Excellent column. The National Framework’s goal that a protest should be allowed to “happen and end” is a sound objective that will hopefully become the standard police response to protests. What’s interesting to me is that the protest basically “happened” on the first weekend. Then it didn’t end. I think the police assumed, as many of us in the city hoped, that the protestors would have to leave town on Monday to go back to their jobs and homes. When it became clear that that wasn’t happening, the police didn’t seem to know what to do next.
Suppose the protestors had stayed, blocking Wellington Street and some surrounding roads, but had otherwise been relatively well-behaved — demonstrating loudly during the day, but also letting people get on with their lives in relative peace. Residents would have found the street blockade a huge nuisance for getting around downtown, but I think most would have accepted that as the price of life in the national capital. Certainly we’re accustomed to detours and blocked roads the rest of the year.
What turned most local people against the protestors was all the things they were doing that weren’t “protesting.” They abused passersby, invaded stores and a homeless shelter, ran their massive diesel engines, and blasted their horns as long and loudly as they could. There is a difference between protesting government actions and being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole — and continuing to do it after you’ve been asked to stop. They’re both perfectly legal. But only one is intended to achieve a political goal. The other is intended to harass people for your own amusement.
That was around the time we stopped calling them “protestors” and began calling them “occupiers.” But I’m not even sure that that was the right word. An occupation is also a political act. At about the ten-day mark, I feel like for most of those gathered in the red zone, the point of the gathering became to hang out, party, blast their horns, use the hot tub, see themselves on TV, and enjoy — really enjoy — the upset they were causing. It wasn’t a protest or an occupation at that point so much as collective untrammeled self-indulgence. They were having the time of their lives. The fact they were making people angry was the cherry on top.
None of this is what Rouleau’s commission is meant to deal with, and I doubt that his findings will touch on these issues more than slightly. It’s important to determine whether invocation of the Emergencies Act was justified. I think Rouleau will find that it wasn’t, because sustained group assholery in a city with a broken police force does not rise to the level of a liberties-suspending national crisis. But the fact that so many of us cheered the Act’s passage as necessary and overdue should probably make its way into his report, even as a footnote, because I think it’s pretty important.
I was at the protest on the second weekend, and what I enjoyed was the sense that, despite being a member of a hated and persecuted minority (vax free), there were many others like me, and they were kind and decent people. The stuff about abusing passersby is simply false, but the protests were indeed exuberant, loud and fun.
Politicians at any level could have defused the late night noise aspect simply by meeting protesters and talking - as the negotiations showed. But they wouldn't do that, because people like us offended them by merely existing.
Thank you for acknowledging that the Emergencies Act wasn't legally justified. Acknowledging that, and that all the mandates were (and are, many continue) wrong, is the path of healing. For my part, I regret that, prior to the injunction, some innocent people were kept awake into the wee hours.
"The protests were indeed exuberant, loud and fun." Gee, you do make it seem like a wonderful time. If you lived in a high-rise Condo, where sound travels, and your "fun" includes high-decibel noise, it is distinctly NOT fun for your neighbours trying to enjoy their life. In a well-run condo you would be asked to desist or face serious consequences. Would you be so tolerant of such self-indulgent disruption right where you live?
If 15% of the population had been demonized and persecuted and were protesting peacefully (albeit noisily) in my neighbourhood, I would be out protesting with them.
Mark, do try to not clutch your pearls so tightly...the string will snap and your pearls will bounce away from you.
People like you offend pols at any level, merely by existing? Sheesh, that is serious hyperbole. When do pols come out to chat when MOUs are being circulated to charge them with treason? I wouldn’t talk to you either and you are gentle and kind, apparently. Who were the leaders that wanted to talk to Trudeau, Mary Simon, and the Senate leader, I forget his name. There seemed to be a revolving cast of convoy leaders and the feds really had no reason to meet. They could not drop the mandates, or the masks, nor could they make the US change it’s rules. The leaders at any given time never approached the police alphabet soup of members with anything valid or useful in their demands. They wanted their freedom, and Trudeau charged with treason. It has been shown that there were people in the mix that were fringe, hostile, misogynist, racist, bigoted and plain old ignorant. When asked the question they could bellow “FREEDUM!” at various decibel levels and not much else. You would have me believe that they were simply exuberant, loud, and fun. You know they could be both happy and very scary at the same time. Not all were decent nor were they all kind. After more than 3 weeks they were too much.
Persecuted and hated minority. Believe me Mark, you and Danielle do not know from persecution.
I agree. I do not believe Commissioner Rouleau will find that use of the Emergencies Act was warranted but rather that it was enacted to respond to the public outcry for the federal government to do “something” in the absence of an effective police response to dismantle the occupation.
I also believe that if the protestors had a clear message and a narrow objective and as you write Jordan, “had otherwise been relatively well-behaved — demonstrating loudly during the day, but also letting people get on with their lives in relative peace”, there would have been greater support for their continued presence in the city.
I am a supporter of legal protests and demonstrations but when they are used to advocate for a well-defined cause or issue and with a clear request. This was not the case in Ottawa.
What may have originally been conceived as a protest to pressure the government into rescinding the application of border public health policies on truckers, ended up being co-opted by individuals, organizations, causes and the politics of a wide range of people who had a very different ideas of why they were there and the outcome they sought.
Were some there, as Canada Unity’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) laid out, to overthrow Canada’s democratically elected government and replace it with some fantastical ruling committee composed of the Governor General, senators and convoy members that would invalidate public health restrictions everywhere? Tens of thousands signed the MOU.
Did some see it as a golden opportunity to build political or personal support and mailing lists for a leadership bid or the next federal or provincial election, or as a recruitment tool for their anti-government movement or religious group?
I’m pretty sure it was all the above and that among the protestors there to simply advocate for the removal of provincial passports, vaccine and mask mandates and public health measures, were individuals and groups with more sinister objectives.
Superintendent Pat Morris, who heads the OPP Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau told the commission on Wednesday that their early assessment was that the occupation would last "a while" based on the fact that there was no exit strategy and that the protestors’ main demand, ending Covid-19 mandates could not be met.
To your point Paul, could OPS have ever been in a position operationally or administratively to determine which protestors deserved liaison and de-escalation, and which deserved punishment? Could Police Response Teams have addressed the grievances of all these diverse groups and make them feel heard, give them a win, or convince them to decamp?
I think we need more than a discussion on how to handle demonstrations. We live in an increasingly polarized country where media fragmentation and social media mean that we no longer get our information exclusively from sources that have publicly available and searchable editorial and news standards and policies, and fact-check their stories. Where once we could rely on the same facts being presented by media outlets considered left, centre or right-leaning, albeit each with their unique “spin” on the same story, we now no longer agree on what is indeed factual. And we hate each other for it. One man’s reason to protest is another man’s reason to call him names.
And so we will see more of the “Differing perceptions of the issue or event by those involved.” But perhaps the Commissioner’s final report can tell us more than whether the government was justified in its use of the Emergencies Act. Perhaps his report can provide us with the space to reimagine conflict and how we respond to it.
The protesters' demand was crystal clear: end all mandates. Had the federal government ended theirs, along with covid funding to provinces that kept theirs in place, the protest would have ended immediately. This could easily have been done: the government just didn't want to.
When Kenney’s CoS wrote the feds pleading for help at Coutts. And 2 weeks later Kenney says he’s going to sue the feds for Coutts (EA), what do you think he meant by that? All the provinces were aware of the grab bag of demands from the convoy. I didn’t see a whole lot of mandates being ripped up because of them. Though Covid was on a wane at that point and some restrictions were loosening. The US had no intention of opening the border. And as most of the country was not in support of the convoys goals —whatever they were— how much longer could they have held out? Pat King organized the first truck convoy to Ottawa in 2019. And was with Lich drumming up more $$. But I don’t think it was his idea to keep them parked in downtown Ottawa. Maybe Paul Alexander, that poser, was responsible, but I think he was late to the party. Barber? Now that’s a good bet. LaFace, even better. He’s a total nut bar and has no qualms sharing his crazy.
This is exciting. Like a soap-opera without stars, just unkempt grubby men in trucks mumbling while they wait their turn in the hot-tub. Or was it that the real movers and shakers seldom went near the great unwashed and stayed holed up in hotel rooms warm, dry and clean?
Why didn’t they leave when PP and the rest of cons came out? Didn’t PP and the rest, listen to them?
Great comment Jordan. Interesting to think about that 'what if' scenario. If they had stayed but instead of being obnoxious, simply blocked traffic, they may have gained some allies amongst the citizens of Ottawa.
The biggest problem for the police was that they didn't realize they were supposed to be the bad guys.
In Canada, indigenous people are allowed to protest all they like, except that shutting down key linear infrastructure, like the Windsor bridge and the railways in 2020, needs to be ended in a short period of time. Occupying random streets in centres of government (or small towns) is currently allowed indefinitely.
The rules for the convoy were different. Many people in government believed that, because their message was not approved, they should not have been allowed to stay. The OPS mistakenly thought that the rules for protests should be viewpoint independent. Much of the confusion stemmed from the fact that nobody would admit that enforcement is viewpoint-based.
If leadership had said what they were really thinking, eg "all that stuff about liaison and letting people protest applies to indigenous people and environmentalists, but not vax free blue collars - them we bash" there would have been much less confusion. All the drivel about the protest being illegal because it broke parking bylaws is the same - all major protests break those kinds of minor laws. The people talking about parking bylaws are doing it because they are afraid to say what they really think: this protest was different because of who was protesting and what they were saying.
You talk about government and OPS like they’re one and the same. They aren’t. Government can believe whatever they want, but OPS/OPP was not taking orders from anyone in government. Why government “felt” was irrelevant.
That's exactly my point. The government was frustrated with OPS because they weren't breaking heads. OPS and OPP may not have been taking government orders, but they still felt pressure to give them what they wanted. Hence the confusion.
City of Ottawa may have been frustrated with OPS, but it wasn’t cause they weren’t “busting heads”.
It’s because they weren’t protecting the local residents and local businesses from the non-peaceful participants. The OpS should’ve been feeling the heat as they totally dropped the ball and ignored intelligence reports.
You don’t understand the “rules” at all. Why do you cherrypick silly things they wave them about as the reasons things did not go the way you wanted them to.
The reason this protest was different was because they were not leaving. Not because of who the protestors were.
As Hugh O. says, this is an amazing and thoughtful analysis.
I will add that the very minor delay for which you (unnecessarily) apologized earlier today was fully worthwhile as you put together this marvelous piece.
Again and yet again I am thankful that I subscribed when I did.
It appears the focus of the commission has turned into justification of the Emergencies Act in lieu of competence. Sadly, I suggest this will be the decision at the end of the day, the ends justify the means. If so it will bring even greater divisiveness and fracturing of society
Joseph, it is far too early to make that determination after one week of testimony. Many people have responded to the convoy in many different ways often at the same time as the convoy was spread out for blocks. No one person could visit for a day or two and grasp all that was going on. 5 more weeks of testimony. A lot of it from behind the scenes. Try to watch or listen to some of it before you make a flat-out declaration one way or the other.
You may be correct in your assumption, but you may not be too.
I’m finding the inquiry fascinating, except it’s 3 times zones over from me and the start time at 9:30 am or 6:30 am by me is simply not doable. I watch the afternoon then later when they put up the video of the day, I can watch the morning session.
The problem was that most of the protesters didn’t have a good grasp of the ostensible reason for the protest, and the demonstrations morphed into a “ down with Trudeau” movement that turned into a circus in our city. Sure, he wasn’t universally loved in Canada, but he did win a federal election a short time before all this. Most of the covid regulations under protest were provincial, not federal, and most imposed by provincial conservative governments. And the regulations were similar to those imposed all over the world, based on the best information at the time. They were not out of left field. The Ottawa police were surly inept by all accounts, but how many people know that Windsor police had to use Detroit tow trucks to clear the bridge in the face of an uncooperative home team. All I know is that the Emergencies Act cleared things up in short order and I didn’t see any abuse of power. Nothing else seemed to be working. I am not a big fan of police getting too cozy with people that give you the finger.
I would appreciate an expansion on what you think constitutes an “abuse of power”. We are barely into the Inquiry and learning lots about jurisdictional malaise, poor information sharing and general incompetence from Government Agencies and politicians.
Should Canadians be expected to normalize the suspension of civil rights and due process under the law by politicians who aren’t doing their jobs? Or to cover up for government agencies who have failed to use legal measures that are available?
Democratic rights and equality under the law are seriously undermined by using the Emergency Act as a substitute for good governance.
He's as legitimate constitutionally as any PM we've had, but I'm not entirely surprised that it feels a bit different to some people when his party got 32.6% of the vote last election. It's the lowest share by any winner ever. It's less than Andrea Horwath just got in Ontario and she resigned immediately. It's about what Joe Clark got in 1980 or Turner in 1988; historically it's the stuff of a respectable but clear loss. Again, the alliance with the NDP is perfectly legit, but I wouldn't say he or it are popular, per se.
As for supporting police cracking down on people for giving them the finger, well, I urge you to reconsider.
One thing I have noticed during the pandemic is that most people don’t have a clue what statistics or even percentages mean. The fact is that no matter what the numbers are JT is PM and will continue to be for a while yet.
We will get the opportunity to decide soon enough and hopefully, the percentage of Canadians who vote will have a better showing than has become the norm. It is funny how popular JT was (according to the polls) prior to this last election when everyone was so pleased with their CERB cheques. But voters are fickle.
Maybe we should make some more noise about FPTP rather than listening to how wearing a mask is against someone's charter rights.
A reminder -- in the last two recent Federal elections, the Liberals under Trudeau garnered fewer votes than the Conservatives under both Scheer and O'Toole. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to have a very self-righteous attitude toward governing, frequently pontificating that he is representing what Canadians want and how they feel. Then he goes further and states that those who disagree with his thinking are an unacceptable fringe minority who should not be tolerated. The result is an anti-Trudeau sentiment. He truly is a Prime Minister for the elite, and as elitists do he will, when it is advantageously timely, throw some crumbs to the lower masses, all the while reminding them he has their back.
I don't think any of the police forces involved or the politicians were prepared for the logistical and leadership excellence of the convoy. There was a sense, fed by the media, that this was a rabble of uneducated hicks. It wasn't. Chief of Security was an ex-cop, there were lots of ex-CAF people there, and, driving a truck is all about logistics.
Had the pols and cops relied less upon an absurdly uninformed legacy media and actually gone and met with the convoy and its leadership all of this could have been ended without the need for the crowds to "hear our jackboots" or the Musical Ride to trample a First Nations elder.
Invoking the EA should have been a last resort in the face of a clear and present danger, not a response to Andrew Coyne and Rachel Gilmore wetting their pants over Evan Solomon's reports from the "front lines".
It's pretty clear that, had the convoy mounted an insurrection and successfully seized power (which we know they had no plans to do) Canadians would now have both more freedom and a more efficient government.
The reason that elder woman was knocked down and not trampled by the horse is because of the brave man in a brown quilted jacket held on to her walker tightly while standing with his back to the horses that he saw coming. He stepped back into the horses path and was knocked down taking the walker and Mary (I think that was her name) with him. She didn’t have the strength to pull her walker away from him. Now all you farmers out there that know horses so well (because you are farmers and it’s genetic) will know that horses do not like stepping in anything...unusual. That horse was not trampling anyone but it did dance over the obstruction— the guy, the walker and Mary, who had a greenstick fracture of her clavicle from the fall over her walker. I’m not sure she is 1st Nation’s either, she never said so. She also never said she was trampled by the horse as she wasn’t.
Gee, what pants wetting comments were there. I don’t remember those either. I do remember Solomon wandering about talking to people and one woman running away because he’s MSM and he lies. She could have had her say live, but the concept was a difficult one.
A lowertown resident traumatized by 3 am semi-truck horn blaring night after night would not be a fan of the "let the protest happen" approach, methinks.
"Do you agree or disagree that if governments met the protesters, it would encourage more such disruptive tactics? .... It’s very difficult for a lot of people to imagine the rail blockade of 2020 and the convoy of 2022 might be comparable events."
Paul, you struck to the heart of the matter in this paragraph. I have no difficulty whatsoever accepting that the two events were similar in nature, but I would point out that the way each event ENDED was remarkably different, and that difference was largely due to how the Government reacted.
In the case of the railway blockades, Trudeau et al sent a Minister across the country on a mission "to negotiate with ready and willing partners" (their own words), whereas with regards to the Convoy, they reached fairly quickly for the nuclear option and sent in the truncheon wielding brigades and heavy horse units.
Anyone who watched the House proceedings (it was NOT a debate) could see/hear for themselves how eager the Liberals were to enact the EA no matter what.
Indigenous people have many governance structures to negotiate with: band councils, democratically elected intra-band organizations, agreed leaders.
The convoy couldn't seem to decide who the leaders were, or even exactly what their demands were, after the whole "disband parliament and rule by GG decree" MOU got embarrassing. Also, "disband government" as starting point is a hard thing to dignify with negotiations.
I keep coming back to the missing money: it was raised, people who were out many thousands for contributing fuel and food could not find a central authority over that money to ask for compensation. (That's a very, very suspicious kind of disorganization.)
I really don't think that the various people vying for the status of "Leaders" at the time had any power to tell people to go home; they'd have been dropped from being looked-up-to, the moment they made any concessions.
I recall Jason Kenney dropping nearly all restrictions in hopes of mollifying the demonstrators at Coutts. A reporter there asked a few people in the blockade if that would do it and they were totally contemptuous, we're not moving. Or conceding anything. But what struck me is that the reporter had been there for days, and could find no one leader to interview, she was reduced to asking random members.
If you're trying to make the case that the Liberals would have been happy to meet with the leadership of the Convoy "if only" they could have determined exactly who those leaders were, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree.
Trudeau had already shown his cards while the convoy was still 2000 kms away - and made it clear he had ZERO interest in anything they had to say.
Award winning article here Mr. Wells. Over the top investigative reporting backed up by the actual voices involved. Kudos! We have a sitting government that is a two-time winner of the slimmest electoral victories of all time. Two thirds of the country did not vote for or support them twice! Sadly, they have not been governing as if those facts even mattered. Instead, we have a petulant silver spooned P.M. who has never known what life is like for an average middle class citizen. Expecting change from those two successive governments amounted to a national deficit that remains unparalleled. Oh, yes there was an international pandemic but that became a catalyst for decision making from the P.M.'s cottage not from the floor of the House. Those decisions among others were so divisive and costly that they were met by the organic assembly of a national Freedom Convoy that held international attention for weeks as a peaceful public protest of the nation's capital. The light shed by your article into the underbelly of municipal policing and governance exposes truths many avoid confronting. Even when they are the ones empowered to oversee such dysfunction, they obfuscate their duty and roles. The Emergencies Act Hearings are only happening because the law requires it. Its outcomes will not quell the voices of those who still protest the tyrannical abuses of our government over our codified Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. They are called hearings because voices from all sides are meant to be heard. It does not necessarily mean that the government of the day is listening instead they are only pretending to hear and only because the law demands it. The outcome may result in another protest. Consider that well Ottawa. But maybe the government will have learned the importance of engaging with dissenting voices by then. We are holding our breath and our tongues as Free Speech is given the hearing it was denied by our Prime Minister. Change is in the wind as another cold Canadian winter approaches. That might be why Ottawa has left the cement barriers on Wellington in place? A national capital is the place where the public should expect to have their voices heard and the place where they must assemble in order to be recognized. This government is blind and tone deaf to such democratic fundamentals. The Opposition party must be the voice of the people when the government no longer wishes to hear from its people.
Paul, I haven't been following the inquiry closely, but from your write-up today it appears that Patricia Ferguson had her head screwed on straight throughout this nasty affair, and that's something we could use more of in many areas. It will be interesting to see how that impression changes as more is revealed. Thanks for the details.
The convoy showed that Canada has a number of serious problems. I propose a referendum moving the seat of power to central Canada, perhaps Manitoba, and leave those poor people in Ottawa in peace.
Lots of smoke and mirrors, some that are not yet disclosed. Within that convoy were several professionals, ex or retired military, ex or retired RCMP, doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, a scientist and Brian Peckford, to name a few. One RCMP (ex, now retired) had been Trudeau’s personal guard. He quit and joined the convoy. The reticence around going after this convoy, was the unseen, by the public anyway. Those are who you have not heard from, and may not. They would not talk to media. Police knew they were there and who they were. Many police had empathy for the truckers.
Because it is Ottawa, there is no clue just how despised Trudeau is across Canada. As we worry about honking horns, I find it odd that the good citizens of Ottawa cared nothing about the name calling, degrading rhetoric by this “so-called” PM towards millions of Canadian taxpaying citizens.
Further, the media is so biased they alone created further chaos. Their “lies”, “distortions”, etc, created a false narrative from the first day. Much had to be retracted. The one who highlighted this was the OPP Commissioner. Obviously a person with honour who values honesty. It was never reported that those trucks came from every corner of Canada, greeted by thousands along the way. Had that been reported there would be no question where the money came from.
Regardless of the chaos, no part of the Emergency Act criteria was met. That is unless you call absolute incompetence witnessed world wide an “emergency”. Notwithstanding the reputation of Canada greatly deteriorated, not by the truckers who received recognition world wide, but by the PM. That’s the bottom line. The rest is redundant.
A good review. The only place I disagree is to note that those supporting the convoy protesters are mostly reacting to PM Justin Trudeau's openly expressed views that this was an insurrection funded from outside Canada - both opinions being untrue. He is supposed to be PM of Canada, not PM of part of Canada.
While the train blockades are relevant, so too are too other horrific stains on Canadian policing - the G20 protests in Toronto in which the police brutalized peaceful protestors (and Bill Blair was then chief of police), and the 'war in the forests' on Vancouver Island, in which both the police and courts lost enormous social capital enforcing legal but not publicly supported injunctions in favour of McMillan Bloedel. The later was about collateral damage to police and courts enforcing law without social license; the former was about terrible policing, plain and simple. PLTs are in part a response to the disaster of Toronto.
It appears that the root cause of the problem in Ottawa was failure to listen to the intelligence (which anyone who reads knew about) and allowing trucks into the core. Once the truckers had parked, removing them was always going to be very difficult.
Indeed a great column. You astutely and in great depth drew attention to the dysfunction at various levels in both the Ottawa Police Service and their civic politicians.
The role of the Police Liaison Team is interesting. I was reminded when some relatives travelled from Kingston to Ottawa on the February 5th weekend to provide some moral support to the protesters they felt were representing their concerns. Upon their return we heard that police were present, but they were non-combative and friendly. No doubt we can now assume these were some of the PLT officers. The message the protesters took from this approach is that they had carte blanche and hence the hot tub, open fire pits, and honking. Retired OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy expressed it well when he argued that a two prong approach of enforcement and liaison would be most effective, but the Ottawa Police could not get their ducks in a row.
What Acting Deputy Chief Patricia Ferguson understood was that protesters need to feel their concerns have been heard. If only Prime Minister Trudeau had opened communication with the protesters as he did for the protesting Indigenous people who blockaded Canada's railway system in 2020. If only.
Thank you, Paul Wells, for a wonderful and throught-provoking article.
In reply to comments that the situation could have been resolved by "negotiations."
Open communication requires a bilateral effort. The protesters rolled into Ottawa with 'F*ck Trudeau" banners and defaced (upside down) flags and an MOU demanding the replacement of the government, just months after an election. Politicians and health care workers were receiving death threats. A bomb threat was even called into CHEO. In those circumstances, a meeting was never in the cards - for security reasons alone.
As someone else pointed out, unlike Indigenous groups with historical and legal grievances together with leadership and governance structures, none of that was present here. No one was clearly in control of the protest. Once Tamara Lich said trucks would be moving, she was quickly contradicted on social media. You cannot structure a negotiation under those conditions.
These "protesters"/occupiers were not protesting in the traditional sense, they were attempting to coerce and extort a policy change and were willing to use the citizens of Ottawa as hostages, all in the middle of a global pandemic. They seemed to have no understanding that their own "freedoms" are not unlimited and extend only to the limits of other people's freedoms. In a democracy, your "freedom" does not extend to the right to potentially carry and transmit a serious and highly transmissible disease that could sicken and perhaps even kill others. The Quarantine Act has been the law of the land for decades and is consistent with the Charter.
These cries for "freedom" from masks and vaccines are underpinned by junk science and zero sum thinking, all amplified by the shrill bullhorn of social media, powered by hostile bots and troll farms.
Just because a vaccine will not provide 100% protection to 100% people 100% of the time does not make it useless. The vaccine was never promised to be 100% effective. But even 90% protection for 90% of people 90% of the time makes a big difference, especially if you further add masks and social distancing, when the stakes are the viability of the public health care system and the lives and mental health of people who work in that system. Doing nothing would have had even worse consequences.
These protesters were flat out selfish. Had their attitude prevailed in earlier decades, this country would not have won one, much less two, world wars.
We hear whining about people "losing" jobs because of a medical "choice" not to be vaccinated. But I recall "choices" being offered to either vaccinate or produce proof of negative testing before going to work. You don't hear the protesters mentioning about that option having been offered. It's all about "MY" freedom and to hell with the wellbeing of anyone else around. If someone refuses to vaccinate and their employer does not provide an accommodation or an option to prove (with a test) that the person is not a health risk to others in the workplace, they may have grounds for a wrongful dismissal claim under provincial law. Those circumstances (likely infrequent) conditions do not justify the occupation of a city and an assault on the health care system. That is no longer protest - it is terrorism and you don't negotiate with terrorists.
In *theory*, the EA was unnecessary. But in this case, theory did not translate into practice. Something had to be done. The so-called "Battle of Billing Bridge" was the flashpoint - the citizens of Ottawa had reached their breaking point and were on the verge of taking the law into their own hands which would have created anarchy. If the OPS could not control the occupiers, they had no chance of controlling a counter-mob.
The situation in Ottawa was potentially contagious to other parts of the country, especially disruptions at border crossings.
Neither the city (OPS/city council) or the province could do what needed to be done. The EA was the last resort and the feds had to step in, as adults in the room, to clean up the mess.
Just because a vaccine will not provide 100% protection to 100% people 100% of the time does not make it useless. The vaccine was never promised to be 100% effective. But even 90% protection for 90% of people 90% of the time makes a big difference, especially if you further add masks and social distancing, when the stakes are the viability of the public health care system and the lives and mental health of people who work in that system. Doing nothing would have had even worse consequences.
These protesters were flat out selfish. Had their attitude prevailed in earlier decades, this country would not have won one, much less two, world wars.
We hear whining about people "losing" jobs because of a medical "choice" not to be vaccinated. But I recall "choices" being offered to either vaccinate or produce proof of negative testing before going to work. You don't hear about that option having been offered. It's all about "MY" freedom and to hell with the wellbeing of anyone else around. If someone refuses to vaccinate and their employer does not provide an accommodation or an option to prove (with a test) that the person is not a health risk to others in the workplace, they may have grounds for a wrongful dismissal claim. Those circumstances (likely infrequent) conditions do not justify the occupation of a city and an assault on the health care system. That is no longer protest - it is terrorism and you don't negotiate with terrorists.
In *theory*, the EA was unnecessary. But in this case, theory did not translate into practice. Something had to be done. The so-called "Battle of Billing Bridge" was the flashpoint - the citizens of Ottawa had reached their breaking point and were on there verge of taking the law into their own hands which would have created anarchy. If the OPS could not control the occupiers, they had no chance of controlling a counter-mob.
The situation in Ottawa was potentially contagious to other parts of the country, especially disruptions at border crossings.
Neither the city (OPS/city council) or the province could do what needed to be done. The EA was the last resort and the feds had to step in, as adults in the room, to clean up the mess.
The OPP testified that they did not need the Emergencies Act, as they were getting organized to act. It makes one wonder whether perhaps no one consulted with them beforehand.
Excellent article. There is much more ground to cover but at the outset, hats off to the Emergencies Act for embedding the Inquiry into the fabric of the law.
At some point. I hope this national discussion will address the issue of the use of props in civil protest. We've come a long way from the soapbox in Hyde Park. The necessary concept of limiting disruptions to essential services has been around for a long time. It is time to do the same thing for the use of trucks, front-end loaders and other massive devices brought in by aggrieved groups to make their point. In this case, we saw a very small percentage of truckers who are anti-vaxers able to bring the national capital to its knees, not by the strength of their argument, but by the size of their big iron. This should apply equally to indigenous protests such as Kahnewake Mohawk near Montreal who used heavy equipment to shut down major east-west rail lines in a sympathy for the Kitimat LNG complex .
Excellent column. The National Framework’s goal that a protest should be allowed to “happen and end” is a sound objective that will hopefully become the standard police response to protests. What’s interesting to me is that the protest basically “happened” on the first weekend. Then it didn’t end. I think the police assumed, as many of us in the city hoped, that the protestors would have to leave town on Monday to go back to their jobs and homes. When it became clear that that wasn’t happening, the police didn’t seem to know what to do next.
Suppose the protestors had stayed, blocking Wellington Street and some surrounding roads, but had otherwise been relatively well-behaved — demonstrating loudly during the day, but also letting people get on with their lives in relative peace. Residents would have found the street blockade a huge nuisance for getting around downtown, but I think most would have accepted that as the price of life in the national capital. Certainly we’re accustomed to detours and blocked roads the rest of the year.
What turned most local people against the protestors was all the things they were doing that weren’t “protesting.” They abused passersby, invaded stores and a homeless shelter, ran their massive diesel engines, and blasted their horns as long and loudly as they could. There is a difference between protesting government actions and being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole — and continuing to do it after you’ve been asked to stop. They’re both perfectly legal. But only one is intended to achieve a political goal. The other is intended to harass people for your own amusement.
That was around the time we stopped calling them “protestors” and began calling them “occupiers.” But I’m not even sure that that was the right word. An occupation is also a political act. At about the ten-day mark, I feel like for most of those gathered in the red zone, the point of the gathering became to hang out, party, blast their horns, use the hot tub, see themselves on TV, and enjoy — really enjoy — the upset they were causing. It wasn’t a protest or an occupation at that point so much as collective untrammeled self-indulgence. They were having the time of their lives. The fact they were making people angry was the cherry on top.
None of this is what Rouleau’s commission is meant to deal with, and I doubt that his findings will touch on these issues more than slightly. It’s important to determine whether invocation of the Emergencies Act was justified. I think Rouleau will find that it wasn’t, because sustained group assholery in a city with a broken police force does not rise to the level of a liberties-suspending national crisis. But the fact that so many of us cheered the Act’s passage as necessary and overdue should probably make its way into his report, even as a footnote, because I think it’s pretty important.
I was at the protest on the second weekend, and what I enjoyed was the sense that, despite being a member of a hated and persecuted minority (vax free), there were many others like me, and they were kind and decent people. The stuff about abusing passersby is simply false, but the protests were indeed exuberant, loud and fun.
Politicians at any level could have defused the late night noise aspect simply by meeting protesters and talking - as the negotiations showed. But they wouldn't do that, because people like us offended them by merely existing.
Thank you for acknowledging that the Emergencies Act wasn't legally justified. Acknowledging that, and that all the mandates were (and are, many continue) wrong, is the path of healing. For my part, I regret that, prior to the injunction, some innocent people were kept awake into the wee hours.
"The protests were indeed exuberant, loud and fun." Gee, you do make it seem like a wonderful time. If you lived in a high-rise Condo, where sound travels, and your "fun" includes high-decibel noise, it is distinctly NOT fun for your neighbours trying to enjoy their life. In a well-run condo you would be asked to desist or face serious consequences. Would you be so tolerant of such self-indulgent disruption right where you live?
If 15% of the population had been demonized and persecuted and were protesting peacefully (albeit noisily) in my neighbourhood, I would be out protesting with them.
And after a weekend you would have to shut it all down or off to jail with you.
Mark, do try to not clutch your pearls so tightly...the string will snap and your pearls will bounce away from you.
People like you offend pols at any level, merely by existing? Sheesh, that is serious hyperbole. When do pols come out to chat when MOUs are being circulated to charge them with treason? I wouldn’t talk to you either and you are gentle and kind, apparently. Who were the leaders that wanted to talk to Trudeau, Mary Simon, and the Senate leader, I forget his name. There seemed to be a revolving cast of convoy leaders and the feds really had no reason to meet. They could not drop the mandates, or the masks, nor could they make the US change it’s rules. The leaders at any given time never approached the police alphabet soup of members with anything valid or useful in their demands. They wanted their freedom, and Trudeau charged with treason. It has been shown that there were people in the mix that were fringe, hostile, misogynist, racist, bigoted and plain old ignorant. When asked the question they could bellow “FREEDUM!” at various decibel levels and not much else. You would have me believe that they were simply exuberant, loud, and fun. You know they could be both happy and very scary at the same time. Not all were decent nor were they all kind. After more than 3 weeks they were too much.
Persecuted and hated minority. Believe me Mark, you and Danielle do not know from persecution.
I agree. I do not believe Commissioner Rouleau will find that use of the Emergencies Act was warranted but rather that it was enacted to respond to the public outcry for the federal government to do “something” in the absence of an effective police response to dismantle the occupation.
I also believe that if the protestors had a clear message and a narrow objective and as you write Jordan, “had otherwise been relatively well-behaved — demonstrating loudly during the day, but also letting people get on with their lives in relative peace”, there would have been greater support for their continued presence in the city.
I am a supporter of legal protests and demonstrations but when they are used to advocate for a well-defined cause or issue and with a clear request. This was not the case in Ottawa.
What may have originally been conceived as a protest to pressure the government into rescinding the application of border public health policies on truckers, ended up being co-opted by individuals, organizations, causes and the politics of a wide range of people who had a very different ideas of why they were there and the outcome they sought.
Were some there, as Canada Unity’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) laid out, to overthrow Canada’s democratically elected government and replace it with some fantastical ruling committee composed of the Governor General, senators and convoy members that would invalidate public health restrictions everywhere? Tens of thousands signed the MOU.
Did some see it as a golden opportunity to build political or personal support and mailing lists for a leadership bid or the next federal or provincial election, or as a recruitment tool for their anti-government movement or religious group?
I’m pretty sure it was all the above and that among the protestors there to simply advocate for the removal of provincial passports, vaccine and mask mandates and public health measures, were individuals and groups with more sinister objectives.
Superintendent Pat Morris, who heads the OPP Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau told the commission on Wednesday that their early assessment was that the occupation would last "a while" based on the fact that there was no exit strategy and that the protestors’ main demand, ending Covid-19 mandates could not be met.
To your point Paul, could OPS have ever been in a position operationally or administratively to determine which protestors deserved liaison and de-escalation, and which deserved punishment? Could Police Response Teams have addressed the grievances of all these diverse groups and make them feel heard, give them a win, or convince them to decamp?
I think we need more than a discussion on how to handle demonstrations. We live in an increasingly polarized country where media fragmentation and social media mean that we no longer get our information exclusively from sources that have publicly available and searchable editorial and news standards and policies, and fact-check their stories. Where once we could rely on the same facts being presented by media outlets considered left, centre or right-leaning, albeit each with their unique “spin” on the same story, we now no longer agree on what is indeed factual. And we hate each other for it. One man’s reason to protest is another man’s reason to call him names.
And so we will see more of the “Differing perceptions of the issue or event by those involved.” But perhaps the Commissioner’s final report can tell us more than whether the government was justified in its use of the Emergencies Act. Perhaps his report can provide us with the space to reimagine conflict and how we respond to it.
The protesters' demand was crystal clear: end all mandates. Had the federal government ended theirs, along with covid funding to provinces that kept theirs in place, the protest would have ended immediately. This could easily have been done: the government just didn't want to.
When Kenney’s CoS wrote the feds pleading for help at Coutts. And 2 weeks later Kenney says he’s going to sue the feds for Coutts (EA), what do you think he meant by that? All the provinces were aware of the grab bag of demands from the convoy. I didn’t see a whole lot of mandates being ripped up because of them. Though Covid was on a wane at that point and some restrictions were loosening. The US had no intention of opening the border. And as most of the country was not in support of the convoys goals —whatever they were— how much longer could they have held out? Pat King organized the first truck convoy to Ottawa in 2019. And was with Lich drumming up more $$. But I don’t think it was his idea to keep them parked in downtown Ottawa. Maybe Paul Alexander, that poser, was responsible, but I think he was late to the party. Barber? Now that’s a good bet. LaFace, even better. He’s a total nut bar and has no qualms sharing his crazy.
This is exciting. Like a soap-opera without stars, just unkempt grubby men in trucks mumbling while they wait their turn in the hot-tub. Or was it that the real movers and shakers seldom went near the great unwashed and stayed holed up in hotel rooms warm, dry and clean?
Why didn’t they leave when PP and the rest of cons came out? Didn’t PP and the rest, listen to them?
Great comment Jordan. Interesting to think about that 'what if' scenario. If they had stayed but instead of being obnoxious, simply blocked traffic, they may have gained some allies amongst the citizens of Ottawa.
We'll never know.
Agee 100% Jordan!
The biggest problem for the police was that they didn't realize they were supposed to be the bad guys.
In Canada, indigenous people are allowed to protest all they like, except that shutting down key linear infrastructure, like the Windsor bridge and the railways in 2020, needs to be ended in a short period of time. Occupying random streets in centres of government (or small towns) is currently allowed indefinitely.
The rules for the convoy were different. Many people in government believed that, because their message was not approved, they should not have been allowed to stay. The OPS mistakenly thought that the rules for protests should be viewpoint independent. Much of the confusion stemmed from the fact that nobody would admit that enforcement is viewpoint-based.
If leadership had said what they were really thinking, eg "all that stuff about liaison and letting people protest applies to indigenous people and environmentalists, but not vax free blue collars - them we bash" there would have been much less confusion. All the drivel about the protest being illegal because it broke parking bylaws is the same - all major protests break those kinds of minor laws. The people talking about parking bylaws are doing it because they are afraid to say what they really think: this protest was different because of who was protesting and what they were saying.
You talk about government and OPS like they’re one and the same. They aren’t. Government can believe whatever they want, but OPS/OPP was not taking orders from anyone in government. Why government “felt” was irrelevant.
That's exactly my point. The government was frustrated with OPS because they weren't breaking heads. OPS and OPP may not have been taking government orders, but they still felt pressure to give them what they wanted. Hence the confusion.
City of Ottawa may have been frustrated with OPS, but it wasn’t cause they weren’t “busting heads”.
It’s because they weren’t protecting the local residents and local businesses from the non-peaceful participants. The OpS should’ve been feeling the heat as they totally dropped the ball and ignored intelligence reports.
Agreed
I was going to come here to say this. Thanks.
You don’t understand the “rules” at all. Why do you cherrypick silly things they wave them about as the reasons things did not go the way you wanted them to.
The reason this protest was different was because they were not leaving. Not because of who the protestors were.
How did you feel about the "Occupy Movement"?
As I recall, they didn't leave either....
Occupy is to the convoy as apples are to potatoes.
Wow! Just, wow!
As Hugh O. says, this is an amazing and thoughtful analysis.
I will add that the very minor delay for which you (unnecessarily) apologized earlier today was fully worthwhile as you put together this marvelous piece.
Again and yet again I am thankful that I subscribed when I did.
Thank you, Sir, for your magnificent work.
It appears the focus of the commission has turned into justification of the Emergencies Act in lieu of competence. Sadly, I suggest this will be the decision at the end of the day, the ends justify the means. If so it will bring even greater divisiveness and fracturing of society
Joseph, it is far too early to make that determination after one week of testimony. Many people have responded to the convoy in many different ways often at the same time as the convoy was spread out for blocks. No one person could visit for a day or two and grasp all that was going on. 5 more weeks of testimony. A lot of it from behind the scenes. Try to watch or listen to some of it before you make a flat-out declaration one way or the other.
You may be correct in your assumption, but you may not be too.
I’m finding the inquiry fascinating, except it’s 3 times zones over from me and the start time at 9:30 am or 6:30 am by me is simply not doable. I watch the afternoon then later when they put up the video of the day, I can watch the morning session.
There is a wealth of documents available too.
Good times.
TY Paul you explain it all perfectly.
Very prudent advice Lou, thank you
The problem was that most of the protesters didn’t have a good grasp of the ostensible reason for the protest, and the demonstrations morphed into a “ down with Trudeau” movement that turned into a circus in our city. Sure, he wasn’t universally loved in Canada, but he did win a federal election a short time before all this. Most of the covid regulations under protest were provincial, not federal, and most imposed by provincial conservative governments. And the regulations were similar to those imposed all over the world, based on the best information at the time. They were not out of left field. The Ottawa police were surly inept by all accounts, but how many people know that Windsor police had to use Detroit tow trucks to clear the bridge in the face of an uncooperative home team. All I know is that the Emergencies Act cleared things up in short order and I didn’t see any abuse of power. Nothing else seemed to be working. I am not a big fan of police getting too cozy with people that give you the finger.
I would appreciate an expansion on what you think constitutes an “abuse of power”. We are barely into the Inquiry and learning lots about jurisdictional malaise, poor information sharing and general incompetence from Government Agencies and politicians.
Should Canadians be expected to normalize the suspension of civil rights and due process under the law by politicians who aren’t doing their jobs? Or to cover up for government agencies who have failed to use legal measures that are available?
Democratic rights and equality under the law are seriously undermined by using the Emergency Act as a substitute for good governance.
You sure are getting a lot of takeaways from this first week on testimonies. Big sweeping statements. But please, stay tuned.
He's as legitimate constitutionally as any PM we've had, but I'm not entirely surprised that it feels a bit different to some people when his party got 32.6% of the vote last election. It's the lowest share by any winner ever. It's less than Andrea Horwath just got in Ontario and she resigned immediately. It's about what Joe Clark got in 1980 or Turner in 1988; historically it's the stuff of a respectable but clear loss. Again, the alliance with the NDP is perfectly legit, but I wouldn't say he or it are popular, per se.
As for supporting police cracking down on people for giving them the finger, well, I urge you to reconsider.
One thing I have noticed during the pandemic is that most people don’t have a clue what statistics or even percentages mean. The fact is that no matter what the numbers are JT is PM and will continue to be for a while yet.
We will get the opportunity to decide soon enough and hopefully, the percentage of Canadians who vote will have a better showing than has become the norm. It is funny how popular JT was (according to the polls) prior to this last election when everyone was so pleased with their CERB cheques. But voters are fickle.
Maybe we should make some more noise about FPTP rather than listening to how wearing a mask is against someone's charter rights.
A reminder -- in the last two recent Federal elections, the Liberals under Trudeau garnered fewer votes than the Conservatives under both Scheer and O'Toole. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to have a very self-righteous attitude toward governing, frequently pontificating that he is representing what Canadians want and how they feel. Then he goes further and states that those who disagree with his thinking are an unacceptable fringe minority who should not be tolerated. The result is an anti-Trudeau sentiment. He truly is a Prime Minister for the elite, and as elitists do he will, when it is advantageously timely, throw some crumbs to the lower masses, all the while reminding them he has their back.
I don’t like him either.
Wonderful piece.
I don't think any of the police forces involved or the politicians were prepared for the logistical and leadership excellence of the convoy. There was a sense, fed by the media, that this was a rabble of uneducated hicks. It wasn't. Chief of Security was an ex-cop, there were lots of ex-CAF people there, and, driving a truck is all about logistics.
Had the pols and cops relied less upon an absurdly uninformed legacy media and actually gone and met with the convoy and its leadership all of this could have been ended without the need for the crowds to "hear our jackboots" or the Musical Ride to trample a First Nations elder.
Invoking the EA should have been a last resort in the face of a clear and present danger, not a response to Andrew Coyne and Rachel Gilmore wetting their pants over Evan Solomon's reports from the "front lines".
It's pretty clear that, had the convoy mounted an insurrection and successfully seized power (which we know they had no plans to do) Canadians would now have both more freedom and a more efficient government.
Oh my.
The reason that elder woman was knocked down and not trampled by the horse is because of the brave man in a brown quilted jacket held on to her walker tightly while standing with his back to the horses that he saw coming. He stepped back into the horses path and was knocked down taking the walker and Mary (I think that was her name) with him. She didn’t have the strength to pull her walker away from him. Now all you farmers out there that know horses so well (because you are farmers and it’s genetic) will know that horses do not like stepping in anything...unusual. That horse was not trampling anyone but it did dance over the obstruction— the guy, the walker and Mary, who had a greenstick fracture of her clavicle from the fall over her walker. I’m not sure she is 1st Nation’s either, she never said so. She also never said she was trampled by the horse as she wasn’t.
Gee, what pants wetting comments were there. I don’t remember those either. I do remember Solomon wandering about talking to people and one woman running away because he’s MSM and he lies. She could have had her say live, but the concept was a difficult one.
A lowertown resident traumatized by 3 am semi-truck horn blaring night after night would not be a fan of the "let the protest happen" approach, methinks.
"Do you agree or disagree that if governments met the protesters, it would encourage more such disruptive tactics? .... It’s very difficult for a lot of people to imagine the rail blockade of 2020 and the convoy of 2022 might be comparable events."
Paul, you struck to the heart of the matter in this paragraph. I have no difficulty whatsoever accepting that the two events were similar in nature, but I would point out that the way each event ENDED was remarkably different, and that difference was largely due to how the Government reacted.
In the case of the railway blockades, Trudeau et al sent a Minister across the country on a mission "to negotiate with ready and willing partners" (their own words), whereas with regards to the Convoy, they reached fairly quickly for the nuclear option and sent in the truncheon wielding brigades and heavy horse units.
Anyone who watched the House proceedings (it was NOT a debate) could see/hear for themselves how eager the Liberals were to enact the EA no matter what.
Indigenous people have many governance structures to negotiate with: band councils, democratically elected intra-band organizations, agreed leaders.
The convoy couldn't seem to decide who the leaders were, or even exactly what their demands were, after the whole "disband parliament and rule by GG decree" MOU got embarrassing. Also, "disband government" as starting point is a hard thing to dignify with negotiations.
I keep coming back to the missing money: it was raised, people who were out many thousands for contributing fuel and food could not find a central authority over that money to ask for compensation. (That's a very, very suspicious kind of disorganization.)
I really don't think that the various people vying for the status of "Leaders" at the time had any power to tell people to go home; they'd have been dropped from being looked-up-to, the moment they made any concessions.
I recall Jason Kenney dropping nearly all restrictions in hopes of mollifying the demonstrators at Coutts. A reporter there asked a few people in the blockade if that would do it and they were totally contemptuous, we're not moving. Or conceding anything. But what struck me is that the reporter had been there for days, and could find no one leader to interview, she was reduced to asking random members.
If you're trying to make the case that the Liberals would have been happy to meet with the leadership of the Convoy "if only" they could have determined exactly who those leaders were, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree.
Trudeau had already shown his cards while the convoy was still 2000 kms away - and made it clear he had ZERO interest in anything they had to say.
Spot on, Roy
Award winning article here Mr. Wells. Over the top investigative reporting backed up by the actual voices involved. Kudos! We have a sitting government that is a two-time winner of the slimmest electoral victories of all time. Two thirds of the country did not vote for or support them twice! Sadly, they have not been governing as if those facts even mattered. Instead, we have a petulant silver spooned P.M. who has never known what life is like for an average middle class citizen. Expecting change from those two successive governments amounted to a national deficit that remains unparalleled. Oh, yes there was an international pandemic but that became a catalyst for decision making from the P.M.'s cottage not from the floor of the House. Those decisions among others were so divisive and costly that they were met by the organic assembly of a national Freedom Convoy that held international attention for weeks as a peaceful public protest of the nation's capital. The light shed by your article into the underbelly of municipal policing and governance exposes truths many avoid confronting. Even when they are the ones empowered to oversee such dysfunction, they obfuscate their duty and roles. The Emergencies Act Hearings are only happening because the law requires it. Its outcomes will not quell the voices of those who still protest the tyrannical abuses of our government over our codified Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. They are called hearings because voices from all sides are meant to be heard. It does not necessarily mean that the government of the day is listening instead they are only pretending to hear and only because the law demands it. The outcome may result in another protest. Consider that well Ottawa. But maybe the government will have learned the importance of engaging with dissenting voices by then. We are holding our breath and our tongues as Free Speech is given the hearing it was denied by our Prime Minister. Change is in the wind as another cold Canadian winter approaches. That might be why Ottawa has left the cement barriers on Wellington in place? A national capital is the place where the public should expect to have their voices heard and the place where they must assemble in order to be recognized. This government is blind and tone deaf to such democratic fundamentals. The Opposition party must be the voice of the people when the government no longer wishes to hear from its people.
Paul, I haven't been following the inquiry closely, but from your write-up today it appears that Patricia Ferguson had her head screwed on straight throughout this nasty affair, and that's something we could use more of in many areas. It will be interesting to see how that impression changes as more is revealed. Thanks for the details.
The convoy showed that Canada has a number of serious problems. I propose a referendum moving the seat of power to central Canada, perhaps Manitoba, and leave those poor people in Ottawa in peace.
Lots of smoke and mirrors, some that are not yet disclosed. Within that convoy were several professionals, ex or retired military, ex or retired RCMP, doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, a scientist and Brian Peckford, to name a few. One RCMP (ex, now retired) had been Trudeau’s personal guard. He quit and joined the convoy. The reticence around going after this convoy, was the unseen, by the public anyway. Those are who you have not heard from, and may not. They would not talk to media. Police knew they were there and who they were. Many police had empathy for the truckers.
Because it is Ottawa, there is no clue just how despised Trudeau is across Canada. As we worry about honking horns, I find it odd that the good citizens of Ottawa cared nothing about the name calling, degrading rhetoric by this “so-called” PM towards millions of Canadian taxpaying citizens.
Further, the media is so biased they alone created further chaos. Their “lies”, “distortions”, etc, created a false narrative from the first day. Much had to be retracted. The one who highlighted this was the OPP Commissioner. Obviously a person with honour who values honesty. It was never reported that those trucks came from every corner of Canada, greeted by thousands along the way. Had that been reported there would be no question where the money came from.
Regardless of the chaos, no part of the Emergency Act criteria was met. That is unless you call absolute incompetence witnessed world wide an “emergency”. Notwithstanding the reputation of Canada greatly deteriorated, not by the truckers who received recognition world wide, but by the PM. That’s the bottom line. The rest is redundant.
As in all things, there are many sides.
A good review. The only place I disagree is to note that those supporting the convoy protesters are mostly reacting to PM Justin Trudeau's openly expressed views that this was an insurrection funded from outside Canada - both opinions being untrue. He is supposed to be PM of Canada, not PM of part of Canada.
While the train blockades are relevant, so too are too other horrific stains on Canadian policing - the G20 protests in Toronto in which the police brutalized peaceful protestors (and Bill Blair was then chief of police), and the 'war in the forests' on Vancouver Island, in which both the police and courts lost enormous social capital enforcing legal but not publicly supported injunctions in favour of McMillan Bloedel. The later was about collateral damage to police and courts enforcing law without social license; the former was about terrible policing, plain and simple. PLTs are in part a response to the disaster of Toronto.
It appears that the root cause of the problem in Ottawa was failure to listen to the intelligence (which anyone who reads knew about) and allowing trucks into the core. Once the truckers had parked, removing them was always going to be very difficult.
Good morning Paul,
Indeed a great column. You astutely and in great depth drew attention to the dysfunction at various levels in both the Ottawa Police Service and their civic politicians.
The role of the Police Liaison Team is interesting. I was reminded when some relatives travelled from Kingston to Ottawa on the February 5th weekend to provide some moral support to the protesters they felt were representing their concerns. Upon their return we heard that police were present, but they were non-combative and friendly. No doubt we can now assume these were some of the PLT officers. The message the protesters took from this approach is that they had carte blanche and hence the hot tub, open fire pits, and honking. Retired OPP Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy expressed it well when he argued that a two prong approach of enforcement and liaison would be most effective, but the Ottawa Police could not get their ducks in a row.
What Acting Deputy Chief Patricia Ferguson understood was that protesters need to feel their concerns have been heard. If only Prime Minister Trudeau had opened communication with the protesters as he did for the protesting Indigenous people who blockaded Canada's railway system in 2020. If only.
Thank you, Paul Wells, for a wonderful and throught-provoking article.
In reply to comments that the situation could have been resolved by "negotiations."
Open communication requires a bilateral effort. The protesters rolled into Ottawa with 'F*ck Trudeau" banners and defaced (upside down) flags and an MOU demanding the replacement of the government, just months after an election. Politicians and health care workers were receiving death threats. A bomb threat was even called into CHEO. In those circumstances, a meeting was never in the cards - for security reasons alone.
As someone else pointed out, unlike Indigenous groups with historical and legal grievances together with leadership and governance structures, none of that was present here. No one was clearly in control of the protest. Once Tamara Lich said trucks would be moving, she was quickly contradicted on social media. You cannot structure a negotiation under those conditions.
These "protesters"/occupiers were not protesting in the traditional sense, they were attempting to coerce and extort a policy change and were willing to use the citizens of Ottawa as hostages, all in the middle of a global pandemic. They seemed to have no understanding that their own "freedoms" are not unlimited and extend only to the limits of other people's freedoms. In a democracy, your "freedom" does not extend to the right to potentially carry and transmit a serious and highly transmissible disease that could sicken and perhaps even kill others. The Quarantine Act has been the law of the land for decades and is consistent with the Charter.
These cries for "freedom" from masks and vaccines are underpinned by junk science and zero sum thinking, all amplified by the shrill bullhorn of social media, powered by hostile bots and troll farms.
Just because a vaccine will not provide 100% protection to 100% people 100% of the time does not make it useless. The vaccine was never promised to be 100% effective. But even 90% protection for 90% of people 90% of the time makes a big difference, especially if you further add masks and social distancing, when the stakes are the viability of the public health care system and the lives and mental health of people who work in that system. Doing nothing would have had even worse consequences.
These protesters were flat out selfish. Had their attitude prevailed in earlier decades, this country would not have won one, much less two, world wars.
We hear whining about people "losing" jobs because of a medical "choice" not to be vaccinated. But I recall "choices" being offered to either vaccinate or produce proof of negative testing before going to work. You don't hear the protesters mentioning about that option having been offered. It's all about "MY" freedom and to hell with the wellbeing of anyone else around. If someone refuses to vaccinate and their employer does not provide an accommodation or an option to prove (with a test) that the person is not a health risk to others in the workplace, they may have grounds for a wrongful dismissal claim under provincial law. Those circumstances (likely infrequent) conditions do not justify the occupation of a city and an assault on the health care system. That is no longer protest - it is terrorism and you don't negotiate with terrorists.
In *theory*, the EA was unnecessary. But in this case, theory did not translate into practice. Something had to be done. The so-called "Battle of Billing Bridge" was the flashpoint - the citizens of Ottawa had reached their breaking point and were on the verge of taking the law into their own hands which would have created anarchy. If the OPS could not control the occupiers, they had no chance of controlling a counter-mob.
The situation in Ottawa was potentially contagious to other parts of the country, especially disruptions at border crossings.
Neither the city (OPS/city council) or the province could do what needed to be done. The EA was the last resort and the feds had to step in, as adults in the room, to clean up the mess.
2/2
Just because a vaccine will not provide 100% protection to 100% people 100% of the time does not make it useless. The vaccine was never promised to be 100% effective. But even 90% protection for 90% of people 90% of the time makes a big difference, especially if you further add masks and social distancing, when the stakes are the viability of the public health care system and the lives and mental health of people who work in that system. Doing nothing would have had even worse consequences.
These protesters were flat out selfish. Had their attitude prevailed in earlier decades, this country would not have won one, much less two, world wars.
We hear whining about people "losing" jobs because of a medical "choice" not to be vaccinated. But I recall "choices" being offered to either vaccinate or produce proof of negative testing before going to work. You don't hear about that option having been offered. It's all about "MY" freedom and to hell with the wellbeing of anyone else around. If someone refuses to vaccinate and their employer does not provide an accommodation or an option to prove (with a test) that the person is not a health risk to others in the workplace, they may have grounds for a wrongful dismissal claim. Those circumstances (likely infrequent) conditions do not justify the occupation of a city and an assault on the health care system. That is no longer protest - it is terrorism and you don't negotiate with terrorists.
In *theory*, the EA was unnecessary. But in this case, theory did not translate into practice. Something had to be done. The so-called "Battle of Billing Bridge" was the flashpoint - the citizens of Ottawa had reached their breaking point and were on there verge of taking the law into their own hands which would have created anarchy. If the OPS could not control the occupiers, they had no chance of controlling a counter-mob.
The situation in Ottawa was potentially contagious to other parts of the country, especially disruptions at border crossings.
Neither the city (OPS/city council) or the province could do what needed to be done. The EA was the last resort and the feds had to step in, as adults in the room, to clean up the mess.
The OPP testified that they did not need the Emergencies Act, as they were getting organized to act. It makes one wonder whether perhaps no one consulted with them beforehand.
Excellent article. There is much more ground to cover but at the outset, hats off to the Emergencies Act for embedding the Inquiry into the fabric of the law.
At some point. I hope this national discussion will address the issue of the use of props in civil protest. We've come a long way from the soapbox in Hyde Park. The necessary concept of limiting disruptions to essential services has been around for a long time. It is time to do the same thing for the use of trucks, front-end loaders and other massive devices brought in by aggrieved groups to make their point. In this case, we saw a very small percentage of truckers who are anti-vaxers able to bring the national capital to its knees, not by the strength of their argument, but by the size of their big iron. This should apply equally to indigenous protests such as Kahnewake Mohawk near Montreal who used heavy equipment to shut down major east-west rail lines in a sympathy for the Kitimat LNG complex .
Excellent perspective and analysis and first rate story-telling. Raises many issues that the Judge will likely not be able to deal with by late Feb.