in the shuffle. Alberta wasn’t pleased, understandably. End of story.
We finally arrived at the crucial issue of the rationale behind the invocation of the Emergencies Act at 4:27 p.m—one hour and 15 minutes or so into an interminable session. The actual testimony on this matter took only 15 minutes of the Commission’s time. Blair got to say an expected piece about the Emergency Act being a matter of last resort. He explained that while he was sympathetic to the plight of the residents of downtown Ottawa, his main outlook was focused on a concern about the protection of critical infrastructure and supply chains. He said his concerns about public safety at border blockades was “elevated” by knowledge about the presence of weapons at Coutts, Alberta and the subsequent RCMP arrests of a faction with a weapons cache. He repeated remarks he had made to Cabinet about not pursuing a “whack a mole” strategy and finding a totalizing way to end the Freedom Convoy protests as soon as possible.
Minister Blair also justified the use of the Emergencies Act by reference to the fact that other legislation (Ottawa emergency declaration/Ontario emergency act/other federal legislation) was not sufficient to deal with the Freedom Convoy, not least the need to compel the service of tow trucks. (The Commission has heard a lot about tow trucks and the compulsion factor—a truly sad story). Blair also mentioned his concerns about the limitations of investigations by FINTRAC (Financial Transactions Reports Analysis Centre of Canada—the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing unit of the federal government) under its existing legislation. That wasn’t pursued.
Cameron finished his lead examination early, with ten minutes to spare. That’s what happens when you play softball. There were no discussions about the Minister’s knowledge of the specifics of the Emergencies Act and its thresholds (turns out he knew it well), no detailed probe about threat reporting that came to him either from the Government Operations Centre, or his own Emergency Preparedness secretariat at the Privy Council Office, or in briefings by national security officials to him and his Cabinet colleagues. We were left not knowing how and when the Minister arrived at his understanding of the national security threat posed by the Freedom Convoy, and the need for “last resort” action by the federal government.
That’s too bad.
Instead we are left with the conspiratorial view of the Freedom Convoy counsel, aired in cross-examination, that the Government from the outset was determined to use the Emergencies Act, even before the convoy had arrived in Ottawa. (It wasn’t clear why they delayed so long). The Commission also heard from “Freedom Corp” that the government was intent on “framing a narrative” about the Freedom Convoy as being rife with extremists, Nazis, etc., and used that narrative to avoid “talking” with the Freedom Convoy organizers. No evidence for any of this, of course, but evidence isn’t the strong suit of conspiracy theories. We were even told of the Freedom Convoy belief that someone seen displaying a swastika at the Ottawa protest was actually a plant, an agent provocateur. Whose plant was not clear. But it is typical for an anti-authority movement to ascribe to the authorities overbearing powers. That’s their narrative. Believe it at your peril.
At other points in the cross-examination, Minister Blair tried to suggest that the CSIS Act definition of threats to the security of Canada meant one thing for CSIS lawful authorities when it came to investigating threats, and something else in the context of the CSIS Act definitional threshold in the Emergencies Act. In my humble view, this is a doubtful proposition. Put simply, a definition of threats to the security of Canada can’t be twisted to mean one thing in one Act and something else in another. It can be subject, of course, to interpretation.
It would be best for Ministers to simply acknowledge that they were the decision-makers, that they took on board the CSIS view that the events of the Freedom Convoy did not meet the CSIS Act definition, and came to a different conclusion, on a wider perspective about the threats posed by the Freedom Convoy protests to Canada’s national security. Yes, it leaves them vulnerable, as the Clerk of the Privy Council understood it might, but many Canadians would understand the rationale.
It also needs to be acknowledged that the CSIS Act definition of threats to the security of Canada, which the government had to interpret, rely on, and maybe get creative with, was an antiquated piece of legislation, not fit for the circumstances that the government faced. The Commission has heard this from other witnesses, including CSIS officials; now it needs to hear it from Ministers. Minister Blair failed that test. Let’s see how others do.
Re: "someone seen displaying a swastika at the Ottawa protest"
I heard this back when the protest was occurring and scoured all the web locations I could think of for evidence of that. I found a picture of a few people with a Nazi flag on the steps to the Chateau Laurier and the same group again at the canal. Are there ANY pictures of those people and their flag at the actual convoy? Even one? Surprising with the thousands of cameras and cellphones in attendance.
Given the media attention, I'd have thought that a Nazi flag at the convoy would make the news.
To tar all the convoy people with the Nazi label based on a Nazi flag near, but not at, the convoy is a stretch.
It's far too easy (and lazy) these days to accuse those you dislike with labels like: Nazi, racist, homophobe, and so on.
I'm getting tired of it, and saddened at what crap passes as journalism these days.
*note that I'm not criticizing this newsletter, just the media sources that promulgate unsubstantiated rumours to fit the narrative de jour