Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 4, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

09:56:14

Emergencies Act Inquiry - Tamara Lich Cross-Examination, Jeremey Mckenzie & MORE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Everybody, which camera?
	Using the built-in camera again today, still having some not technical difficulties.
	I'm going to try to run things differently today.
	I'm going to try to log in from a second computer and see how this works.
	Okay, so here's what's happening.
	Big day for the Emergencies Act inquiry.
	Tamara Litch, who testified in chief yesterday, the commission examined...
	Deposed, questioned Tamara Leach.
	Tamara Leach, by the way.
	Tamara Leach is now the official pronunciation because it's her pronunciation.
	She testified in chief yesterday.
	She's going to be cross-examined today.
	There may be fireworks or it might just be very interesting, very damning.
	Doing this stream all day on the main channel, all day on Rumble.
	I'm going to be popping in and out because I've got to go live with Dave Rubin at 11 o 'clock, which requires a little bit of prep as of 10. I've got to take my kid to school now.
	So send the links around.
	Chitty chat.
	Enjoy it.
	I'll be back.
	And we're going to watch this together.
	I should be able to watch it from 10 to 11 while I get things set up in the back end for going live with Rubin for the Friday panel.
	Then I'll be back after the Friday panel.
	I will, during the lunch break, talk about other stuff.
	So 1 o 'clock-ish, give or take.
	They go on a one-hour break.
	So we'll talk about other stuff there because just stuff never ends.
	Stuff happens.
	And then what else?
	And then at 5.30 tonight, I'm going to be on with Hunley, Grobert, and Barnes talking about some election, upcoming November 8 midterm election stuff.
	So I'm going to tune out.
	Anybody who comes in and doesn't understand why all you're going to see is this until 9.30, maybe I can get back in time to, you know, distract from the wonderful public order emergency commission logo thing.
	Okay, I hear my kid summoning me.
	So let's do this.
	And I'm sure I forgot something, but I'll figure it out afterwards.
	So the format, not ideal because these inquiry hearings start at 9.30 sharp.
	Yesterday, it went to after 7 o 'clock.
	They're putting in the time and they're putting in the days.
	And it's monumental and endless.
	This goes on for six weeks.
	I think it's going to end on November 23rd.
	TGIF is right.
	So get out there.
	Share the link around.
	I'm going to come back as fast as I can.
	I will.
	In total safety.
	But anybody coming in and doesn't understand why what they're seeing is what they're seeing.
	Just let everyone in the chat know.
	I will be back.
	9.30.
	It's going live.
	Share the link around.
	Today's going to be a big day.
	Yesterday was heartbreaking, what the government has done to the world, what the governments of the world have done to the people of the world.
	So I'll be back in a few minutes.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all soon.
	See you all.
	Thank you.
	Oh, hi, Mark.
	Okay, I'm back.
	Made it.
	Booyah.
	All right.
	Let's see what's going to happen today.
	So, I've got the good mic.
	Something is going to...
	There's too many moving parts to make this happen.
	Okay.
	This camera.
	Let me just put something on the back camera.
	Send the link around, people.
	And we're going to have...
	So, Tamara Lich testified yesterday.
	I posted some highlights of that.
	It was just...
	It's amazing.
	There are people whose integrity, it is difficult to question.
	Tamar Litch is one of those people.
	And it was moving.
	It was jarring.
	Depressing is an understatement.
	Oh, the lighting.
	Hold on a second.
	To be reminded of everything that we've lost.
	And I don't say...
	It hasn't been lost.
	It's been stolen.
	People saying goodbye on iPads.
	That's enough to make you cry, sob, just, you know.
	All right.
	Viva, loved watching the convo with you.
	Could feel the love from the TV.
	Brace my heart, this is the aftermath of the world's most peaceful protest, hoping people wake up.
	You know, live streaming all day the protest itself was interesting.
	It was glorious.
	Nobody expected it to be that compelling.
	Live-streaming the hearing, you know, this is a little, I'll just take this out for the time being, a little less enthralling.
	Some days are just tedious, boring.
	Other days are just enraging because you're listening to these people.
	I think they're lying through their teeth, but I think they might actually believe what they're saying.
	In which case, they're not lying.
	They just deluded themselves.
	Listen to Mathieu Fleury.
	What do they call them?
	Not a commissioner.
	Talking about microaggressions.
	People allegedly berating other people for wearing masks.
	And then you have to hear them testify like people.
	You went into a store without a mask?
	Don't you think that's an act of aggression?
	You have to listen to people, treat other humans as though living a normal human life is an act of aggression.
	The lighting is some glare here, whatever.
	It's enraging, it's infuriating.
	And then other days it's just dreadfully boring, and then other days it's heartbreaking.
	The infighting of the convoy, varying interests, I don't care about.
	And Tamara, She pronounced her name Tamara Leach.
	So that's how we're going to go with it.
	Tamara dealt with that testimony properly.
	I don't want to get into it.
	Yes, there's people banging heads when you have 100,000 people protesting and you have a handful of people who are being lumped together for the first time ever.
	It's a veritable big brother.
	It's a big convoy.
	Viva, were you aware?
	The FBI helped to spy and report on Canadians during trucker convoy.
	I remember hearing rumors to that effect.
	But it's also, you know, you have to be careful what to believe and what you don't believe.
	All right, and we got everyone on the rumbles.
	Let me just refresh this here.
	Thank you very much for the super chat, by the way.
	So standard rules apply.
	No medical advice, no legal advice, no election fortification advice.
	Election fortification advice.
	Simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	The pinned link is there.
	During the lunch break, we'll talk about other stuff.
	Good morning.
	Bonjour.
	This judge is going 12-hour days.
	Thanks very much.
	David Michikowski for the Ottawa Police Service.
	I have a preliminary matter to raise, and I'm seeking your direction.
	It concerns...
	The testimony of the panel of witnesses who are going to be appearing later today.
	Does this guy look like the lead singer from Tragically Hit?
	I just want to alert you of it.
	I've advised my friends at Commission Council, and I'm in your hands as whether you want me to raise it now or wait till the witness has finished her cross-examination.
	Thank you.
	Well, I'd suggest we deal with it after the witness has finished.
	So Tamar Litch has been under oath.
	And I think perhaps have you advised the parties of the issue?
	I advised Commission Council yesterday, and I heard back, and we've had some discussions.
	So certainly Commission Council is aware of our position.
	I have not had the...
	I heard back from Commissioner Pencil this morning, and so I have not yet advised my colleagues of the issue.
	Okay.
	It might be worthwhile, and I don't know if you can do it by email or you want to do it orally, but just give a heads up to the parties so that when we get to it, everybody will be...
	Have thought it through, if that's okay.
	Sure, thank you very much.
	Okay, and we can deal with that a bit later, but I'd suggest we complete this and move on to that issue once we complete.
	He does look like Gord Downey, come on.
	Unless there's anything further, we can start the...
	Cross-examination.
	And I believe the first is the Government of Canada.
	Oh, the Government of Canada that jailed Tamara Leach.
	I can, but go ahead.
	For months on mischief charges.
	Can't hear.
	It is not a problem with me, so go ahead, Mr. Champ.
	Oh, this is Paul Champ, so he's representing the Ottawa citizens class action.
	Zexy Lee.
	This is the guy that has the Tax the Rich sticker on his computer.
	I just have another matter, Mr. Commissioner, later this morning.
	Good morning, Ms. Leach.
	My name is Paul Champ.
	I'm lawyer for the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses, and I have some questions for you concerning your testimony yesterday.
	Oh yeah, let's hear it.
	Now, I want to start with something, Ms. Leach, I think we both agree on.
	You're not a national security threat in any way.
	I don't believe I am, no.
	And I also want to make sure that we're clear on the record.
	As you know, I've been able to see a lot of the financial information and so forth and other proceedings and so forth.
	And you did everything you could to keep track of that money and deal with it responsibly, the money that was going through.
	Because we're using the EA as an audit tool.
	In no way did you ever divert any of that money towards yourself improperly.
	And I'm saying that's what I've seen.
	You've dealt very responsibly in every way you could with the money.
	Yes, sir.
	And you also testified yesterday you wanted to come to Ottawa for the right reasons.
	And by that, I mean you wanted to organize with other people, bring people together over that issue that was important to you, and send a message to the government and to your fellow Canadians.
	That's what you wanted to do in coming to Ottawa?
	Yes, sir.
	And you testified yesterday that you originally thought you wanted to drive across Canada.
	Stand in front of Parliament with some signs and you thought that's what the protest would be.
	Is that right?
	Yes, essentially.
	I had no idea that it was going to become what it evolved into, yes.
	For sure.
	But then once the enormous amounts of money started flowing in through GoFundMe and people were energized around that.
	Energized around the money?
	It opened up other options of what the protest could look like.
	Is that fair?
	I believe that everyone that was involved and that joined was in it to be listened to, have their voices heard as far as the mandates and the restrictions and the lockdowns went.
	But it made other things possible, like we were able to get the stages and the sound system and the resources to cover fuel and so forth for a much longer period than you had originally anticipated.
	I don't think they anticipated any money to cover fuel.
	The donations that came into GoFundMe, as we specified in the description, was for fuel to get them to Ottawa and home.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	But once you had a lot more, that opened up options that you could keep getting fuel to the trucks for a while while they were here.
	That was part of the idea.
	I guess that's fair.
	We saw some, or I've read a news story about some texts that you had with Mr. Barber.
	Yes.
	I presume you're aware of the news story in those texts?
	Yes, I am.
	And in those texts, it's my understanding that you had some exchanges with Mr. Barber on or about January 30th about a strategy meeting at the command centre about gridlocking Ottawa.
	Can you tell us about that?
	Well, I can tell you what I remember, which obviously isn't much.
	Gridlock is not a term that I would normally use.
	And as the text message clearly states, that was not up to me.
	That was never something that we advocated for.
	And you have to understand that there was lots of times where we would have meetings, but we'd go in there and have a meeting about something totally different.
	Right.
	But there was a talk about that.
	Should be the strategy going forward is keeping the trucks in the streets, gridlocking downtown.
	That was part of the strategy at that point.
	No.
	No, we never wanted to gridlock the city.
	It was always, as I said, especially as we saw the momentum growing and the support that we were getting, safety became our number one priority.
	And as you heard Mr. Morazo testify, that was especially important to him, having a son that made frequent ambulance trips to the hospital.
	Right.
	Unfortunately, we heard that he didn't necessarily know about all the streets.
	He didn't know about Kent Street, for example, which even Mr. Barber acknowledged was shut down the whole time.
	But you didn't have any visibility into that.
	That wasn't part of your responsibility?
	No.
	I want to ask you some questions about the horns.
	You testified yesterday that at some point, even for you, the horns became a bit too much.
	You couldn't even carry on a conversation on the sidewalk when all those trucks were blaring.
	At times, yes.
	And I think I'd seen...
	Video ones where you're talking about when all the semi-trucks, when they blow their horns, it's just crazy.
	On Wellington, which is the main street.
	Are you referring to the video that I made?
	Yes.
	I believe I said it was music to my ears.
	That was within a couple of days of getting there and there was a lot of excitement and it was a very jovial atmosphere.
	Ms. Leach, I know you strike me as a very reasonable person.
	You would agree with me that having a big rig, a semi-truck, idling right in front of your house 24 hours a day, emitting diesel fumes, honking horns, prolonged periods during all day, sometimes at night, that's not reasonable to a person that lives there.
	Would you agree?
	In that hypothetical?
	As I said yesterday, when I was in my hotel room, I didn't really notice it.
	The horns honking.
	And I was right downtown.
	You wouldn't want a big rig to pull up, for example, in front of your parents' home and park and idle for 24 hours a day.
	Can they object to hypothetical stupid questions?
	Well, Mr. Champ, my ex-husband was a tool push on a drilling rig and I've spent many days on the site of a drilling rig and there's a lot of diesel fumes and there's a lot of noise.
	Yeah, it's not pleasant, is it?
	It is what it is.
	Yeah, but then you get to go home and you get to get away from that noise and those diesel fumes, right?
	Not when you're living on site, no.
	He set up a hypothetical that if it happened with such an exception...
	Now, I want to ask you some questions about the injunction.
	Ask some questions about the injunction?
	February 4th to the 5th, you heard about that there was a motion from the residents of Ottawa to get an injunction to stop the horn honking, correct?
	Yes.
	And we heard from Mr. Wilson a bit about that, that there was a meeting of the board or the leadership group about what to do, and there was a decision to oppose the injunction, correct?
	I've never opposed the injunction.
	Opposed the injunction.
	Well, you swore an affidavit to oppose the injunction.
	Why don't you read what the affidavit says?
	Let's be clear on that.
	Read the affidavit.
	Well, once it was imposed, of course, we weren't going to go against the injunction.
	Well, no, there was a court hearing on Monday, February the 7th.
	Where Mr. Wilson represented you and Mr. Barber and Mr. Dichter, who were named individuals on it, to oppose the injunction.
	You weren't aware that that's...
	What do you mean by oppose the injunction?
	If you say so, then...
	And you swore an affidavit in support of that position, which I should say, swore an affidavit that the injunction should not be granted.
	Well, read the affidavit.
	If you say so.
	I've sworn a lot of affidavits.
	Read the affidavit.
	Is it fair to say there was a lot going on?
	There was a lot going on.
	It was hard to follow all the different things that were happening.
	Yes.
	And you may not have known exactly what the team is doing.
	Read the affidavit instead of trying to mislead her.
	I guess that's fair to say.
	Okay.
	Now, Mr. Wilson told us yesterday that on the board, there were some who, there was a bit of division on the board.
	Some felt that, yeah, the horns are a bit too much.
	You know, maybe.
	We shouldn't oppose this injunction.
	And some were like, no, we should oppose it.
	Do you recall that?
	Discussion among people who might disagree?
	I was probably there, but as I said, I was in and out of a lot of meetings, so I don't recall that specifically.
	Litigation's illegal.
	And you testified yesterday that once the injunction was issued, you worked very hard or worked really hard to see that it was adhered to.
	Do you recall your testimony on that?
	Yeah, the truck captains did for sure.
	Yes.
	But you yourself, you didn't do anything directly to ensure that the order was adhered to, did you?
	I don't believe I did, no.
	No, you didn't post any videos or make any statements on your social media account attempting to discourage the truckers from blowing their horns?
	My Facebook page was deleted about the first week we were here.
	Oh!
	But you didn't put up anything on it before it was deleted?
	No, I did not, no.
	And you also, you never posted a copy of the court's injunction order or the terms of it in any way on any of your social media, correct?
	I don't believe so, no.
	And were you aware that that was a term of the court order that you were supposed to do that?
	I don't believe so.
	So Mr. Wilson may not have communicated that to you.
	He may have.
	It's just a cheap, dirty, trying to get Wilson in trouble for some reason.
	Maybe she didn't have the social media at that time.
	Did she?
	February 4th, that's Friday.
	I'll give you the days because I'm sure it was like that.
	It was a blurry ass.
	I'm sure your days were crazier than mine, but I have a bit of a sense of what you were going through.
	Friday, February the 4th, that's the day that GoFundMe issued this statement saying they're shutting off, shutting down the fundraiser.
	And they were going to return all the money to the donors you recall that day?
	I do.
	And when GoFundMe shut you down, you lost what was potentially access to $10 million, correct?
	Correct.
	And GoFundMe put out a statement that day saying, quote, this previously peaceful demonstration has become an occupation.
	Do you recall that?
	I wonder who told him to say that.
	Might it have been Jim Watson?
	And by that point, you had also, I gather, been following some of the news stories, some of the reporting talking about the negative impact that the protest was having on residents, you know, caused by the blocking streets and the honking.
	Were you following that?
	I didn't have a lot of time to read the news to tell you the truth.
	I wonder why GoFundMe said occupation.
	After GoFundMe took away that $10 million, you learned later that day that you were being sued for $10 million.
	Is that right?
	It was probably around that same time, yes.
	So that was a bit of a rotten day, losing $10 million, being sued for $10 million?
	This guy's a really...
	You could say that, I guess, yes.
	Not a nice person.
	Now, did you consider or talk about with anyone else maybe working on an exit strategy at that point?
	Oh, after you get sued for $10 million.
	We've been in talks about that shortly after the legal team arrived, actually.
	And after that one day, when GoFundMe shuts you down...
	And we sue you for $10 million.
	Did you...
	Would that have been a time for you to start thinking about shutting down the protest or coming up and saying, hey guys, we sent our message in going home?
	Was that ever part of the discussion?
	After you get sued for 10 million bucks?
	Not to my knowledge.
	As I said yesterday, we were waiting to be acknowledged by somebody in the federal government who was willing to come and listen to what we had to say.
	Right.
	It sounds like the only one upset about the 10 million being taken away is this guy.
	The lawyers from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, they had showed up and they were giving you good advice.
	They were supporting him by that point.
	Is that right?
	Yes, sir.
	They'd been there a day or two by that time?
	Yes, sir.
	And is it fair to say that without them, you might have considered packing it in?
	Ugh, what a stupid question.
	I don't know.
	That's really hard to say.
	The only one angry that GoFundMe returned the money is this guy right here because he just lost his $10 million nesting for the lawsuit.
	Then on the Sunday, February the 6th, the city of Ottawa declared a state of emergency.
	Do you recall that?
	I recall that.
	And then the next day, on Monday the 7th, The court issued the horn injunction.
	By consent.
	Did you start thinking then?
	Was there any discussions then?
	But maybe the protests should start packing it in.
	No, because they had an injunction by the court that if they respected, they could stay there.
	I know, again, to reiterate, we were very focused on being heard and having our concerns listened to.
	And then on February the 11th, Premier Ford in Ontario, they declared a state of emergency about what was happening in Ottawa.
	You recall that?
	Not specifically the date, but I do recall that happening, yes.
	Weren't you getting the message?
	You testified yesterday, Ms. Leach, that no one told you to leave.
	The police weren't telling you to leave.
	All of these things, you know, the Premier, the mayor, the court.
	Does this guy not know what a protest is?
	That wasn't a message.
	The city of Ottawa residents.
	Hey guys, you're right to protest.
	It's over.
	Go home.
	Well, we had a message too.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And so...
	What a patronizing...
	And that was more important than what the people of Ottawa...
	After the stories that I heard coming across Canada that were absolutely heartbreaking after two years of lockdowns and restrictions.
	Yeah, sorry, downtown Ottawa Corps.
	Now, you reached the deal with the mayor around Sunday the 12th, I believe.
	Yes.
	The 13th, I think.
	She's doing well.
	That's right.
	She's an honest, wonderful person.
	The Freedom Convoy put out a statement about the deal.
	You recall that?
	Yes, I do.
	And in the statement, you said things like you never wanted to impact the residents of downtown Ottawa.
	That's correct.
	And you wanted to agree to the deal to relieve the pressure on the people in downtown Ottawa?
	Absolutely, sir.
	Right.
	Because there had been pressure on the people of downtown Ottawa.
	Oh yeah, there was pressure.
	Well, as I said, we didn't want to create a big disruption to them.
	We wanted to be respectful to the citizens of Ottawa, for sure.
	Because from January 29...
	Until February the 13th, you recognize it wasn't very respectful to the people.
	No, it was definitely an inconvenience.
	Well, what I will say is that I was approached by hundreds of Ottawa citizens who had come out to support.
	I was approached by federal government employees who were donating items to the protesters.
	We had a lot of support in Ottawa.
	Some of whom were wearing masks, so they wouldn't get recognized.
	Except for those that were suing you, I guess.
	And the mayor, who was elected by the citizens of Ottawa, he apparently wasn't supportive of you staying in downtown.
	He wasn't, and I give him great credit for being willing to sit and talk to us.
	Yeah, and let's just be clear here, Ms. Leach, no one was asking you to leave completely.
	It was about moving the trucks and having the truck stock.
	Idling out in front of residences and blowing the horns all night and day.
	That was the big message, wasn't it?
	Okay.
	Now, you testified yesterday that once the Emergencies Act was issued, and it looks like there was going to be...
	I didn't do that.
	Hold on.
	Why are we listening in French?
	Yes, but you didn't use social media.
	I didn't do this.
	What just happened here?
	Well, and obviously another thing that you did, Ms. Leach, is from my understanding, your testimony yesterday, you suspected you were about to be arrested and you went out to the street to ask the police officers or have someone ask the police officers.
	This guy's so happy she was arrested and spent two months in jail.
	And you went out with someone who could record the arrest when it occurred, right?
	Everybody has a cell phone these days.
	If it occurred.
	And when you were arrested, I didn't hear Commission Council ask you this, but...
	As you were being arrested, you were yelling, hold the line, correct?
	Yes.
	Well, one of the road captains that I was with said it, and I repeated it back to him, yes.
	Right.
	And by that statement, I take it, you weren't encouraging the other protesters to leave Ottawa, were you?
	You were encouraging them to stay, to hold the line, correct?
	Well, you know, that's a matter of perspective.
	My perspective on hold the line means stay true to your values in the face of diversity.
	That's a damn good answer.
	Hold the line is hate speech now, by the way.
	Some people who were protesting, who were following you at that time, when they saw that message, they would have interpreted to hold the line to stay.
	Hold the line, don't leave Ottawa.
	Some might have interpreted it that way.
	Would you agree?
	I can't speak for what other people think.
	You don't think that's...
	Well, when you speak and you've got that kind of a platform, you recognize that people are listening to, you have a great deal of influence on those people.
	Well, again, it comes down to how you define the term, I suppose.
	So just assist me with this, Ms. Leach.
	I'm trying to reconcile when you're telling us that you were encouraging people to leave, but you didn't put anything out on social media.
	Did she say that she was encouraging anybody to leave?
	You knew who recorded that video, don't you?
	I do, yes.
	Yeah, you know that person personally.
	I do, yeah.
	Yeah, and so they recorded it.
	You were aware you saw them recording, right?
	Yes, I did.
	And then you yell out, hold the line, because you wanted the people to stay in downtown Ottawa.
	Is that right?
	I wanted them to continue protesting.
	I was repeating what one of the road captains had said to me.
	Okay.
	I wanted them to continue pursuing constitutional rights.
	For...
	Assume me for $10 million.
	...reasons that remain utterly unclear to me.
	Commission counsel asked you yesterday about the impact of your arrest and your charges against you.
	Oh, for reasons you don't understand why?
	You weren't charged with an offense under the Emergencies Act, were you?
	It's my understanding you've been charged under the Criminal Code.
	Yes.
	I believe so, yes.
	That's right.
	Everyone.
	Nobody's been charged under the Emergencies Act.
	Mischief.
	And charged for interference with lawful use and enjoyment, both under the criminal code.
	Denied bail for that, by the way.
	Mischief, counseling, mischief, intimidation, counseling, intimidation, and a few more.
	Right.
	But no offense under the Emergencies Act.
	Good point.
	No.
	Doctor.
	And the indictment talks about activities from February the 7th up till February, I think, 19th or the date that you were arrested.
	Is that right?
	Yeah.
	Perhaps.
	Or the start of the date is before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, right?
	I'm not sure.
	Thank you, Ms. Leach.
	Thank you, Mr. Champ.
	Useless.
	That was useless.
	Although it did prove...
	As far as I understand, nobody was charged under the Emergencies Act.
	All of the charges were under the Criminal Code.
	Existing legislation.
	Hence, what the heck was the purpose of invoking the Emergencies Act?
	They had all the legislative bylaw recourse that they needed and court rules.
	Good morning.
	I'm Andrea Gonzalez.
	I'm one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada.
	You've told us in your evidence that you were not one of the founders of the Freedom Convoy, but you became involved because you wanted to help.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And primarily your role was...
	And you were quite successful with that, right?
	Yes.
	You told us you're not a trucker.
	You don't have a truck.
	I do not.
	And in the time you spent in Ottawa, there were obviously protesters, truckers who were sleeping in their trucks.
	I believe so, yes.
	Now, you may not like what this lawyer says, but she is very confident.
	I was, yes.
	I didn't have a truck here to sleep in.
	Right.
	And during that time, you've told us it was incredibly...
	Busy and surely exhausting for you.
	Very much so.
	Lots going on.
	You said you were in and out of different meetings, briefings on various calls.
	You were dealing with the crowdfunding platforms, switching campaigns, for instance.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	You were dealing with the funds being frozen, setting up bank accounts.
	That all took a lot of your time.
	It did take some time.
	She is going somewhere slowly, but she's going somewhere.
	Setting up the finance committee and the various administrative aspects that went along with that also took portions of your time.
	Yes.
	And you were, through all of this, you've told us, constantly meeting new people.
	There were new people arriving all the time that wanted to meet with you?
	Yes, there was, yes.
	Lawyers, advisors, accountants.
	Where is she going?
	Mr. Wilson, the other JCCF people.
	She going to Jeremy McKenzie?
	Pat King?
	Yes.
	And you said this was a lot of pressure for you.
	You felt pulled in different directions.
	Yeah, there was times when it was definitely...
	Very chaotic and very crazy.
	Where is she going?
	Participated in many of the press conferences.
	You were getting put in front of cameras.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Get to the point.
	Where are you going?
	People were putting you forward as the leader, Mr. Wilson, you'll recall, describing you as the spark that lit the fire.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Where are you going?
	And you also said people, you felt at times people didn't see you, they just saw the money.
	Yeah, there was times when I felt that way.
	And all of these dealings...
	We're consuming a vast amount of your time during the days and weeks you spent.
	She said that already.
	Where are you going?
	You, I gather in all of this, couldn't leave your hotel very often.
	In the beginning?
	In the early days?
	That's a bizarre question.
	No.
	But as the days wore on, I was able to get out and to the crowds.
	Yeah, and occasionally.
	And get out and talk to the truckers.
	Where is she going with this?
	Occasionally you spoke up in Parliament Hill.
	I did, yes.
	And you understand that the protest occupied quite a large physical geographic area.
	Four blocks?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Wellington, right out to SJAM.
	Yes.
	We've heard Parliament South as far as Somerset.
	Well, you've got to explain that for people who don't know.
	Sure enough.
	And the evidence is in the record.
	I just want to say it anyhow.
	You've heard there was...
	Trucks parked in the streets by the market in the Rideau and Sussex area.
	For a period of time in the early days anyway, they were out in Confederation Park.
	There was an encampment there.
	Yes, I believe so.
	And the one out in Coventry.
	It was so huge, except like the other guy said, there were thousands of protesters, not hundreds of thousands.
	As well as those that were a bit further out of town, 1500 Bronson Road.
	Were you aware of that one?
	I'm not sure of the addresses, but there was some out of town, yes.
	You said yesterday something about 88. That would be exit 88. Where is she going with this?
	I think it's by Embrun.
	Embrun.
	Embrun, sorry.
	Yeah, I believe that's the one, yes.
	She's showing that no one was in control of the protest.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I think they've already kind of alluded to the fact that there were a lot of people.
	And you, with all the demands on your time, were not spending the vast majority of your time in any of those places, right?
	You just couldn't.
	I visited them.
	I visited them, but yeah, not as much as I wanted to.
	Okay.
	And I think I've seen you here throughout the hearing.
	You've been here almost daily.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And we've heard some evidence about some of the things.
	That were going on in the protest crowds.
	I take it this was evidence you were hearing, information you were learning for the first time.
	She was unaware of the violence.
	Have we seen the evidence of the threats to the mayor of Ottawa?
	You didn't know that Chief Slowly had received death threats?
	No.
	You didn't know that Deputy Prime Minister Freeland had received...
	I learned of that the other day.
	A couple days ago.
	And the Prime Minister was receiving threats.
	I bet they were receiving threats for the last two years.
	Were you also learning for the first time as you sat through this hearing about numerous weapons-related arrests in connection with these protests?
	Allegations?
	I did hear something about coots, but again, I didn't follow those stories that closely.
	I was too busy here.
	Weapons-related arrests in Ottawa?
	As far as I know, there was no weapons-related.
	I haven't seen the evidence of that.
	There's been testimony of that.
	I haven't seen evidence of this.
	Documentary evidence.
	We've heard evidence about protesters surrounding police and bylaw officers who were trying to do their jobs.
	Is that something you knew was going on at the time?
	I don't believe that that's something that happened.
	What does that mean, surrounding them?
	And this document was introduced into evidence yesterday by my friend Mr. Diana, but no one spoke to it, so perhaps we'll pull it up.
	It's OPP401819.
	Go to the PP.
	We heard testimonial evidence.
	I don't think we actually saw the charges of the individual who drove from New Brunswick with weapons in his trunk to threaten the life of Mia Watson.
	It's an OPP intelligence report for February.
	Okay, that's not charges.
	And if we could please scroll down to page two.
	Let's see what the intelligence report has to say.
	And just, sorry, the very first paragraph there.
	The Ottawa Police Service identified an online video.
	That's the day that the Emergencies Act invocation was announced.
	In which a driver at the blockade had made inflammatory statements.
	And the first bullet point there says, Ottawa Police Service identified an online video in which a driver at the blockade...
	He had made inflammatory statements referencing violence, such as using a truck as a weapon.
	The video also showed him displaying a protective vest, which he claimed would stop an armor-piercing round.
	He claimed that he brought it with him to protect himself, and that he had worn it at the blockade.
	Was he arrested?
	OPP field officers have spoken with this male, and his truck has been positioned in front of Chateau Laurier since the beginning of the protest.
	Was he arrested?
	I take it.
	That's new information for you as well?
	That is new information for me, yes.
	Was he arrested?
	Charged as filed?
	You've testified in this commission that you had to believe everyone who was getting involved.
	It was doing so for the right reasons, that they were joining with the best of intentions.
	And these are at least some examples of people who maybe didn't have the best of intentions.
	Well, that's a report.
	That's not an actual charge.
	I continually was online advocating for peace, to remain peaceful, to abide by the law, and to respect our law enforcement.
	Right.
	And in the various press conferences and press releases, if you're going to say someone was arrested, testimony evidence is not as good as the actual charges.
	The message was repeatedly being communicated that the convoy was here to stay in Ottawa until the mandates were lifted, right?
	Yes.
	As long as that took was the messaging.
	Yes.
	So the evidence of the threat was the intelligence report and not an arrest of the individual?
	You testified both yesterday and in response to questions from Mr. Champ this morning about the deal that the exchange of letters that you engaged in with Mayor Watson.
	Ads are based on the user, not on the content creator.
	He sent a letter to your team.
	With the assistance of Mr. Wilson, you sent a letter back, or a letter was sent back in your name, right?
	Yes, ma 'am.
	And let's pull up that letter.
	It's HRF 6045.
	So the evidence that there was someone threatening violence was the intelligence report and not arrest charges against that individual?
	While we're waiting for that, why did the letter go in your name?
	Do you know?
	I was president of the board of directors at that time.
	Okay.
	And the letter that's written in your name, if we just go down to the, sorry, a little too far.
	Third paragraph starts, we have made a plan.
	And you write, or the letter says, we have made a plan to consolidate our best, our protest efforts around Parliament Hill.
	We will be working hard over the next 24 hours to get buy-in from the truckers.
	We hope to start repositioning our trucks on Monday.
	And that's worded that way because at that point, the best that you could offer the mayor was efforts to get buy-in from the truckers, right?
	Well, we needed to go out and speak to them and talk to them about what we thought was going to be a good idea.
	Yes.
	Right.
	And after these letters were released publicly...
	We heard from Mr. Dichter in his testimony, and I believe you testified that you knew at the time from him that he had received many, many, many reactions on social media from those who were unhappy with this deal, right?
	Yes.
	Funny, funny.
	Vests are defensive.
	Especially when you see snipers on the roofs of buildings after Trudeau invokes the emergency act.
	And even before, I think.
	Undermining this deal, right?
	Yes.
	They had snipers on, people with guns on buildings.
	One could understand why someone might want a vest.
	What had been agreed to was nothing more than moving the trucks out of the residential neighborhoods, right?
	It was a step one.
	Like Wilson said, step one to continue negotiating.
	More progress than we'd seen since we arrived.
	You, at that time, would not have put your name on any letter that agreed to a meeting if it meant you had to force protesters to pack up, end their protest, and go home, right?
	Sorry, can you repeat that?
	No, she can't.
	Do it a little differently.
	Yeah, because you can't repeat it.
	The understanding you had with Mayor Watson was that you were going to make best efforts to help get the trucks out of the residential neighborhoods.
	Yes.
	And then he would sit down with you for a meeting.
	Yes.
	You were not going to agree to a meeting if it meant you had to tell all those truckers, get out of Ottawa, end your protest, go home.
	Sorry.
	Repeat that again, please.
	You did not, and you would not have agreed to a meeting with the mayor if the condition for that meeting was that you and other leaders would have to tell the protesters, get out of Ottawa, go home, end your protest.
	So we'll meet with you after you leave.
	Well, that would have been something that we would have had to talk about.
	Well, what if?
	I'll be back in a few minutes, everybody.
	Carry on, carry on.
	Share the link around, and I will be listening.
	And when you message this deal, you remember Mr. Wilson drafted up the Freedom Manifest that was going to be used to help communicate to the truckers what exactly they were being asked to do and what the deal was with the mayor.
	And so let's pull that up.
	That's HRF401285.
	This is a document you had reviewed and you agreed with at the time.
	Right.
	And in the fourth paragraph, what you're communicating here is we have to stay in Ottawa for the long haul to reach our destination.
	Just like we do every day with our routing logistics, we have to plan for the road ahead.
	Yes.
	And that's what you and Freedom Corp were saying to explain the deal to the protesters, that going along with what was being asked, moving those trucks out of the residential corps to other areas in Ottawa was a step necessary to make sure you could continue your protest for the long haul, correct?
	Yes, we definitely would have loved to have stayed and continued to protest peacefully.
	Thank you.
	Those are my questions.
	Thank you.
	Next is the Ottawa Police Service.
	Good morning, Commissioner.
	Good morning, Ms. Leach.
	My name is David Michikowski.
	I'm a lawyer for the Ottawa Police.
	Good morning.
	You've been very clear in your evidence that it was your intent to plan a peaceful protest, correct?
	Correct.
	And that was very important to you as one of the organizers?
	Yes.
	And you did not plan to disrupt the lives of Ottawa residents or businesses?
	No.
	And you obviously, consistent with that, obviously didn't plan to break bylaws, honk your horns continuously, defecate on people's lawns, harass people, or block emergency lanes.
	That wasn't the plan, was it?
	I did none of those things.
	And it wasn't the plan, was it?
	As one of the organizers, you wouldn't have been in favor of condoning that kind of activity, would you?
	No.
	And because it wasn't your plan and you, in fact, had a code of conduct, you wouldn't have expected the police to turn the convoy away when they came to Ottawa, would you?
	No, they were excellent to deal with right from the start.
	And if that had happened and none of the trucks were allowed in...
	We've heard from OPP witnesses that that likely at that point would not have deterred the convoy because some had driven from very far away.
	Is that fair?
	If we would have been told that we couldn't have driven up here, I don't believe that we would have.
	We would have found alternative places, I guess.
	I'm saying that if when you got here on the 28th and the 29th, the city was barricaded.
	And you couldn't go anywhere.
	The OPP witness indicated that that wouldn't have turned the truckers away because they'd come pretty far for this.
	I don't know how to even answer that question.
	I guess if there was barricades in place, how could we have done that?
	And no one from the convoy organizers, to your knowledge, was on social media before the convoy encouraging antisocial behavior.
	Not to my knowledge.
	Right.
	And you've seen the Lawton book about the Freedom Convoy?
	I have, yes.
	And in his book, he says that the convoy organizers did not intend to be on residential streets.
	Yes.
	And you would agree with that?
	I would agree with that.
	But in fact, that is what happened.
	There was some residential streets that had lots of trucks on them, yes sir.
	There were staging areas, but they were too far away from Parliament, and people wanted to be closer, correct?
	A lot of them did want to be closer, but there was also trucks that were out there too in those locations, yes.
	And you've been very clear in the affidavit you filed in court that there were truckers who came from all over.
	Yes, sir.
	And you indicated specifically in that affidavit, which is that we don't need to call it up, but for the record, it's JCF0012 in paragraph 2 and 3, that you did not control the truckers.
	Those are your words.
	Yes.
	No, we didn't.
	They're all human beings.
	I don't control anyone, sir.
	I open up a dialogue with them.
	You're agreeing with me.
	I didn't control anyone.
	I'm sorry?
	I did not control anyone.
	You didn't control the truckers?
	No.
	And Superintendent Drummond attended a meeting he's heard with some of your representatives on the 13th of February.
	That was after the date of your letter with the mayor.
	Those were on the 12th, correct?
	Correct.
	The meeting?
	Oh, yeah, sorry.
	The initial meeting was, I believe, Friday.
	And so, yes, correct.
	Okay.
	And so the agreement with the mayor was reached on the 12th of February.
	I believe so.
	And then we saw that there was a meeting on the 13th that I believe Mr. Wilson may have attended with the mayor's office.
	Yes, I believe so.
	And Superintendent Drummond records in his notes.
	And again, I'll give you the reference, but I...
	In the interest of time, I won't call it up, but it's OPS 14455 at page 47. The convoy organizers, the representatives at that meeting, explained that they did not control Rideau Sussex.
	I wasn't at that meeting.
	But you're aware that that was said?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that your representatives also said they didn't control Coventry Road.
	Yes.
	And they also said they could not be certain if the truckers there would move.
	That's correct, I believe, yep.
	And even for those groups whom you did have some control or influence on, I guess influence, we've heard that truckers are pretty independent-minded people.
	Yes, they are.
	They can't be made to do what they don't want to do.
	I guess so.
	And in addition to not controlling the truckers, you also did not have control, obviously, of the protesters on the street and whether they could block trucks moving, for instance.
	We didn't have control, no, but we worked very hard and very diligently with the gentlemen and women that were down there to open up a dialogue and assist them in opening up that intersection.
	And in fact, we heard about a previous effort by Mr. Wilson and Ms. Chipia on February 10th at Rideau and Sussex, where police were going to move the barriers so trucks could move, but the crowd dynamics got in the way and the crowd stopped the trucks from moving because they didn't trust the police, correct?
	I was down there also, yes.
	You were there as well.
	And so you saw that and you agreed that that would be dangerous then.
	I didn't feel like it was dangerous.
	There was a large crowd presence there, and they were...
	I think they were feeling that they had been lied to by the police.
	There was a lot of mistrust there.
	And they were down there singing O Canada and chanting freedom.
	And you agreed it would be dangerous to move the trucks in that scenario?
	Because the crowd swelled.
	There was a lot of people there, yes.
	And we have heard that notice was given to the demonstrators in advance that they would have to leave.
	You heard that evidence?
	Which, what are you referring to?
	You've heard quite a bit of that evidence that demonstrators were told to leave.
	I have never been told to leave.
	Oh, you didn't know that.
	Okay.
	You're familiar with the PLTs, correct?
	I am now.
	I'm going to show you some PLT logs.
	And you understand that the PLTs were a liaison with the protesters?
	Excuse me, yes, sir.
	And would communicate with them?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, I'm going to call it up.
	I'm not going to start by taking you directly to it, but I will take you to a particular passage.
	The document is OPS 3014-053.
	And so while that's being called up, Ms. Leach, those are PLT logs as of February 25th.
	And I can take you through them in detail.
	And show you.
	But in order to save some time, I'm going to attempt to summarize what they say on the issue of notice that was given to the truckers and protesters before the public order unit moved in to clear the intersection.
	And so what I see in those is on February, there were various zones in the city.
	And I see on February 16th.
	The PLTs attended SJAM and gave those present the letter and were told by protesters that the letter wasn't legal because it didn't have a signature.
	Sounds sort of similar to what you said.
	Excuse me a minute.
	Yes.
	If my friend could actually take the witness to the part in the document that states that so that we can see it.
	I don't know if that's what it says or not.
	I apologize.
	I will take her to it where it's necessary.
	If she doesn't agree, that's fine.
	I don't wish to use my 15 minutes by going through the document in detail.
	If she can't agree, I will take her to portions of it.
	Sure, let's do that.
	Take me to portions, please.
	So, PLT say they attended SJAM and they were told by the truckers that it wasn't legal, that notice, and it wasn't...
	Significant.
	Do you know about that?
	I wasn't there, sir.
	Okay.
	Do you have any reason to deny that occurred as noted in the PLT logs?
	I have no reason to.
	Okay.
	And understand from those logs that the next day on February 17th, they attended again and delivered the message again.
	And they attended again on the 19th and delivered it again to those who remained.
	Any reason to deny that that occurred?
	I was not there.
	As a matter of fact, by the 19th, I was already in jail.
	Okay.
	And so you weren't on the 17th, were you?
	I was arrested that day, yes.
	Right.
	And I'm pretty confident, because you were one of the organizers, that the truckers were communicating with you and telling you what was happening.
	From SJAM?
	All over the city.
	No, not necessarily.
	And then in Zone 2, and this is on page 7 of the same document, Mr. Marazzo met the PLT on the 16th, and the message was delivered to him, and then it was delivered on Wellington Street, and the PLTs described hostile and screaming at the police, and the police then had to withdraw due to the hostility.
	Any reason to disagree with that?
	I was not present there, sir.
	Any reason to disagree with it?
	Sir, with respect, my friend is asking a witness who has no knowledge of something whether or not she disagrees with a document of which she didn't draft, of which was drafted by the police, and then asking if there's any reason to disagree with something she has no knowledge of.
	That's not a question, sir, that's permissible, it's not relevant.
	This witness, while this was all going on, was in jail without any form of ability.
	To access phones and texts, etc.
	It's not an appropriate line of question.
	The witness can answer if she was aware of it or not.
	She wasn't.
	I think it's quite proper cross-examination.
	I'm not sure it's very helpful in the sense that I'm not sure what you're getting at.
	She can neither confirm nor deny because she has no knowledge to say, can she, has she any, I mean, any...
	The questions relating to whether she received communications about any of this may have some relevance, and she's answered that.
	Well, I mean, you can go ahead, but you're...
	In my submission, it is highly relevant because the witness said that no notice was given.
	And I'm going to suggest to you, Ms. Leach, that the PLTs went to every single site and gave notice to everyone.
	And you're saying you didn't know that.
	Is that right?
	If you say so.
	Okay.
	I'm going to ask that we turn up OPS 12205, page 60. Yeah, just at the top where it says Swiss Hotel.
	I'm going to tell you something, and maybe you'll remember this, Ms. Leach.
	PLT Peace Gym and OPS PLT Meg attended Swiss Hotel and met with Leach and Bulford and O 'Connor.
	Message was delivered and explained.
	All parties were upset, and Leach was crying in regards to how unfair she felt this action was.
	PLT advised them to depart and message this out to others.
	All parties were upset when it was explained that people who are helping logistics can also be charged and held accountable.
	All understood messaging.
	They do feel that this message will harden participants' resolve as they feel that it is a tactic of dictatorial government.
	Suggestion was made to have children leave the red zone.
	Seems pretty clear to me that you were given the message, right?
	I was never told I needed to leave.
	So the PLTs, that's fabricated.
	I remember when they came in and we had the discussion.
	And I, as it says, became very upset.
	I believe I said something to the effect of, I cannot believe that you're about to do this to your own people.
	We were there protesting peacefully.
	The rest of that interaction, I was upset and I was crying.
	You were upset and you were crying because it was over and they told you to leave.
	I was upset and I was crying because of what they were proposing to do to Canadian citizens.
	And they told you to depart and they told you to message that to others.
	I don't recall them telling me to message that to others or that I needed to leave.
	I'm sorry, you don't remember?
	It was suggested.
	It seems to me your memory is selective.
	When I take you to something that implicates you, you have no memory of it.
	Sir, that's inflammatory, and if my friend wants to take the stand and become a witness and give opinions about credibility, that's fine, but that's not a proper question, sir.
	I'll move on.
	You would agree, you've talked about the fact that you didn't know the truckers or control them, and you didn't police them.
	I did not, no.
	You weren't surveilling them.
	No.
	You didn't know their past?
	You didn't have intelligence information about all of them?
	I am not an intelligence expert now.
	Right.
	And you would agree with me that there may be other individuals or organizations that would have more intelligence information about some of the protesters than you did?
	Such as?
	Would you agree with that?
	Could you ask me your question again, sir?
	Yeah.
	I said you would agree with me that there may be other individuals or organizations that would have more intelligence information about some of the protesters than you did.
	Yes.
	And you would agree with me as well that you have no background or formal training in crowd dynamics and what can incite a crowd to take action?
	I don't know.
	Or how to prevent a crowd from escalating or preventing violence?
	No, I don't.
	And so just two more areas, if I may just have two more minutes, Commissioner.
	HRF 401510.
	If I may have that document, Mr. Clerk, please.
	Is an email from Eva Chipyuk.
	Eva Chipyuk was one of the convoy lawyers.
	Yes, sir.
	And so this is on February 15th.
	She indicates, and for some reason we have not been given the attachment, although we've been told that solicitor-client privilege was waived.
	But in the email it says...
	I've drafted something on the right to protest and have taken a very cautious approach because I don't exactly know what the emergency orders are.
	But it's my understanding that they can limit the right to protest.
	And while that can be challenged in court, at the moment, people who do not comply may be arrested.
	I think if we're advising people, it's important to let them know all the risks they're facing and let them make their own decision.
	You've seen that?
	From one of your lawyers?
	I've seen it since in these hearings.
	So, two possibilities.
	Either your lawyers didn't give that advice to you, or they did give that advice to you.
	Sir, there's individuals cc'd her that emails too.
	She's not in it.
	And then the next day, or just in two days, she's not in it.
	You should first ask her if she got the email.
	God.
	Sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	My friend will have a chance to examine.
	This is quite proper cross-examination.
	I think it would be helpful to know if she received the email before you questioned her on it.
	Okay.
	I will get to that, but there's a reason why I'm asking in the way I have.
	Okay.
	So, two possibilities.
	Either your lawyer didn't give you that advice, or you did get that advice from someone.
	I...
	Did not receive this email, and I don't recall.
	As I said, there was a lot of chaos.
	We had a lot of conversations.
	I can't recall.
	Okay, so you don't recall whether your lawyer gave you that email or not?
	I don't.
	I don't believe I've seen it before.
	Okay.
	And I understand that you've been charged with several criminal code offenses, correct?
	Mischief, obstructing justice, counseling others to commit mischief, intimidation, correct?
	That's correct.
	And I understand you understand that the purpose of this inquiry is not to determine your guilt or innocence, correct?
	Of course not.
	And you've received disclosure of documents from the Crown, or partial disclosure, I believe you said?
	Yes, I have.
	And you understand because the criminal process is ongoing, there's a principle, a case called WAG.
	And so as a result of that, you understand that I am not allowed to rely on documents that are part of the criminal brief, the Crown brief in this proceeding.
	You understand that, correct?
	If you say so.
	Again, this is a new world to me.
	And so you understand that if that's the case...
	I may not be able to challenge some of the statements you've said.
	Sir, my friend's arguing a principle of law.
	I am not familiar with this system.
	Okay.
	If I may just ask one final question then.
	You talked about concerns for safety, correct?
	Yes.
	And that would include concerns for officer safety?
	Absolutely.
	And so we've heard evidence of police officers being swarmed by protesters.
	That you would be concerned about that?
	I never witnessed that, but I would be concerned.
	Right.
	But you don't have sufficient control over the truckers or the protesters to prevent that, if that's occurring, correct?
	I don't control anyone, sir.
	Thank you very much for answering my questions.
	Thank you.
	Next is a Council for former Chief Slowly.
	Mr. Leach, Tom Curry for Former Chief Slowly.
	Good morning, Mr. Curry.
	I just have a few questions.
	Yes, sir.
	Can I just show you the one thing that my friend for the Ottawa Police Service was speaking to you about, just so that you have the full picture.
	Yes, sir.
	Could I ask, please, Mr. Registrar of the Witness to be shown HRF 401520?
	I think this is the attachment that was referred to.
	Just in case this helps your...
	Recollection.
	What is being projected now is a document with the title The Right to Protest.
	Have you seen it?
	I appreciate you're going to take a second to look at it, but just let us know, please, if you have seen that memorandum before.
	I don't recall seeing this attachment.
	No, sir.
	I gather from the record that it is the attachment to which Ms. I don't believe so, no.
	It does not look familiar.
	Thank you.
	Just a couple of things, and if I could, the Commissioner, one of the things that the Commissioner has to consider is recommendations about dealing with...
	The Emergencies Act and presumably perhaps even the right to protest and some of the limits that we've heard about.
	Can I just have a couple of additional facts from you?
	You and Mr. Barber met, I think you told us, on the 24th of January to begin the trip.
	Yes, that is correct.
	And you left from Redcliffe.
	Redcliffe, Alberta, yes.
	Arriving in Arnfire the 29th.
	Do you guys hear the audio through this mic?
	How is this audio?
	That was the 28th.
	28th, Ottawa the 29th.
	Yes, sir.
	And what I'm interested in knowing is, of course, first of all, the numbers of protesters exceeded your expectations.
	Okay, good.
	So it's the best I can use for now.
	Wildly exceeded?
	Yes.
	And I think you told us that you imagined that you might be able to raise $20,000 for this convoy, and of course the financial commitments that you garnered were far in excess of that.
	But in terms of the numbers of protesters who you considered, and I presume Mr. Barber considered in his conversations with you, were not In the numbers that filled up the streets of Ottawa in the way that you found them on the 29th.
	Is that fair?
	I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
	Sure.
	Your expectation when you got to Ottawa, you saw far more people than you believed would be in attendance.
	Yes.
	And am I right that you were not the person primarily, or even at all, communicating with police about how many people were going to attend?
	I don't believe so.
	I know the road captains were in constant communication with law enforcement, though.
	Got it.
	And insofar as you know, the road captains would have had some information about the numbers of members of their individual convoys that they had, but they would not have had a picture of the entirety of it because people were coming from far and wide.
	Is that fair?
	To get solid numbers.
	With people joining and leaving, you know, some people would travel with us for 200 kilometers.
	Some people would travel across the province and turn around.
	It was very challenging, and as much as we tried to get a count, it was next to impossible.
	So much so that when you got here, as much as you tried to understand how many would be there, you missed the mark.
	Yes.
	Now, then just a couple of other things.
	In terms of the company, the not-for-profit, it was incorporated January 30th, I understand?
	I think it was the 30th or the 31st, but it was right around there, yes, sir.
	And then I think in the record, the bylaws that organized it were prepared by February 3rd.
	So the company and the governance model that you had imposed was evolving.
	Only once you got here.
	Yes.
	Then finally, in terms of the description, you and Mr. Wilson have both called the scene chaotic.
	Can you tell the Commissioner, when did you first appreciate the sense of chaos that you have described?
	Was it when you arrived on the 29th?
	It was sitting on my kitchen table when we were organizing because I had messages coming in and emails coming in and phone calls.
	And it was very busy times.
	Right.
	Very busy times.
	And so by the time you got here and saw the situation in Ottawa, was it chaotic at that time as well?
	There were times when it was chaotic.
	As you referred to, there was a lot of people here.
	When we got into town, I just saw a lot of smiles and a lot of flags and people hugging each other.
	So I don't necessarily mean chaotic all the time as a negative term, but it was a mixture of both.
	Understood.
	Just one last thing.
	I think one of the questions that you were asked about what would have happened as you approached...
	Ottawa, if the city had been, I think the language was, blocked or barricaded.
	Having regard to the numbers of people coming far and wide and your inability to control them, is the likelihood that those convoy protesters would have just made their protest where the blockades were?
	Again, that's kind of a what-if question that I can't really speak to.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Fair enough.
	Thank you, Commissioner.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thank you.
	Next is the City of Ottawa.
	Alyssa Tompkins for the City.
	The City has no questions for this witness.
	Thank you.
	Ontario Provincial Police.
	Good morning, Commissioner.
	The OPP have no questions.
	Thank you.
	Democracy Fund, JCCF, Citizens for Freedom.
	Morning, Mr. Commissioner, Ms. Litch.
	Good morning.
	Ms. Antoine Dailly, Council to Citizens for Freedom, representing peaceful protesters in Windsor.
	Ms. Litch, in yesterday's testimony, you indicated that at the beginning you were tasked with some of the fundraising and that you thought that a fundraising goal of $200,000 was way too much and that you expected maybe $20,000 in donations.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	And that you certainly did not expect the level of financial support that the convoy did receive over that period of time.
	Is that correct?
	I think we were all quite shocked about that, yes.
	Perfect.
	Do you agree that many Canadians who were unable or otherwise unwilling to go out and protest in the streets instead donated to the convoy as a tangible demonstration of their opposition to the government mandates?
	I do, and I remember...
	I remember saying, I think it was maybe to Mr. Wilson, that it wasn't even about the money.
	It was about the statement behind the money.
	Right.
	And so, is it also your understanding that contributors to a GoFundMe campaign may leave a message of support when they donate?
	Yes.
	And did you review some of those statements of support?
	Very briefly.
	I did scroll through some, yes.
	So then, based on your experience...
	Would it be fair then to characterize the act of donating to the Convoy's fundraising efforts as a form of political expression?
	I would.
	And encouragement and support.
	I think as it grew, people wanted to be a part of it in any way that they could show support.
	And that was one way that people that couldn't attend or be on an overpass or drive to the side of the highway were able to support.
	Understood.
	And is it true that the GoFundMe campaign for the convoy was active for less than a month?
	Yes.
	Yes, it was.
	And were you ever made aware that the convoy's fundraising campaign in that limited amount of time enjoyed more donations from more Canadians than the Liberal Party of Canada did in either 2020 or 2021?
	I believe somebody had mentioned that.
	So we're talking about large amounts of money here, right?
	Yes.
	And are you aware of any other grassroots fundraising campaign which has raised comparable amounts of money since March of 2022?
	Not to my knowledge, but I haven't also looked any up.
	Fair enough.
	Yes.
	And lastly, we heard about some of the conditions and restrictions that you are now subject to while you wait for your trial next year.
	In addition to those conditions, how many days have you spent in jail since you started fundraising for the convoy?
	49 days in total.
	Those are my questions.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	And now for the convoy organizers.
	Sir, I'm wondering if we can take the morning break a little early.
	I have to talk to three separate lawyers behind me about certain areas of examination.
	If we could take the morning break, I'd be very much appreciative.
	Only if you make the commitment to have a focused questioning so that it's useful use of the break?
	Absolutely, sir.
	Okay.
	Well, we'll take the break early then.
	Take 15 minutes please.
	The commission is in recess for 15 minutes.
	La commission enlevé pour 15 minutes.
	Everyone, you're going to hear terrible echo.
	Don't talk about it.
	Don't complain about it.
	Nothing I can do about it right now because my other mic is plugged in to another computer.
	Do you have any reason to deny the reports by other witnesses to this case?
	Can you corroborate?
	Or do you have no reason to not corroborate someone else's testimony?
	Terrible.
	Don't do it.
	Not bad.
	Okay, it's funny.
	This is the built-in mic on the Mac.
	Do you have any reason to deny the testimony of a third party about what they said to other people, not you?
	Terrible question.
	I'm glad Brandon got in the objection.
	I was kind of screaming at the computer.
	You had no control over the truckers.
	It's very funny, like, the government talking about controlling other people.
	Antisocial behavior?
	We need to make antisocial behavior trend.
	Sorry, it's a little loud.
	It doesn't matter.
	You'll live with it, because I'm going to have to go in four minutes to my other computer to do Ruben's Friday morning panel.
	They're using the term Protesters engaging in antisocial behavior.
	It's a freaking joke.
	It's an actual, sad, disgusting joke.
	That, oh my goodness, antisocial behavior?
	Like, this is the way, I won't say the Chinese Communist government, but this is the way I presume Communist governments talk about The citizens who criticize the...
	You're engaging in a lot of antisocial behavior there.
	You have to put an end to that antisocial behavior.
	After one of the protest days, I noticed an individual following me.
	Thought it was a little suspicious for a while.
	Then the guy says, you know, after he sees me put my phone down, he says, are you no longer recording?
	Because I don't want to be on camera.
	Chinese national.
	Born and raised in China, an elderly man, so lived through some stuff in China, and says, when I heard Trudeau use the term "fringe minority with unacceptable views," it's literally, I don't speak Mandarin, so I can't confirm, verbatim translation of the way the Chinese government talked about dissenters, called them "fringe minorities and unacceptable views." This idea of antisocial behavior?
	Is telling the government to F off antisocial behavior?
	Is 100,000 people gathering in peaceful protest antisocial behavior?
	This is like the way a parent scolds a child.
	It's the way a tyrant speaks of a subject.
	I can't even believe that they're using the term not sarcastically.
	This antisocial behavior that you are in.
	Yes, it's very, very anti-social behavior.
	The picketing and the protests, very anti-social.
	You have to agree with the government and be social and be nice and be good citizens and don't criticize and don't protest.
	There's a headline statement right there.
	Trucker Convoy received more donations in a month than the Liberal Party in two years.
	Oh, but it was foreign funds.
	It was foreign interference.
	47% of the $10 million that came into Give, Send, Go was from America.
	47%.
	90% of the GoFundMe was from Canada.
	And then you get Jim Watson, anti-social behavior man, pressuring GoFundMe to shut down the campaign because it's an occupation, and GoFundMe does.
	And what does that do?
	That galvanizes the rest of the world.
	Then you go to Rachel Gilmore's Twitter feed.
	Convoy received $24 million in donations.
	Yeah, $22 million of which, give or take, was returned to the donors.
	One million of which, give or take, is frozen under a Mariva injunction.
	They received $24 million.
	90% of the first 10 was from Canadians.
	50% of the second 10 was from Americans who seemingly got pissed off at the government overreach to suppress this occupation of antisocial behavior.
	Okay, so keep the link going, people.
	I've got to go get on the other one.
	It's going to be boring for a little bit.
	It'll be a tight 15, so they'll be back live.
	I'll have this running on the side.
	Let me see if there's anything going on in the rumbles.
	Thank you, America, for your support, says JC Linus.
	47% of the second 10 million in Give, Send, Go came from America.
	After Americans...
	And by the way, that was a good question by the Democracy Fund lawyer.
	Would you say that donating...
	Was a form of political expression.
	Because it was.
	And so maybe Americans get a little pissed off.
	Maybe they get more pissed off than some Canadians when they see the government interfering with our right of political expression.
	And it went from 90% of the first 10 million Canadian to 47% of the second 10 million through Give, Send, Go from America.
	Because Americans and many Canadians have a religious-esque...
	Love for the Constitution and our God-given rights.
	Antisocial behavior.
	Oh, my sweetness.
	Okay, I'll be back, people.
	Continue to chat amongst yourselves.
	I'll be following the chat and spread the link around.
	And during the lunch break, we're going to talk about other stuff.
	Okay, see you soon.
	Bye.
	I got one time, I got two.
	Yeah, see I got two in front of me.
	It's the one that I've hit.
	I hate the ones where you have three or four blocks.
	Yes, I've had that.
	I remember it was a hatch, hatch, hatch.
	It's always a bunch of other people.
	Yeah.
	I said, "Oh, my goodness, I'm out here." Yeah.
	So, I, right.
	My heart is all about it.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter
	laughter
	laughter laughter laughter
	laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter
	laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter
	laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter
	laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter laughter You You You
	You You You You You You You You You You You You
	Here comes a new talk.
	Okay.
	the convoy organizers.
	Good morning.
	For the record, Brendan Miller appearing as counsel for Freedom Corp.
	Good morning.
	So I just want to start out with some just general question.
	At any time during the protest, had you been given a court order injunction to move the trucks or leave or what have you, what would you have done and how would you have acted?
	I would have obviously followed the injunction.
	Never intended or came here to break the law.
	I would have asked if there was a way that we could remain, if there was anything that we could work out so that we could remain and continue our protest.
	Okay.
	And you heard yesterday the evidence from Mr. Dichter, did you not?
	I heard some of it, yes.
	Right.
	And he testified about not knowing about the deal that the...
	Convoy Corp or Freedom Corp and the board were going to enter into with the city.
	Do you have any comment about that?
	I believe he was obviously not able to attend because he was in a cast, but I believe we had dialed him in on the phone to be present at that meeting.
	Right.
	And so at that meeting, what was discussed?
	I believe that was the deal with the mayor.
	Okay.
	And what, if any, board members objected to the dealings with the mayor?
	I don't recall anybody objecting to it.
	Yeah.
	And you heard him give evidence that the board members were scared of the lawyers and what they were dealing with.
	Do you have any comment in that respect?
	That was news to me.
	Okay.
	Have any of the other board members expressed such a fear to you?
	No.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	My friend Mr. Champ discussed with you at length the injunction, when you should have known you should leave, and though I haven't given notice of this, I'd like to bring up document HRF00000073, which is the injunction order from
	February 7th.
	And if we could just scroll down to the terms.
	Right.
	And so if I can just direct you to paragraph 7 of the injunction.
	Can you read that?
	Yes, sir.
	And what's your understanding of the injunction in this order at the time when it was obtained?
	My understanding was that so long as we remained peaceful and complied with the order, we were permitted to stay.
	Right.
	And then there was a subsequent order, and I understand that term, which states that, provided the terms are complied with, the defendants or other persons remain at liberty to engage in peaceful, lawful and safe protest.
	I take it that that term was in that order, too.
	Is that correct?
	I'm sorry.
	I didn't hear all that.
	Sorry.
	I apologize.
	I'll speak up.
	The term at Term 7 there, where it says that it's provided the terms of the order are complied with the defendants and other persons remain at liberty to engage in peaceful, lawful and safe protest.
	I take it that was in the following injunction order as well.
	Is that right?
	I believe so.
	And I think that was February 16th, but I'm not sure.
	Thank you.
	And so...
	My friend with the Government of Canada discussed with you what your knowledge was of violent offences, etc., that was going on in Ottawa at the time.
	If Mr. Register could bring up the document we just discussed, poe.hrf, a whole bunch of zeros, too.
	If we could just rotate that.
	And so the coloring on this is gone, and this is already in evidence, but between the date of the beginning of the protest and the invocation of the Emergencies Act, there was a total of four violent offenses individuals were charged with in that time period.
	Did you know any of those individuals?
	I did not.
	Okay.
	Did you hear about individuals being charged with violent offences?
	Since the convoy.
	Okay.
	And my friend had asked you questions about some of the statements that have been given in this proceeding as well as in the media about all these awful things that happened to people.
	And you've been here for this entire time.
	Have you heard from any witness that they, in fact, were the victim of an assault or witnessed an assault or anything violent?
	The only thing that I've seen and heard was not violence on the behalf of protesters.
	It was the video footage that I saw when the crackdown came.
	Could you agree that if there were victims of actual violence, given that they know who's charged, it would have been relatively easy for those witnesses to be procured to testify before this commission?
	I withdraw.
	I withdraw.
	Now I just want to talk with you about the letter and some of the reactions that you got from some of the protesters.
	Of course we know that Mr. Dichter didn't appear to like the letter and Mr. King didn't appear to like the letter.
	What was your general responses that you were getting at the time with respect to the letter and the deal that was going to be done through the city?
	Well, I can't speak to other places.
	I know that we printed off that letter and I went out to 88 and spoke with the gentleman that owned the property out there.
	And some of the truckers that were there, their response was very positive.
	I think that everyone felt that, as I stated earlier, this was a step one.
	Okay.
	And again, what was the sort of responses, though, that you were getting on the street from some of the truckers after that deal was announced?
	I don't remember.
	Can you remember, was there some negative responses?
	Was there some positive responses that you personally witnessed?
	I didn't witness any negative responses, no.
	Okay.
	And I understand that Mr. Morazo, as you sat through his testimony, he stated that the purpose of the meeting and the goal of Freedom Corp and its board...
	board was not really to get a deal with the mayor, or a meeting with the mayor, but it was to get this deal to make things Can you elaborate on that?
	Can you repeat that please?
	So the actual goal with respect to Freedom Corp as well as the protesters that you were representing their actual goal was not to achieve a meeting with the mayor but it was to We were hoping to find a way that the trucks that did have to move
	their vehicles out of the city would be able to come back in and continue the protest.
	And again, we felt it was a step in the right direction and meeting with the mayor was...
	Not one of my goals, but I thought, again, it was a way to open some dialogue with somebody in a position of authority.
	Okay.
	And just on my last point here, part of this commission is about coming up with recommendations and things like that.
	I take it when you came into Ottawa and we've heard evidence that...
	A lot of the truckers were directed where to park and that's where they kind of stayed throughout the protest.
	And so there is this issue in what I refer to and what's referred to in some of the jurisprudence is a Speaker's Corner.
	Have you ever heard of that?
	I don't think so.
	Okay.
	It's a place, a location in a government area, particularly out front of Parliament or where have you, Protesters are permitted to go, and it's a designated area for protest.
	Okay.
	I take it when you were trying to get the protest moving, most of the protesters were wanting to get onto Wellington because it's in front of Parliament and they were protesting the federal government.
	Fair?
	Correct.
	All right.
	And what is your understanding of the current state of Wellington today?
	I believe it's blocked off.
	Right.
	And if that area that's blocked off became a speaker's corner, where individuals at any time could go and protest the federal government, what are your thoughts on that?
	I think that would be a good idea.
	I think Canadians have a right to exercise their democratic rights, and they have a right to have their voices heard.
	Right.
	And my friends from the government of Canada put to you a...
	A whole bunch of evidence that you weren't familiar with until you got here with respect to threats.
	Can you elaborate on any of the threats you've received, ones that you know members of the protesters received, as well as the legal counsel, and even any of the legal counsel in this room since this proceeding started?
	I heard when I was at the ARC that the ARC was receiving death threats against me, which is one of the reasons why...
	One of the reasons why I left that location.
	I have messages on my phone from an Instagram account from a young man that wanted to not just shoot me but also shoot the rest of the protesters or the convoy organizers.
	I know that my criminal lawyer has received some very nasty emails.
	I believe Mr. Wilson has received death threats and threatening emails.
	Right.
	And so it's fair to say then that there has been a lot of threats on both sides?
	That's fair.
	Okay.
	But do you know anybody who's made death threats to any of these individuals?
	Of course not.
	Okay.
	And when you walk in here every day for the past few days, there's a protester outside, and I'm sure you've heard everything she's been saying.
	And she's a counter-protester and is against your cause.
	What are the sort of things that that protester has said to you while you've been coming in and out of this hearing?
	Well, it's been very hard to hear because there's a lot of construction.
	I just hear her shouting my name a lot.
	I heard her say something, I think, just now about she can't wait till I go back to jail.
	But other than that, I haven't really...
	Did she mention anything about terrorism?
	I believe that's right on her sign.
	What's it say?
	It says go home terrorists.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Any re-examination?
	No, Mr. Commissioner.
	Okay.
	I just have one question.
	You were taken to a chart and told there were...
	Charges for violent offences?
	Yes.
	Do you know who was charged?
	Do you know the four people?
	The violent offences?
	Yeah, the four people.
	I know I don't.
	Not that I can recall anyways.
	So you don't know if it's someone you know or someone you don't know?
	I do not, sir.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you for your testimony.
	Thank you, sir.
	And you're now free to go.
	Thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay so that we move on to the next which is the I believe the panel of two witnesses and there's an issue to be discussed about the as I understand it the relevance of that.
	So maybe we'll deal with that now if that's agreeable.
	Sure thank you very much.
	So I'll remain seated here Commissioner.
	That's fine just identify yourself because It's the same.
	The reporters have to know who's speaking.
	Sure.
	It's David Mishikoski, counsel for the Ottawa Police Service.
	We have a very real concern with respect to the witness panel of Chris Deering and Maggie Dingmer.
	I believe there is now a different name, and I apologize.
	It's Hope Braun, I believe.
	Those two individuals, and our concern is essentially one of procedural fairness, those two individuals were not on the list of witnesses provided by the Commission.
	And so last Friday...
	You mean they weren't on the original list?
	Correct.
	And what we found out was on last Friday, October 28th at 12.37pm, We received an email from the Commission saying that these two individuals would be called as witnesses and attaching two statements from these individuals.
	No information had been previously provided about these individuals or about the issues that they were going to testify about, which are how their arrest was handled, nor were there any documents provided by the parties.
	Including the Ottawa Police Service about the manner of arrest.
	It appears that both of these individuals from their statements are going to give evidence about the circumstances of their arrest by unknown officers.
	I've been able to determine in one case that it was not an OPS officer, one of them, but we are trying to find out information.
	These are arrests that took place on February 18th after the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	These individuals were not arrested pursuant to the Emergencies Act.
	They were arrested based on common law powers and the criminal code.
	And my concerns really are twofold.
	Firstly, the information we say is not relevant to your mandate under the Act.
	And the second question is one of procedural fairness.
	There were over 275 arrests made by the police in that period of February 18 to the 20th.
	None of the police witnesses were asked specifically about those arrests.
	No documents were requested.
	The last police witness who testified in this proceeding was on Wednesday.
	October 26. Had those witness statements been provided prior to the completion of the police witnesses, then at the very least we could have asked our witnesses to provide evidence with respect to the arrest plan, with respect to the circumstances of the arrest of those two individuals and the other 275 people who were arrested.
	I am not faulting Commission Council.
	I understand that the statements were provided to them, and they provided them to us immediately after.
	But it was two days after the last witness testified.
	Those statements were in the hand.
	Those were witnesses who are here represented by Council.
	They had an obligation to produce documents.
	They chose deliberately or otherwise to not present that evidence and not allow me then to respond to it.
	And it's obvious that some of that information they had beforehand.
	And in fact, to add to the procedural unfairness, last night we received an email.
	I'm from counsel for the convoy organizers attaching seven more videos that also would have existed that were not disclosed.
	There's no explanation for why the convoy organizers have not had to follow the same rules as everyone else.
	Those statements, even if they were relevant, and I don't concede that they are, should have been provided.
	Prior to police witnesses testifying, it creates a serious and irreparable breach of procedural fairness to have you left with two arrests out of 275, which I am unable to provide evidence in response to, both those specific arrests as well as the arrest plan in general.
	And there are, I say, two possible solutions.
	The first is to not allow that evidence to be heard.
	It's not relevant to your mandate.
	And even if it was, it would be very difficult to draw any conclusion from the evidence of two individuals out of 275 arrests when you've heard no evidence about any of the arrests of anyone else or the arrest plans or any explanation of those two particular arrests.
	Alternatively, if you are inclined to allow that panel to testify, including adding new documents that were not on the database and were provided last night, then the OPS must, we say as a matter of procedural fairness, be allowed the opportunity to call another witness to provide evidence about the arrest plans and the exercise of use of force options in connection with the exercise of police powers.
	Generally and specifically with respect to the scene that the officers encountered on February 18th, you have not heard about what is involved when a public order unit has to exercise tactical options.
	The Commission didn't lead this evidence, nor did we.
	Similarly, we didn't provide any documents surrounding Those arrests.
	So while my first submission is that you should not allow this evidence, as an alternative, if you are inclined to do so, then I would ask for the opportunity to call evidence so that in fairness, the police witnesses can address what should have been put to them by the convoy organizers, and which for some reason was not.
	Those are my only submissions.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, thank you.
	Any other Council wish to make submissions?
	In response, sir.
	Okay, I'm just canvassing first.
	So, if you'd like, yes?
	Yes, Commissioner.
	Okay.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Emily Tamman for the...
	Can I take it you're supporting the proposal or the objection?
	That's right.
	Yes, we agree.
	Just on behalf of the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses, we share the view conveyed by the Ottawa Police.
	We understand that the Commission is working under difficult constraints and there have been limitations in Council's ability to get documents and other evidence to the parties in a timely manner.
	But in this case, we would agree that there is prejudice and that the evidence, at least as it pertains to the arrests.
	Thank you.
	Any other?
	Commissioners, Chris Diana for the OPP, can you hear me?
	Yes.
	Yes, the OPP agrees with the position of our friend Mr. Michikowski, both the main position or the alternative position.
	At this point, we don't know if the OPP was involved or not in these incidents.
	And based on procedural fairness, that evidence either should not be permitted or we should have a chance to respond to it.
	I won't add anything further to the comments by my friend, but the OVP supports that position.
	Okay.
	Any other submissions in support?
	Okay.
	And then, as I understand it, the convoy organizers are opposing.
	We're of course in support of the witnesses testifying and all of the evidence being put before the Commission.
	I'll deal first with the point of law my friend raises about relevance and materiality.
	With respect to the terms of reference under the Order of Counsel in this Commission, This commission is to look at the efforts of police and other responders prior to and after the declaration.
	So, with respect to whether or not there was police brutality or misconduct, etc., it's relevant and material within the terms of reference.
	Second, with respect to my friend's allegations of prejudice and it not being fair, with respect, they have not called a single victim or a single I don't see any eyewitness to any of these purported violent crimes that they're trying to lay at the hands of the protesters as a collective.
	I don't see how our clients being able to find some witnesses of which they had no control of and which approached them.
	I'm trying to be able to call actual evidence of actual violence that isn't just an assertion.
	And in my respectful view, it's relevant and material.
	If you find that there is some form of prejudice suffered, what my friend is essentially alleging is a violation of the rule of Brown and Dunn.
	If this was a court, that leaves the court with various remedies, and one is to permit the recalling of a witness in rebuttal.
	With respect to the rule of Brown and Dunn, I did put issues with respect to arrest, etc., directly to Chief Bell, who was in charge of the operation at the time, and acting and asking questions about what was actually done.
	We've now provided the videos of those actual arrests.
	I understand that all the police agencies don't want that to be in the public eye.
	And with respect, I would submit that the public has a right to see these videos.
	It is in the public interest.
	And any prejudice is easily repairable by permitting my friends to call a rebuttal witness if they so choose.
	Subject to any questions, sir.
	Those are my submissions.
	Okay.
	And then the other party is opposing the...
	The application.
	I'm here for the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
	We support the Freedom Convoy Organizer's position and if I could just make a few points.
	So first, the terms of reference in the Emergencies Act do require investigating and looking into the appropriateness of the measures that were used.
	Interim Chief Bell testified that using emergency powers were used to create an exclusion zone and that they relied on that authority.
	And so I would expect that these witnesses as arrestees would have evidence that would be relevant to the implementation of that authority.
	Also, to the extent that my friend made the point that these are but two arrestees of many, we did hear from two Ottawa residents who provided their experiences.
	As examples, that would then represent a broader class of individuals.
	So this would also be two arrestees providing their experiences, which would then be emblematic of others in a similar position.
	And I would just like to add on, my friend Mr. Honor from the Democracy Fund provided submissions through email.
	He's not here.
	I would just briefly read it in just to provide his perspective as well.
	The Democracy Fund submitted that the evidence of these witnesses is relevant to the Commission's mandate.
	Specifically, the Commissioner has been directed to examine issues to the extent relevant relating to the efforts of police and other responders prior to and after the declaration.
	Superintendent Robert Bernier and others testified about the mission statement contained in the OPS Operational Plan of February 13th.
	Which speaks to enforcing legislation with the, quote, utmost respect to the individual's charter of rights, end quote.
	There was evidence before the Commission that this plan evolved after the declaration of the Emergencies Act, and there was also evidence that the OPS found the powers available to them under the Emergencies Act to be useful.
	The Commission should hear evidence from these witnesses as it will speak to how police enforcement was carried out during the state of emergency from a protester perspective.
	If there are objections as to relevance as the evidence unfolds, those objections can be dealt with orally.
	If other witnesses need to be recalled, that decision can be made after the hearing of evidence from the witnesses in question.
	So that was Mr. Honour's submission, which the Justice Centre also supports.
	Thank you.
	Any other who are opposing or rather supporting the motion?
	Mr. Commissioner, at some point, Commission Council would like to provide some points of context, but if you're still canvassing, we can wait until that's done.
	Okay, you'd like to add something?
	Yes.
	If I may, Commissioner Emily Tammett again, for the record.
	I just wanted to respond to one point made by my friends regarding the absence of evidence with respect to residents of Ottawa who experienced violence in the convoy.
	And for the record, would just like to note again that...
	The Ottawa Coalition was very limited in the time that was allocated to tell the story of residents of Ottawa.
	I would also note that there are many residents who continue to fear for their safety in being identified publicly as opposing the convoy, and with that said, I don't think it's appropriate to infer from the lack of evidence on that point that It didn't happen, and I would also note in response to...
	I think that you're getting into argument now.
	We're dealing with whether or not there is relevance to the evidence that's being tendered.
	That's right, but one of the bases upon which it's being asserted that it is relevant is that there's been no evidence in relation to violence experienced by residents, and that's something that my friend put to Ms. Leach this morning, and also Mr. Miller noted it in his submission to you just now.
	Okay.
	Yes, Mr. Michikowski.
	David Michikowski from Ottawa, please.
	The one point I want to respond to that has not, with respect, been addressed by my friends and which is highly problematic, I suggest, is...
	The convoy lawyer has indicated that he put an issue with respect to an arrest to Chief Bell.
	And that is correct.
	However, he provided no information, no details, no indication of who it was, when it was.
	It came out of the air.
	And what makes that more problematic...
	Is that obviously that information was in his possession and there was no documentation provided beforehand.
	This was sprung after the police witnesses had already testified when we then got these statements.
	Had the rules been followed, that witness would have seen those statements, would have seen documents.
	We would have had the opportunity to put in documents and call evidence or asked to call evidence in response.
	The final point I note is that one of my friends indicated that several of the coalition's witnesses testified, and that is true.
	The difference is the rules were followed.
	And everybody knew before they testified what they were going to say.
	So the convoy organizers had procedural fairness, as did everybody else.
	In this case, there is a serious denial of procedural fairness, and that's what we say must be addressed.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	And Commission Council, you wanted to provide some context, and among other things, I don't know what the witnesses are going to say, so to what degree is this one of the witnesses that we saw the video about or is this something different?
	So maybe go ahead.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to cut off my friend.
	This is not the witness.
	That one...
	It was also unfair, but we were at least able to get instructions and able to deal with it in cross-examination.
	Okay, so that was a red herring then.
	Okay.
	I was worried that this was the same person.
	No, I have no objection, by the way, for you reviewing those statements so that you can understand the nature of the evidence.
	Okay.
	Commission Council?
	Thank you, Mr. Commissioner John Mather, Commission Council.
	Just two points of context.
	Again, we haven't heard the evidence yet, but Commission Council I expect that while there may be some evidence given about the arrests, that's not the focus of the evidence.
	Don't expect it to be the focus of the evidence.
	The two individuals who are being called, Commission Council understands, participated in the protests both before and after the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
	They are not individuals, again, as we anticipate, who identify themselves as organizers.
	To date, the Commission has called individuals who have identified themselves as organizers, and this is a different perspective and one that we anticipate exploring.
	The second point, Mr. Commissioner, is that there has been evidence given by police witnesses about the measured responses in terms of ending the protests in the red zone in Ottawa.
	Some of these matters have been before the Commission and prior to the day without objection.
	Thank you.
	Any further submissions by anyone?
	I'm being very generous about submission time.
	Just one more, sir, and I just want to emphasize.
	But don't repeat, though.
	I'm not going to repeat.
	I always worry when someone says I'm going to emphasize.
	I'll take it back.
	I'm going to point out that, you know, when it's with the Commission under the Inquiry Act and its provincial equivalents, It is an inquiry, and it has different rules, and it's much more liberal when it comes to the permitting of evidence.
	And though I understand my friend's argument, there is many more remedies available for a breach of the rule of Brown and Dunn if you find that it had occurred than not permitting the evidence.
	And I would submit simply that the least intrusive remedy...
	in the truth-seeking function of this commission would be to allow the evidence and on whatever terms you see just.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay, just give me a moment.
	Okay, I'm going to allow the panelists to go ahead.
	On Mr. Michkowski's first point about whether the information is relevant, I think there is certainly evidence that it may be, I haven't heard it, but it may be relevant as to the use of the Emergency Act and in particular the notices that have apparently There's lots of evidence were circulated as recently as this morning.
	So the use of the notices, the setting up of exclusive exclusion zones is squarely within the mandate.
	And therefore, I think the information may well be relevant.
	I also note that there has been evidence of police.
	As to the fact that the protest was ended in an orderly manner and quite properly, I believe Inspector Bowden talked about that.
	I believe another witness, maybe Chief Bell, talked about the fact it was ended without burning of police cars, etc.
	So the manner of ending is relevant and this may go to some degree.
	And there was also cross-examination in, I believe, of Inspector Bernier as to the arrangements that were made and the processing, how the processing was done.
	So there is evidence about how the operation, if you like, was carried out, including how the detainees were treated.
	The system arranged.
	Now, having said that, the impact and relevance diminishes to a point where it, in fact, becomes questionable as we get further along, further from the use of the Emergency Act notice, etc., because this Commission is not mandated to deal with arrests that were...
	We're not done in accordance with the appropriate police procedures and so on.
	That's a matter for civil or criminal courts if there have been issues in that regard.
	So I think it moves quite, I would say, of marginal relevance, if any, to what the Commission is doing when you talk about the actual Manner of arrest as opposed to what I've described that is more squarely in the relevance.
	So having said that, I'm not prepared to accept that this panel is not relevant.
	I expect the accent will be on what I have set out is clearly relevant and what's related to that and obviously there'll be some context.
	Context has been provided by other witnesses sometimes and while I may hear that, it may not become an issue that I have to deal with.
	Now on the second point, the procedural fairness point, I have some concern about that because obviously it is, as I've said many times and I'm going to repeat it, the public wants to get to the bottom of this.
	And that means fair to all parties.
	And I am concerned that there may be unfairness to some of the parties, in particular the police forces, whether it be the OPP or the OPS, or in fact to former Chief Slowly or anyone else.
	So fairness is front and centre in my concerns.
	After we hear this evidence, there's a need to call further evidence.
	We've said we would sit evenings and we will sit Saturdays.
	We will get the information that the public needs to know and that will lead to a fair treatment for all.
	But I guess that's my ruling.
	Now, if you want something more formal in writing, I'm happy to do it.
	But since the panel is here, Waiting and we all want to make sure we fully use our Friday.
	I thought I'd give my ruling.
	Now, if any party wants it in writing and expanded upon, I'm happy to do that.
	But I think that sets out my thinking in a general way.
	And with respect to whether we will have another panel or another witness, I think that's something we can deal with after the evidence is heard.
	With respect to the videos, I'm a bit concerned about the videos.
	I haven't seen them.
	And I would hope we're not going to get too far afield of what's relevant to the issues I need to deal with.
	And I don't mean to minimize any...
	Issues about how an arrest was carried out.
	Those are obviously significant to individuals involved, including the officers.
	But that's not central.
	In fact, is more anecdotal, I think, in terms of what this commission is dealing with.
	But it is part of the record so far, some of the evidence relating to that.
	So that's my ruling.
	Proceed with the panel, I believe, and I will expect the parties, if there are concerns about the ruling and you wish it in writing, please notify Commission Council.
	Well, it will be in writing because it'll be in the transcript, but expanded upon, I mean.
	Sir, I don't believe the witness chair and desk are set up for two witnesses right now.
	They need to get another mic as well as another chair.
	Okay, well, we'll take five minutes then to...
	to set up the panel.
	The Commission is in recess for five minutes.
	The Commission is in recess.
	you you you you you you you you you you you you you you
	you you you you you you you you you
	The other?
	Order a lot.
	Order a lot.
	The commission has reconvened.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Good morning, Mr. Deering and Ms. Hope Braun.
	My name is Stephen Armstrong, and I'm Commissioned Counsel.
	Thank you for coming today.
	I have 45 minutes to ask you some questions, and because you're a panel, I'm going to ask questions mostly one at a time, but when I have questions for you as a group...
	Oh, sorry, you have to be smart.
	I forgot about that.
	I got too eager.
	Mr. Deering?
	Yes.
	Will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
	I wish to affirm.
	For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
	Christopher Gregory Deering, C-H-R-I-S-T-O-P-H-E-R-G-R-E-G-O-R-Y-D-E-E-R-I-N-G.
	Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by you to this commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	I do.
	Ma 'am, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
	the bible please Do I stand?
	For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
	Margaret Hope Braun.
	M-A-R-G-A-R-E-T H-O-P-E B-R-A-U-N.
	Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God?
	So help me God.
	Thank you.
	So good morning again.
	As I was just explaining, because it's a panel, I'm going to ask questions, mostly one at a time.
	But when I have a question for you as a group, I'll try to make that clear, okay?
	So I understand, and this is for the panel, I understand that you both provided statements to your council.
	That's correct.
	And have you had a chance to review those statements before testifying today?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And did you want to make any corrections to those statements?
	No.
	No.
	Okay, and so in the interest of time, I'm not going to put them on the screen, but for the record, Mr. Deering's statement is produced at HRF00001598, and Ms. Hope Braun's statement is produced at HRF00001598.
	00001606.
	So, I just want to ask some questions about your background really quickly.
	So, Mr. Deering, I understand that you're a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces?
	Yes, sir.
	And you served a tour of duty in Afghanistan?
	Yes, sir.
	And I understand that you were wounded on that tour?
	I was.
	Can you briefly tell the Commissioner about that event?
	Sure.
	I joined the military quickly in 2007, finished my training very quick.
	I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008, so in less than approximately two years, I was in Afghanistan.
	Four months into my tour, my vehicle was hit by an IED, which struck my vehicle.
	Sorry, it blew my vehicle about 100 feet in the air, killing three occupants immediately.
	And leaving me seriously wounded.
	I came back to Canada and...
	Sorry.
	Lost my train of thought.
	I'm sorry.
	That's okay.
	Thank you.
	I also saw, sir, and we'll take a moment, I saw that you're wearing medals.
	Yes, sir.
	Can you just explain what the medals are?
	So, left to right.
	Left would be my Queen Jubilee medal.
	It was lost during the protests with the scuffle of the police.
	Second is my campaign star for my tour to Afghanistan and my sacrifice medal that I earned for being seriously wounded in combat.
	And I understand now that you're retired from the Canadian Armed Forces?
	Yes, sir.
	And you reside in Hanwell, New Brunswick?
	I do.
	Thank you.
	And Ms. Hope Braun, I understand that you're from Peterborough, Ontario?
	Yes.
	And you studied environmental studies at Sanford Fleming College?
	Sir Sanford Fleming.
	Sir Sanford.
	And you're a mother to two children?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	So if I can ask Mr. Deering, I understand that you travel to Ottawa to protest with the convoy.
	What made you want to come to Ottawa and protest?
	It really wasn't that I wanted to come to Ottawa.
	It's that I felt it was my duty and that I had no choice to be there.
	Seeing what was happening over the last few years, It was troubling.
	And I felt that I was there two weekends, first between February 11th and 13th, in which a bunch of veterans took down the fence that was wrongly placed around the memorial.
	And then I went home, and then within days, the emergency act was being, was looked at being enacted, and I rushed back to Ottawa to do what I could to protect the peaceful citizens of the Of the protests.
	And so when you traveled to Ottawa, what did you understand that you were there to protest?
	The mandates.
	I was there to protest the mandates.
	And why was that important to you?
	Because for the last two years, personally, as a wounded veteran, I couldn't do anything.
	I couldn't take my family to a restaurant.
	I couldn't take my kids to gymnastics.
	I couldn't grieve.
	My comrades in Nova Scotia, because I wasn't allowed to cross the border in my own vehicle by myself to a cemetery where no one was living and lay my flowers for my mental health.
	And I was denied that for two years.
	There's many more reasons.
	Again, my train of thought is lost.
	I'm sorry.
	That's okay.
	I'll ask some questions now to Ms. Hope Braun.
	I also understand that you traveled to Ottawa to protest.
	What made you want to come to Ottawa to protest?
	Yeah, it had been going on two years of mandates, and they just seemed to get more and more restrictive.
	I had tried every avenue available within our system to communicate the difficulty that I was seeing around me and experiencing.
	Our government at various levels and nothing was effective and the tone was not changing coming from the federal government.
	And I was just losing hope and really looking for options on how I could find a more peace and safety for my family.
	I felt really isolated and then seeing the convoy begin.
	I also lived out west for 10 years so I have a lot of my support network is there and I couldn't travel there and so there was a lot of people who I know personally that were Sharing stories about how it was affecting them, where they were.
	And I just felt since I'm three hours away from Ottawa, I have a duty to go as well and not just represent myself, but many Canadians who could not come and felt passionately about this.
	And so when did you come to Ottawa?
	I came the second Saturday.
	I came the third.
	And I came back that Wednesday and stayed until the end.
	And can you tell the Commissioner what your experience was with those protests?
	Well, when we first arrived, I came with a girlfriend for the Saturday.
	And it was just a lot of energy.
	All different backgrounds and cultures, different outfits and, you know, cultural outfits that I had never even seen before in Canada.
	There was lots of hugs and there was walking up.
	There was just grown men.
	Crying and giving hugs and everywhere and it was emotional and we cried.
	We had spent a long time feeling like we were really alone and not being able to go out and really not being able to even talk or share our experience in our family gatherings because we were not welcome to speak.
	openly about what we were experiencing.
	And so to be, it felt like this was our family.
	And I, I, I, I saw so many good things I could just go on for an hour on that.
	I saw lots of flags.
	I think that's good for now.
	And if I could ask Mr. Deering, building on that, what was your experience with the protest and how did it compare?
	How was it similar to or different from Miss Hope Bronze?
	My experience was that when we got to Ottawa, so on the way to Ottawa, actually when the convoy was making their way to Ottawa, we attended a few, a lot of people would stay on the bridges to show support.
	And so where we lived, we lived close to a military base and there must have been...
	Four to five thousand people on this bridge waving flags and it was amazing.
	It was just the amount of support was incredible.
	We made our way, sorry, we made our way February 11th, the first weekend, just to kind of, we wanted to see for ourselves what was going on because when we watched the news, there was one narrative and we wanted to see for ourselves because on Facebook...
	In social media, you'd see a whole completely different other story.
	So we wanted to go there for ourselves.
	So the first instance was myself and my wife.
	We went up to see what was going on.
	I participated in the fence removal.
	Again, I went home.
	The following, I think it was February 17th, I left my residence at 5 a.m. to go to the protest.
	But during the protest, there was, again, there was hugs.
	Homeless people being showered with food.
	I had read that crime was down.
	It was the most amazing experience I've had in my life.
	And I don't regret going or being there one bit.
	And I'm sorry, do you refresh my memory on the question again?
	Just asking for your experience.
	And so, sorry, did you have anything more to add or were you done?
	There's a lot more I could pack into that, but it was the true Canadian spirit that was there.
	Can I add?
	Please do, yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, the first weekend that I came, I came with my female friend and she stayed at my house the night before and we were reading the news, the global news, and they had something in there about we haven't received a police report yet on how many...
	How many additional rapes had taken place in the city since the convoy arrived?
	And that just really shook me that they would go to that extent to make just, anyway, that way.
	But when I got here, the experience was like the positive masculine experience, the way that the men were behaving.
	They were complete gentlemens.
	And, you know, I felt...
	Not unsafe whatsoever in the city.
	And when my phone died and I went back, I wasn't familiar with the streets.
	I was approached and walked to my car and just treated with such respect by the men that were here.
	And so for the panel, I understand that you both...
	You were coming to Ottawa and then going home and coming back.
	Once the Emergencies Act was invoked, why did you want to either come to Ottawa or remain in Ottawa?
	So I remember when they were voting on that and my wife and I were lying in bed and we were terrified how the vote was going because we knew or we felt That the evidence would not be able to substantiate such a call.
	I felt there was a great need for me to be there, not just as a veteran, but as a seriously wounded veteran, to be there to protect the Canadian people from what could potentially happen.
	Ms. Hobron?
	Could you repeat the question?
	So, after the Emergencies Act...
	It was invoked.
	Why did you want to come back to Ottawa or remain in Ottawa if you were already there?
	Yeah, I came to Ottawa for Valentine's Day.
	So that was the day that it was invoked, February 14th, if I'm correct.
	That day I witnessed hundreds of roses being...
	Offered to the police officers.
	There was a lot of love.
	There was a lot of trying to heal the divide that was being created between us and the police.
	And the streets of Ottawa were covered in roses that day.
	And further to that, just listening to the senators give their speeches, I felt that as they were supposed to approve it, but then it was removed before they had a chance to approve it or not.
	It sounded like there was good reason to stick to what I felt was right and stay.
	And I don't believe that if a government passes a law, it means that we have to go against what we believe is right.
	We should still, you know, we still have a right to peacefully protest and assemble.
	And if we can't do that in front of the parliament in Ottawa, I don't.
	I don't know.
	And so building on that, Ms. Hope Braun, once the Emergencies Act was invoked, what was your understanding of your ability to lawfully protest in the downtown area?
	Well, I believe that we still have a right to protest in the downtown area or anywhere.
	That we were peaceful, and as long as we remain so, we had a right to assemble.
	Yeah, I had another point to that, but you could repeat the question again.
	Well, that's okay.
	We can come back to it.
	I'll just ask Mr. Deering, what was your understanding, once the Emergencies Act was invoked, of your ability to lawfully protest in the downtown area?
	My understanding is that it was a mandate.
	In my eyes, it was an unlawful mandate.
	I'm a free citizen of this country.
	I'm a taxpayer.
	I'm a veteran.
	I'm a good person.
	and I felt I had the right to be there with my Canadian citizens to try to protect them.
	And so, Mr. Deering, I understand that on February 18th, 2022, You were in Ottawa protesting as well, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Where were you staying in Ottawa that day, at that time?
	So I drove up February 17th.
	I left my house at 5 a.m. because it takes me approximately 10 hours.
	With my back, my foot, my conditions, I have to stop every few hours.
	So I arrived in Ottawa sometime that evening.
	I parked my car.
	I remember on Bank Street.
	I walked up to the memorial to just congregate with the veterans.
	I went back to my car, and knowing me, I got lost for an hour and a half.
	I walked around the city.
	I eventually found my car, which is where I slept.
	We had came up the previous weekend, which was about $1,000 for the hotel and food, and I didn't really have the means to pay for more hotel and lodging, so I slept in my car the previous night.
	Do you recall where on Bank Street you parked?
	No, I don't.
	Is it in the downtown area?
	I believe so.
	And so when you drove in, did you pass any police checkpoints or anything like that?
	I forget.
	Okay, Ms. Hope Braun, I understand that you were in Ottawa protesting on February 19th, is that correct?
	That's correct.
	Where were you staying at the time, or how did you find yourself in Ottawa?
	I was at a hotel that was very close to Metcalfe and Queen, I believe, so I'm not sure the names.
	I was at a hotel that weekend.
	And when did you begin staying in that hotel?
	It would have been on the Thursday night before that weekend.
	17, maybe?
	Okay, and Mr. Deering, on the 18th, and I'm going to stick with you for a few questions.
	On the 18th, where was the protest that I understand you participated in?
	Do you recall where in the downtown it was?
	So I was at the memorial that day around 8 in the morning.
	I had my coffee.
	I was congregating with a few different vets.
	And then just, I'll say north or south, my navigation's lower.
	But just about 100 feet from the memorial is where the police started to line up.
	And that's when the call-out went, and all the veterans, or there was about 20 or so of us, we lined right up, we linked arms, and the consensus was that we're going to stay there and try and protect the Canadian people.
	And why did you want to do that?
	It was our duty.
	When I joined the military, I swore on an oath to protect people.
	I went to a war zone to protect those people.
	I never thought that someday I would have to do it on Canadian soil, but I did, and I will again.
	Were you told at any time or informed at any time that you couldn't be there or it was unlawful for you to be there?
	No?
	And I understand...
	That you were arrested on the 18th, is that correct?
	I was.
	Can you tell us briefly how you came to be arrested?
	Sure.
	So, I remember about 12:45 is when we lined up, we linked arms.
	12:25, sorry.
	And we had a chance before the police decided to make their push, we had about 15 minutes to kind of converse, and I had the chance to speak with four or five officers.
	I let them know who I was, why we were there, what we were doing, the fact that we were peaceful.
	I showed them the photo of my crater of my bomb just to give them some reference so that if they did arrest me, and again, I mentioned to every policeman I talked to, I said, if you arrest me, keep in mind I have a really bad back, please.
	Sorry, if you can repeat the question again.
	Sorry.
	Just asking about how you came to be arrested.
	Okay, right.
	So I had a chance to converse with the police.
	Multiple police, after I spoke with them, they would move down the lines.
	They didn't want to really have anything to do with me.
	Finally, there was one member that came up.
	He didn't know my situation as much.
	I did have a chance to refresh, to give him my reference points, my photo and my story quickly.
	But about 45 minutes into the pushing, I kind of underestimated the amount of physical toll it would take on my body after 14 years of...
	Not being able to do what I could do when I was 20. My muscles and my body was just, I had given up.
	I was finished.
	And the video would show that I succumbed.
	I gave myself to the police.
	And as the police took me down, again, he knew he kneed me in my side, kicked me in my back.
	I was laying down.
	I was in the fetal position on my back.
	He kicked me in my ankle, my foot.
	As I was laying down, I had my hands completely up.
	I'm saying, I'm very peaceful.
	I'm peaceful.
	I'm not resisting.
	I was then punched four or five times in my head.
	I had a knee on my back to keep myself down.
	I was on the ground for one and a half to two minutes.
	My hands were zip-tied.
	The officers slowly picked me up, and then we slowly proceeded to the processing line.
	We get to the processing line.
	The day was minus 20. I had no gloves on.
	At the beginning of the processing line, we were standing there and I had asked, sorry, the duration of the processing line was one and a half to two hours.
	So I was standing there in the cold for two hours.
	I asked the policeman who was on both sides of me, I said, do you mind?
	You know my conditions.
	Is it okay if I sit or kneel because I'm in chronic pain?
	It was obvious my face was flush and I cried multiple times and I don't cry ever.
	It was the worst pain I had felt since I'd been blown up.
	The fact that I couldn't sit or stand was to me cruel and unusual punishment.
	We would go 15-20 minutes without even moving.
	I also asked if I could have my medication in which I had my prescription and my medication on my person so that if I needed it, I could ask.
	I asked, and I was denied my medication to comfort my duress.
	We finished the processing line after two hours.
	Police took my, on the whiteboard, they put down my name, they took my photo.
	They then placed me in the back of the squad car.
	They read me what I was being charged with, which was mischief, public mischief.
	Sorry, I forgot another one.
	Public mischief and...
	Interference with police operations.
	Sorry, one minute.
	Take your time.
	I interviewed this gentleman at the protest.
	Public mischief and...
	It's okay, Mr. Jay.
	Your statement is in the record.
	So if I could actually move you back in time.
	What were you and your group doing?
	Just before you were arrested, what activity were you taking part in?
	So, again, we were linking arms.
	We were standing.
	We were not moving.
	We were not progressing, moving forward.
	We were telling the cops what they were doing.
	It was an unlawful order.
	We had every right to be there under our tribal rights and freedoms to peacefully protest, which we were doing.
	They had no right to do what they did.
	And at any time, either before you were arrested or after, were you given the option to go to another place in Ottawa to protest?
	No.
	This lawyer now is picking up on the questions that the judge has been asking.
	Let me know if the audio is good.
	Okay, Ms. Hope Braun, I think as we said earlier, I understand you were protesting on February 19th in Ottawa?
	Where was that protest that you participated in?
	It was all, I guess at that point, we couldn't really go past Chateau Laurier.
	So I, for the most part, spent most of the protest up on Wellington right in front of the Parliament building.
	I did walk around and see the sights a little bit.
	But that day, it was from Chateau Laurier to down Wellington.
	And then I was arrested when they had cleared Wellington and protesters were then on the side street.
	So I was on O 'Connor.
	And were you told before or any point that day or before or after your arrest that you were not allowed to be where you were?
	No, not in that effect, no.
	There was...
	No.
	The...
	Obviously, we got the sense that we weren't welcome there, but I wasn't directly told that I wasn't allowed to be there in that way, that it wasn't lawful for me to be there.
	What gave you the sense that you weren't welcome there?
	The massive amount of police.
	Armored vehicles, snipers on roofs, drones.
	It was taking over the city, it seemed.
	And the news media and Justin Trudeau's words.
	More that I wasn't welcome there.
	Not that it was not lawful for me to be there.
	I believed it was lawful for me to be there.
	And I didn't hear otherwise.
	And either before or after your arrest, were you given the opportunity or were you told about any kind of place you could go in Ottawa to peacefully protest?
	No, there was no place provided or planned for us to go.
	And not only that, but afterwards, people were still coming from across the country and places like Armpire.
	They were assembling there and the owner of that property was threatened with fines if he didn't have us disperse.
	So it wasn't even that we weren't welcome in Ottawa.
	We weren't even welcome to assemble an hour outside of Ottawa.
	So it extended beyond that red zone, in my opinion, in my experience.
	And how did you come to be arrested?
	Can you tell us about that?
	So when...
	Chris Deering is there.
	Police had effectively removed everyone from Wellington Street.
	They had all the streets with the trucks on them at this point.
	And I was on O 'Connor and I had a bit of hope that they would stop there because we were remaining peaceful as protesters.
	We were there from all over the country.
	There was a man who had the Charter of Rights, or I guess it was the Bill of Rights.
	It was a document.
	They look the same, and they both represent human rights.
	And so I took three copies of that, and there was three different police units, it seemed.
	They had different types of uniforms, so they appeared to be.
	So I spoke to each unit, and I said, You may have been able to justify this up until this point, but if you keep moving forward onto the people, because we're just the people now, that you have the trucks, you will be trampling our Charter of Rights with your boots.
	And I put it down in front of each one of them.
	And in the middle of the street, I knelt down in front of the charter and I told the police officers that if they move forward, I'm willing to not resist arrest and I won't move at that point.
	So that was my line in the sand.
	And just coming back to Mr. Deering, you had mentioned just before your arrest, you said something about an unlawful order.
	I just wanted you to clarify what were you referring to?
	What was the unlawful order?
	the order to disperse.
	I'm not sure.
	I think I must admit...
	Can you repeat the question again?
	Sorry.
	you had mentioned an unlawful order and i just wanted you to clarify what you were referring to Sorry, I'm just having a bit of a brain fog at the moment.
	So I think the context was I had asked you why you were there, and you said that you were there.
	I don't want to put words in your mouth, but...
	I understood it to be sort of in defiance of an unlawful order, or you weren't leaving because of an unlawful order.
	From what I understand, a mandate is just that.
	It's a mandate.
	It's not a law.
	We didn't vote on it.
	The people didn't want it.
	They didn't debate it.
	It pushed upon us.
	It didn't go through legislative assemblies.
	I felt it was unlawful.
	And what is the mandate?
	The mandate was the...
	It was the Emergency Act, sorry.
	And for the panel, can you just tell us what was the impact of these events?
	Chris Deering suffers from serious...
	Sorry, can you say that again?
	Was that for me?
	What was the impact of these events?
	Of the impacts of the past two years?
	He was assaulted.
	Sorry, on the events in Ottawa.
	It's not worked up.
	This is a broken man who was broken again by his country.
	Three of his comrades in battle died in...
	So for me, the impacts where I was already...
	I've always been concerned about our government.
	Overreach.
	And we have to keep an eye on our government.
	That's what our duty as people, the citizens of the country are, is to be politically active and involved and aware of what's going on.
	Over the years, I'm just increasingly starting to lose faith in the institutions.
	And what we say is we are Canadian.
	We're a democracy.
	We attract people from all over the world because this is a place where we have rights and freedoms.
	And to me, the impact was that it was evident to me in a very clear way and seen among the entire world that the Canadian government is not acting on the...
	This is my opinion, obviously.
	Not acting according to what we mandated it to.
	It's not protecting us.
	It's not upholding its...
	These are clearly not professional witnesses.
	Its job.
	It's not doing its job.
	And to me, it just broke any illusion of that.
	And at the same time, I think it's important that we see that as Canadians in the world, so that we can fix it, so that we can make it better.
	We need to kind of keep that in check.
	You know, it's the nature of...
	Being in a world and filled with people.
	You have to balance it out.
	And Mr. Dering, did you want to answer that as well?
	Can you repeat the question one last time?
	I'm wondering what the impact of your experience in Ottawa was and how it ended on you as a person.
	It's such a loaded question.
	I'm sorry.
	There's so many emotions going on in my head.
	In the last two years, it's just been...
	Constant persecution after persecution.
	And I find that when the government has a role, but when they want to get into your lives and tell you who you can see, when you can see them, and dictate everything about your life, and when they get too intrusive, the overreach for me was just, it was just too much.
	I think I just, I had to be an auto.
	It was just, it was my duty.
	I had no choice.
	Yes, Ms. Hope Brown.
	More personally, the impact for me is after speaking to a therapist, just clear signs of PTSD-like symptoms around what happened.
	And my whole life was really turned upside down from that time forward.
	It has impacted my life.
	It's a completely different life now, before and after that day.
	Okay, and I'd just like to close out with the panel.
	I'm going to ask both of you.
	Let's start with Ms. Hope Braun.
	Is there anything that I didn't ask you about that you wanted to say that we didn't get to talk about?
	I don't think so.
	I'm good.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Dearing?
	If I could, I'd like to speak directly to you, sir.
	I think I'd like to ask you, and as a veteran, I'm asking you that this never happens again.
	you have the power of a whole country behind your opinion.
	Please use it to protect the Canadian people from this kind of misbehavior.
	From this government towards its people ever again.
	Please.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Those are all my questions.
	Okay.
	We, I think it's the Ottawa Police Service is going to go first.
	I mean, one of the, when shallow breaths to the upper chest and blinking and you can see, he's under physical distress.
	That's why they have breathing techniques where you're supposed to do.
	Short breaths, long breath, exhale.
	In as much as they don't ever work.
	Short breaths.
	David Michikowski, I'm counsel for the Ottawa Police.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Dearing.
	Good afternoon, Ms. Hope Braun.
	Everybody could go into the global news.
	Mr. Deering, you were looking at a statement that you had in front of you, and that's the document that's called Canada Freedom Rights Movement Statement.
	Chris Deering?
	Okay, I don't remember that.
	Sorry.
	You have a document in front of you.
	These are just my notes.
	Sorry, they're so I can reference.
	Because of my traumatic brain injury, I need some things to reference.
	Sure.
	I just want to see what those notes are.
	Is it the same as your statement that you were referring to?
	Yes.
	It's in there, yes.
	Right.
	And so what it is, it's a document.
	We can put it up on the screen, but I think you have it in front of you.
	It's called Canada Freedom Rights Movement Statement of Chris Turing.
	Is that right?
	I'm not sure of that document, sir.
	I'm going to look, but I don't recall that.
	Sure.
	Have a look at it and tell me what it says.
	Can you repeat the title, please?
	Sure.
	It's called Canada Freedom Rights Movement Statement of Chris Dearing.
	Perhaps we can put it up on the screen so you can see.
	If you can put it on the screen, sir.
	I can't recall the number.
	Council, if it may be assistance, I believe that's HRF 401598.
	Thank you.
	If you could just put that up so that Mr. Deering could see it.
	Inconceivable why they could not have picked easy numbers to reference the exhibits.
	It makes no sense.
	Is that what you had in front of you?
	I don't have that with me, sir, but I have seen it, yes.
	So sorry, did you have something else with you?
	Notes to reference, sir.
	These are notes that you made when?
	Just recently so I can remember.
	Stupid jackass.
	Just ask to see the notes.
	Perhaps.
	Those notes can be filed at some point as well.
	Those are not notes you made at the time of these incidents, right?
	Okay, I didn't realize.
	I thought you had your statement in front of you.
	Get his notes and look for inconsistencies.
	Go ahead and try to match inconsistencies.
	Ms. Brown, I believe your statement also says at the top of it, Canada Freedom Rights Movement statement, correct?
	I don't recall the very top line, sorry.
	Perhaps we could follow Ms. Brown's statement.
	I'm sure it is, if that's what you're looking at.
	This is the hearing clerk.
	Just for the benefit of the record, that's HRF 401606.
	That's correct.
	That's your statement as well, correct?
	Yes.
	And so those statements say at the top, Canada Freedom Rights Movement statements.
	Who put that on them?
	I'm not sure.
	He's going to crack the case.
	If I can answer.
	Don't worry.
	That's questioning, cross-examination.
	Go ahead.
	You don't know.
	I would imagine it would be...
	Our lawyers?
	The lawyers that were taking our statements.
	Those would be the convoy organizer lawyer?
	I don't believe so, no.
	It wasn't any of the people at this table, was it?
	I was speaking to them on the phone, so I'm not sure.
	I couldn't see them.
	Who gave you the statement?
	Pardon?
	Who prepared this statement, typed it up, and gave it to you?
	He's going to crack the case.
	The lawyers.
	A lawyer did.
	I was contacted through the Justice Center.
	Right.
	And so one of the Justice Center's lawyers prepared this statement and sent it to you, correct?
	As does every...
	It was basically word for word.
	They asked me questions, and I gave a response, and this is exactly what I said to them on the phone.
	So, yes.
	And then they gave it to you and they typed on it, Canada Freedom Rights Movement statement of Chris Deering and of Maggie Dingman, the original one said.
	Correct?
	I'll agree with that.
	Right.
	And that's the same heading that we see on the statements of Tom Maratzo, Canada Freedom Rights Movement.
	But you don't know what that means.
	He's going to get it.
	You didn't draft your own state.
	I don't know.
	I'm not somebody who...
	I understand that words can be titles for things.
	To me, Canada Freedom Rights Movement are four words that represent what I believe I'm part of.
	So, I don't know.
	Looks like a good heading to me.
	See, what I'm trying to figure out is most of the other witnesses here were interviewed by the commission, and then we have statements that are on the Public Order Emergency Commission letterhead.
	You were not interviewed by the commission's lawyers to prepare those statements, correct?
	I don't think she's going to know for sure.
	I was interviewed by a lawyer who was here working with the commission.
	So, I don't know.
	You don't remember.
	And how about you, Mr. Deering?
	Everything in this is correct.
	I wrote everything myself.
	Again, I do forget also who assisted it with me.
	That's back to my traumatic brain injury.
	I'm sorry.
	And neither one of you have criminal charges against you, correct?
	No, that's right.
	Deering was just assaulted, arrested, hauled on, and then no charges.
	The Justice Centre.
	The Justice Centre.
	I apologize.
	And neither one of you, as I understand it, has filed a complaint with the Ottawa Police Service about your arrest.
	Oh, hold on.
	Is that true?
	Not yet.
	No.
	Not yet.
	Thanks for the idea.
	And neither one of you has contacted the Crown to say, hey, excessive force was used with me.
	I have not contacted them, no.
	Is this guy denying the abuse?
	Yeah, at this point, I've tried to contact the government so many times that I'm kind of going to, you know, it's very frustrating.
	I spent a lot of time trying to contact government agencies and have assistance and have not gotten anywhere for many years at this point.
	I don't know what the statute is.
	And complaints against the police.
	Can be filed with a government office called the Office of the Independent Police Review Directorate.
	There might be specific statutory limits or whatever.
	Neither one of you filed a complaint.
	Timeframes within which to sue.
	Typically, it's three years to sue for bodily damage.
	And the SIU, that's the Special Investigations Unit, you can investigate situations in which someone says they've been seriously injured.
	By the actions of the police.
	And so I just want to be clear, there haven't been any complaints or investigations by the SIU.
	No, not to my knowledge.
	Not to my knowledge.
	And I understand, Mr. Dearing, that you have some notes and you're going to share those notes with me, correct?
	You've already said that.
	And I understand.
	Ms. Hope Braun, you do not have any notes.
	Not here with me, no.
	And you haven't filed any notes with your lawyers or the Justice Centre lawyers?
	I provided them with a letter from my chiropractor who spoke to the state of my back afterwards.
	Also with a trauma specialist, a psychologist, filed a letter from that professional as well.
	And I believe that's all the notes that I've provided them.
	And I didn't see that trauma specialist note in the database, but perhaps I missed.
	I don't think it was submitted.
	It wasn't.
	So you did not give any documentation.
	Amends.
	I understand.
	Thanks for the idea.
	Sorry.
	You were in Ottawa on February 11th and then returned on the evening of the 17th and 18th?
	Yes, sir.
	And at that point, the Emergencies Act had been passed, correct?
	Sure.
	And there was an exclusion zone.
	You knew that, correct?
	An exclusion zone?
	And you knew what the newspapers were telling people not to go there unless you have an exemption.
	I didn't read the newspapers, sorry.
	No, the newspapers also said there were Nazi flights there.
	I didn't read the newspapers or listen to the news because they were lying constantly, sorry.
	Yep.
	And none of the sources on which you get information were telling you, don't go into that zone.
	Can you say it again, sorry?
	I'm sorry.
	Can you say that again?
	Sorry, I just...
	Yeah, none of the sources from which you get information were telling you, don't go in that zone.
	The CBC was telling you not to go there.
	Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to repeat one more time.
	I'm sorry.
	That's okay.
	Ms. Hope Braun, you presumably knew that you were told not to go into that area unless you had specific reasons to be there.
	Specific reasons?
	It's called the Charter of Rights.
	That's not what I was gathering from it, no.
	You didn't turn on the radio, you didn't read any social media, you didn't go on Facebook.
	I knew that they wanted to clear the area.
	I was aware of that, yeah.
	And you knew that the emergency act had been passed?
	It had not been passed.
	They were still debating it in the House the day that I was arrested.
	It had been invoked and not ratified.
	What day were you arrested?
	On the 19th.
	Yeah, the Emergencies Act.
	Okay, it passed.
	It had not passed.
	It passed the House of Commons.
	It passed the Senate.
	That's right.
	Okay.
	And so both of you, you were in the area.
	You did not live in the area.
	You were not on your way to an appointment, correct?
	No.
	No, I had a hotel, though, booked.
	So I was...
	And you both, I believe, fell to your knees and refused to move while the police operation was being carried out, correct?
	No, that's incorrect.
	I was pulled down and beaten.
	Sorry.
	I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
	Oh, yes, you did.
	Yes, you did.
	Sorry, I said I was pulled down.
	I was not on my knees.
	I was pulled down and beaten.
	Right.
	You were on your knees and you refused to move.
	Did you not just hear what you just said?
	I was pulled down.
	Pulled down and beaten.
	Let me say it again just in case you're listening.
	Pulled down and beaten.
	Well, you shouldn't have been there.
	That's what you get from melding off.
	And, Mr. Deering, you indicated that one of the police officers even told you to hide.
	That's correct.
	So he gave you some advice, and in spite of that, you stayed there.
	He gave you advice to hide.
	You know who else was told to hide?
	And in fact, you wanted, you believed as a veteran, you should put yourself in the way of other protesters because veterans are better able to withstand what was about to come, you said.
	They told you to hide.
	I wouldn't say better able.
	I just said we're more accustomed to it.
	Most civilians are not ready to be beaten.
	I was ready for it.
	They told you to hide, though.
	Let me just say that in an accent.
	Maybe that'll be even more horrific of a statement.
	It was me who was on the knees.
	They told you to hide.
	They told you to hide and you did not immediately go to hiding?
	You were on the road, Mr. Dearing, correct?
	At what time?
	Yes.
	I was on the road.
	What's the question?
	You were on the road when you were arrested.
	I was on the road?
	Yes.
	It's hard to say.
	It was a lot of snow, so I don't know where I was on the grass, on the road.
	And so were you, Ms. Hope Brown, weren't you?
	Everyone was on the road.
	And so you understand you're obstructing a roadway, correct?
	Oh, wow.
	You deserved it.
	That's right.
	Laugh at that buffoon.
	Ask everyone to not act out.
	The judge gets it.
	We're trying to keep this civilized.
	Keep it civilized.
	Maybe the guy shouldn't be asking idiotic questions.
	Everyone was obstructing a roadway that day.
	So everyone, all of the protesters who were arrested were obstructing a roadway, correct?
	So you got what you deserve.
	And the police were also obstructing the roadway, if you think of it like that.
	And there were also announcements made in both official languages telling people to move.
	Didn't hear that.
	I did.
	And you were there, Mr. Deering, you said 15 minutes before and you saw the police were looking violent and aggressive, you said, and so you decided to stay on that road.
	Yeah, you didn't go into hiding.
	Yeah, you didn't go hide from the violent and aggressive police.
	Should have listened to them.
	That's what your grandma gets from mouthing off.
	Oh my goodness.
	Well done, attorney.
	And you're both aware, I take it, I'm just going to finish off.
	That there is an online fundraising campaign for both of you run by a group called CAFE.
	Derek Sloan, he's actually sitting in the audience.
	You're aware of that.
	I am now.
	I am now and I will be happy to...
	And in fact, I see on that fundraising that he is fundraising for Chris Barber, Maggie Dingman, Bridget Belton, Chris Deering, Danny Bulford, and Tamara Leach.
	You know all of those people, correct?
	I've only just met them here.
	Do you see Mr. Sloan today?
	I do, yeah.
	And in order to benefit from that fundraising, I take it it's important that you tell the story that you just told, correct?
	Oh, he's imputing their integrity.
	Can you say that again?
	In order to benefit from that fundraising, it's important that you tell the story that you've just told, correct?
	How about tell their story, sir?
	I'm sorry.
	I'm not really very familiar with what you're speaking to right now.
	Everything's happening very fast.
	He's trying to undermine your integrity.
	You're doing it for the money.
	Mr. Sloan is associated with the Ontario Party.
	I understand.
	Right?
	Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	I have no further questions.
	Thank you both.
	You should have stopped a long time ago.
	Okay.
	Next are the convoy organizers.
	He's a Canadian binger.
	It's not funny.
	He's actually...
	Oh, so you're lying.
	You have to tell this story so you can get some of those funds that have been raised for you.
	This is atrocious.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner.
	Good afternoon, Chris and Maggie.
	My name is Bathsheba Vandenberg, and I'm counsel representing Freedom Corps and the protesters.
	I'd like to start by asking you, Chris, a few questions about what happened to you on that Friday, February the 18th, 2022.
	I understand that you were wearing your medals when you were arrested, is that correct?
	Yes, I was.
	He lost one of them.
	And did they get damaged when you were arrested?
	They did.
	The first 20 minutes, I had my medals in my jacket, and with the shoving with the police, at one point, one of my medals, my Queen Jubilee medal broke off, and I lost it.
	Could I call up HRF 401566?
	Has Justin Trudeau replaced that Queen Jubilee medal yet?
	Just to, perhaps, there are a lot of documents, obviously.
	David Michikowski, sorry, for the Ottawa Police.
	Perhaps before my friend introduces one of the documents, she could just confirm whether it was something that was uploaded last night for the first time.
	Uploaded last night for the first time?
	The horror, Michikowski.
	...that were not on the system.
	So if we could just indicate for the record whether...
	That is one of those documents.
	I'm going to go walk a dog just so I can come back.
	Specific objection to that.
	Okay, give him the late disclosure.
	Did he find it or did it get replaced?
	Because I remember when I interviewed him, people were looking.
	Make sure you tell us beforehand what it is we're going to, just so we can, if there are problems, we can...
	Let me know, John, did he find it?
	Yes, Mr. Commissioner, I can confirm to my friend that I'm going to refer to a video that was presented in the document list by the Commission.
	And it is a video of the arrest of Chris Deary.
	Since Monday afternoon.
	Just so that we're clear, that would be what was produced in the last couple days, correct?
	No, it was produced a while ago, my friend.
	And it was produced as part of the list by the commission.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	We'll address that later.
	Thank you.
	Adjust it.
	Adjust it now.
	Cognitive dissonance.
	Let's just click the numbers again for this video or HRF.
	Okay, you got it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Can we not?
	we can't see the video.
	We can pause the video.
	Thank you.
	I remember seeing...
	Chris, can you confirm that that is you that's being thrown?
	Yes, it is.
	I'm not sure about that question.
	Let's be a little careful with how we do that, please.
	Can you confirm that's you, Chris?
	Excuse me?
	Can you confirm that is you in the video?
	It is me.
	Thank you.
	Now I'd like to ask you, Maggie, a few questions about what happened to you on Saturday, February the 19th, 2022.
	I'll be back in a few minutes.
	And I'd like to bring up a document.
	This is a video that I...
	It's a photo of when Maggie was kneeling in front of the police.
	David Mitsukoski for the Ottawa Police.
	For the reasons I've already articulated, that should not be allowed.
	These are things that should have been disclosed long ago, and we've had no explanation.
	I get it sometimes things come up at the last minute, but we've had no explanation.
	For why this was not disclosed.
	Okay, well, let's see what the...
	If it's just a photo of Ms. O 'Braun kneeling, is that all it is?
	That's all it is, Mr. Commissioner.
	Okay, I'm not sure what the prejudice would be, but let's go ahead.
	And the number for that photo is HRF.
	00001612.
	Just confirming to the right in the green jacket that you kneeling?
	Yes, and the charter is in front of me, and there are several people also kneeling and praying.
	Thank you.
	Or doing however they're...
	Okay.
	Now, I'd like to call up a video, and this is a video of the arrest of Maggie, and she spoke about it, and I think it is important, Mr. Commissioner, that everyone here sees it.
	It's simply a video of what she already described and put into evidence.
	David Michikowski for the Ottawa Police.
	I understand that is one of the videos that was disclosed last night as well.
	That's correct.
	And it's also a video that was available to the public at large via the newspapers.
	And can you, for the record, explain why it is these things weren't disclosed till last night?
	Sir, if I may pop in.
	Unlike some of the institutional...
	Individuals and representations here.
	We, of course, have no control over witnesses.
	They approach us.
	We get put in contact with them.
	We get the evidence when we get the evidence, and we put it before you as quickly as possible.
	These witnesses have no connection to us as a party.
	They were folks that were heard about and were asked to put in contact with.
	This is how that works, sir.
	It just unfortunately didn't happen until I believe we even got here in Ottawa, sir.
	I'm sorry.
	Maybe I missed it.
	Are you saying you didn't get this video till yesterday?
	I understand that there was essentially...
	Well, maybe Ms. Vandenberg can explain the background, but at the end of the day, I think we provided it as soon as we could.
	We didn't have reference to it per se.
	I'll let Ms. Vandenberg speak to it.
	Yes, Ms. Commissioner, that's correct, as I did only have notice of it yesterday, and I try my very best to share it with everyone as soon as possible.
	Okay, well, let's have a look at it and see where we go.
	Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
	The numbers for this video are HRF401614.
	And Mr. Clerk, I'm going to ask you to pause at two seconds.
	So to play the video and then pause at two seconds.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Maggie, can you confirm that that is you in the green jacket and the blue cheek?
	It's me.
	Thank you.
	Do you agree that the meaning, because I'm going to go into, we're going to actually just, let's continue playing the video.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Do you agree that that appears to be a snatch and grab method, snatch and grab meaning snatching and grabbing?
	Firstly, this is a little bit leading, which I don't think you're entitled to do.
	Number two, I'm not sure this is a witness who can talk about police tactics and I think now you're getting into something that's a bit unfair.
	So, I mean...
	You don't have much time.
	In fact, you have one minute left, so you might want to use it more appropriately.
	I would like to call up another video, unless I'm going to get adjusted to and lose another minute of my time.
	It's a video of Maggie being arrested.
	I'm not sure this is really very relevant to what I have to decide, how the arrests were actually carried out and where there were no complaints.
	Now, if that's how you want to use your last minute, I'm prepared to have a look at it.
	I did want to ask a question for the both of you, just to confirm that after you were arrested, that you were driven Outside the Ottawa City Corps and told by the police that you...
	Again, that's pretty leading for a phase you're not supposed to be leading your witness.
	Were you driven outside of the...
	That's...
	Sorry.
	If you want to ask the way to ask, I'm happy to assist you to ask, how did it...
	How was it that...
	What proceeded after you were arrested?
	Where were you taken?
	Chris, can you tell us what proceeded after you were arrested?
	I believe last time we spoke, so when the processing line was finished, after the two hours of staying in the freezing cold, not able to sit or kneel and deny my medication again, I was then, I had my information taken.
	I was then placed in the back of the squad car.
	They read me what I was being charged with, which was public obstruction and mischief.
	So I said I understood.
	The police officer then left his vehicle for five minutes.
	He came back and he said, well, today's your lucky day.
	You're not being charged.
	I said, that's great.
	He said, can I know why that changed?
	He said, no, you don't need to know that.
	So at that time, I felt it was my understanding that I'm free to go because I'm not being charged with anything.
	The next 5-10 minutes, they put me in a paddy wagon with no direction.
	They didn't say anything.
	They said, go in here.
	So again, I mean, I had no choice.
	I go into the paddy wagon.
	I'm there for 25 minutes.
	I don't know where I'm going.
	Don't know how long I'm there.
	Eventually, the paddy wagon does fill up over the next couple of hours.
	Then they drive us around for approximately half an hour to 45 minutes.
	It's very hard to tell because there's no windows, of course, in the paddy wagon.
	There's no concept of time.
	They then drove us to a public works building that was 10.2 kilometers away from Parliament Hill.
	When they let us out of the paddy wagons, they gave us our possessions back.
	They gave us no paperwork.
	The police officer came out and he stirred a warning and said, "You don't come back to Ottawa or you'll be charged." They gave us all our possessions back.
	Most of us, due to the cold, our cell phones had died.
	No one had any money.
	No one had any masks.
	We couldn't go into the building to make a phone call.
	So we were strained.
	So we were forced to walk to a Wendy's that was, and I forget the approximate distance.
	So we had to walk from the public works building in the snow, in the freezing cold, to a Wendy's.
	I had called a friend that I had just met prior the night on the 17th.
	I met someone for five minutes.
	And he said, if you need anything in Ottawa, and this is the type of people you met in Ottawa.
	I met him for two minutes, five minutes, and he said, if you need anything, you call me and I'll pick you up right away and whatever.
	And he did exactly that.
	I picked him up.
	I called him at Wendy's.
	I said, can you please pick us up?
	We have no money.
	We have no means.
	We don't know where we are.
	We're not from Ottawa.
	It was just...
	I never thought that I would get dumped out of the sea like trash by the police.
	It was...
	And Mr. Commissioner...
	Way over your time.
	Thank you.
	I was just going to ask you the same thing that happened to Maggie, just to confirm.
	I'll be very brief.
	So when, after I was behind the police line, it's all in my statement, that's there, but I was thrown to the ground and there was a lot of weaponry around and I looked up and there was a gun pointed.
	It appeared to be at my head.
	And from there, I was taken outside the city and dropped off.
	And again, I was at a towing place where they were towing the trucks and there was no shelter.
	There was no place to plug in your phone.
	There was nothing.
	And thankfully, people came and got us.
	So, yeah.
	Thank you.
	Ottawa Resonance Coalition.
	Good afternoon, Commissioner.
	Good afternoon.
	My name is Emily Tamman.
	I represent the Coalition of Ottawa Residents and Businesses.
	And you've both described to us and we've heard from other Convoy participants that Your experience in Ottawa was generally a positive one?
	It was.
	And that you found it to be a peaceful and loving atmosphere when you attended the convoy?
	It was amazing.
	It was the Canadian spirit.
	It was.
	And even between us and the police up until those last days, it was a wonderful experience.
	I'm going to ask that a video be pulled up.
	It's COA50135.
	And just before we start it, this is a video, a compilation of images that were submitted to the Commission before these proceedings commenced.
	And for the purposes of the record, the video was accompanied by an affidavit with the number AFF702 explaining the origins of each part of the video and where it came from.
	But generally speaking, I can tell you these are videos that were taken by people in Ottawa.
	During the convoy occupation.
	So if we could play that video and then I would just ask you to reflect on whether it accurately represents what you witnessed while in Ottawa.
	Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?
	There's no honking that I can hear.
	I don't hear any honking.
	Now I hear honking.
	This is on Wellington.
	Oh, that's the Dance Dance Revolution, I think.
	Yeah, right behind us.
	you see here Okay, so the Dance Dance Revolution was right there, at that interst...
	...and the Dance Revolution was right there.
	Oh, the horror.
	They put a comedian...
	I never saw a confet.
	We've come here to help get rid of people like you from your tyrannical shit.
	You're a bully and you're so pathetic in life.
	What are you going to do?
	What are you going to do?
	You are so pathetic in life that you have nothing better to do than to enforce mass shit.
	You know that?
	Declare the emergencies.
	Invoke the emergency.
	Exactly.
	And that's, it's sick.
	It's disgusting.
	So now we're gonna hear that, it has decided, and they are clearing.
	You will answer to God.
	Yes, you will.
	And he will send you straight to the bottom of the door.
	Invoke the Emergencies Act.
	Well, this guy surely must be deaf right now.
	I mean, if in the apartment buildings from 4th down...
	I met that guy multiple times during the protest.
	I met that guy multiple times during the protest.
	Yep, they must all be deaf now, because...
	Ooh, that was a bronco.
	So this is the intersection.
	The byword market or whatever it's called is down.
	Can you imagine, like, there's got to be governments across the world looking at this and saying...
	You brought in the military for this?
	We will not be held hostage in our own city.
	That looks like a counter-protester.
	Very, very comfortable protesting this crowd.
	No fear of violence, no fear of harassment from that individual.
	Who took this video?
	This video looks like it was taken from that fancy hotel.
	If I'm not geographically mistaken.
	Thank you.
	Can you imagine?
	This is their best evidence to invoke the Emergencies Act.
	Oh my god!
	Bring in the military!
	Thank you very much.
	Bring in the military.
	Unlicensed detonation of fireworks?
	This is the downtown core, by the way.
	That might be a residential building.
	Good morning, 19. This is David Alderton.
	It is now 8.01, and we just officially let the cabinet ministers and all the people of Ottawa sleep in.
	Are we going to have that?
	Jesus, it's almost like they're abiding by a time frame within which not to honk.
	8:01 in the morning.
	This man, I hope they froze his bank account.
	I hope they destroy this man's life.
	Tracking, tracking, keeping moving.
	Tracking this thing?
	That looks like Ecclington, if I'm not mistaken, but I might be mistaken.
	Traffic's moving pretty freely, these people.
	This is their best evidence.
	Middle of the day, traffic's moving relatively freely, people honking their horns.
	Not air horns, these are truck and car horns.
	This is their best evidence.
	This is their best evidence.
	And notice now, by the way, you're several blocks down.
	Notice how you don't hear the honking.
	Because that's what I was surprised about.
	Where was this?
	Oh my goodness, was that the F-ord?
	Okay.
	Do we hear honking at night?
	Daytime?
	Nighttime?
	Do we hear honking here?
	They built a structure.
	I remember that.
	That was an outrage.
	They were building canisters of propane?
	They were building a structure in the park.
	Confederation Park.
	I don't understand what just happened there.
	The End I'd like a date on that.
	8.05.
	A day and a date.
	Because the first week, nobody's going to deny there was harmful.
	First few days, certainly.
	This is one of the peaceful residents.
	It's just having a little reprisal.
	Is this one of the plaintiffs of the class action?
	By the way, do we hear honking?
	I can hear them talking.
	I don't hear a horn.
	Remember, these people haven't been able to sleep for 10 days.
	Okay?
	It's kind of funny.
	I'm not going to lie.
	I'm not going to lie.
	It's pretty hilarious.
	This is right in front of Parliament.
	This is where they have...
	That's the crane.
	That's the crane that they were talking about.
	It was like a threatening crane right in front of the windows of Parliament.
	This is not a very residential spot.
	Oh, the hot tubs!
	They've got the hot tubs.
	Oh, my.
	The horror.
	Bring in the army.
	Bring in the snipers, the drones, the armored vehicles.
	I saw people in a hot tub.
	Bear in mind, this is their moment to present the evidence.
	Do you see any residential units around in the Trikumri?
	What is that building behind there?
	Almost out of time.
	They've used their time well.
	Okay, well, I guess we'll leave it there.
	Can I just ask each of the witnesses one question, please, Commissioner?
	No, you still have a minute or two.
	Yeah, no, I understand that.
	It's been difficult to find an appropriate time to put this video into evidence by virtue of the limitations on cross-examination.
	So, yeah, if we could just...
	Finish it and I would just have one question for them.
	Let's hear it.
	Is that your experience of what happened at the protest?
	How long?
	Her time must be.
	No dates.
	Yeah, we got it.
	It was loud.
	98. Maybe don't stand in front of the truck at the heart of the protest on Wellington.
	That's the Dance Dance Revolution section, right?
	Where Wellington, not Wellington, where it went down and then it went into that overpass section where I would ordinarily not walk because I would not feel safe enough.
	What are we looking at here?
	Yeah, okay, that's a video.
	Oh my gosh, jerrycans.
	No horn honking, by the way.
	That day looks a little warm, so they might not have been running their engines.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Oh, that's Catherine McKinney.
	No, no, no, let's hear this.
	Let's hear that.
	Why'd they stop there?
	As a mother of two young children, if a spectacle like this was unfolding in your community, in your neighbourhood, in your front lawn, would you feel safe and peaceful?
	Yes, I would.
	I did feel safe.
	Given the events of the last couple of years and the actions of our government, I felt very safe there.
	I didn't ask you, though, if you felt safe there.
	If this was happening in your neighbourhood, in front of your house, and you were not a part of this action, would you feel that it was safe and peaceful?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Again, I'm just going to say, given the context of the last couple of years and the actions of our government, I would be there with that.
	Yes, if it happened outside of my door and I had people and I hosted people afterwards.
	While your children were trying to sleep?
	That would be okay with you?
	Well, you just changed the question.
	Would it be an inconvenience?
	Absolutely.
	I won't deny the fact that there was a lot of energy being brought to Ottawa.
	But I asked if it would be okay with you.
	Well, you said safe and peaceful, not okay.
	Okay?
	It would be okay with me.
	Mr. Deering, if that was happening in your community, in your front lawn, would that be okay with you?
	I was blown up in a vehicle.
	In Afghanistan, man.
	This man was blown up in a vehicle.
	I think he could deal with a little bit of honking in his neighborhood.
	Stupid question.
	Imagine asking a war veteran who's...
	My questions have already been asked and answered, so I have nothing further.
	She's asking a war veteran who's three of his brother and sisters-in-arms died in a war.
	And she's asking if he would be upset by honking outside his house to protest rights.
	Okay, a democracy fund, JCCF.
	There were some streets where they were parked on the residential side when it went down from Wellington.
	I didn't hear them honking.
	I wasn't there for the first two nights documenting, but there was a lot of noise for a few days.
	Hi, Mr. Deering and Ms. Braun.
	I'm Rob Kittredge, counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
	Mr. Deering, I think counsel for the Ottawa Police Service asked you a question about whether you saw news reports telling you not to come to the protest area after the Emergencies Act was invoked.
	You replied that you weren't watching the news around that time because the media had been lying about the protests.
	Do you remember that question?
	Yes, I do.
	But you saw news reports about the protests before that time, didn't you?
	I may have.
	It may preclude some of my questions, but did you see news reports that lied about or misrepresented the protests?
	Oh, yeah.
	Did media reports suggest that the protesters were aggressive?
	They did.
	Racist?
	They did.
	Violent?
	Yes.
	While you were at the protests, did you see any aggression or violent behavior from protesters?
	None whatsoever.
	From protesters and police, sorry.
	From the protesters?
	Oh, no, not from the protesters, no.
	From the police?
	Oh, yeah.
	Did you see any racist behavior while you were at the protests?
	Absolutely not.
	No, it was a diverse culture.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Braun, some media reports and our Prime Minister have suggested that unvaccinated people are often racist and or misogynist.
	Could you tell me whether you saw any racism or misogyny from unvaccinated people or anybody else while at the protests in Ottawa?
	Absolutely not.
	There was a lot of healing with that coming together for freedom from all over the world.
	I interviewed.
	And things were a little bit rushed at the end of your conversation with counsel for the convoy organizers, but you mentioned in passing that during your arrest, a gun was pointed at your head.
	Can you tell me a little more about that?
	That's right.
	So from the video, you saw that I was kneeling down.
	I had told the officers that I was willing to be arrested and that I would not resist.
	And at that point, they...
	I ended up on the ground with my hands in front of me, and a very heavy knee went into my back, and there were several officers on me, and because I caught my fall with my hands, and they wanted my hands behind my back, they kept saying, put your hands behind your back, but I couldn't because of the weight, and it took some time, at least a minute, at which point I thought, okay, I'm going to dare look up, and I looked up, and there was a gun right up my head, a long rifle gun.
	Which end of the gun was pointed at your head?
	Not the butt.
	It looks like it was the barrel of the gun.
	And who was pointing it at your head?
	It was one of the officers.
	And I remember it was a more beige kind of camo.
	All right.
	Well, thank you very much.
	Those are my questions.
	Thank you.
	Those are good questions.
	Okay.
	Before I go to Commission Council, Ms. Bathsheba of Vandenberg.
	Normally, the convoy would be last because you're the ones who, they're your witnesses, which is why you can't cross-examine.
	I was going to get to this in a second.
	Normally, you've gone last.
	So since I took you or you were taken out of order, I'll give you a little more time if you would like to wrap up.
	Yeah, when he said you can't ask leading questions and everyone was saying, well, they're in cross because it's the commission's witnesses, I think these are technically the convoy's witnesses, so you can't ask the leading questions that she was asking.
	The way the guy that we just saw asked the question.
	It's okay, I'll just wrap up for Ms. Vandenberg.
	That's fine.
	Okay, hello?
	Hello.
	Okay, and so I just want to ask you a couple of questions about some of your other observations.
	Short wrap-up.
	Yeah, so you saw the videos that my friend put up on there.
	Yes.
	All right, and she asked you some questions about your opinions on them.
	Other than those incidents, and first it wasn't asked, did you observe those events that were in those videos?
	Some of them, but not the majority of them.
	There's a lot of streets that I didn't see.
	Right.
	And two of the photos in there, one had a Confederate battle flag, the other had a Nazi flag.
	Did you see any such flags while you were in Ottawa?
	Absolutely not.
	No, never.
	No.
	Neither did I. I only documented six hours a day.
	What if any conversations did you have with other protesters that you might classify as racist or misogynist or any form of things that you thought were inappropriate?
	Did you have any such conversations, either of you?
	Never.
	It was full of love, unity, joy.
	It was the best time after the last two years that we had had.
	It was incredible.
	Did any of them call for the overthrowing of the government of Canada by violence?
	No.
	Did any of them ever call for violence at all?
	No.
	Did you see anything with respect to destruction of property?
	I didn't, and I asked.
	I ask the cops.
	And it's on video.
	Yes, we would have seen it.
	Thank you for your testimony.
	Now they're going to break for lunch, for sure.
	We're going to be able to take the lunch break for an hour, and we'll come back with our next witness.
	Is it...
	Come back at 2.10.
	The commission is in resource for one hour.
	Oh, no.
	That was interesting.
	Okay, let's remove this.
	Good afternoon, everybody.
	Don't know if everybody caught Dave Rubin.
	I was on with Michael Malice, Ron Coleman, and we had a few good laughs.
	Let me see here.
	Viva has already testified.
	No, I have not.
	Oh, no, I have not testified.
	We'll see if it happens.
	But my video footage is out there.
	Public, in the public, for all of them to see.
	They're asking questions to which we all...
	Anybody who watched it in real time knows the answers.
	It is just...
	It's not disingenuous.
	It's dishonest propaganda for them to say there were Nazi flags and Confederate flags.
	And the reason...
	I think we've talked about it a couple times, but the whole issue of the Nazi flag, there's an alternative explanation to why that would have been or might have been there in the first place.
	One explanation is that the person was trying to show that the Canadian government was acting like the Nazi regime.
	And then people said, bad messaging, take it away, put it away, and we don't want to see that again.
	The Confederate flag, oh, but just so happened that there was a photographer within, you know, right there, right then to snap the perfect picture and it disappeared and never reappeared again.
	Same deal with the Confederate flag.
	Appeared once, disappeared, and then it never reappeared.
	And to say that that defined anything of the protest in and of itself actually only defines the CBC and the absolute government propaganda that was trying to use those two singular incidents that did not repeat to characterize and define the entire protest.
	I was there.
	I was documenting.
	I asked the cops if they'd seen any violence.
	They all said no.
	If they'd seen any bad incidents, they all said no.
	I said, any vandalism?
	Destruction of property?
	One cop actually said, yeah, there's a broken window.
	Someone broke a window over there.
	And I was like, oh, where?
	Thinking like, oh, finally got an answer.
	And then he said, yeah, but it had nothing to do with the protest.
	Let's go to Rumble and see what's going on in the Rumble chat.
	So they're going to be on break for an hour.
	We're going to talk about some other stuff, and I'm going to thank my sponsors sooner than later.
	Let's see here what we got.
	Confederate flag would be USA politics, if any, says bark loudly.
	That's what didn't make any sense.
	Who's bringing a Confederate flag to the Canadian protests, knowing where they went with the arguments that this was a right-wing, alt-right, U.S.-funded foreign influence?
	Well, now you can sort of understand whoever had that dumb idea, like, huh.
	The narrative is going to be that this is a right-wing, American-funded foreign influence, so let's throw a Confederate flag in there.
	It'll make sense in the long play.
	Absolute preposterousness.
	They will never call Viva or Ottawa.
	I'm not asking the government to call me.
	I'm putting it out there that...
	I will testify.
	Viva, can the witness be combative, a.k.a.
	asking for affidavits and saying stuff that would harm the credibility of the treason of the government?
	This is what I'm going to say, Ekero.
	The witnesses can be combative, but they're just better off being good witnesses.
	The treason argument, you'll recall yesterday when we got into treason, and I know a lot of people like using the term, a lot of people feel that it's the case.
	When a witness starts getting into treason, talk about Justin Trudeau being treasonous.
	Treasonous is actually different than having committed the crime of treason.
	The fastest way to lose credibility is to start seriously making accusations of actual crime of treason.
	Because I know we feel that it's treasonous, but under the law, it's going to be one heck of a stretch.
	To argue treason.
	And I think most people in doing it actually just do more harm to their credibility than good.
	Let me just see something here.
	I want to pull up the definition of treason because people use the term but then actually don't know what the term means.
	And I got to tell you this.
	In my 13...
	I mean, technically, I've been a lawyer now for, holy, crab apples.
	How many years?
	I was sworn in in 2007.
	13 years of an active practice.
	I've never dealt with treason.
	Treason, Canada, law.
	And the other reason why people don't like it?
	Okay, so let me see here.
	Treason.
	I'll pull it up so that we can see it.
	Let's see here.
	I'm using a different computer today.
	StreamYard.
	Share screen.
	Chrome tab.
	Criminal code.
	Here we go.
	Okay, we're seeing it.
	Oh, look at this.
	I can see on another computer that it's at...
	Dude, I might have upped my live streaming game twofold by having a second computer now.
	Everyone commits high treason who, in Canada, kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, so that's obviously not applicable, or does her any bodily harm.
	Tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her or imprisons or restrains her, levies war against Canada, or does any act preparatory thereto?
	That's where some people are going to say if Justin Trudeau's been penetrated by the WEF and he's waging war against Canada, it's treason.
	Arguments to be avoided.
	Assists an enemy at war with Canada.
	There's no war with Canada right now, even if people say we're at war with COVID, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in hostilities.
	Okay.
	Let's see here.
	Let's go down a little more.
	Everyone commits treason who, in Canada, uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the Canadian, the government of Canada, or a province, without lawful authority communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada.
	Military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, etc., etc., that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for the purpose prejudicial to the safety or defense of Canada.
	I can see people making this argument.
	Conspires with any person to commit high treason or do anything mentioned in paragraph A. I can see the argument.
	I just say it's best to avoid it because it doesn't make for credibility building positions.
	And it actually just will instinctively discredit the individual saying Justin Trudeau is treasonous.
	What's the penalty?
	Because I think the issue also is people know what the penalty is.
	Thank you.
	And I think that's what most people tend to find.
	Imprisonment for life.
	Criminal Code.
	Yeah, so we don't have the same punishment in Canada that other countries have.
	So that's, some people may not like it.
	I don't like the treason argument.
	I don't like it against Joe Biden.
	I can understand how people make the argument, but it doesn't, it will immediately discredit people.
	And James Botter, yesterday, I think...
	Read the CSIS Act, Viva.
	Not right now.
	I'm going to have to do that.
	I'll do that later.
	But I understand the arguments, but I'm telling you, as far as the witness goes, James Botter started losing, I think, some sympathy of the court and some credibility, even in the eyes of people who might have thought he started off strong.
	Okay.
	Now hold on one second.
	Let's go back to the Rumbles and see what's going on there.
	Traitor, one who betrays another trust or is false to an obligation or duty.
	That is GGFD on Rumble.
	Anyway, so that's it.
	It'll continue.
	I think Jeremy McKenzie is going to be the interesting witness to watch today.
	I didn't miss McKenzie.
	I did not miss McKenzie.
	He's going to be interesting to watch.
	He's going to be testifying, I presume, remotely.
	But that's not what we want to talk about today.
	At some point in time, I'm at that point in time, it is not immoral.
	To not connect the dots.
	It's shocking.
	And there's another story that I wasn't aware of.
	I saw a montage talking about all of...
	Talking about all of the...
	Died suddenly.
	All of the died suddenlies.
	And I saw one that I said, holy cows.
	I had not seen that.
	It looked like something I...
	I don't want to make a mistake by retweeting it.
	So I had to go find the actual story.
	And it's an actual story.
	And it's going to break your heart.
	It's going to make your stomach hurt.
	And it's going to say, at what point is enough enough?
	And at what point are people who don't want to ask the questions going to start asking the questions?
	Computer's a little slow here.
	Okay, I think it's here.
	We see this, we do.
	Western Journal.
	I had to go look up the Western Journal.
	I had to go look up the Western Journal to make sure it was a legitimate journal.
	It's bias rating is conservative to the right.
	Accuracy rating is decent.
	But it's a legitimate journal.
	If this is factually incorrect or if there's actual misinformation or disinformation, we can only do the best we can do from our living rooms.
	But I would not mind talking to the family.
	I would love it.
	I love it.
	I mean, it's such a horrible, heart-wrenching story.
	But it looks like the family is getting vocal.
	This is the story.
	Nursing student reported dead one day after COVID shot.
	Family says, we all know who's behind this.
	We're going to live in a world where people are going to say, that could have been anything.
	When something...
	Out of the ordinary happens.
	The first thing that people tend to do when they have intellectual honesty and actual pursuit for truth on their minds, well, what changed?
	What was out of the ordinary in the last little while?
	The family of a 20-year-old nursing student who died suddenly last week.
	I mean, you put in the words, it's become the most tragic meme on the internet.
	Died suddenly.
	Put it in Google.
	See what happens.
	Is blaming COVID-19 vaccination mandates for the loss of their loved one.
	Reagan Lewis of Grinnell, Kansas.
	Grinnell.
	Died September 27, one day after her mother said she had received a COVID shot that was required for her medical training.
	So, it's conceivable that the mother is not telling the truth.
	It's conceivable that someone might be confused.
	It's conceivable...
	Maybe it wasn't a...
	Maybe it wasn't the COVID shot.
	It's conceivable that, as a matter of fact, this is incorrect, but more likely than not, the mother knows what her daughter did the day before she died, suddenly.
	Gets the shot so she can continue doing her medical training, dies the next day, and we're supposed to sit here and say, either, I don't know what happened, I can't correlate that, or...
	That's just the price we have to pay to get back to normal as a society.
	She died at Kearney Regional Medical Center in Nebraska, according to obituary information from Bauman Mortuary.
	Her mother, Connie Worth Lewis, had put out a Facebook plea for prayers earlier that day.
	I can't say for sure that there is a link, but our beautiful 20-year-old healthy daughter, Reagan Lewis, had a COVID shot yesterday so she could participate in her clinicals, Connie Lewis posted.
	Today, she went into cardiac arrest and has been flown to Kearney.
	She's on a ventilator and fighting for her life.
	Please pray for her.
	It is.
	She died the same day.
	Later, Lewis' Facebook post was edited to replace the words COVID shot with the more cryptic term jab.
	I don't know what's cryptic about that.
	Facebook had added a message at the bottom of her post with a link to visit the COVID-19 Information Center for Vaccine Resources.
	Can you imagine that?
	Can you imagine Facebook is overlaying, whatever you want to call this, is inserting in a Facebook post that a mother put up of her daughter who just died the day after, according to the mother, having gotten the COVID shot, and Facebook to add insults to your injury.
	Puts on a visit to COVID-19 Information Center for Vaccine Resources.
	The mother is trying to potentially, in her mind, raise awareness of a problem that seems to be widely recognized as a real problem so that this does not happen to other young, healthy children, young adults.
	And Facebook, seemingly, you know, we know now acting at the behest of government, slaps on an ad and say, hey, we're sorry for your loss.
	Everybody else who wants to go get the jibby jab, here's your resources.
	Here's the information.
	Okay, her medical history was not known.
	And here's where the intellectual dishonesty is going to come into play.
	Reagan Lewis's health history, which could have been a factor in what led to her going into cardiac arrest, is unknown.
	Here's the other thing, where people are going to be saying, well, she had an underlying condition, and that's it.
	That's what caused it.
	If it is known, or if it becomes demonstrable, or if it becomes statistically...
	If there's a statistical anomaly of people's underlying conditions that they may or may not be aware of being triggered by the jibby jab, all right.
	If someone's got an underlying heart condition...
	The fact that an external factor triggers an event of that underlying problem, that's also still a bit of a problem.
	I mean, that's also a bit of a problem, and that's one of the issues at play here.
	Her mother did not respond to an request for additional information.
	Connie Lewis showed up a follow-up comment on YouTube tribute to her daughter.
	This is the tragedy of how people have to...
	internalize, rationalize, inexplicable tragedy.
	It's unacceptable.
	All right.
	If the jab causes complications with potential conditions a person may not be aware of, isn't that a damn good argument against mandates?
	the risk being too great.
	Thank you.
	Anyhow, it's enraging.
	On a lighter note, what's everyone else up to today?
	Oh my goodness.
	Okay, let me go to my Twitter feed.
	Now that I am back into my Twitter feed, which is allowing me to keep track of my thoughts, of the newsworthy events that I can then subsequently discuss.
	Elon Musk is apparently a bloody Friday at Twitter.
	Apparently he's locking people out as people are being removed from the company, terminated from the company.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let's get another story up here.
	Yeah, hold on.
	I can do it like this now.
	It's depressing.
	Okay, let's see here.
	Let me pull this out.
	Stop screen.
	The problem is that if you censor folks for things that later turned out to be true, Chinese lab origin of virus, jabs, credibility falls into the toilet.
	Theophrastus, it's even worse than that.
	If they censored things that turned out to be true and as a result of their censorship, additional people suffered nefarious consequences that they would have not otherwise suffered.
	I would feel comfortable building something of a civil case there.
	You got unlicensed medical professionals, and I'm referring to social media as unlicensed medical professionals.
	You have people who are not doctors acting like doctors.
	You have people who are not scientists acting as scientists by censoring the speech of actual doctors and actual scientists.
	If in doing that, if in exercising their...
	Editorial oversight.
	I know that the Section 230 is going to play in there, but if they've done something proactively on their platform that actually led to people getting harmed, I think there's exposure there.
	But incidentally, this is exactly the situation, exactly, mutatis mutatis, of the case that's going up to the Supreme Court.
	Facebook, YouTube, whatever, through their algorithms, if they're putting up terroristic material in front of prospective terrorists, those prospective terrorists act on it, they're getting sued by the victims, and it's going to be up to the Supreme Court now to decide whether or not they can hide their malicious, harmful algorithm behind Section 230, even when they know that it's doing it.
	But if their censorship actually cost people their lives, I mean, the victims have sued.
	They'll try to avail themselves of their rights before the courts.
	But it's even worse, and you've got to double down, because if it turns out that through their act of censorship, which turns out to be factually incorrect, it actually costs people their lives, that's exposure.
	That's legal exposure, in my view.
	We've seen it meets a substantial amount of uphill battles, but that's substantial exposure.
	And then the risk becomes they've got to double down and keep going.
	Because if it becomes known that their censorship cost people their lives, you know, the origins of the virus, I can make an argument for how that might have cost people their lives.
	If you can't fight a virus, you can't fight a pandemic properly if you don't have open discussion and knowledge as to where it originated.
	Okay.
	If you censor...
	Medical phenomena that would cause people to ask questions to potentially get enlightened consent and people die as a result of it.
	Their censorship cost people lives.
	Oh, yeah.
	I guess on a lighter note, but this is also sad and depressing.
	Let's look at this Fetterman ad.
	Elections are coming up on Tuesday, people.
	Midterms in America.
	This is a real ad.
	Thank you.
	Yes, we all get it's the loop.
	I will say...
	What are the tattoos on his arm?
	Does anybody know?
	Watch this.
	Punchline, people.
	We've got to tone down the political rhetoric.
	Maybe you should stop drinking soda, by the way.
	Hey, kid.
	Tone down the political rhetoric.
	That says Fetterman on the front.
	Wait for the punchline.
	Wait for the punchline.
	Can you imagine?
	Oh, sorry.
	Hold on.
	Punchline.
	Can you imagine the punchline of that video is tone down the political rhetoric and let's use children to promote foul mouth?
	Although there's discussion as to whether or not jag off is a foul mouth slur insult.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	Let's tone down the rhetoric.
	John Fetterman's campaign shirt, if it's a real shirt, I mean, I presume it is because even if it's not, they created that for the commercial.
	We are two years out of Trump being out of office.
	Fetterman's slogan to get votes is Trump is a jagoff.
	That's pathetic.
	But hold on one second.
	Hold on one second.
	We're going to do this here.
	Jagoff apparently might have origins which are not entirely offensive.
	Hold on.
	Apparently it comes from Irish or Jagoff.
	Definition.
	And let's just bring this up.
	Jagoff.
	It's coming.
	It's coming.
	Hold on.
	Where is it?
	Jagoff.
	Not to be confused with Jackoff.
	Chiefly in Western Pennsylvania.
	That's weird.
	I didn't know that, but I don't know if they've changed the definition just for the day.
	A stupid, irritating, or contemptible person.
	Let's...
	Well, that's the all-time use of jagoff.
	Okay.
	Let's do jagoff origins.
	That's etymology.
	That's what we're interested in right now.
	Listen to this.
	It's interesting.
	Chicago Mag, when is this from?
	2019.
	Jagoff is derived from the Scots-Irish word jag, which means...
	Thorn or to be pricked, which is exactly what a jagov is.
	A thorn in your side, a person who won't stop needling you.
	It's no more offensive than jerk or dunderhead.
	The word also has a deep history in Chicago.
	So it's not an inappropriate word, although I think it might have taken on different meanings today.
	Because if it wasn't a bad word, why would Federman only have to tell the kid what it means when he gets older?
	It's so ironic.
	There's going to be some serious mental gymnastics, but now you have the argument.
	It's not an offensive word.
	You're the idiot for thinking it's an offensive word.
	It means a thorn in your side.
	It's derived from Scots-Irish English.
	Yeah?
	Then why did Fetterman tell the kid he can only tell the kid what it means when the kid gets to be an adult?
	Everybody typically equates jag-off with jack-off.
	Which...
	Jack-off.
	Let's see what the origin of jack-off is.
	Etymology?
	We don't need to do that.
	Yeah.
	Remove.
	The argument's going to be, it's not an offensive word.
	It actually only means a thorn in the side.
	Then the answer's going to be, well, why the heck can't Fetterman tell him what it means when he's a kid?
	Oh, why?
	Was there no audio?
	Hold on.
	Was there no audio to any of that?
	Viva, what's a schmuck?
	That's Yiddish for penis.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Was there no audio for any of it?
	No sound on video?
	Damn it.
	Hold on.
	Now I'm going to have to go.
	Let me see if I can do it on this computer.
	Let's see if I can go here.
	What did I just do?
	Present.
	Yeah, I am a bit of an idiot, but let's see if I can't...
	Oh man, I'm gonna do something bad here.
	Okay, hold on, hold on.
	We'll do this, we'll do this.
	You gotta see the video.
	You gotta see the video.
	So I'm gonna bring the second computer closer.
	I'm gonna work the new system sooner than later.
	There's the video.
	Okay, here we go.
	This, now we can go here.
	Now I go present.
	Now, but I've got to bring in the hearing in time.
	Here is the video, people.
	Miss Guzzi.
	Now, tell me if you hear it.
	I heard it.
	Mr. Fetterman.
	Do we hear it now?
	Do you need any help?
	I'm running for the U.S. Senate, kid.
	If I hear it, you hear it.
	That makes sense.
	You're running for Senate?
	Sure.
	Where is your suit and your flag pin and your hair?
	Oh, hey, kid.
	I just want you to know I'd vote for you.
	Hey, thanks, kid.
	You want a drink?
	Nah, no.
	Really, you can have it.
	Okay.
	Thanks.
	I actually do wonder if they had the rights to be around.
	Chug a Coke.
	Hey, kid!
	Cash.
	Wow!
	Thanks, Mayor John.
	Did they get the rights to use the Coke ad for that?
	Is Coke going to say, no, no, we don't want you using our jingle?
	Here we go.
	What's a jag-off?
	I'll tell you when you're older.
	Uninspired is not the word.
	It's absolute.
	Cringe.
	Now I can remove it.
	This is interesting.
	I've removed it from one computer and I still see it on the other one.
	Okay.
	Sickening propaganda.
	Oh, that's it.
	Got to tone down the rhetoric.
	Let's just call...
	It doesn't matter.
	We've already been there.
	Okay.
	Now, on the note, by the way, of drinking unhealthy crap, sugar water, disgusting poo-poo water.
	That's right.
	I'm using the word poop.
	Poop again.
	I'm going to plug my sponsor.
	One of the sponsors for today, Brickhouse Nutrition, which makes Field of Greens.
	It is something that I drink.
	It's something that I eat because it's a food.
	Do I have the container here?
	Sorry, I cleaned up my desk a little bit.
	Brickhouse Nutrition, powdered greens, dried greens, not an extract, not a supplement.
	It is actual desiccated fruits and vegetables.
	Power fruits and vegetables.
	They give you the antioxidants you need, all of the nutrients.
	It's pulverized actual vegetable and fruit material.
	The super fruits, the powers of, you know, it's healthy stuff.
	One spoonful is a serving.
	People are supposed to have five to six servings of vegetables a day.
	Most people don't.
	Most people are just sucking down a disgusting bottle of Coke instead of living healthy lifestyles.
	This is a healthy alternative to the afternoon habits that some people might have.
	Of having unhealthy drinks like Red Bulls or other.
	One spoonful is one serving.
	Got all the nutrients.
	It's not a supplement.
	It's a food.
	It's USDA organic.
	Made in America.
	You may look at it and say, what the heck am I drinking?
	It tastes good.
	It's a good, healthy alternative to people's bad habits.
	They have also the courage and the audacity of sponsoring a channel such as mine.
	Field of Greens.
	It's good.
	And my goodness, it makes for healthy habits, unlike sucking down a disgusting bottle of sugar water or the disgusting bottle of chemical waters.
	Fieldofgreens.com, promo code VIVA, will get you 15% off your first order and 10% off a subscription.
	Thank you, Field of Greens.
	It's good stuff.
	I would not have anything to do with it otherwise.
	I spent a half an hour on the phone with the doctor behind the company, grilling him.
	On it.
	And it was good.
	Eat meat is good as well.
	Vegetables are good.
	And most people don't get as many vegetables in a day as they're supposed to.
	When I went on the road in Texas, I was shocked as to how hard it was to actually get your servings of fruits and vegetables in.
	Stick to the script.
	So, anyways, that's it.
	It's good stuff.
	Fieldofgreens.com.
	It'll bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Viva Fry promo code will get you 15% off your first order.
	10% off the subscription, and it's good.
	All right, what do we got here?
	Viva, from what I gather, you could petition to testify while all your hours and how much you wish you were there.
	Pull the trigger, bro.
	Good witness.
	Yes, you can petition.
	Well, I don't know that you can petition.
	All that I know is that I've heard of people asking for permission and not getting it.
	And so I'm trying to get someone to petition me, someone who's an actual party to this, and I'm not sure if it's too late.
	So there's that.
	But we'll see.
	We'll see.
	The other thing is, God, it would be so good to get out there and tell them what's wrong.
	I think I would make an impeccable witness.
	I think I would make an impeccable witness.
	Just in terms of the inability to lie, but also 13-plus years of litigation teaches you how to hear a question, how to know what is being asked, and how to know where you're trying to be misled.
	In your answers.
	It drives me nuts listening to some of the witnesses.
	Anti-social behavior, by the way.
	Can we understand that the government and the Ottawa city, whomever, they're actually using the term anti-social behavior to describe their citizens unironically.
	I mean, I'm not good at making hashtags, but something in there has to trend.
	That Justin Trudeau, after...
	Calling Canadians racist, misogynist, extremist, anti-science is now the catchword of the, call it the commission, the city, the government, anti-social behavior.
	You went to Ottawa to engage in anti-social behavior.
	It's like a parent scolding a child.
	It's like a cranky old teacher.
	Don't be antisocial.
	Antisocial?
	It doesn't even make any sense.
	What they mean is anti-government.
	Antisocial makes absolutely no sense when you're talking about the largest protest ever that required you to declare the Emergencies Act.
	That's the antithesis of antisocial.
	It's highly social.
	What it is is anti-government.
	And as if we live in a world now where it's a criminal offense.
	To have anti-government sentiment.
	To be anti-government?
	Someone's going to fault me for being anti-government.
	Let me tell you this.
	Yes, I am anti-government when it's a Trudeau government, a two-times ethics breaching.
	He is an unethical, unlawful prime minister.
	He has twice been found guilty.
	He has twice been convicted.
	He has twice been found to be in bona fide breach of federal law.
	I am going to be anti-that because I'm anti-crime.
	I'm anti-criminal behavior.
	I'm anti-unethical behavior.
	They don't mean antisocial.
	They mean anti-government.
	And to be a good citizen, you've got to be a good pro-government citizen.
	Then's the rules.
	Antisocial behavior.
	You know what's antisocial?
	Locking people in their homes.
	Forcing them to social distance.
	Forbidding them from having guests.
	Shutting down their businesses.
	Forcing them to isolate for 10 days.
	That's antisocial.
	The government is what it accuses others of being.
	It promotes what it accuses others of promoting.
	Oh, this is so cool.
	Now I can look over here and see the chat.
	As I do this.
	Oh, dude.
	It's so nice to have two computers.
	Why didn't anyone suggest I do this earlier?
	Oh, anyways, but by the way, anti-government?
	Remember when people started coming out and saying nobody told you the jibby jab was going to prevent transmission?
	That's the new talking point.
	And the cognitive dissonance that this triggers in people.
	This is Albert Bourla, by the way.
	Someone said, oh, that tweet aged badly.
	This tweet is from today.
	Emergency uses of the bivalent vaccine have not been approved or licensed by US FDA, but have been authorized to prevent COVID-19 in ages five years plus.
	Let me just like...
	To prevent COVID-19 in ages five years plus.
	If I were editing my own video, this is how I would do it.
	Prevent.
	There you go.
	I can see it now.
	To prevent COVID.
	What does that mean?
	And by the way, what does that mean to prevent COVID?
	Is that another one of those cases where we're not being told it prevents transmission?
	Oh, because we're going to change the words now?
	When he says prevent COVID, he means prevent hospitalization from COVID.
	That's what we mean now, by the way.
	We've changed the definition of the word vaccine literally.
	To mean something which some people arguably believe no longer means vaccine.
	We've changed the definition of recession, which was typically two quarters of back-to-back negative growth.
	We've changed the definition of recession.
	We've changed the definition of woman to menstruating person.
	We've changed the definitions of words when we get caught in the lie.
	And by we, I mean the government that we're being told to love and adore.
	I mean Big Pharma that we're being told to love and adore.
	This is November 4, 2022.
	It has been authorized to prevent COVID in ages 5 to 9. Prevent COVID.
	Prevent COVID.
	Prevent COVID.
	What does that mean?
	Then I get someone.
	Who says...
	Oh, dude, we're going to get there.
	We're going to get there.
	But where was the...
	This doesn't say it prevents transmission.
	I double-checked.
	This is not to put anybody's account on blast.
	I thought this was parody.
	It says it prevents COVID.
	How does one prevent COVID if you don't prevent the person from getting COVID?
	It's the idea now that the person's carrying it, infected with it, sick with it, but it prevents...
	COVID, asterisk, hospitalization and severe illness, except when it doesn't.
	It doesn't say prevents COVID.
	It literally says it prevents COVID.
	This doesn't say it prevents transmission.
	I mean, this is the definition of cognitive dissonance.
	We've believed a lie for so long.
	And notice how I say we.
	Not because I have necessarily, but it's more inclusive.
	It's less accusatory than saying you.
	I'll get to the we versus I afterwards.
	When one believes a lie and they come face to face with the fact or not a lie, something that is incorrect.
	I believed it as true as the sun is in the sky.
	I swear I heard him say that.
	I swear that that's what I believed.
	And then it comes face to face with your face and your response.
	I got to make sense of this.
	It doesn't say it prevents transmission.
	It just says it prevents COVID.
	Go figure that out.
	I'm reading some of the chats here.
	You have to read the disclaimer.
	You know what?
	I don't have to read anything.
	I'm going to read the tweet from Albert Bourla.
	And this is wordsmithing of the devil.
	You'll get the fact checks.
	Oh, when he said it prevents COVID.
	Go read the small print.
	Oh, wait a minute.
	Hold on.
	How do I stop screaming?
	We're going to come back to it.
	Karen O. Re-antisocial behavior.
	Met Police UK lists Antisocial Behavior Act 2003 and Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act.
	My God.
	Viva.
	Don't you know they are lying to you about the shape of the earth?
	The, um...
	Thank you.
	Not transmission or not catching it?
	Oy, oy, oy.
	It prevents hospitalizations, but you're...
	Okay, so that's, you know, just change the definitions of words.
	And nothing means anything, and that's, it's just...
	The loss of faith in all institutions is just...
	To the point of undermining the underpinnings of a functional civil society.
	Okay, but that's not it.
	That's not it.
	Do we want to look at this?
	Hold on.
	Knowing that I won't hear the audio here.
	We don't need to hear the music.
	It's actually so much more horrifying.
	Without the music.
	Because I'm picturing, like, the song, and we're going to get to it in a second.
	The song is a soldier boy.
	What's his name?
	Soldier?
	Who I thought he was convicted of murder, actually, but it's a song.
	Some song from years ago.
	But I'm picturing this with like, hold on.
	Bow chicka wah, bow chicka wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah.
	First of all, how old is this woman?
	I'm saying woman and not girl.
	How does anyone think this is appropriate?
	And look at that face.
	That is the face of, I'm coming to get you.
	It's Wayne's world.
	Let's get a little closer.
	We've got to get the most cringiest face.
	I think this woman was deliberately sabotaging Beto.
	She's like, he's not going to do it.
	I can't get closer than that.
	She must have been thinking, I can't believe this idiot's doing it.
	I'm a mole.
	I'm going to make him look terrible.
	And it worked.
	This is where there's a certain ignorance when it comes to these things.
	Like, okay, I'm doing a TikTok.
	It's all fun and games.
	Ha ha, I'm going to be real cool with the kids.
	The song is called Pretty Boy Swag by Soulja Boy.
	I'm going to double check.
	I'm fairly certain he was convicted or accused of killing a family member or something.
	We'll get there in a second.
	Let me just make sure about that beforehand.
	Serious accusations.
	Soldier boy murder.
	Am I thinking of another...
	Soldier boy appears to taunt trouble.
	Okay, that's not right.
	Okay.
	Who was it?
	Oh no, who sang?
	Watch me, watch me.
	Who sang that song?
	That's the guy that killed his cousin.
	Watch me.
	Silencio, not Soulja Boy.
	All right, it was Silento.
	It was Silento who killed, who killed, who was a kid.
	Let me just make sure about that.
	Silento murder.
	Rapper Silento charged with murder and cousin shooting death.
	Okay, fine.
	Not Soulja Boy.
	That makes it a little bit less bad, I guess.
	Okay.
	But these are the lyrics to the song that Beto O 'Rourke probably did not take a second to think about.
	Pretty boy swag.
	Pretty boy swag.
	Soldier, soldier.
	All the pretty girls stand up.
	All the pretty boys stand up.
	Pretty boys in the building.
	This right here is my swag.
	All the girls are on me, Dan.
	Everybody pay attention.
	The right here is my pretty boy swag, I. Pretty Boy Swag, I. Pretty Boy Swag, I. Pretty Boy Swag, I. Someone wrote this.
	Someone said, this is going to be the next hit.
	Girls on my...
	When I Pretty Boy Swag.
	Girls scream my name when I Pretty Boy Swag.
	I feel like I'm getting dumber by the minute.
	And I think I feel guilty because I think I might be making everyone dumber by the minute to actually go over this.
	These are the lyrics, Beto.
	To your amazingly stupid TikTok video, which is the cringiest thing on the face of planet Earth.
	And the lyrics are, I would say, arguably inappropriate for a human, let alone a politician running for office.
	But here's an update, by the way.
	Oh, this is so cool.
	I can see everything in real time.
	And I can see the chat.
	I bring those pretty boy...
	Rose to my cattle ranch.
	This is an update.
	Everybody knows that Nate Brody is actually suing.
	Nate the lawyer is actually suing Bot Sentinel and Christopher Boozy for defamation because Christopher Boozy actually said public statements, published public statements denying that Nate was an actual lawyer because he didn't know that Nate's last name was spelled differently than whatever and couldn't find him.
	Nate questioned whether or not he was a lawyer.
	Accused him of committing crimes in the practice of his police work.
	Accused him of a number of other very serious things.
	He's hired Ron Coleman, who, by the way, Ron Coleman has his own YouTube channel.
	Ron Coleman, you know Ron Coleman.
	We were on Rubin Report together this morning with Michael Malice.
	But Ron Coleman, you know, spoke at the Freedom Fest with James O 'Keefe, Judge Kaczynski, and myself.
	Ron Coleman of Dillon& Partners, Harmeet Dillon's law firm.
	They're suing.
	Christopher Boozy and Bot Sentinel for defamation.
	And apparently they have not been able to serve the suit on Bot Sentinel, Christopher Boozy, because Christopher Boozy apparently is evading, avoision, avoiding service of the lawsuit.
	There's a car at the head office of the business, Bot Sentinel, which apparently seems to be his apartment.
	No judgment.
	I'm in an office in my own house.
	No judgment, but...
	He's refusing to answer the door to take service of the lawsuit because that's how heroes roll.
	Update from the process server.
	The server made several attempts.
	Christopher Buzi can make fun of my eye, but we see right through him.
	Okay, not bad.
	Not bad, Nate.
	Nate's got a bad eye from childhood for anybody who doesn't know.
	We will get him served.
	See what the process server wrote.
	Check this out.
	We were unable to serve your process for the following reason.
	Entity evading.
	The hero that Christopher Buzzi is, he can call out bad Twitter accounts.
	He can get people canceled.
	He does not have the cojones, the chutzpah.
	He does not have the moral courage to accept service of a lawsuit for defamation.
	And it's going to happen anyhow.
	It's like they're going to find an alternate method of service.
	It's just going to cost Nate more.
	That's what the purpose is.
	Avoid service.
	I'll stick it to them.
	The server made several attempts at the given two-family home.
	A truck was in the driveway, but there was never any answer at the door.
	During one attempt, the server made contact with the first-floor tenant who confirmed that the entity, Christopher Boozy, lives on the second floor, but he would never answer the door.
	So they're suing him.
	I think...
	I read the letter of demand, or the letter, the lawyer's letter from Ron Coleman.
	It was good.
	But apparently he's avoiding...
	Do I want to do this?
	Do we explore this in real time?
	The tweet was removed.
	Oh, nerds.
	Do I go down this rabbit hole in real time, people?
	This is a very, very shallow rabbit hole.
	It's gone.
	Does anyone have a snapshot?
	What was it?
	What did he say?
	What did he say?
	He was asking if anti-Semite is a new word for...
	Full word, harder.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So anyways, that's it.
	Nate is having trouble serving Christopher Boozy.
	But hold on.
	Everybody's got to go to YouTube and check out Ron Coleman.
	He's starting a YouTube channel.
	I think...
	I was on the last podcast that he had, Ron Coleman, not to be mistaken with the bodybuilder, Ron Coleman.
	Thank you.
	Hold on.
	Look at Ron.
	Look at that muscular body.
	That's not who we're looking for.
	We're looking for Ron Coleman, lawyer.
	Here we go.
	Ron Coleman.
	That's a good avatar.
	That's a good banner.
	Okay, good.
	Here.
	I'll share this with everybody so that we can all go explore Ron Coleman.
	And we're going to get, I mean, I'll have Ron on the channel so we can actually, we can talk stuff and the loss of here.
	Check out Ron Coleman's YouTube channel.
	Okay, so let's hear it.
	Prevent hospitalization, but no, I saw that before.
	Where are we at with the chat?
	And by the way, let me see something on the rumbles.
	On the rumbles and on the YouTube.
	I just want to check.
	Okay.
	That's very loud on my ears.
	Son of a gun.
	I'm not logged into my account.
	Okay.
	Cancel.
	Do I want to bring this chat up?
	Has everyone noticed that there hasn't been a peep in the news about the attack on Paul Pelosi?
	Not a peep.
	It's dropped off the face of the earth like it never happened.
	Like, we've gotten all the answers and there's nothing more to see, except for, oh, I don't know, the individual, the accused, pleading not guilty, despite giving that statement, which seemed highly cut and dry, open, closed.
	Yoris B. Vert McFlurry, $10 Rumble rant on Rumble, says, Viva, please check your LinkedIn.
	Antisocial behavior equals psychopathy in psychiatry.
	That much, actually, I was...
	That's not the first time I've heard that.
	It is about framing perception via small clips on MSM, trying to make them into Paul Bernardo.
	That is a very, very good point.
	This is Juris UB Vert McFlurry.
	Antisocial is a form of psychopathy.
	It's a very, very decent point.
	Jeremy McKenzie is up first after the break.
	Long live King Phillips.
	I just want to see what Jeremy looks like.
	He's been through hell and not legitimately so.
	This is not because I'm defending anything Jeremy McKenzie has ever said or done.
	Some things are indefensible, but the consequences should not be solitary confinement.
	I want to see what Jeremy McKenzie looks like because I think he's going to look not good.
	I want to see what Jeremy McKenzie looks like.
	Jeremy has been through something that I think can be difficult to justify in a free and democratic society, which is pre-trial detention with no bail for crimes.
	The accusations are more serious than mischief.
	So let's steal men.
	The accusations against Jeremy McKenzie.
	Our assault, pointing a firearm, etc., etc.
	Those are the accusations.
	So those are more serious than obstructing police officers or inciting others to commit mischief, for which Pat King was locked up for five months, five plus months.
	Those are the charges that were levied against Tamara Leach, where she was locked up for almost a total of two months.
	Oh, give us the backstory on Jeremy.
	Gigham says, this is the curse of, not the curse of knowledge, but the curse of knowing the story and thinking everyone else does.
	All right, Gigham, for anybody who doesn't know, Jeremy McKenzie.
	I had him on the channel for a very long, very thorough interview.
	He came off as a very, very decent person.
	I'm sure edgy comedian that he is or that he thinks he is, you know, will say stupid things that will be taken out of context or will be...
	Disingenuously taken seriously or are nonetheless offensively, objectively offensive, whatever.
	Jeremy McKenzie is a veteran.
	Burly guy, big beard, looks jovial, looks friendly, comes off very nice, well-spoken, served in the military.
	I'm going to just go over it.
	I don't want to make mistakes, so I'll just give the 30,000-foot overview, but I would invite everyone to go watch my interview with him.
	Served in the military, lockdown happened, disillusioned with the world like the rest of us, took to the internet to vent, Created a channel of following called The Raging Dissidents, where he would basically do what I did and continue to do, except maybe I have the neurotic foresight of weighing my words a lot more than most people.
	Some don't like it.
	Some think it's a form of cowardice, but I don't do it for others.
	I do it for myself.
	Sorry, hold on.
	So Raging Dissidents had his own YouTube channel, talked about stuff, questioned stuff, pushed the envelope.
	I think you got...
	Viva isn't his usual interesting self?
	Boring topics?
	Kitty Wilhite?
	The format is a little...
	Kitty?
	That hurts a little bit because I can see an element of truth in it.
	I'm trying to do the entire day live stream of the Ottawa Convoy and I appreciate not everyone's as interested in that as I am.
	So trying to make it interesting with international stuff and not just the Canadian stuff.
	But Jeremy McKenzie.
	Raging dissident, creates an online community, gets in trouble on YouTube for saying certain things, yada yada.
	How does this shit hit the fan with Jeremy?
	I forget exactly how it happens, but he basically creates this fictitious community known as, this fictitious world, a country known as Diagonal, which was basically, he noted that the states and provinces in which there was pushback against the mandates looked like a diagonal line.
	Created this whole fictitious universe, Diagonalon.
	Apparently it's got some crack addict of a goat as the president.
	And said some things which can be taken out of context.
	On his channel, talking about the Day of the Rope and certain books which people find scary, whatever.
	But then the Diagonalon meme, as it became known.
	It's sort of like Canada's version of Kekistan.
	He became a vocal critic during the protest.
	At one point, During the Ottawa convoy, there was the incident at Coutts, where allegedly a bunch of people were arrested, a bunch of firearms were seized, and there were bulletproof vests, and on one of the vests was a Diagon patch, and therefore Diagon became this sort of pretext for declaring the Emergencies Act or invoking the Emergencies Act, because there was this extremist group that started off as a joke, but now it's serious and people are carrying out violence in its name.
	That's Jeremy McKenzie in a nutshell.
	Then, you know...
	He's said things which people took out of context.
	They've posted pictures of them holding guns, and everyone finds that all big and scary.
	Then more recently, during one of his community live streams where they're drinking and maybe smoking a little bit of the wacky tobacco, he makes a very, very bad comment about Pierre Poilierre's wife, which is everything anybody ever needed to...
	Feel the need to be compelled to dissociate themselves from Jeremy McKenzie.
	At the same time, all this is happening, new charges from an alleged old event of him allegedly, savagely abusing his ex-girlfriend in Saskatchewan.
	These videos show up online.
	These pictures show up online where black eyes, bruises on her arms, accusations that Jeremy...
	Beat her for an hour.
	That this other guy only made the incident stop by pointing a gun at Jeremy or making them stop.
	And then Jeremy pointed a gun at this guy to thank him for interviewing.
	This incident is a year old from Saskatchewan coming from accusers.
	I don't want to look like I believe one person's story more than the other.
	Then I think there was a warrant for his arrest.
	Nationwide, they come and snatch him out of Nova Scotia.
	Lock him up in Nova Scotia for five days.
	Then they transport him to Saskatchewan.
	He's unvaccinated, refuses to submit to the PCR test, which they're requiring him to take.
	Because he refuses to submit to the PCR test, they put him in solitary so he can't get anybody to Rona and all this stuff.
	It's a world gone batshit crazy.
	There's no other way to describe this.
	The world has gone batshit crazy.
	You've got these delayed accusations from an incident that occurred a year ago with dubious witnesses from what I have been told and from what I can understand.
	It doesn't even matter, though.
	These are the charges.
	Denied bail, was put in solitary because he's unvaxxed and didn't want to submit to a PCR test.
	They wouldn't just do the nose swab.
	They wanted to go up and check what's in his brain.
	And he was involved in the convoy as one of the, they call him a rogue entity that people wanted to dissociate themselves from.
	They didn't want to have much to do with Jeremy McKenzie any more than Pat King because of things that have been...
	That's Jeremy McKenzie.
	Now I think he's going to be testifying from...
	He's going to be testifying from jail, I think.
	I don't know how he's not going to be testifying from jail.
	Let me just see if they're back because I don't hear anything.
	They should be coming back one more time.
	So that's Jeremy McKenzie.
	I might have missed a lot.
	I hope that...
	He's a controversial figure who had a social media account that people found scary, etc., etc.
	Did I not do home title lock?
	My goodness, I almost forgot my second sponsor of the day, home title lock.
	Thank goodness I have my notes in the back.
	Home title lock, this is going to be more for the Americans than Canadians.
	In fact, it's not going to be for the Canadians.
	Home title lock is something that I also use myself because there's a very common, prevalent, easy form of fraud in the United States that consists of people going to county clerks, pulling the deed of sale to your house, and then borrowing money against your house, and then you don't find out about it until creditors come to your house and say, You borrowed 50,000 bucks.
	Now we're coming to collect.
	And then you're stuck holding a bag of money that someone borrowed against your house because you had no idea.
	How do you know that people are doing this?
	Or how do you protect against it?
	HomeTitleWalk.com is basically 24-7 eyes on your deed of sale on the, not land registry, county clerk offices.
	If someone pulls up your deed of sale, You will get notified and there will be a freeze that they will not be able to borrow against your deed of sale by forging your signature.
	They will also defend you for up to $250,000.
	And it's a very, very serious, real form of fraud in the United States.
	I asked my insurance broker.
	He confirmed it.
	I asked some dude who's into construction on the street, on the pier as we were fishing.
	He said it's real.
	I use it.
	I thus far have not been notified.
	Thank goodness.
	First time I went and they checked the title, I got a little scared because I didn't understand what I saw on the registry, but that was the previous sale and the previous clearing of the mortgage.
	But bottom line, 24-7 surveillance of your biggest asset for most people, their home, to make sure that this form of fraud, which is easy, digital, people just go, you don't even know what's happened until someone comes up to your door and says, the credit will be knocking.
	So hometitlelock.com, promo code VIVA will get you a free title assessment.
	Worth, I think it's $100.
	You'll know that your title is good.
	Your title is clear.
	And then for $19.95 a month, you're going to get the protection that some people might not know that they actually need.
	Public?
	Let's just go to Google.
	So that's home title.
	Thank you very much.
	Another company.
	I guess, you know, the nature of the business that they're in, it would be a no-brainer that they would endorse.
	The hinged, fringed minority with unacceptable views.
	We're a smart bunch.
	Because we pay attention to stuff.
	Public Commission Emergency Act.
	I want to get to the website before I find out that I'm missing something.
	Hometitlelock.com, people.
	If you need a promo code VIVA, free title assessment, and fieldofgreens.com will bring you to Brickhouse Nutrition.
	Promo code VIVA will get you 15% off your first order and 10% off a subscription.
	Thank you very much.
	I'll put the links in the descriptions and chat.
	Right after I go back to the P-O-E-C webcast.
	Hey.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	He looks like he's lost a lot of weight.
	He looks like he's lost a lot of weight.
	He actually looks unrecognizable from our live stream.
	He looks emaciated.
	If that's his suit, it looks like it's one size too big.
	Thank you.
	No sound.
	Sorry.
	Give me one second.
	They're talking about protecting his interest against self-incrimination.
	Sorry, guys.
	There we go.
	Objected to answer each and every question on the ground that his answers may intend to...
	He's refused to answer each and every question.
	Person.
	But for the acts you've invoked.
	Okay.
	Is that adequate?
	Absolutely.
	Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
	Okay, so Mr. McKenzie, we're ready to go.
	Commission Council, go ahead.
	Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
	Good afternoon, Mr. McKenzie.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	My name is John Mather.
	I'm one of the Commission Council.
	You are appearing today via video conference from the Saskatoon.
	I'm hearing it twice.
	That's correct.
	And we understand that you're being held in relation to charges in a matter that is unrelated to the protests in Ottawa and Coutts.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	The Commission understands that you are from Nova Scotia, is that correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And where did you grow up?
	I grew up in Pictou County, Nova Scotia.
	And we understand that you were a member of the Canadian Armed Forces?
	That's correct.
	From 2003 until 2017.
	And what rank did you achieve in the Armed Forces?
	I retired as a master corporal.
	And you have produced a letter through your council to the commission, and it's a letter that you sent to the Senate.
	Do you know what I'm referring to?
	I believe so, yes.
	Okay, sorry.
	I was hearing...
	So if you can pull up JMK703.
	I had two windows open, so I was hearing everything twice, but like a half a second off.
	Mr. McKenzie, can you first just let me know if you can see the document on the screen and you're able to read what it says?
	Yes, I can.
	Okay, thank you.
	And this is a letter that's entitled "Diagalon's List of Demands to the Canadian Senate." Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay, and I'll ask you some questions about Diagalon in a moment.
	And can you just confirm for us if we can scroll down to the bottom?
	Just, again, for the Commission's benefit, but also potentially yours, we see that It has a signature block for you at the bottom.
	And there's no signature here.
	Do you know if you ever signed this letter?
	No, I sent it digitally to the Senate members.
	Do you recall when you sent it to the Senate?
	It was several days before the Emergency Act was revoked by the government.
	And sorry, and with the audio, I just didn't catch that.
	Did you say before it was invoked or revoked?
	Before it was revoked by the government, perhaps three days, three or four days.
	Thank you.
	We can take the letter down, but Mr. McKenzie, I'm going to ask you some questions, and if you need to look at the letter, just let me know, okay?
	In the letter to the Senate, you described yourself as a podcaster and a comedian.
	I take it that's accurate?
	Yes, it is.
	And it's the Commission's understanding that you podcast under the name Raging Dissident, is that correct?
	Yes.
	And at one time you had a YouTube channel, is that correct?
	Yes.
	And do you know how many followers that YouTube channel had?
	I have had several that have...
	Been removed by YouTube for various reasons.
	Several times it's been 10,000, 12,000.
	I think the highest may have been 12 or 13,000.
	And you also have a Telegram channel?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	And how many followers have you had?
	I appreciate you were giving some ranges there on your Telegram channel.
	Roughly, I would say upwards to around 14,000.
	And on the YouTube and Telegram channel, are you...
	Posting under the name Raging Dissident?
	Yes.
	And I understand that you also have an Instagram account using the name Raging Dissident, is that correct?
	Yes, I do.
	And are there any other social media that you use?
	Those are the primary ones.
	Rumble as well is another video sharing website.
	Primarily those are the The ones I use most heavily.
	I also have a personal page that I typically just use for advertising links and so on on Facebook, Gab, and I believe that's it.
	And what's the URL for that personal website?
	My own personal.com website?
	Yeah, the one you were just referencing.
	Oh, I have just a Facebook page.
	There's a Rumble website.
	Thank you.
	And do you use the messaging service Slack to communicate?
	No.
	No, I've never heard of it.
	In the letter to the Senate, you identify yourself as a founding member of the People's Party of Canada, is that correct?
	Yes.
	When the party was stood up, it required a certain amount of signatures to register federally, I believe maybe 250, 500, something in that range.
	Mr. Bernier put out a request for people that wanted to support his platform and see the party created to fill out a form and sign it and mail it in to the appropriate address, which I did.
	And you describe yourself as an enthusiastic supporter of the party then?
	Go as far as enthusiastic, but I am a supporter, yes.
	Okay, so if we could pull up the letter to the Senate again.
	JMK3.
	If anybody has not seen Jeremy in a while, unless it's just the camera, he looks radically thinner.
	He doesn't have his beard, so maybe that takes a bit off his face.
	You continue scrolling down.
	He doesn't have his beard.
	Continue scrolling down, please.
	Oh, he's in jail.
	Stop there.
	It says here in your letter, Mr. McKenzie, I am also a founding member of the People Party of Canada and enthusiastically supported the party through my social media.
	So would you at least agree with me that you enthusiastically support the People's Party of Canada through your social media?
	That's what it says.
	Oh, it's the...
	It appears we're having some technical difficulties, so if everyone can bear with us for a moment.
	Internet doesn't really go through concrete walls all that much.
	He's in jail for accusations of assault and unlawful firearms.
	The technical team has said that it'll be five minutes to resolve the issue, Mr. Commissioner.
	Okay, we'll take a five-minute break and then...
	Maybe take him out of a jail cell to testify.
	What are those called?
	The cinder blocks are not necessarily good for allowing interweb telecommunication thingy things to transfer through.
	Viva put up a prior picture to compare.
	We have time now.
	Hold on.
	I'll pull up.
	It's actually shocking, I think.
	Unless I'm seeing it.
	Unless it's in my head, but hold on.
	I'll just get my...
	There won't be audio.
	One computer seems to not have audio.
	It seems to have audio, but I'll just...
	Skip.
	I'll just get to Jeremy.
	Oh, that's interesting.
	You can see where people found it interesting.
	Here, this is Jeremy right here.
	Thank you.
	Okay, so by the way, that's what he looks like when he's actually smiling.
	And the joke there, I said, 30,000 foot overview, who are you and what are you doing?
	And he says, hopefully not on a plane being pushed out.
	And I'm like, I didn't get it until I got it.
	That's Jeremy.
	Now let me see if there's another picture that I can show.
	But he's been in and out of solitary.
	And the queen, I think her name was Morgan, was on the channel.
	Exactly one week ago.
	Saying that he's been in and out of solitary.
	But here we go.
	This picture will make it...
	This is what he looks like.
	It's not a question.
	And she described the food that he's getting as gray gruel.
	This is Jeremy.
	He doesn't look good.
	I'm not trying to make light of anything.
	He looks more like Saul Goodman from Better Call Saul than Jeremy McKenzie.
	So, chat, am I seeing it or is it...
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Okay, I'll just add this back to the stream.
	I'll take it out so we can see it.
	And I'm going to go to Rumble just to see what's going on there.
	All right, we've got a good crowd on Rumble.
	Let's see what's going on.
	Hardly recognizable.
	Papa G. Groh says, L. Roman 67 says, Oh, wow.
	Hooch Triple Zero says, Cheeks are way thinner.
	And Bark Loudly says, Daryl Brooks roamed around two courtrooms and they have him in a small cinder block room.
	People have the tendency of thinking someone is not a political prisoner if they were legitimately arrested.
	Abusing of a lawfully detained individual can make them into a political prisoner.
	Jeremy could be...
	I said this when I interviewed Morgan.
	Jeremy could be found guilty of the accusations against him.
	I still wouldn't support a convicted individual being treated the way they allegedly were treating Jeremy.
	Yeah, so everyone says, yeah, definitely.
	Jesus says, Guy Jesus.
	So sad.
	My time in Ottawa was the most social thing I did in two and a half years, says Oskiwiwi.
	Yeah, it's like, oh, well, he was arrested.
	He's charged with assault.
	That's very serious.
	Abuse him in prison.
	Solitary confinement.
	So on and so forth.
	I bet he lost 40 pounds in the last month.
	Imagine how that is for his current partner, Morgan, who's in Nova Scotia.
	He's been in Saskatchewan on a...
	Canada-wide warrant.
	They whisked him off.
	Flew him to Saskatchewan.
	He's been in jail for about a month now.
	Denied bail.
	Denied bail.
	The dude who ran his car into four people at a protest was granted bail.
	Let me just see if I can find that story while we're waiting.
	It was a Winnipeg protest car driver.
	It was...
	What's the name of the individual?
	I just want to make sure that the individual...
	On what terms?
	The driver is accused of hitting four people.
	A man driving a car hit four people.
	And he's in police custody.
	He was given bail.
	Let me see what the bail was.
	I think it was a quarter of a million dollar bail.
	When I hear it come back, I'll put it on bail.
	It's been released on bail.
	Here we go.
	Man accused.
	He's accused.
	He's only accused of a hit and run on four people.
	This is it.
	With a hit and run.
	The man charged in connection with a hit-and-run at a Freedom Convoy protest in Manitoba has been released on bail, but has been placed under absolute curfew and is barred from entering Winnipeg.
	Ah.
	This guy who attempted...
	I see the evidence is a little bit stronger on the accusations.
	This man is accused of driving his car into four protesters.
	In what some might consider to be a politically motivated crime, he gets bail.
	According to the court documents, he was released from custody Saturday on a promise to pay $10,000.
	Facing 11 charges, hit and run, injured four people.
	The charges have not been proven in court.
	My goodness, they're so forgiving on this man.
	The charges haven't been proven in court.
	Been released on bail, promised to pay $10,000.
	Jeremy McKenzie has been in jail for a month.
	Denied bail.
	Pat King was denied bail for months on end.
	Five months.
	Tamara Leach, nearly two months total in jail.
	Her jail time was spread out.
	They let her out for good behavior and then brought her back in because she did what they said she could do when she was out on, what is it, not on parole, but when she was out on bail.
	Among the conditions of his release, he's not allowed to enter the city of Winnipeg, except for court purposes or a medical emergency.
	He's required to remain under absolute curfew.
	In his home and is only allowed to leave home during the curfew in a medical emergency involving himself or an immediate family member.
	The conditions of his release also bore him from sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle and owning or possessing a weapon or firearm.
	Thank you.
	Oh yeah, they only have the incident caught on camera.
	Okay, hold on, what do we got here?
	Viva totally agree with you.
	Not defending Burla.
	According to him, jab does not prevent virus, but does prevent COVID, which means serious illness.
	Okay, fine.
	Let me try to flesh this out in terms of the logic.
	I'm not sensitive.
	If that's going to be the defense, then they're even worse than liars.
	Because they're trying to cloak their lie in an element of truth.
	Hold on.
	Let me see something here.
	COVID-19.
	I want to see if there's any...
	I don't know how this...
	I don't know that that argument is even tenable.
	COVID-19 may appear 2 to 14 days from exposure to the virus.
	So the virus, it doesn't prevent you from getting the virus?
	No, no, I...
	COVID versus...
	What's going to be the argument here?
	COVID-19, which is serious illness, versus SARS-CoV.
	Let's see this here.
	No, no, okay, so I don't...
	The disease it causes.
	So in 2019, a new coronavirus was identified as the cause of a disease outbreak that originated in China.
	The virus is known as SARS-CoV-2.
	The disease it causes is called Coronavirus Disease 2019.
	Okay, even if we accept that on semantics, it's still false.
	But if that is the weasel out...
	Oh my goodness, I'd like to hear them make it.
	More typical podcasting consumption.
	And on your podcasts, I take it, would you agree that you're an outspoken about your criticism of the federal government?
	Yes.
	And you're also outspoken about your criticism of the RCMP?
	Oh yeah.
	Yes.
	Oh, he's the one who released.
	And you were, as a general matter, opposed to the COVID-19 public health mandates that were imposed by the federal government?
	Oh, yeah.
	In general, yes.
	And with respect to the RCMP, as I understand this, you've been critical of how they handled the mass casualty event in Portapique, Nova Scotia in 2020.
	Is that fair?
	Oh, that's true also.
	Yes, sir.
	Several days after that event had taken place, I reached out to some people that I...
	I knew in the area and tried to get a sense of, before I just started speaking haphazardly without really having as much information as I could.
	And then I released a video on YouTube, which garnered roughly anywhere between 500,000 to a million views across various platforms in the following week.
	I'm now going to ask you some questions about Diagalon.
	Again, referring back to the letter you sent to the Senate, you explained to them that Diaglion is a fictional country.
	At least that's its origin.
	Is that fair?
	Yes, sir.
	Right.
	And from the material the Commission's reviewed, Diaglion, the origin of it was something you drew on your phone when you drew a line of over the...
	continent of North America from the southeast to the northwest of the continent.
	Am I describing that correctly?
	Yes, so the concept was born out of a sort of a long kind of stream of consciousness.
	I do a lot of analytical commentary on current events, politics, these kinds of things.
	At the time, I believe it was January 2021, I observed, as many others had, the Midwestern United States, Texas, Florida, North Dakota, and so on, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Alaska, geographically formed sort of an oblique line that were resistant to or handling the COVID-19 approach in a different way.
	These are traditionally conservative areas in Canada, Republican in the United States.
	So we, you know, kind of found it amusing that there was this kind of geographical divide almost that you could...
	Find on a map and, you know, it became sort of a joke that if this was a pretend place, a different, you know, kind of parallel universe, a different world and so on.
	And that's how the concept was born.
	The flag you're referencing is what I created in the weeks following on my phone, just as kind of as a mechanism for branding symbolism kind of thing for, you know, community members.
	And it started to become synonymous with...
	Myself and the podcast kind of as, I guess, a branding mechanism that people would, you know, display and they could buy patches, stickers, and things like this to basically, you know, to know that they're a fan of that money.
	So, and I take it from reading your letter to the Senate and what you just said, you don't take any issue and you agree that you are associated with Diagalon and the Diagalon flag?
	Yes, it came out of my imaginations.
	Yeah, yes.
	Yeah, okay.
	And you talk about, you mentioned there, I think you said it began as a bit of a joke.
	But as I understand it, that joke has now evolved into an international community of your podcast fans.
	Is that fair?
	Yes, it's also fairly synonymous with another thing that's been referenced, the so-called Plaid Army, which was several, me and some of the other guys were just...
	Having a conversation one day, we all had similar shirts on.
	Some of them had a joke about, you know, what is this, the Plaid Army?
	So it was kind of that evolved into this.
	It's essentially the same thing.
	It's the same group of people, and it's just a, again, kind of a branding mechanism, a way to unite community followers and so on.
	Right, and you specifically referenced in your letter to the Senate that it has created an international community of your podcast fans.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, there are followers and fans in the United States, some in Europe, Australia.
	And as I understand, it stands from your letter that this community engages in regional meet-and-greets, barbecues, and family gatherings?
	Yes, correct.
	Sometime in the summer of 2021, I believe, we kind of hosted...
	Just people wanted to come out and have kind of a meeting with myself and some other guys.
	And we had, as you said, a barbecue.
	You know, I had some drinks.
	Some guys were playing guitars and so on.
	I observed that there was a few dozen people that came from as far away as British Columbia, Ontario.
	We met in Saskatchewan, and it struck me as in this time of a lot of people feeling very isolated and depressed, a lot of them expressed to me how much this meant for them to feel as though they had some kind of connection.
	And kinship with other people that felt the same way as they did about the future and shared their fears and concerns and so on.
	And I just observed how much it seemed to help them and heal them and make them happy.
	So I began what I called a "Find Your Friends" campaign.
	So I used using my online presence and my Telegram channel and so on, set up kind of regional areas or chat channels.
	To facilitate by, I mean, not everyone can come all the way to Saskatchewan from PDI, Newfoundland and so on.
	So if there's people that are like-minded that are in your area, that share these, that are a fan of my podcast and so on, and you'd like to meet each other and share this kind of activity, then you can do so this way.
	I was just trying to create a...
	You know, an avenue for them to pursue and I encourage people to do that rather than sitting at home looking at their screens and, you know, being fed, you know, fear and, you know, what I believe is a lot of toxic messaging on the media and television and so on and I thought it would be good for people to get out and, you know, have real face-to-face human interactions and relationships again and I thought it'd be beneficial to their mental health and I saw nothing but, you know, good things coming from that so I encourage people to do so.
	That's what they called networking.
	You mentioned a first or an initial barbecue in either the summer 2020, 2021.
	After that, have you attended personally any of these other meet and greets that you encourage people to participate in?
	There was one other one in Saskatchewan that I was present.
	There was another party sort of barbecue in Ontario in perhaps April of this year.
	There was another gathering outside the city of Ottawa during the convoy period of time in February.
	And are there other former Canadian Forces members in the Diagolan community?
	Yes, there are.
	I've often incorporated a lot of my commentary, my unique, I suppose you could say, kind of lived experiences through the military, how I deal with my...
	You know, the inherent trauma and so on that comes with that.
	It has gathered a, it is attracted a fair amount of other veterans and military personnel because they resonate with the things that I'm saying.
	I'm speaking to something that they can understand or identify with.
	So there is a fair number.
	I couldn't hazard a number specifically, but a sizable portion of the community, especially early on where other guys that knew me from work or so on, but kind of spread through the Do members of the Diagonalon community ever refer to themselves as bigots?
	Yes, they do.
	This was my doing to try and take power out of the word as it was being used as a slur, as a slanderous, defamatory method towards people like me and my followers and fans and so on.
	So we just kind of adopt it as a tongue-in-cheek kind of defiant way of shrugging it off because it doesn't bother us.
	I show that it doesn't bother me.
	It shouldn't bother them and they shouldn't care what these people think.
	They shouldn't allow them to attack them in this way and get under their skin and make them feel bad just because they are who they are and they like what they like.
	So you and your followers were being called bigots.
	It didn't bother you.
	And so as a way to show it didn't bother you, you embraced it and identify yourself now as bigots.
	In a tongue-in-cheek kind of sarcastic tone, yes.
	And is that sort of tongue-in-cheek sarcastic tone consistent with the sort of comedy that you perform on your podcast?
	I would say that yes, I'm a fairly sarcastic person, yes.
	And you already mentioned the diagonal symbol or flag, and I'm going to pull it up just to confirm everyone can see what we're talking about.
	can pull up com 906 And again, Mr. McKenzie, at any time, if you can't see anything that I put up on the screen, just let me know.
	So is that you in this photograph that's on the screen?
	Yes, it is.
	This was at one of the gatherings, I believe, outside of Ottawa sometime in February.
	I believe this is a still image from a video that was taken.
	I was standing on top of a table addressing the people that had arrived and attended and was just simply thanking them for showing up and encouraging them to keep taking care of each other and hope they have a good time and so on.
	And fair to say that the flag in the background, that's a diagonal flag?
	Yes.
	And the Commission understands that on February 15th, 2022, you said in a video that you could not wait until that flag is seen or is described as a hate symbol.
	Do you know what I'm talking about?
	Yes, sir.
	Again, I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek in a way because the people that I believe are...
	Deciding what is and what is not as a hate symbol are incredibly disingenuous and kind of smear merges.
	It would have been kind of a gotcha trophy over them, not as actually in a serious manner displayed as a hate symbol, but more of an achievement that I kind of lured them in more to focus on myself.
	And do you see, and I take it then that this is another sort of part of your comedy, wanting this to be called a hate symbol?
	Yes.
	It's because it's, again, no one in my community would be surprised to hear me saying these things, and it certainly isn't a symbol of hatred, but we find it amusing that our, I guess, enemies, if you could say.
	Do believe this and believe these absurd claims about us and it's just kind of an inside joke at this point.
	You sell Diagalon merchandise, is that right?
	I personally, I have a shop that has just recently gone online in the past two or three months.
	Previously, other friends of mine offered like the flags, for example.
	Another man was selling patches.
	He was making it cost just to help promote community visibility and give people something to...
	I thought it'd be nice for some people to have something to hold in their hand and kind of have them bring them some attachment and just something for them to enjoy and display.
	So the people who were selling the merchandise, they were friends of yours?
	Yes.
	They sold it with your approval?
	Yes, they did.
	And they are also part of the Diagalon community?
	They would likely identify as fans of mine, and yes.
	However, as you can probably observe, it's not a particularly complicated thing to reproduce.
	So, it's not a copyrighted symbol by any means.
	There's no real official ownership to it as of yet.
	So people would just approach me of their own voluntary intention and ask, "Hey, do you mind if I make this or make that?"
	No, it's essentially just a black square and I used my finger on my phone to do this about three times with a white paint marker selection.
	As you can see, it's kind of an irregular.
	It's not perfectly straight lines.
	They're kind of irregular.
	It's literally just my finger doing this a couple of times.
	I sent that image file off to be produced from there.
	So if someone wanted to show themselves as someone who supported your podcast or supported the Diagalon community, it'd be fairly easy for them to replicate the Diagalon flag.
	Is that fair?
	I would assume so, yes.
	It's not difficult to...
	It looks fairly simple.
	So, Mr. McKenzie, I think what I'm about to say will not come as a surprise to you, but in fairness, I want to ask you some questions about it.
	The RCMP has described Diagalon as a militia-like network with members that are armed and preparing for violence.
	The RCMP has also described Diagilon as having supporters that express sentiments akin to accelerationism, viewing a coming collapse or civil war as necessary to right the course of the country.
	In your letter to the Senate, you denied those sorts of allegations.
	Is that fair?
	Yes, sir.
	And in the letter to the Senate, You said that you are under RCMP scrutiny because of the criticisms that you've made about the RCMP.
	And as I understand reading your letter, but please correct me if I'm wrong, I understand you to be saying that the RCMP sort of is looking at you closely because of the way you criticize them, and that's why they're saying these sorts of things about you.
	That is my personal belief, yes.
	Many, many of the followers and fans and so on are, you could say, conservative Canadians.
	There is an aspect of firearms supporting racial culture, especially in Western Canada, but there's certainly not anything resembling a militia or anything to this extent.
	Moving away from what the RCMP says about Diagonon, I appreciate you wouldn't have been able to watch the testimony, but we had Superintendent Patrick Morris, who is the head of the OPP's Intelligence Bureau, testify.
	He's not a member of the RCMP, and he testified at the inquiry that Diagonalon is an extremist entity that holds extremist views.
	I assume you also disagree with that statement.
	Yes, sir.
	It's my, again...
	Belief and assertion that much of this narrative is coming from certain actors and members of the media.
	The Canadian Anti-Hate Network and so on has astroturfed and kind of laid the foundation of this idea.
	They've been certainly paid me a lot of attention over the past few years and through personal disclosure documents of mine through various legal proceedings.
	It's been revealed that the police are actually relying upon articles, if you can call them that, by the Canadian ATHate Network as open source intelligence.
	So they're relying upon what these people are saying about me as taking it at face value.
	But to be fair, Mr. McKenzie, you don't know what the RCMP or the OPP are relying on in their entirety when they make these assessments, do you?
	Correct.
	I was going to ask you about two terms, one of which was the Plaid Army, but thank you.
	You've already explained that, so we can save that question.
	The next term that we've seen a reference to is a term that you've used sometimes called the beach, and it is our understanding, but again, you can correct me if I'm wrong, that sometimes when you reference the beach, you're referencing D-Day in World War II.
	Is that accurate?
	Yes, it comes from a line in a...
	A movie I enjoy, Saving Private Ryan.
	There's a line in that film right before the landing craft descend upon Omaha Beach, I believe, where Tom Hanks' character says, I'll see you on the beach.
	It's kind of a reassuring, I will be there with you kind of sentiment.
	So I say this is, again, kind of, and, you know, my followers are familiar with this.
	I've explained it several times, but that's just kind of a...
	Call back to that film and expressing a sentiment that whatever is transpiring in the future, I will be there with you to support you and you guys can support each other and so on.
	It's just a message of encouragement, I suppose.
	You attended the protests in Ottawa in January and February 2022?
	Yes, sir.
	And you attended them with other members of the Diagilon community?
	Yes, I did.
	When did you arrive in Ottawa?
	I can't be certain of the exact date, but it was one or perhaps two days before the main body of the trucks arrived.
	I believe it was a Friday evening they showed up.
	So maybe...
	So you knew the convoy was coming to Ottawa and that's why you showed up?
	It was very clear to me by monitoring social media and so on as part of what I do to comment on social current events and analyze political commentary, that kind of thing, that this was going to be a very significant event.
	It was very clear to me this was not going to be an in-and-out weekend protest type of thing.
	There were videos of long, long, very long convoys of trucks and vehicles coming in from multiple directions.
	Um, open group chats or voice chats and stuff where these people were communicating back and forth.
	You could listen in on it.
	It was clear it was going to be a pretty big deal.
	Um, so I, uh, again, this was going to be something I would be talking about would have a lot of my attention anyway.
	So I decided why not go and get a close look at it as it transpired rather than watch it from, you know, relying on other sources from home to understand what was happening.
	Right, and it attracted your attention because the stated purpose of the truckers coming to Ottawa was to end the federal COVID-19 mandates, and that's a political view you also held, right?
	That seemed to be one of their primary motivations, yes.
	That was one of the main factors.
	There was a lot of other discontent in various groups.
	It wasn't a monolithic.
	That was the only objective for people.
	Not really any hierarchy or any real organization that I could observe.
	It very much seemed like just a grassroots kind of movement of discontent with the federal government, with things that have been transpired.
	The cost of living is rising.
	Social division.
	Just a lot of the rhetoric officials and stuff are using on television.
	A lot of people are very unhappy and having a difficult time over the past couple of years.
	And it basically, it was...
	Describe it as, if I could use a metaphor, the pot had just simply boiled over.
	And many people had decided that this was going to be the time that they were going to show up and exercise their right to peacefully demonstrate their discontent and their displeasure with the performance of the federal government.
	And when you arrived in Ottawa, you met people there who were members of the Diagalon community?
	Yes, sir.
	And presumably, if you met someone who hadn't heard of you or hadn't heard of Diagalon, you would tell them about it, you'd tell them about your podcasts.
	And encourage them to listen and support?
	Yes.
	If someone was unfamiliar and they asked a question, I would just simply say, I'm a social media guy.
	I'm online.
	I have a podcast.
	It's political commentary, comedy, and some, you know, analysis and this kind of thing.
	If you're interested, I have business cards that somebody made up for me.
	I'm going to hand them out to people and say, this is the website if you'd like to check it out and so on.
	And, you know, have a nice day kind of thing.
	And those business cards, they would have had the Diagalon logo on them?
	Yes, on one side.
	Sorry, it might have cut out.
	I asked you, did the business cards have the Diagalon logo on them?
	Yes, they did.
	They have it on one side and then one of my other artistic logos on the other side with just simply the website on one side and then I think it says "find the others" or "find your friends" on the other.
	And you suggested this is something you'd do if someone came up to you, but is it fair to say, Mr. McKenzie, you're in the media business and you want to promote your media so you would also actively hand out those cards?
	Yes, sir.
	If someone asks or they're interested or they express a desire to learn, like, what is them doing?
	It's just easier to just give them this.
	It directs them to the website.
	All my social media links and so on are there.
	There's a short video.
	They can go from there.
	If they like what they see, I presume they'll continue.
	If not, then so be it.
	Did you attend at any point in the protest with a person named Alex Vrend?
	Apologies if I'm mispronouncing the name.
	Yes, sir.
	And who is Alex Vrend?
	He is someone I met online through the evolution of my podcast, I suppose.
	I met Alex in person in the summer of 2021, I believe.
	We spent some time together in Saskatchewan.
	As he was traveling around the country, meeting people, and as I understood, he was just kind of in between, you know, jobs and life and wasn't really sure what...
	He was just taking an opportunity to...
	He bought a van and a dog and just kind of went on the classic Canadian road trip around the country and was meeting up with other people in the community that expressed a desire to, you know, meet them and, you know, hang out.
	And he'd become kind of more of a prominent...
	He's a prominent person because he also is a content creator.
	He makes a lot of memes and jokes and comedic things like this.
	So people were interested to meet him.
	And his content, he posts under the name Ferryman's Toll, is that correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And we understand, both from your letter to the Senate and some videos that your council submitted, that when you were in Ottawa, you encouraged peaceful protesting.
	Is that fair?
	Yes, sir.
	I was concerned, especially because of the rhetoric and verbiage coming out of, again, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, which was being parroted.
	It started to be picked up by other more credible news outlets and so on.
	I was concerned that if something should happen inside my control or, you know, I can't really see the future, but I wanted to state very clearly what my intentions were and what I expected of people if they were going to be representing I encourage them not to because I wanted this to be about Canada.
	This is about the country.
	Bring a Canadian flag.
	This isn't about me.
	This isn't about I'm not trying to sell anything.
	This is more important.
	The bigger idea is more important.
	But if you do happen to have something, please conduct yourself appropriately because your actions and decisions and things you say and you do will reflect upon me and the greater community and so on.
	I wanted to have that.
	On the record before, just in case.
	So just to stop there, so you wanted someone who was wearing a diagonal symbol to act accordingly.
	It's not accordingly, but act as appropriately and peacefully.
	At this point in time, were you aware that either the RCMP or other police agencies would be maybe monitoring what you do or what your supporters do?
	Yes, sir.
	So you, when you're giving that direction, you're aware that the authorities are watching.
	I was under, I was never explicitly given any notice or no one had talked to me or spoken to anybody.
	It was pretty clear just upon general observations, my own instincts, that this was, we were probably on the radar somewhere.
	So I didn't want anything to be misconstrued.
	I was trying to be very clear about my intentions and, you know, jokes aside, this is about, you know, Protesting the government's performance and people exercising their rights to do so.
	I didn't want this to be misconstrued in any way.
	We were simply there to protest peacefully.
	I said things like, if there's a speed limit on walking for some reason, then you will walk slower than that.
	Don't even litter, don't spit, don't even throw a snowball.
	Don't give anyone any excuse.
	To point at you and say, look what you've done, look what you've incited or created or fomented and so on.
	Because that would have undermined the entire purpose of everything everyone was trying to achieve.
	So, Mr. McKenzie, I'm now going to read you one by one a list of names.
	And I may have some follow-up questions, but all I want to know right now is for each name, whether or not you communicated with this individual either before you arrived in Ottawa or while you were in Ottawa.
	Okay?
	You understand?
	Tamara Leach.
	No.
	I first spoke to Tamara Leach potentially in July of this year, July-August.
	Chris Barber.
	No.
	James Bowder.
	No.
	Bridget Belton.
	No.
	Benjamin Dichter.
	I'm aware of...
	Who Mr. Dichter is.
	I personally have not had any interaction with him.
	I was aware that he was some kind of alleged manager of YouTube channels for where he would set up GoFundBees and name himself as a beneficiary.
	Mr. McKenzie, I don't mean to interrupt.
	I want to make sure we get through it and you have time.
	I just want to know right now whether you communicated with these people.
	Your council will have an opportunity if there's other things that you want to bring up.
	Did you ever communicate either before or while you were in Ottawa with a Tom Marazzo?
	Yes, I spoke to Mr. Marazzo once, possibly twice over the phone.
	Once as I was driving back from Ottawa to the Maritimes to drop off, some people that had accompanied me, they could only stay for a couple of days and have families and kids and so on.
	So I spoke to him for a couple of hours.
	We talked about our shared experiences in the military and so on.
	He indicated to me that he was...
	In some capacity, nearby, something resembling people that were making decisions, I guess.
	And basically just kind of connected in that, like, someone suggested we should meet each other, and I expressed to him that if there was anything that I could do to help assist, get a message out or something, that I was willing to do that.
	No one ever asked me to.
	And likewise, I told him if I saw or was made aware of anything that I felt that that should be that would be relevant, that they should know that I would inform him and so on.
	But I think that was the extent of our interaction.
	I didn't have any real meaningful interaction with Mr. Morazzo.
	I think it's all around April when there was a benefit, a fundraising dinner for the Veterans Freedom Organization in Burlington.
	In Ottawa, how many times did you speak with Mr. Morazzo?
	At least once, possibly twice.
	It would have been sometime during the first...
	A week, I believe, of when the trucks arrived.
	I was in the process.
	I remember I was driving my truck and it was over the headset.
	The other guys were sleeping in the truck while we were talking.
	So somewhere in between Quebec and New Brunswick, I couldn't say.
	So sometime before January 28th?
	I'm not sure.
	I'm not sure the dates of when the trucks arrived and when they left.
	Sorry, and there's evidence of when the trucks arrived, but it was some point before the trucks arrived.
	Is that correct?
	No, it was after.
	It was after.
	How long after?
	I would say roughly a week.
	Roughly a week.
	Seven to five to eight days, perhaps.
	Fair enough.
	When you were in Ottawa, did you communicate directly with any Ottawa police or OPP?
	Not to my knowledge.
	I did have some friendly conversations on the street, you know, just, hi, how are you?
	How's it going?
	You're cold out, you know, that kind of thing, but nothing to see.
	Did you receive from any sources information about police operations or police enforcement plans while you were in Ottawa?
	Yes.
	There was a user that contacted me, I believe on Telegram.
	I would say, again, summer of 2021, who self-identified himself as a RCMP member, just kind of friendly, expressed to enjoy the podcast and like what I was saying and so on.
	So there was a loose relationship with whoever this person was.
	And during that time in Ottawa, they had reached out to me to inform me to say that the POU, which I had to...
	Find, you know, if that was, I didn't understand the nomenclature of the Notre Dame Police Officer.
	I understood it to be the public order unit, essentially the riot police were being activated to be sent to Ottawa.
	And further to that, after the emergency act had been invoked, this person had sent me Well, there were screenshots, I guess, of either a WhatsApp group chat or telegram, I'm not sure, of various RCMP officers engaging in taking selfies of, you know, drinking and eating and so on, celebrating the violence that they were bringing upon the people downtown and saying, wait until they hear our jackboots and this kind of thing.
	He sent that to me, and I said, well, is this real?
	It looked very real.
	And I said, I will publish this.
	They said, that's why we sent it to you.
	So I did.
	I released that on Telegram, and that went out.
	Since then, that person has deleted their account sometime in March, and I haven't been in contact with them since.
	Okay.
	Do you remember their name on Telegram?
	The user handle was like GK or PK or something.
	It was two initials and a phone number.
	I think it was an Ontario area code.
	Other than that user, did anyone else provide you with information about police operations or enforcement plans?
	No.
	If we could pull up OPS, sorry, OPP1668.
	And then, I'm sorry, if we could go to page five, please.
	Keeps, yeah, scroll down more.
	So this is an OPP intelligence brief, Mr. McKenzie.
	You may have seen it with respect to some of the disclosure we provided, but I assume you wouldn't have seen the document before today.
	I'm going to ask you, if you look at item two, it says, actually, for context, look at item one.
	It talks about a video posted to, the name is redacted, but it says the name of the Instagram account is Raging Dissident.
	So that would be you, Mr. McKenzie?
	Yes, sir.
	As far as you know.
	And then item two, again, talks about a video posted to the Raging Dissident account in which the poster shares information credited to police sources that disclose enforcement plans.
	And then it provides a bit of a description.
	Is that the information that the user on Telegram provided you?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	On the same page, if you look at item three, it talks about on February 8th, a user posted two videos to his Telegram channel Rageboard.
	Is that your Telegram channel?
	That was one of the previous names of it, yes.
	Okay.
	And if you look there, if you...
	There's a line break, and then it says, again, name redacted, says there's supposed to be some negotiations taking place with a government delegate, but he hasn't heard how it went from organizers yet.
	He goes on to state.
	Do you see that?
	No, sir.
	Sorry.
	I'm talking a little quickly.
	And take your time.
	I want to make sure that you're reading this before I ask you questions.
	So this suggests that you were aware that there might be negotiations with a government delegate, but you hadn't heard from the organizers yet.
	Do you know that that's a reference to?
	I can't recall.
	I remember being under the impression that there was some form of negotiations taking place between some sort of leadership apparatus for the government.
	The convoy and the perhaps City of Ottawa, RCMP, OPP, not sure.
	The police and the convoy people.
	Fair enough.
	How did you learn that information?
	That is a good question.
	I think it may have just been kind of common knowledge that there was something like that was taking place.
	More of a rumor perhaps.
	As it goes on, yeah, the public order unit, that was...
	Given to me specifically by this user on Telegram from the RCMP, allegedly they were.
	Right, and you're talking then about the part that's in bold after that, is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Are you aware that Tom Morazo met with City Manager Steve Kanellakis on February 8th, 2022?
	No, sir.
	Did Mr. Morazo ever talk to you about meeting with Mr. Kanellakis or meeting with any government officials in any of the conversations you had?
	No, he did not.
	Have you ever spoken with Keith Wilson or Eva Chipiak?
	No, sir.
	We can take that down.
	Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
	Mr. McKenzie, I think you agree with me.
	It's fair to say that you were critical of the federal government's response to the protests in Ottawa and Coutts.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Initially, I had no issue.
	Actually, I thought it was handled very appropriately.
	There was a strong police presence, but also there was a large number of people.
	So inherently, there is a danger that something can happen.
	So it made sense.
	I didn't take any issue with anything that I had seen until.
	They started becoming a little more aggressive here and there.
	There was an incident where some fuel cans were stolen or seized or what have you.
	But it wasn't really until the EMA was invoked that they became extremely aggressive and violent.
	And that was what I took the most issue with.
	Did you ever say that the RCMP was intentionally cutting truckers off from essential supplies in Ottawa and Coutts?
	That is what I had been hearing from people, yes.
	And do you then repeat that on your podcast?
	I may have, yes.
	Did you ever say that the RCMP may attempt to disrupt cell phone towers to ensure truckers cannot communicate?
	That, again, was another scenario.
	There were people having a lot of issues with their cell phones.
	That may or may not have been the...
	Conduct of some kind of interference.
	It could have just been too many cell phones and out of towers.
	I'm not sure.
	But that, again, was another kind of running suspicion theory at the time.
	Fair enough.
	My question right now is if you recall, is that something you said on your podcast that that was something that was being said?
	I may have, yeah.
	And did you ever say on your podcast that...
	Sorry, let me back up.
	Did you ever distribute or know of anyone distributing contact information about the members of the Ottawa Police Service?
	We can pull up ssm.nsc.can.00001575 underscore REL.0001.
	Apologies for all those digits, Mr. McKenzie.
	So, scroll up to the top, please, just so I can give the witness some context.
	So, Mr. McKenzie, this is a CSIS analytical brief dated February 21st, 2022.
	And if we could go to page three of the brief, please.
	Thank you.
	And scroll down a bit further, please.
	Scroll down a little bit further, please.
	So this part of the brief says that since the initial weekend, key figures within Diagilon have made appeals for participation in and documentation of the demonstrations.
	Further, Vreend has been collecting donations to allow others to travel to participate in demonstration in Coutts, Alberta or Ottawa, Ontario.
	Do you see that?
	Yes, sir.
	Do you have any knowledge about whether or not Mr. Vreen was collecting donations to allow people to participate in both Coutts and Ottawa?
	I recall he was collecting some funds for someone.
	I don't think it was just in general open to whoever wanted them.
	I think there was one or two people potentially from Western Canada that expressed a desire to come down to Ottawa, but they couldn't afford it.
	So I think...
	That was roughly what was going on there.
	I wasn't directly involved.
	I can't recall entirely, but I think that's what was going on.
	And then if we could scroll up in this document to the next page up.
	Sorry, keep scrolling up.
	Stop there.
	So this, again, this is a CSIS document, but it has a box here that says, in Jeremy McKenzie's own words, The first one says, this is the good guys versus the bad guys.
	The showdown has finally fucking begun, and it has begun in Canada.
	You could go be a part of the story now.
	Is that something you've said?
	It sounds like something I said, yes.
	And is that something you've said with respect to the protests in either Ottawa or Coots?
	Probably, I believe so, yes.
	And then the next quote is, this is the beach, get yourself out there.
	Is that something you said with respect to the protests in either Ottawa or Kutz?
	Probably, yes.
	Okay.
	And in this case, when you're using the beach, are you referring to the analogy we spoke about with D-Day?
	I was referring to the idea that this, again, a lot of people had felt very powerless and disenfranchised, upset, depressed.
	This was an opportunity for them to actually go and participate and have their voices be heard and join these demonstrations.
	And rather than sitting at home complaining and whining about it on the couch, they could, you know, if you can, why not?
	Why not go and be involved?
	And I've heard you say that, Mr. McKenzie.
	I'm asking you if in this case, when you're using the word beach, if you're, it's using in the same context when you're alluding to D-Day.
	And the reason I'm asking you this is you know that the police and the government view your group as potentially as extremist.
	And so this is the sort of thing that would grab their interest.
	So when you're talking about beach, you're talking about D-Day.
	Is that right?
	Yeah.
	I was trying to speak directly to my audience that are familiar with my verbiage, my kind of terminology and things I reference in the way that they would understand that this is something important that you can do together.
	It's not I didn't certainly didn't mean it any kind of context or D-Day invasion type scenario, just simply meant it as an encouraging kind of call to the community at large that, hey, you know, if this is something, you know, you could be involved in rather than just, again, sitting at home by yourself.
	So, Mr. Clerk, you can take that document down.
	Thank you.
	I now have some questions for you, Mr. McKenzie, about the protests in Coutts.
	Just first, simple yes or no.
	Did you ever travel to Coutts personally?
	No.
	Did you know anyone who was protesting in Coutts in February 2022?
	I was aware that Mr. Chris Lysak was there and I...
	I'm loosely acquainted with Mr. Adam Skelly, who had made a couple of trips there to deliver steaks and brisket and so on.
	There was a couple of comedians in the Edmonton and Calgary area that I know that traveled down to put on a performance, I think, and then just kind of meet and greet and leave, and that was about it.
	What were the names of the two comedians?
	It was Brendan Blackere and Sam Walker.
	I mean, I'm not sure if Sam attended, but Brendan for sure.
	And there was also Brett Forte, who I don't know.
	Personally, I've never spoken to him.
	I was just made aware that they were there because they posted a video of them traveling there to say hi to everybody.
	And so Chris Lysak, Mr. Adam Skelly, Brendan and Sam, are they members of the Diagalon community?
	No.
	They may identify as fans.
	Mr. Lysak would.
	Brandon probably would.
	Sam potentially.
	Mr. Forte I've never met.
	Um, if you're a fan of Diagon, you're part of the community, right?
	Again, it's just kind of self identifying.
	You could say it's as simple as, you know, as identifying as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan by putting a sticker on your truck.
	So the answer to my question is yes.
	I suppose so, yes.
	Were you communicating with the individuals you just identified while they were in Coots?
	No.
	How do you know Chris Lysak?
	Mr. Lysak has been a long-time fan of the podcast.
	I met him personally in Saskatchewan in the summer of 2021, I believe, at first.
	First meet-and-greet get-together I mentioned, and a subsequent one later in the year, perhaps September, there was a few dozen people.
	We had a beer and a steak with all these people, took a photograph together of one of them, and that's pretty much it.
	Did you talk to them when you were at either of those two meet-and-greets?
	Yes, I talked to dozens of people.
	And I take it the topic of conversation at these meet and greets include the similar topics that you discuss on your podcast.
	Is that fair?
	I generally don't like to engage in that.
	I find it kind of exhausting and I try to just make it, keep it kind of a social, you know, meet and greet, you know, casual kind of social event.
	I don't really try to talk politics or anything like that.
	But presumably your fans, when they meet you in person, they want to talk to you about what they hear you talking about in your podcast.
	That's fair, isn't it?
	Sometimes, yes.
	Can we pull up COM50907?
	Thank you.
	So, Mr. McKenzie, Can you please identify the people in this photo?
	Yeah, that's the photo I just mentioned.
	I posted it to my Instagram page.
	It's myself on my left and Mr. Lysak on the right.
	And was this at the first event in Saskatchewan?
	I believe so, yes.
	And just to be clear, Mr. McKenzie, other than that event in Saskatchewan and then the other event in September 2021, is there any other times you've met with Mr. Lysak?
	No.
	Did you communicate with him at any time other than at those events?
	Mr. Lysak may have been in some larger online group chats where there's 30, 40 other people involved.
	Never, to my knowledge, never directly one-on-one.
	He has called me twice, I think since he's been incarcerated, just simply to...
	Say hi, and I just try to offer some encouragement to him and hope that he's doing well, etc.
	So you spoke to him after his arrest in Coots?
	Yes, sometime this summer.
	And I asked you generally about the people you identified who you knew in Coots, but with respect to Mr. Lysak specifically, did you understand him to be a fan of your podcasts?
	Yes, sir.
	And you understood him to be a member of the Diagalon community?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Um...
	Yes.
	Are you aware that Mr. Lysak, or at least there's been reports that Mr. Lysak had a diagonal flag flying outside the house in which he lived with his father?
	I have heard that, yes.
	So if we could pull up COM917.
	And so, have you ever read this article that's on the screen, Mr. McKenzie?
	I may have.
	It's tough to recall.
	It's an article in the Toronto Star, and you're quoted in it.
	Do you remember giving a quote to the Toronto Star with respect to an article they were writing about Mr. Lysak?
	I think so.
	I've spoken to the Toronto Star several times yet.
	Okay.
	And if you could go down to page three, just so I can show you.
	You'll see in the middle of the page, it says, when reached by the star this week, McKenzie said in an email that he'd met Chris along with thousands of people by now through my podcast and travels around the country, which is, as you explained.
	So we can take that down.
	Mr. McKenzie, are you aware that on February 14th, the RCMP executed a search warrant in Coutts, Alberta, and arrested 13 people?
	And as a part of that arrest, they seized...
	Several weapons and body armor.
	Is that something you're aware of?
	Yes, sir.
	And how did you become aware of that?
	I was made aware of it by once it hit the media under that evening or the following day.
	And when did you become aware that Mr. Lysak was one of the people who was arrested?
	It was right around the same time that word had spread around the community that he had been arrested as part of the...
	And are you aware that Mr. Lysak was charged with conspiracy to murder, uttering threats and possession of a weapon?
	Yes, sir.
	After the arrests, as the Commission understands it, you posted a video in Ottawa where you talked about the people who'd gotten arrested in Coutts.
	Do you know what I'm talking about?
	Yes, sir, I think so.
	What I'll do is I'll pull it up.
	I'm not going to play it for you because of our time, but if you can identify it as a video that you participated in, that would be helpful.
	COM50911 Actually, you might just play the first maybe 30 seconds or so.
	If you're not, if you just want to give a shit, please, in your thoughts, keep the voice in Alberta.
	They got arrested.
	We haven't heard from them.
	We don't know what's going on.
	There's some rumors they're getting fucking charged with some heavy shit.
	I don't know what's going on there.
	I don't know.
	I know as much as you do.
	Okay, you can stop it there.
	So is that a video you posted, Mr. McKenzie?
	Yes, that appears to be a clip from one of my podcast episodes probably shortly after that had taken place.
	At the time, and still presently, I'm very skeptical of law enforcement, especially considering the...
	Political nature in which there appears to be a lot of interference going on in the country.
	I was concerned that from that aspect of what was happening out there, again, I don't know anything other than what's been posted in the media and what's been said other than that they've been charged with what they've been charged with.
	Of course, if it...
	Evidence does appear or is presented that proves that these allegations are in fact correct.
	Obviously, that is something I would denounce.
	I don't stand by that.
	As I've said, this is not something that is supported by myself.
	It would undermine the entire purpose of these protests.
	And until then, I hope they get a fair trial and we'll see what happens.
	And you're correct, Mr. McKenzie.
	The matter is before the courts.
	And so it is yet to be adjudicated in the appropriate setting.
	The media reports are that the people were arrested.
	There was concern by the police that some of them were Absolutely, yes.
	In the video, you can take it down.
	Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
	You mentioned the boys in Alberta when you're talking about the rest.
	Other than Mr. Lysak, do you know anyone else who got arrested in Alberta?
	No, sir.
	Just to be clear, I'm going to read you the names and I just want you to say yes or no.
	Yes, I know them.
	No, I don't know them.
	Ursula Gwen Allred?
	No.
	Luke Burke?
	No.
	Christopher Dean Carbert or Carbear?
	No.
	Evan Banning Colnut?
	No.
	Johnson Chi Chow Law?
	No.
	Jacqueline Francis Martin?
	Ms. Martin, I did have a conversation with maybe in June or July.
	She was in one of these video chats and introduced herself and mentioned that she was...
	Or maybe that wasn't her.
	Martin?
	And Mr. McKenzie, just to stop you there, I'm interested in people you knew as of February 14th, 2022.
	Okay.
	Yeah, no.
	Justin Lyle Martin?
	No.
	Jerry Mitchell Troy Moran?
	No.
	Easton Stewart Oler?
	No.
	Anthony George Olianek?
	No.
	Joanne Lynn Person?
	No.
	Jenks Anthon Zaremba?
	No.
	Okay.
	Mr. Commissioner, I'm almost done.
	If I could have a few more minutes, please.
	Okay.
	Mr. McKenzie, I'm sure you are no doubt aware that the RCMP released photos of the weapons and body armor they seized.
	And why don't we pull up two photos first with COM915.
	And if we could just scroll out, and this is just to give you some context, Mr. McKenzie, this is the larger photo showing the weapons and the ammunition and the vest that received.
	And then if we could pull up COM916, and what I'm going to show you is a photo that's zooming in on the vest that if you're looking at the photos to the right.
	I expect you know what I'm going to show you at this point, Mr. McKenzie.
	This is a zoom-in of the photo we're looking at, and that's a ballistic vest, as I understand it.
	Is that correct?
	It appears to be some kind of tactical vest.
	If it was ballistic, it would have to have some kind of ballistic plates or Kevlar or something inserted into it.
	It's not clear.
	Right.
	Fair enough.
	You see on there, there's two patches with the diagonal symbol, correct?
	Yes, it does appear that that is the case.
	However, I was made aware of this shortly after this took place.
	And after some scrutiny and taking a closer look at the photos, they don't appear to be, as I said, there was a man in Prince Edward Island who was making these and selling them at cost to whoever.
	Thousands of these went out across Canada, some to the United States, some to Australia.
	These ones, however, appear to be homemade or made by someone else.
	As of now, I don't recall anyone coming forward to say that they had produced these or where these came from, so I can't really speak to it as their origins.
	Right, but you agreed with me earlier, Mr. McKenzie, that any one of your fans or anyone who was in the Diagon community who supported you could have very easily made a patch that looks just like that.
	Isn't that right?
	Yes.
	If we could pull up and this will be the last document Mr. Commissioner pb.nsc.can.0008508_rel.0001 So, Mr. Mackenzie, again, this is a document.
	This one's from the RCMPK Division, and it's a form of report about...
	The arrest that we've been talking about in Coutts, Alberta.
	And if we can scroll down to where it says current situation, it says in the second bullet point, a ballistic vest was seized during the search warrant at the residence in Coutts, which contained a patch reflective of the Diagilon flag.
	It is believed that this vest belongs to one of the accused, Christopher Lysak.
	Open source information has linked Lysak to redacted name.
	So, Mr. McKenzie, this isn't your report.
	I know you didn't produce it, but...
	You would agree with me that from the RCMP's perspective, they believe that the vest with the diagonal symbol was Mr. Lysak's, correct?
	That does appear to be what they believe, yes.
	Wait a moment.
	Sorry, your counsel had an objection.
	Yes.
	It's unfair to this witness to ask him to speculate what is in the RCMP's mind and their perspective about intelligence.
	I think maybe the question wasn't that well framed.
	The quote speaks for itself.
	If he could ask whether he agrees with the quote is on the RCMP letterhead.
	I mean, it's really not much further than that, I take it.
	I actually withdraw the question, Mr. Fisher.
	I agree that he doesn't know why the RCMP made their observations.
	So I agree with that and I withdraw it.
	And those are my questions.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	So now we'll...
	Go with first the convoy organizers.
	The convoy organizers are ceding their time to Mr. Mackenzie's council, sir.
	Okay.
	Government of Canada.
	Good afternoon, Mr. McKenzie.
	My name is Stephen Aylward.
	I'm one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada.
	Hello.
	Mr. McKenzie, you described Diagalon as a grassroots community.
	Do I have that right?
	No, I wouldn't say it's grassroots.
	It's spreading from my imagination.
	And I create the content from which the...
	Law and amusement, entertainment, and so on attracts people to it, in which they would then either self-identify as a fan or not.
	And you've described yourself as the de facto leader of Diagalon?
	No, that's not correct.
	I've never described myself in that manner.
	That's been put forward into the media again by people at the Canadian 88 Network.
	Again, this is a figment of my imagination in a fictional world.
	I see.
	Can't really lead a fictional world, exactly.
	The letter to the Senate that the Commission Council brought up earlier, you had described yourself as a de facto leader in quotes.
	I take it then you're saying that was being used ironically in that context.
	Yes, I was trying to identify myself as the person in question that the Senate was debating about and the House of Commons were talking about, which alarmed me.
	And I was acting in the interest of protecting.
	Not only myself, but other people that I identified as fans and followers of mine.
	And it was clear that this was an issue of national importance and I felt obliged to say something about it rather than ignore it.
	Right.
	And you have no formal authority over anyone who's part of the Diagalon community, is that right?
	That's correct.
	There's no hierarchy, there's no rank system, membership, code of conduct, uniforms, anything like this.
	It's a very informal, again, I would pose it as if you're a fan of the Calvary Flames or Montreal Canadiens or not or something, it's just as simple as saying you like it or you don't.
	Okay, and you view yourself as somewhat of a calming presence within the Diagon community?
	No, I would view myself as the, I guess, central figure from which the rest of it sort of orbits.
	Okay, earlier you agreed with Commission Council that you had put out messages urging people in Ottawa not to use violence or to act unlawfully.
	You agree with that?
	Correct.
	I did use my platform to try my best to, again, put forward messages.
	Responsible messaging, yes.
	And you were putting out those messages because you were concerned that some members of the Diagalon community would use violence or would act unlawfully?
	My concern was that something could happen outside of my control and I would rather have had to say something on record of what I would expect people to, you know, to behave lawfully and peacefully.
	So that if they follow me and listen to me and they've heard that and then chosen to act on their own and do something outside the desires of myself, then that's not really something I can control.
	I can't control what other people want to do, but I did want to make it clear that this was my intention, was a peaceful demonstration.
	And you explained that there were other members of the Diagalon community with you in Ottawa at the time of the Freedom Convoy?
	That's correct.
	How many would you say?
	There was a property that we were staying at outside the city limits that had been offered up by someone who was a fan.
	He had a vacant building, no furniture, but it's got a roof, it's got heat, so you could stay there.
	At times, there were three or four or five of us.
	Other times, as many as 20. And were there other people that you saw in Ottawa with Diagalon?
	I didn't personally observe any one individual I did see that had a flag, but outside of that I didn't see any symbolism or flags or patches or so on.
	I did encounter a number of people that recognized me and wanted to have a picture and talk and shake hands and so on.
	Could we please call up SSM.nsc.can.6079_rel.0001?
	Mr. McKenzie, are you aware of reports that members of the Plaid Army put out a YouTube video in which they expressed the hope that the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa would be the Canadian version of the January 6th riot in Capitol Hill?
	I believe I know the clip that you're referring to which is again taken out of context of a much larger presentation broadcast of which I was not party to.
	Obviously I can't speak to that person's intentions or what they meant by that but I will reinforce that again it was not my intention to see any kind of violence political violence or Or anything like that because it again undermines the intentions and objectives of the protesters, which was to peacefully demonstrate their discontent.
	Thank you.
	If we could actually pull up the next document, it's a video.
	PB.CAN.401820 _REL.0001 And if we could start the video at the 55 second mark.
	Peace.
	Just while we're calling that up, you're aware that there was a deal that was struck between some of the protest organizers in Ottawa and the City of Ottawa?
	I don't believe so, no.
	Council, if you'll just allow a brief indulgence.
	We're having a bit of difficulty locating that.
	Maybe I'll move on to the next topic and then I'll come back to that.
	In terms of the Cootes incident that Mr. Mather was just discussing with you, were you aware that there were a number of individuals who traveled from Ottawa to Who are at the Freedom Convoy event in Ottawa, who then traveled to Coutts?
	No, sir.
	And in particular, to clarify, referring to individuals who are charged as part of that RCMP operation.
	No, sir.
	Just a moment ago, when you were describing the...
	We were looking at a photo of some sort of body armor that had the...
	Diagalon symbol on it, and you were expressing some concerns about the authenticity of the Diagalon symbol there.
	Just to be clear, were you suggesting that the Diagalon symbol had been planted there by law enforcement?
	Again, at the time, and still, I am skeptical of the RCP particularly, but law enforcement in Canada, there is a history of...
	Things like this taking place, it's not outside the realm of possibility that something like that is very easily replicated, could be planted.
	I'm not suggesting that it certainly has or has not, but I would leave that open to possibility, yes.
	I take it there's still some issue in pulling up that video?
	Correct, Council.
	Is it going to be a while or should this be put off to a little later?
	This may take a little while, Commissioner.
	So maybe if you're agreeable, you can complete your examination subject to this video and we can slot you in a little bit in maybe 10 minutes whenever this is sorted out.
	Yes, that's fine.
	I did have one other video clip that I wanted to play.
	Is it possible to pull up a different video clip?
	Sure, Councilor.
	I can assist if you have the doc ID.
	Yes, okay.
	It's COM50911, the video that was played earlier.
	And if we could just start that around the 30-second mark Thanks We're in this palace they occupy as a federal agent.
	When there isn't anything I want.
	I'll see you when I see you.
	I'm not forwarding what I can upload.
	I'll do what I can do.
	Cheers, guys.
	Thank you so much.
	I appreciate it.
	I hope you had a good time.
	I hope you feel like all your truckers out there, all you guys, hold the fuck down.
	Nobody's going anywhere.
	You're not scared of anybody.
	You want to fucking dance?
	Let's dance.
	Force a tyrant to act like one.
	And oh, did we succeed in that?
	And as promised, I want to play you this video.
	It's from my good, dear friend, Greg Arcade.
	You're a legend and a wonderful man.
	I love you, brother.
	Thank you so much for the work that you've done and continue to do for this country and your people.
	You're an underrated person, and in the words of the Ferryman's Toll, And so earlier you mentioned that there were some videos in which you had urged people in Ottawa not to use violence, not to act unlawfully.
	Do you view your comments, you want to dance, let's dance, or I believe it was hold the fuck down.
	Do you view those comments as in line with your earlier messaging?
	There was no intention to...
	Convey that the protesters and the demonstrators had no intention of relinquishing their right to peacefully demonstrate.
	It was clear at the time that the rumblings and things I'd been hearing and seeing that it was the intention of the federal government to use force, to dispel these people.
	So, as I said in the video, and I've been saying for a long time, is, you know, to force a tyrant to act like one, you simply refuse to bend to their will and they will reveal themselves.
	To be who they are.
	In this case, they deployed the RCMP and various police forces and beat people with batons and shot them with tear gas canisters and trampled an indigenous elderly woman with a horse.
	Another man was dragged lifelessly through a crowd and so on.
	So that was the price that people were willing to pay and endure for the Canadian people to show them the true face of what it was they were standing against.
	Okay, thank you.
	If I might ask for just two minutes later to address that issue with the video.
	I think it's now available.
	So, Council, I believe it's been renumbered to poe.doj6014.
	It's an eight-minute long video, correct?
	Yes, that's right.
	If we could start it at the 55 second mark, please.
	I'm sure a lot of people have been seeing this.
	Randy Hillier has spoken about this already.
	Tomorrow, allegedly, there's some kind of deal being signed or agreed upon by, you know, the quote-unquote truckers with the city, with the government, or they're going to move some vehicles, relocate to this kind of stuff.
	It's been expressed to me by people, you know, connected.
	Inside the movement there, to the actual truckers, that this leadership cell of political operatives like Dichter and Dagny are not on side, guys.
	So they haven't released a dime of the money at all?
	These guys are sitting out there.
	They're paying.
	They've got $9,000 a month making these payments on these trucks.
	They're not getting paid.
	They're missing mortgage payments now.
	And this deal tomorrow is fraudulent.
	A lot of the names that are attached to it, people have...
	I mentioned a deal earlier between protest organizers and the city.
	Does that video, does that refresh your memory about that issue?
	Yeah, apologies.
	A bit.
	I was unclear as to what you were referring to.
	I think there was some kind of negotiation that was taking place to move some trucks from one place to another.
	Again, I wasn't intimately involved.
	I don't know exactly the details of that, but to some extent, I'm not sure exactly.
	Safe to say you were urging your followers not to go along with that deal.
	I was expressing concern because at that time there was a number of names that had appeared that somehow had gotten into the leadership cadre or something, as you could describe, that I was very skeptical of their intentions and I had some skepticism and fear that things were moving in a malicious direction.
	All right, thank you.
	Okay, thank you.
	Next, I think it's the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses.
	Good afternoon, Mr. McKenzie.
	I'm not sure if you can see me there.
	My name is Paul Champ.
	I'm a lawyer for the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses, the people from downtown Ottawa.
	Just have a couple of questions for you.
	You mentioned in your testimony about getting the screen captures of text, group texts from RCMP officers.
	You got that from a current RCMP member, is that right?
	Delivered to me.
	I understood that to be the case.
	I can't speak to if this person is still employed or not.
	Okay.
	And do you occasionally have interactions of people who are fans or are interested in what you say or supporters who are current members of law enforcement?
	Yes, that's correct.
	And while you were in Ottawa, during the convoy protest, were you in communication with some of these?
	Individuals who are current law enforcement members and are supporters of yours?
	Not directly, no.
	And have you ever been in contact with or anyone communicated to you who is a current member of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service who's a supporter of you or a fan of you?
	I've actually made numerous overtures and offers to speak to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to try to shed some light on myself and this community that they seem so concerned about.
	And as of today is the first day that I've ever been asked a single question by anyone in any official capacity about it.
	Right.
	And you mentioned that you had...
	Three or four people or sometimes as many as 20 people staying with you in the same location in Ottawa, is that right?
	Correct, yes.
	And those were up to 20 people who were supporters or fans of yours?
	Yes, that's correct.
	And some of these people were former members of the military or current members of the military?
	Veterans like yourself?
	I do not think so.
	I'd have to go through a list and refresh my memory, but no one's jumping out at me.
	I don't think so.
	I believe they're all civilians.
	Okay.
	Did any of them bring any firearms with them?
	No, sir.
	I actually went out of my way to make sure that was adamantly very clear that that would not be something I would endorse and is not a good idea.
	And again, it would be a very dangerous situation.
	It's illegal and it's undermining.
	The objectives of the protesters.
	For sure.
	Yeah, you were concerned about that, right?
	That some people in the protest might undermine the purpose of the protest by becoming violent.
	You didn't want that to happen, correct?
	That's correct.
	And that's why you made that message out to people to not be violent.
	Is that right?
	Yes, sir.
	Because you knew some of the people who were there could be volatile and could be violent.
	Is that right?
	I understand that in great numbers of people, in tens of thousands of people, there is always going to be outliers of folks who may be unhinged, they may be mentally ill, there could be any number of factors that may contribute to something, and I was just doing my best to mitigate any potential, any influence that I have to try to push things in a positive direction, rather than say nothing, or worse, contribute to something negative happening.
	And when you were in Ottawa, did you have contact with Mr. Randy Hillier?
	I met with Mr. Hillier once, maybe twice.
	He didn't have much of a voice.
	He was feeling under the weather, but yeah, I met him once or twice.
	While you were in Ottawa?
	Correct.
	When you got the information about the RCMB text, did you pass that on to anyone in the convoy leadership?
	No, sir.
	I looked at it.
	I sat with it for about 10 minutes, and I just decided to publish it on my Telegram page for everyone to look at.
	And from there, it went to Counter Signal, Kian Bextie, Rebel News, took it, various other...
	Various other independent journalists and so on took note of it, notably the Legacy Media CBC and so on, did not comment or provide any coverage or insight of that, but I simply just put it out there and it, you know, went off on its own into the wild.
	And you met with Mr. Hilliard.
	Did you meet with any other elected political officials while you were in Ottawa during the convoy protests?
	No, sir.
	Either federally or provincially?
	Not $20, no.
	And you'd indicated in your testimony that you met Ms. Tamara Leach this summer?
	I spoke to her on the phone.
	I did see Tamara Leach briefly.
	She walked by me somewhere in a hotel lobby, but I hadn't had any formal interaction, conversation, or anything with her until I spoke to her on the phone sometime in, I want to say, August.
	And the two of you, you were discussing, what was the topic you were discussing?
	The upcoming inquiry or other issues?
	No, she had actually called to express concern and so on for my legal situation.
	For your legal situation?
	Yes, outside of this.
	Okay, thank you very much, Mr. McKenzie.
	Okay, thank you.
	Next, the Ottawa Police Service.
	Good afternoon, Mr. McKenzie.
	My name is Jessica Barrow, and I'm counsel for the Ottawa Police Service.
	Can you see and hear me all right?
	Yes, I can.
	Hello.
	Excellent.
	I'm going to start with something that you testified to earlier, and you indicated that in the lead-up to the events in Ottawa, you were of the view that this was not going to be what you referred to as an in-and-out event.
	But just to be clear, you were not one of the organizers of this event, correct?
	That's correct.
	I believe I may have been misconstrued as such or perceived to be a bigger personality in this, simply because of my social media presence and a video that I released basically reacting to the convergence of the trucks moving towards Ottawa.
	I was kind of excited by it and interested in what was going to happen.
	That video achieved a fair amount.
	Attraction in place, so I think maybe people associated me with that for that reason.
	However, I had no time to contact the organizers.
	I didn't ask for any money, take any money, give any money.
	I had no hand in logistics, planning, anything like that.
	I was simply there with my own volition to observe and just be there for the experience.
	So you really had no knowledge as to the specific intentions of the organizers except for whatever perhaps you were seeing online.
	Is that fair?
	As far as the intentions were concerned, I was basically just collating the information that I could find in social media and what people were saying.
	I was aware of who some of the people were for that reason, and they were echoing the same, you know, similar kind of sentiments.
	They were there to protest and show their discontent and exercise their rights to do so and so on.
	I didn't have any...
	I didn't see anything disagreeable with that.
	I didn't see any intentions of, you know, violence or so on.
	Right.
	But with respect to your comment in terms of this not being an in-and-out event, are you aware that the organizers or some of them testified earlier this week that this event became much more significant than they had really anticipated?
	No, I was not.
	I haven't been able to view much of it or hear much of what's...
	It transpired earlier.
	It was apparent to me just simply because Canada is a very large country and the effort required just to simply go to Ottawa from Alberta and British Columbia in Halifax and so on indicated to me and the numbers of which people were going indicated to me that this was not going to be a quick trip to the city as it were.
	Are you aware that, similarly, that some of the organizers testified that they had not anticipated staying as long as they ultimately did?
	No, I'm not.
	Okay.
	I'm going to move on to the issue of social media.
	Obviously, we heard some testimony from you today about your particular use of social media.
	Would you agree with me that social media is a tool that some people use to influence the actions of others?
	Yes, of course.
	In fact, it's actually a career now, being a social media influencer.
	Yes, some people make a living that way.
	And it's a tool that's used to encourage people to buy things or used for social advocacy?
	Yes, I think it's empowered a lot of people to express their voice in the world and establish themselves as such if they want to act similarly to the way that corporate broadcasting and larger companies and stuff do to push whatever products, ideas, and things that.
	So then I take it you would agree with me that social media has the power both unintentionally and intentionally to influence the actions of others.
	I would say that anything that anyone is paying is a large If you just hold on a moment, your counsel is standing up here.
	I'm not sure social media can have an intent.
	Not sure the question is precise, and I'm not sure how relevant it is in the circumstances.
	Perhaps social media users could have that kind of power, but my client...
	I don't think it's fair for him to testify about the power that social media has in terms of intent and lack of intent.
	I was speaking specifically to social media influencers, but I'm happy to be more clear if that's required.
	I think we have to be more clear.
	Social media is something we should be looking into, but I could try and rephrase the question.
	Happy to.
	So to be clear, Mr. McKenzie, I'm speaking obviously specifically to the users that are using social media.
	And in terms of influencing others, my question was, would you agree with me that those using social media can both intentionally and unintentionally influence others?
	Yes, of course.
	I would imagine that any form of media, whether it's social media, television, movies, music, if they're inundated, especially in sort of...
	A way that that becomes a large focus of their day-to-day lives, then it would have an impact on the way that they view things, of course.
	And you indicated earlier that depending on the platform and depending on the specific post, that anywhere between tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people have followed you.
	It's unclear.
	There's no real way to measure, but tens of thousands would probably be a fair assessment, yes.
	I think you may have indicated that one of your YouTube videos may have garnered up to half a million views.
	Do I have that incorrect?
	No, several of them are on the past, yes.
	Okay.
	So I'm not going to take you to this specific document, but for the record, it's OPP 835, and it's a document published by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, which I take from your earlier testimony you disagree with, but it describes Diagelon, also referred to as Plaid Army.
	As a conspiracy-based network that is increasingly evolving into a militia comprising neo-fascists who anticipate a violent revolution which they will seize power.
	I take it you disagree with that assessment.
	It's a psychotic assessment.
	Is that fair?
	Yes, I disagree and I don't agree that my imagination is an organization of any kind.
	I'm not clear on what neo-fascist accelerationist means.
	And in my opinion, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is not a credible news or information research source.
	They are a hate network.
	Fair enough, but I take it you would agree with me that at least some people might interpret your messaging in that way, because obviously the Canadian Anti-Hate Network does.
	Sure.
	I can't control how people interpret or don't interpret any number of things.
	I can only control the things that I say and conduct myself the best that I can.
	And if it's interpreted the wrong way, then I'm happy to clarify.
	But I can't, again, be expected to control the interpretations of other people.
	Fair enough.
	I'll just ask one more question because I believe I'm getting the signal that I'm out of time.
	But as a follow-up to that, there were a few veiled references to violence that we saw earlier, counsel, take you to.
	And you indicated in response to those that it certainly wasn't your intention to promote violence and that your followers would know that.
	Is that a fair assessment of your answer?
	Fair and true.
	But it's true that you have not obviously spoken to all of your followers, right?
	It's true.
	He has not spoken to all of his followers.
	Well, I don't exactly take attendance, so there's no way to know who is listening to me at any number of times.
	All I can do is use my platforms accordingly, and if it's listened to or not by individual people, it's not within my control.
	And so you obviously couldn't know how they're interpreting your message?
	No.
	Okay, thank you.
	Those are my questions.
	Can you believe this is the worst...
	Next is the Ontario Provincial Police.
	The most damning witness that...
	Commissioner, I have no questions.
	Thank you.
	Anybody could have hoped to prove the case.
	This is the guy.
	Counsel for former chief, slowly.
	Commissioner, also no questions for the witness.
	Thank you.
	This is supposed to be the best witness to show how bad he was and whatever.
	And this is the best they can get out of it.
	Thank you, Commissioner.
	We have no questions either.
	That lawyer asking, I don't know if you can see me there, that's a needle.
	The Democracy Fund, JCCF, Antoine Dayi for the Citizens for Freedom.
	Our group would like to cede our time to counsel for the witness.
	Okay, this could get interesting now.
	This seems to be a popular person, Mr. Foda.
	I guess it's your turn.
	They seem to...
	Collected a lot of support.
	I won't need all the time, Mr. Commissioner, but I'm happy to commence now.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you, sir.
	And by the way, if there's anybody who looks at Jeremy McKenzie after this...
	Good afternoon, Mr. McKenzie.
	Can you see me?
	And still thinks ill of him?
	Yes, sir.
	This is the first time you've seen me actually on video.
	That is correct.
	This guy's dapperly dressed, I'll tell you that much.
	I want to start off with just covering some of the questions that you were asked by the last council counsel for the Ottawa Police Service.
	The Canada Anti-Hate Network.
	You were asked about sort of the information that they've put out there about you.
	Are you aware if the Canada Anti-Hate Network has itself spread any misinformation during the convoy?
	Yes.
	As a matter of fact, The president, or the chief, as I understand it, Mr. Farber, was on national television advising the nation of Canada that anti-Semitic flyers were being distributed throughout downtown Ottawa as a result of the nature of the people involved, when in fact that was a screen grab from an event in Miami, Florida that had taken place weeks earlier.
	And do you know if the Canada Anti-Hate Networks...
	Views about you have been relied upon by law enforcement or other senior officials in the federal government?
	Yes, I have.
	Through, again, legal disclosure, documents referenced by law enforcement, open source intelligence, and so on.
	There are a number of pages and articles and things written by the Canadian Hanty Hate Network used as justification for their assessment of me.
	Have you ever had any communication with anyone from the Canada Anti-Hate Network?
	I have, actually.
	One of their journalists, Mr. Smith, I believe, reached out to me in just as late as February of this year.
	Previous to that, no one had ever approached me for a comment or explanation.
	They were content to just publish things, sometimes with no bylines whatsoever, written by ostensibly no one.
	I attempted to explain and kind of level man-to-man with Mr. Smith about who I am and so on.
	That didn't really go anywhere.
	I'd also been in contact informally, casually with Mr. Kurt Phillips over Twitter over the past several months before he was banned.
	I'm just going to go send a tweet to anti-hate.
	Did your conversations have anything to do about the convoy or your alleged extremist activities?
	No, they were pretty casual in nature, just about kind of surface-level things, about other personalities and stuff, other maybe casual things, sometimes different beers that we enjoyed, things like this.
	You were asked...
	Questions about social media and social media influencers and their ability to either unintentionally or intentionally influence others.
	What are your views on legacy media being able to do that?
	Well, again, yeah, with seeing the size of the platform that it has and the amount of funding that's being dumped into it from the Canadian taxpayer, it's...
	One of the bigger microphones that exists, and it's my opinion that it has an extreme amount of bias and has been almost weaponized in that way to push state and government messaging to influence and perhaps correct the way that people are thinking as it benefits the people that pay their bills.
	I'd like to pull up Poe.jmk701.
	It's an article from the Globe and Mail.
	Can you see this article on your screen, Mr. McKenzie?
	Yes, sir.
	Are you familiar with it?
	No, I've never seen this before.
	Okay, if we could scroll down a little bit and stop right there for a moment.
	Could you please read that, Mr. McKenzie, and tell us when you're done?
	Yes, sir.
	Do you want me to read it aloud or just...
	No, just to yourself.
	I'm going to just cover some of the content in that.
	Okay.
	I've got it, thanks.
	Okay, if we could go down a little bit further.
	and a little bit further.
	and then just a little bit further.
	So, this was an article that was published around February 16th after the Emergencies Act was invoked by the government.
	Okay.
	And there are comments made by Public Safety Minister that were later clarified by his spokesperson.
	Mr. Mendicino didn't name any organization during the news conference, but his spokesperson, Alexander Cohen, Later said that the minister's remarks were in reference to Diagalon.
	If we could go up just a little bit further to the comments that were actually made by Mr. Mendocino.
	Further up, please.
	Right there.
	So, quote, To a far-right extreme organizations with leaders who are in Ottawa.
	How many members, sorry, how many of the individuals at COOTS did you have any ties to?
	Just the, again, Mr. Lysak would have met twice.
	And would you consider that to be strong ties?
	No.
	Would you consider this to be an example of misinformation or no?
	Yes, I would.
	I'd like to pull up some of the clips, sir, that Council have referenced, but that we've not actually gone over with you.
	If I could first ask that JMK000, I think there's seven zeros and four.
	And this is a clip I understand from your social media dated January 23rd of this year, sir.
	So as long as everybody just keeps their head, don't do anything stupid, say anything stupid, nothing illegal.
	Don't even speed.
	Don't give them anything.
	Where was that video taken, sir?
	That video was filmed outside downtown the waterfront in Picton, Nova Scotia, where I live.
	And what was your intent in putting out that video?
	That was the day or two days prior to me heading down to Ottawa.
	I know a lot of people were on their way.
	They were excited to go and so on.
	It was my intent to try and set a tone of extreme levels of situational awareness and attentiveness to the fact that there would be a lot of scrutiny on everyone.
	And so it was imperative that people conduct themselves in a responsible and lawful manner.
	If we could play another clip, please, 702, JMK702.
	This is a clip I understand.
	Sorry, if we could just go back to the beginning.
	Mr. McKenzie, I understand this was taken on January 28th.
	If you could please just watch it.
	Please be on your best behavior.
	And if you see anything odd or strange or makes you nervous or uncomfortable, leave.
	Leave immediately.
	Keep your, you know, your phone, your camera is probably your best defense.
	If you see anything strange, you know, film it.
	Where was this video taken, sir?
	That video appears to be taken in the residence I mentioned earlier that we stayed at a large amount of the time outside the city of Ottawa.
	And what was the message that you were trying to convey?
	I was just trying to keep people safe.
	And again, if they don't, I obviously wouldn't want them to intervene into something that seemed unsafe or dangerous.
	But if they could, I believe that as dangerous as they could be, the smartphones that people have can be their best defense.
	They can film what's happening around them and protect themselves in that way.
	And if they were to encounter or see anything disturbing or frightening or alarming.
	Then they should leave and get away from that and then potentially even report it to authorities if necessary.
	Speaking about reporting things to authorities, have you ever reported extremist behavior to authorities?
	Yes.
	Can you please tell us about that?
	One example, let's see, this would have been fall, I think, of 2021.
	There was a group online identifying themselves as Lynx something.
	It was armed men in the woods with masks.
	One of them specifically said this is a call to arms, which, as I understand, is an illegal thing to do.
	It was very clear that they intended to...
	We're promoting the idea of arming people, arming citizens.
	I think it was an acronym for liberate your neighborhood or something like that.
	And to engage the forces of the state in violent confrontation.
	They were commenting on my videos and inferring that they were trying to connect with me and so on.
	I found this very alarming.
	And again, putting potentially myself at risk, but other people that follow me and could be exposed to this and snared in whatever was going on there.
	Once I became aware of the video, I immediately called the mounted police about it.
	And did you receive a response?
	I did.
	They called me back.
	They asked me what I knew about it.
	Anything I said, all I know is what I've seen on the internet.
	I'm simply bringing it to your attention because if I were you, this is something that would concern me.
	And that was pretty much the end of that interaction.
	I'm not sure whatever took place after that.
	You didn't have follow-up after that?
	I don't think so.
	I think there wasn't one constable from Saskatchewan that may have called me to say they may have more questions in the future, but that was the end of that interaction.
	Were you willing to have a continuous relationship with law enforcement to assist them in identifying legitimate threats to public safety?
	Of course.
	if I could if there was anything for me to to give them or assist them in any way I would have yes I'd like to play another clip, JMK701.
	And my understanding is that this is a clip from February 5th.
	Support each other.
	Tell the truth.
	Be good.
	Don't do anything stupid and don't give in to their attempts to goad you.
	Into anything they can use against you.
	Because this is literally all they have at this point.
	This couple of sentences out of context on the internet and an old man in a casting.
	It's ridiculous, you know?
	Meanwhile, the high horse they stand on.
	Oh, we're so much better people.
	We're so much better people!
	We're more in superior, said the man in blackface.
	Where were you when this video was taken, sir?
	I believe I was driving, traveling back to Ottawa from the Maritimes.
	Can you please tell the commissioner sort of what your itinerary was during the convoy protests?
	From beginning to end?
	Yeah, my understanding is that you were not in Ottawa the entire time.
	Can you...
	Hold on, I just did something.
	Wait a second, people.
	Wait a second.
	Wait a second.
	Around that time is when I made that video.
	And then I stayed in Ottawa, the Ottawa area, for the duration until probably three to four days after the invocation of the Emergency Act and everyone was cleared out of downtown.
	Then my partner and I left and headed back to the Maritimes.
	When you were in Ottawa, did you engage in any illegal activity?
	No.
	Did you bring a vehicle?
	Yes, I drove my personal vehicle.
	It's a pickup truck.
	Where did you park?
	Either on the farm where we were staying or hotel parking lots that I would stay at or if it was in the interest of going downtown to see the protests, I would park in parking lots that were available as close as possible and then walk the remaining couple of blocks.
	Did you pay for parking?
	Yes.
	Did you assault anyone while you were in Ottawa?
	No.
	Threaten anyone while you were there?
	No.
	Did you engage in violent behaviour?
	No, sir.
	Were you armed?
	No.
	Were you charged with any offences in relation to your participation in the convoy in Ottawa?
	No, sir.
	Do you know whether or not your public political commentary has drawn the ire of officials?
	That is my belief, yes.
	Sir, you were asked questions about whether Diagalon had any structure.
	I think you were asked if you had any formal authority over anyone in the Diagalon community.
	And I believe you indicated that there was no hierarchy, no formal structure.
	Correct.
	To be fair, you have a vice president.
	Yes.
	Could you tell the commissioner who your vice president is?
	The vice president is of the Anglon, which is of my imagination.
	He is my sidekick that has evolved over the years.
	He's a demonic goat figurine named Philip with a very, very serious narcotics problem and time-traveling ability.
	Do you think...
	Any reasonable person who consumes your content either regularly or semi-regularly would actually consider Diagon to be an organization?
	I would say not, no.
	How do you explain what is included in intelligence reports and what is expressed in national media and expressed by...
	Ministers of the highest level in our country.
	It's my opinion that the foundational work by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network as pertains to targeting me as a previously government-funded and has enjoyed a fair amount of government funding to target and smear people.
	That they, you know, consider perhaps politically inconvenient or people that just want to shut up.
	They regularly engage in defamatory statements, libelous action, things like this.
	Out of context statements, they'll take a clip here, a sentence there, and stitch it together and make it appear as something that it is not.
	From there, some media outlets, legacy media outlets, lazily, unfortunately, it appears.
	I took it at face value, copy-paste, break the story, which is consumed by police officers, which, again, unfortunately, rather than doing any digging themselves or investigating or asking me a single question,
	take these things at face value and compile these reports and up the network it goes until it lands on the desk of the public safety minister or perhaps even the prime minister's office where they're faced with these Scenarios that have no basis in reality.
	I consider this entire situation entirely avoidable.
	None of this needed to happen.
	It's absurd.
	And I consider it the single most embarrassing and grotesque intelligence failure in national history.
	Mr. Mather, when he first started asking you questions, clarified that you're obviously testifying from in custody.
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	And my understanding is you have no criminal record?
	That's correct.
	How do you intend on pleading to all of the charges that you face?
	Not guilty.
	Those are my questions.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Any re-examination?
	No, Mr. Commissioner.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you for your testimony, Mr. McKenzie, and good luck with your trials.
	Thank you, Commissioner.
	Okay, next we're going to take the afternoon break.
	I will not be able to.
	Our final witness of the day and of the week.
	This judge has got stamina.
	I can't stay during the break.
	If I don't go jogging, I'm going to go crazy.
	I missed yesterday.
	I just had that...
	I don't like this cold brew.
	Very, very, very powerful.
	Okay, if anybody thinks Jeremy McKenzie came off badly or this is a criminal who deserves to be...
	I mean, he might be.
	He'll have his trial.
	He'll be whisked away now.
	Back to solitary.
	Back to jail.
	Thanks for your testimony.
	If anybody thinks that testimony was damning against Jeremy McKenzie or damning against the convoy or exculpatory for Justin Trudeau, It's one screen, two films.
	Or two screens, one film.
	Whatever.
	You know what I mean.
	It's not that Jeremy did good.
	Jeremy was Jeremy.
	The dude who's a national security threat, the one who's out there threatening violence, typically calls the cops to report extremism.
	Typically tells people...
	I just saw someone say massive echo.
	Mic check.
	Now, it typically tells people to not give them an excuse.
	I've met Jeremy.
	No doubt in my mind, he's a good man.
	Okay.
	Now, the reason why I have to run, and you all chat in the chat and shitty chat chat, I've got to jog, and I'm going live with Hunley, Mark Robert, and Barnes at 5.30.
	So, I've got to go.
	I'm going to do about seven kilometers.
	It should take about 30 minutes.
	Then I've got to go.
	Stop sweating.
	That's the most important thing.
	I've got to stop sweating for 5.30.
	So...
	I hope Jeremy can...
	Jeremy deserves to be treated like every other innocent until proven guilty individual.
	Given bail and only detained in pretrial detention under the most extreme justifications, flight risks of the highest order, which Jeremy is not.
	Recidative risk, which Jeremy is not.
	Anyhow.
	Okay, so I hope everyone's having a good afternoon anyhow.
	Cheers.
	It's interesting to watch, and I think as of next week, I'll probably not do...
	I'll go back to the second channel, live stream, people can watch it, and then we'll do the one and a half to two hour streams.
	When Trudeau comes up to testify...
	And apparently, by the way, they're...
	It's very tough to get in as a witness, apparently.
	I just went ahead and retweeted the anti-hate misinformation that they tweeted out back in the day with the receipts.
	The internet is forever.
	Deleting a tweet is not an apology.
	If, in fact, you made a mistake, a correction is the right thing to do.
	All right, go.
	When is JT testifying?
	I heard somewhere he's the 61st witness.
	I don't know, man.
	If I'm Trudeau, hell or high water, I would not want to testify because...
	Okay, anyway, so they're coming back after the break.
	So I'm going to go put my beautiful pulsating avatar on.
	Look into the avatar.
	Look into the avatar.
	No, I did that on purpose.
	All right, go.
	I'll be back.
	And 5.30 Live with Eric Hunley.
	Not to distract everyone from this, but...
	Okay.
	Viva Goa Run.
	Run good.
	Look into the Avatar.
	Order at all.
	The Commission is reconvening la Commissora Prahl.
	Thank you, Commissioner.
	Jeffrey Leon, co-lead counsel for the Commission.
	The next witness is Daniel Bulfer.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Mr. Bulford, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
	on the Bible, please.
	For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
	Daniel.
	Joseph Bulford.
	B-U-L-F-O-R-D.
	Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the help of God?
	I do so swear.
	Thank you.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Bulford.
	Clerk, could you please put up HRF 401553?
	You recognize this as a statement that you prepared for the Commission?
	Yes, sir, I do.
	Okay, we will put that in evidence.
	And if you ever need to refer to the statement while I'm asking you questions, you'll let me know, okay?
	Yes, sir.
	You can take that down now.
	I understand that you were born in Saskatchewan and resided in northern Alberta for several years.
	Yes, that's correct.
	And is it necessary that Council speaks to the protection?
	He's already given that protection, but he may want to do it again.
	Sir, that protection has already been marked as an exhibit.
	You're listed in the invocation.
	Thank you.
	Simply for the record, I'll refer to the statement that's in the record and the fact that you are under subpoena from the Commission.
	And as a result...
	It will be deemed that you've objected to each answer to seek the protection of the relevant Evidence Act.
	Okay?
	Thank you, Commissioner.
	Thank you for that reminder.
	Now, I understand that you spent 15 years in the RCMP?
	That's correct.
	And tell us briefly your career in the RCMP.
	I joined the RCMP in August of 2006.
	I graduated from the Depot Training Academy January 2007.
	I was posted to Whitehorse Yukon as a general duty constable for roughly four years.
	In December 2010, I transferred to Mayo Yukon, a smaller, more remote community four hours north of Whitehorse.
	I was posted there for roughly two and a half years.
	And then I transferred to Ottawa, where for the remainder of my career, I was a full-time sniper observer on the National Division Emergency Response Team.
	And you resigned from the RCMP in December 2021?
	That's correct.
	And why did you do that?
	I spoke out publicly.
	Against the federal government vaccination mandate for COVID-19 vaccines.
	And after speaking out publicly, my security clearance was revoked and I knew that I would be subject to disciplinary action.
	And after I reviewed what my options were in regards to that, I discovered that...
	If I was terminated for misconduct, which I suspected would be the case, I could potentially lose roughly half of my pension transfer value.
	So I made the decision to resign out of fear that I would not be able to set my family up adequately financially in the future.
	Thank you.
	Beyond that, have the COVID-19 public health measures affected you or your family?
	Yes, sir, very much.
	Can you say briefly why?
	Well, the obvious beginning is that I felt it necessary to leave my 15-year career, which I was provided 15 dedicated years of service to the Mounted Police.
	I was not a complainer.
	I worked hard.
	I was passionate about my craft.
	I think I had a reputation of being a hardworking professional.
	And beyond that, my wife and I were no longer permitted access to public spaces that we as taxpaying Canadians were helping fund.
	And that prevented us from being involved in our children's activities, such as minor hockey, which we were both heavily involved in for a number of years, roughly six years.
	which...
	We couldn't travel to see our family in northern Alberta, which, you know, living in the second largest landmass country in the world.
	Was problematic, so it's roughly 40 hours of drive time.
	And we lost neighbors and friends who were perfectly fine to have relationships with us until the vaccine passport deadline kicked in.
	And then we were no longer worthy to speak to.
	And beyond that, There was a very heightened state of anxiety about how much further the situation in Canada would degenerate.
	And what I mean by that is that the dehumanization effort had begun.
	And that was in, I believe that was in August of 2021 when the...
	Prime Minister had initially announced the impending federal vaccination mandate, and then he was campaigning into September for his SNAP election, and he was making comments regarding...
	Okay, sir, we only have an hour, so I think the Commissioner understands what you're saying.
	The ultimate problem was that...
	The Canadian population was led to believe that people like myself and my family were a threat to other people and their children, which was not true, by his own admission in July of 2021, on camera.
	And you're a member of an organization, Mounties for Freedom, that opposes public health measures and specifically COVID-19 vaccine?
	That's correct.
	And also police stand on guard for thee, which are police officers active and retired, who state admission includes to repair and regain public trust being damaged or lost due to the enforcement measures of emergency, sorry, due to the enforcement emergency measures.
	That's correct.
	And then you're also on the advisory board of Taking Back Our Freedoms?
	That's correct.
	We've heard Taking Back Our Freedoms about that organization in previous evidence.
	I take it it was founded to push back against COVID-19 vaccine mandates?
	I would say that's accurate, but in general, The COVID measures that were resulting in a segregation of our society.
	So not just the mandate, but the passport as well.
	And its mission has expanded to focus on rejuvenating Canada's democracy and institutions, correct?
	that's correct When did you first learn of the Freedom Convoy?
	At least one week prior to its arrival in Ottawa.
	Probably before that.
	Saw circulating videos on social media about its growing size and travel across Canada.
	And did somebody contact you to become involved with the convoy when it arrived in Ottawa?
	So initially, I was supposed to work in a volunteer security capacity for a number of the doctors that were speaking out against the COVID-19 health measures and vaccinations.
	Thank you.
	And I take it that...
	Before the convoy arrived, you were asked to take on an expanded role.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	So, I was...
	It was the...
	I believe it was the night of January 25th.
	I was called by a personal friend asking for help with volunteer security for Adopt-A-Trucker.
	So, I met with a...
	The Adopt-A-Trucker volunteers the following morning with Mr. Chris Guerra was there.
	That was the first time I'd ever encountered him.
	And based on what I saw from this small group of volunteers that had very little time to prepare for this major, major event that was about to land in Ottawa, I felt...
	That I could be better put to use in assisting them, and I could pass off the doctor security role to others.
	And you became in charge of VIP security?
	No, so that was the role that I passed off to others.
	Did you have a title in this new position?
	The title would be volunteer security.
	And then I ended up becoming a police liaison as well.
	And when did you start?
	Do you recall the date?
	That day, January 26th.
	And were you told how many vehicles were going to arrive in the conway?
	No, I was not.
	There was...
	You're getting varied numbers.
	From circulating social media, you know, anywhere between 10,000 vehicles upwards of 50,000 vehicles.
	I had no idea of an accurate number.
	And how long did you understand that the convoy would be staying in Ottawa?
	At that time, my understanding was that the convoy intended to come to Ottawa and stay until mandates were lifted.
	And you mentioned that you became a police liaison.
	Did you have communications with the Ontario Police Service?
	Sorry, the Ottawa Police Service?
	Yes, I had communication regularly with the Ottawa Police Service, the Parliamentary Police Protective Service, pardon me, the OPP and the RCMP.
	And just generally, what function did you perform in liaising with those police forces?
	Well, there was a tremendous amount of information coming in to me on any given day.
	And so what I viewed my primary function, what I spent the majority of my time doing, was triaging information that could have been any type of...
	I would forward that to all of the different police liaisons I was connecting with.
	And I understand you were working out of the Swiss Hotel where there was an operation and logistical support center?
	That's correct.
	You formed an incident command using that model?
	Yeah, that's correct.
	So there was a number of us volunteers that had worked in first responder type jobs.
	You know, police, paramedic, a lot of firefighters from outside of the city of Ottawa.
	And what we did...
	Was we tried to establish an incident command system, like a network and a model, an incident command model, so that it was easily identifiable who was responsible for what, so that it would make our communication more efficient and just overall streamline our day-to-day operations.
	And one of the other individuals working with you was Vincent Giersis.
	Have I got that right?
	Yes.
	Vincent, he came to the Swiss Hotel very early on, and we connected.
	And what eventually happened, so my apologies, he came to the Swiss.
	He was there for the first weekend, maybe?
	Not a very long period of time.
	He returned home, and then he came back to Ottawa, at which time, when he asked me what he could do, I asked him if he could go over to the Ark Hotel and support them.
	Thank you.
	And then, who was the first police person that you communicated with?
	Constable...
	Isabel Sear-Pidcock of the Ottawa Police Service.
	And did you call her or did she call you?
	I called her on the 26th.
	And could you tell us about that conversation?
	Yeah, I contacted her.
	I gave a brief description of who I was and what I was going to be doing in support of the convoy.
	Mr. Guerra had...
	Advised me that he had already been in communication with her and that we were expecting a map package from the Ottawa City Police as to where the trucks were supposed to enter into the city and where they were supposed to park and stage.
	And did she tell you anything else, let's say, about emergency vehicle lanes?
	We may have discussed that on the phone call, but it was definitely, there was specific instructions delivered within the map package that she did end up sending me on the 27th of January.
	And so could you put up, please, HRF00001313?
	If you could go to the next page, please.
	Is this the map package she sent you?
	Yes, I believe so.
	And we see it says under Ottawa Truck Convoy, take direction from police whenever applicable.
	Leave open space for emergency vehicle access at all times.
	No closed trailers permitted on Wellington near Parliament Hill.
	All staging areas must be kept and adjacent.
	Emergency access lane and emergency routes that are listed there.
	No convoy access at any time, correct?
	Correct.
	And did you communicate those instructions to anyone?
	Yes, I emailed this map package to Tamara Leach with the understanding that they would be receiving a briefing in Arnprior the night before entering the city.
	And how did you know to email them to Ms. Leach?
	Well, Ms. Leach had contacted me prior to the convoy arriving in Ottawa, not in regards to this, but for support with monitoring and responding to social media, which I said that I agreed that the Mounties for Freedom could help her with, and so I forwarded that.
	Her contact information off to, we had a social media committee at the time.
	And then, so I was already aware that she was, like, I would describe her as the face of the convoy.
	And so that's who I communicated the map package to.
	And if you can just scroll to the next page, please.
	This is one of the maps.
	There were one, two, three, four, five maps, if you can scroll up.
	And again, what were those maps of?
	What was that telling you?
	These are the entrance routes for the various convoys that were approaching from different directions.
	And where they would be directed to enter the city and where to park.
	And if we can go to the next page, please.
	This is from Constable Sir Piddock, and it says routes to staging areas.
	And what did you understand that to mean?
	Exactly what it says.
	And so you knew that there were, you understood there would be certain staging areas?
	I did.
	And if you can go to the last page, or sorry, the next page over.
	Sorry, yeah, there.
	There are certain instructions there, including no parking on Elgin Street from Wellington to Highway 417, and so forth.
	And all of that you say you passed on to Ms. Leach?
	Yes.
	What police force was Constable Cyr with?
	Ottawa Police Service.
	And where were you when the convoy started to arrive?
	I was in the Swiss Hotel.
	Now, we've heard evidence that from time to time, some emergency lanes Were blocked either on a short-term basis or, for example, on Kent Street on a long-term basis.
	What observations did you make about emergency lanes?
	I did see when I would do a, let's refer to it as a perimeter walk, that the only place that I ever observed that the emergency lanes were Blocked was for roughly, I would estimate two, maybe three blocks north and south on Kent Street.
	And that was it?
	That's all I recall.
	Okay, and then...
	I apologize.
	Perhaps at Rideau and Sussex as well.
	Okay.
	We'll come to Rideau and Sussex.
	If you can turn up please pb.nsc.caan.401367.
	Here we go.
	And if you can go to page 10, please.
	A little further up.
	Sorry, can we try page 11?
	Oh, no.
	Excuse me for one second.
	Let me just ask you the question.
	Did you have a further conversation with members of police forces on January 28th?
	As referenced in this document?
	Yes, let me just turn it up for you.
	Excuse me for one moment.
	All right, it's page 11 at the bottom.
	You see it refers to you, that you're organizing the volunteer security for the group warroomcanada.net.
	What was that?
	That was the initial website domain.
	That Mr. Guerra was operating Adopt-A-Trucker through.
	And it says on Friday, January 28, 2022, you reached out to points of contact within the RCMP, OPP, and the NCRCC seeking information obtained via open source on the demonstration.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes, I don't recall.
	Reaching out to the OPP that early, I could be mistaken, but I definitely reached out to Ottawa Police Service, PPS, and the RCMP.
	And when it references the NCRCC, that's a command center that was at my old building of work.
	And so the specific person I reached out to from the RCMP, I believed to be working out of that location.
	And do you remember who that was?
	Constable Chris Angel.
	And do you remember who you reached out to in the PPS?
	Constable Emily Gosselin.
	And did you reach out again to Constable Cyr Pigot?
	Yes, I believe so.
	And perhaps by that time, I already had learned of Constable Paul Askin.
	From the Ottawa Police Service as well?
	And if we go back to the document, it says, in his email, Bulford noted, the single largest concern of everyone involved is that outside influences will attempt to instigate an action that will damage the credibility of the official convoy group and supporters.
	Why was that your main concern?
	Well, I've worked many of these large events in the NCR over my career, and consistently the biggest concern from a protective policing standpoint was always the potential for a lone wolf or a small group when you have a large crowd of people coming together, like a similar event like a Canada Day or a Remembrance Day.
	One of our primary function from my old unit was to be in positions where we could observe anything of a suspicious nature that could potentially become a lone actor or small group attack.
	And I understand that you reached out to, on January 29th, to Sergeant Front of the OPS.
	Do you recall that?
	Sergeant Frost?
	I believe it was Front.
	Is the name Cross?
	The OPS, Ottawa Police Sergeant?
	Yes.
	That was a man by the name of Pat Frost, Sergeant Pat Frost.
	Frost, I'm sorry.
	It was a typo.
	And what did you discuss with him?
	So that would have been very early in the morning.
	I received a call from some of the truckers.
	Down at the intersection of Booth and Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway.
	They were frustrated that they had been blocked from continuing further up onto Wellington, like up towards the Supreme Court.
	And so I went down just to see what would be possible.
	And while I was there, I ended up speaking with two of the young officers.
	One of the officers was a younger man, and I spoke to those officers asking if it would be possible to have some of the trucks that were extended along Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway to condense closer to the, I'd call it the main body of the convoy parked on Wellington at Parliament, because there was a large gap.
	If I recall correctly, there was a large gap kind of around the Supreme Court of Canada all the way down the hillside of Wellington and then extending west to the Booth and SJAM.
	And so those officers got me into contact with Sergeant Pat Frost.
	And so I met with him at the Ottawa Police Headquarters and we drove around.
	Downtown Ottawa together.
	And he relayed to me that he had managed a large tractor protest in the city of Ottawa before.
	And so we were touring around the downtown core trying to determine what potential locations trucks could be brought in closer to Parliament.
	And, you know, establishing what was a hard no-go, you know, like such as primary bus routes and emergency lanes.
	And what were your general observations of the protest during the first weekend?
	Well, I didn't get out of the Swiss Hotel very much those first initial days, but when I finally did, it was the largest event I've ever observed in downtown Ottawa in my time here.
	And what about the conduct of the participants?
	Well, I'd say it was a very festive atmosphere.
	People were very emotional.
	Hugs all over the place.
	The crane stage truck had already been established up at the intersection of Metcalfe and Wellington by the time I got out for the very first time to go actually see it for myself.
	And so that's where I went.
	And it was incredible.
	The crowd was humongous.
	And people...
	If I recall correctly, the first time I got out was to actually go make a speech on the stage truck.
	And it was a very overwhelming emotional experience because I felt that there was a sense of hope.
	That Canada wouldn't go to a very dark place.
	And what was your speech about, just very generally?
	Well, I know that I included some of those remarks in my speech, that prior to that convoy, I was ready to leave the country.
	My wife and I had discussed that at length, moving somewhere where we would be treated as an equal citizen.
	Especially for the future of our children.
	And that seeing the convoy and the rallying of support behind it all across Canada restored my faith in Canadians.
	That they weren't just going to let Canada degenerate further.
	Did you talk about security issues or behavioural issues?
	I did.
	I gave a thank you to the first responders.
	Kind of tipped my hat slightly to some of my old colleagues that were up on the roof of the parliament buildings doing overwatch.
	You know, saying that I know a lot of these people, they're good people, and they're here to protect us too.
	There was a great deal of mistrust of the police.
	And I reminded everyone, or advocated for everyone to remain lawful, peaceful, and lawful at all times so that...
	The government and the media could not label us with similar derogatory terms that they already had.
	And if we could go back up, please, HRF 401553.
	And if you can just scroll through that to the date, February 1. So if you can stop at just there, I take it you took daily notes of everything that you were doing?
	Yeah, I tried to document as much as I could.
	And that's all set out in your statement?
	Yes.
	And so for example you were dealing with issues like if you identified on February 1st a or you received a call about an aggressive unidentified male at Wellington and Metcalfe and you reported that to the police.
	In the first paragraph there.
	Yeah, I don't recall if I called the police.
	I think people that were present at the stage truck at the time called the police.
	And if you just keep scrolling, please, you'll see there's a number of events or issues that you dealt with on February 1st and then into February 2nd.
	And then if we come to February 3rd, could you put up these HRF?
	four zeros one two eight seven This is a letter from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms to the Mayor.
	But...
	It refers on page two to a press conference that you gave on February 3. That's correct.
	And so in the second paragraph there, you indicate that you'd like to put people's minds at ease.
	The public is watching people that have concerns over what they're seeing in regards to the heavy police presence.
	What was your objective there?
	Just to bring down the overall anxiety level of the protesters.
	I mean, in my mind, Ottawa residents have seen that type of police presence probably on a regular basis at large-scale events.
	But a lot of these people that travelled to Ottawa have likely never been here before and likely never participated in an event of this magnitude.
	So I just wanted everyone to understand that when you have a massive crowd such as this come to the National Capital Region for a large event, it's normal to have multiple police agencies involved.
	It's normal to have...
	Specialized units moving around in more tactical-looking clothing.
	And it's normal to have snipers on rooftops because that was something that a lot of people were really panicked about.
	They were nervous about the presence of snipers being on the roof.
	And that being my old job, I was able to speak to people and keep them calm.
	Like, it's totally normal.
	Don't panic.
	That's what happens here all the time.
	And if you can put up, please, HRF 401289.
	and it's page 11 of the document i believe Sorry.
	Can you just scroll back a bit?
	No more.
	I Scroll up then, sorry about that.
	No, the other way, please.
	Yeah, keep going, please.
	More.
	Keep going, please.
	This is an affidavit that you swore in connection with the proceedings, the class action commenced by Zek C. Lee?
	Yes, that's correct.
	And you talk about, at paragraph 7 and 8, if you can scroll there, about a complaint from an Ottawa resident about honking through the night.
	Yes, that's correct.
	You say you told him that quiet hours from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. had been put in place.
	What was your understanding of that?
	Who put that into place?
	My understanding is that the truck captains had already put that into place maybe even the day before, if not that day, the day before.
	That's what was communicated to myself.
	And this was the one and only complaint I ever received about it.
	And what was your understanding moving through the period of time that the convoy was in Ottawa?
	Did that change?
	Well, the injunction came into place as well, which definitely...
	Definitely impacted the horn honking, and I would say, in my opinion, it reduced it even further.
	Thank you.
	And can we go to paragraph 9 of your affidavit?
	You say there, my primary concern is individuals or groups with potential to deliberately instigate conflict.
	Well, that would go back partially to my concern about a lone wolf or small cell that could potentially try and leverage the large crowd for their own agenda.
	Because I've done overwatch at a number of protests and counter-protests in Ottawa, and I've seen with my own eyes how aggressive groups related to the Antifa movement can be when they are much larger in numbers than the group that they're counter-protesting against, and how aggressive they can be overrunning the police line as well.
	So when you were referring to instigators, who were you referring to?
	Well, people who would deliberately try to initiate a violent interaction with a Freedom Convoy protester.
	Or maybe even someone who would try to infiltrate the crowd with a...
	Racist-type flag to try and bring discredit to the Freedom Convoy protest.
	And do you recall, and I believe the date was February 8, having a conversation with Constable Wirzbicki about your concern and displeasure with the psychological operation being waged on convoy participants?
	Yes, I do.
	What was that about?
	So in the initial, I would say close to initial two weeks, I thought that Chief Slowly was pretty fair in his remarks regarding the convoy, you know, understanding his position as the Chief of Police of the City of Ottawa.
	But I thought that he was pretty unbiased.
	And then after the, I think it was a council meeting.
	Our police services board meeting, there was a lot of rhetoric regarding the Freedom Convoy protesters' allegations of being extremists, insurrectionists.
	I believe even the term domestic terrorism may have been thrown around.
	And I noticed at that time, that was...
	It also coincided with a lot of that same rhetoric from the legacy media.
	And we'd already heard and seen the Prime Minister using similar language.
	And so I felt that that was definitely heightening the anxiety of the overall crowd.
	The fear that they were going to be labeled such.
	Dealt with as such by law enforcement because they were under so much pressure from the different levels of government.
	And there was also, I believe that was right around the same time that there was also, they were being denied access to service some of the portable toilets.
	So, I mean, you're denying people their basic sanitation needs.
	And there was also information beginning to circulate about the involvement of CAS, or Children's Aid Society, I believe is what that stands for.
	And that, to me, was a clear red flag to me, that if you are deliberately trying to provoke people to take action...
	If you make them believe that you're going to take their kids away, that's going to elicit a very strong emotional response.
	And I believe that that was deliberately done in order to bully the Freedom Convoy protesters.
	And we can put up, please, document HRF 50568.
	Is this the type of daily security briefing that you would prepare on a day-to-day basis?
	I believe there was a mistake.
	I did not prepare these daily security briefings, like a document.
	Yes.
	That was another individual.
	But, I mean, these are some of my, some of the actions that I took place in and the conversations that I took place in.
	And who is Constable?
	Where is Vicky?
	He is an OPP liaison officer.
	And in this document, you refer to, under February 4, in the first paragraph, to an incident at Confederation Park.
	And then you refer to an incident involving the new Queen of Canada.
	And next paragraph down, you were asked about Pat King's involvement in the convoy.
	And you indicated you had limited knowledge and almost zero contact with him.
	and if you can scroll further down please next Next page?
	There is no next page.
	Did you also at one time speak to Constable Wiersbeke about a memorandum of understanding that was circulating?
	I don't recall speaking to Constable Wiersbeke about that, no.
	Did you know about the memorandum of understanding?
	Yes, I had heard about it, and I think I may have seen it circulating online ahead of the convoy.
	The first time I ever actually read it was just last week.
	And you mentioned the intersection at Rideau and Sussex.
	Did you have occasion to...
	Go to Rideau and Sussex?
	Yes.
	I walked through that intersection multiple times daily, at least probably twice a day, when I would go out for a foot patrol and when I would come back.
	And what were your observations?
	Well, they were primarily made up of...
	Quebecois truckers.
	But then there was also, like other witnesses have testified, there was also like a Polish or Eastern European contingent.
	And I actually encountered a Cuban-Canadian who spoke to me at length about how he felt strongly about being there to support the convoy because he had lived through communism and that Canadians could not give up their freedoms.
	And were you there at any time when there was attempts to move vehicles from Rideau and Sussex?
	No, I was not.
	And what was your impression of the way people were behaving at the intersection?
	Well, on weekends they would have a stage and music and they would have like a nightly dance party.
	Definitely on the Friday and the Saturday night, typically.
	Is what I recall.
	And what about during the week?
	Do you recall?
	There was a lot of different food tents and barbecues.
	People were cooking and preparing food in clumps of people.
	Now, we heard evidence from Keith Wilson.
	You know Mr. Wilson?
	Yes, I do.
	That there were leaks in either the OPS, OPP, or both, because the convoy organizers were aware of police operations before they happened.
	Did you know about that?
	I never had any active duty officers leaking me any sensitive information.
	I did have a number of police officers.
	Former police officers, former military that were helping me with some of the different security tasks.
	And there was...
	I'm not exactly certain of the number, but there was officers that were on leave for various reasons, whether it be the mandates or their own personal reasons.
	I didn't ask.
	It wasn't my business.
	That we're also helping with some of the security tasks that I was coordinating.
	Okay.
	And if I can move to a different subject, did you continue to have contact with the PLT of the police forces over the entire period?
	In general, yes.
	There might have been...
	There might have been the odd day where there was no communication.
	I know communication with the Ottawa Police Service liaison teams, I recall it reducing near the end, especially after the Emergencies Act had been invoked.
	But from my recollection, the OPP was fairly regularly engaged.
	And concerning the OPS, did you have a view on how effective they were being?
	Well, I think they were overwhelmed by the size of the convoy.
	I think that I actually had the young officer that I spoke to that early in the convoy down at Booth and Sir John A. MacDonald, he actually said to me, I can't believe the size of this.
	Something to this effect.
	I can't believe the size of this.
	We're totally unprepared for something this size.
	And I kind of laughed and I said, well, you guys have to stop listening to the CBC for intelligence.
	And that was kind of the end of that interaction.
	But because if you had been paying attention to open source, like any kind of social media, it was obvious that this was a huge event that was about to land in Ottawa.
	But coming back to how effective they were.
	I have no complaints about dealing with them, but I don't think it was ever really...
	I never really felt as though there was any kind of a negotiation taking place.
	It was just my means to communicate with the police because we would try and do...
	We would try and get simple returns from...
	The police liaisons, like, something as simple as, like, could we possibly get access to this location so we could drop some portable toilets?
	And we were getting shut down almost all the time.
	The only time I ever remember having any success with that was after I had expressed my displeasure about the psychological operation that was being conducted when I had that discussion with OPP Where's Becky?
	And at one point, did you...
	Come to learn that Chief Slowly had asked for 1,800 police officers?
	Yes, I did.
	And what was your reaction to that?
	Well, I anticipated that at the very least he was asking for a large number because this could be a sustained event and members would obviously need to be cycled out for sustainment.
	And likely that they were preparing for a mass mobilization.
	And did you do anything as a result of hearing that information?
	I mean, we had discussions about it.
	It didn't change what my role was.
	My task was to...
	Just continue trying to keep things as safe as possible.
	And were you aware of negotiations that were taking place between the leaders in the convoy and the mayor?
	I was made aware of that after the fact.
	Okay.
	And in terms of...
	Did you have any communication with anyone who was involved in the Ambassador Bridge protest?
	No, I did not.
	I believe we've already seen an email that was forwarded to me by Ms. Leach during her testimony, and that was the only time I'd ever seen anything.
	From Windsor and that I didn't even open that until well after the Ottawa convoy had been dismantled.
	And what about Cootes?
	No sir.
	Emerson, Surrey?
	none Now at what point do you recall learning that the Emergencies Act was to be invoked.
	I believe the day that it was officially announced by the federal government.
	Did you hear anything about it prior to that date?
	I think there was discussions, people wondering if it would be, and my thought process was that...
	Well, I would not be surprised if it was, because the city had declared a state of emergency, the province had declared one.
	To me, it would not surprise me in the least if the next logical step was the federal government.
	And do you recall subsequent to the invocation on February 16 holding a press conference?
	Yes, I do.
	And that was with Mr. Gerses and Mr. Cornell?
	That's correct.
	And who is Mr. Cornell?
	He's one of the members of the steering committee for the group Veterans for Freedom.
	He's a combat veteran.
	And if I can just read you what I understand you said at that press conference, the emergency order clearly states that the protest is allowed to continue if the protest is peaceful.
	The government is trying to order the police to use force against peaceful protesters.
	We call on our fellow Canadians to come to Ottawa to exercise their legal right to assembly and protest.
	The more Canadians that come to Ottawa, the harder it will be for the police to carry out the government's illegal order.
	Is that something you said?
	That's correct.
	Your interpretation of the emergency order?
	Yes.
	We'd received a briefing from the legal team that, based on, I believe it's Justice McLean's ruling, that as long as people did not come to Ottawa to engage in violence, disrupt trade, or block critical infrastructure, we still fell within the confines of a lawful protest.
	And did somebody request that you give this press conference, or did you do it on your own initiative?
	Well, I was working with the media relations people from early on.
	I think, like you mentioned, my first press conference that I attended was on February 3rd.
	And so I did a number of press conference events during my time with the convoy.
	And at this point, isn't it fair to say that...
	You believe that enforcement action could come at any time?
	Perhaps I was naively hoping that my brothers and sisters in law enforcement would see the truth on the ground as opposed to what the government and the media was saying and that they would take a historic opportunity.
	To stand up for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
	And did you think about, was it a concern to you that you were encouraging people to come into Ottawa where that sort of law enforcement activity might well take place?
	No.
	Because at that time, like I said, I still had faith that frontline members would do the right thing.
	Now, my understanding is that on February 18, your wife advised you that you were going to be arrested?
	Yes, that's correct.
	She advised me that she had received a text message from one of our neighbors.
	That the news was reporting that the police were looking for me to arrest me.
	And if we turn to the document PB NSC CAN 408924.
	I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next floor.
	The second page of the document.
	This is an RCMP document, and if you look at the bottom of the page, you'll see information collected.
	Freedom Convoy organizers held a press conference at 1330 hours, participants included, and that's blanked out, spoke to the same theme.
	You see what it says there about Canadians still being allowed to come to Ottawa with their children to engage in peaceful, lawful protests.
	Is that what you said at your press conference?
	Yeah, I believe that's accurate.
	And you'll see the last paragraph there.
	All three individuals have contravened.
	To Section 5 of the Emergency Measures Regulations by inviting a person to participate in an assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace.
	I can come back.
	Were you arrested on February 18?
	Yes, I was.
	Can you briefly tell the Commissioner about that?
	Well, after the...
	Press conference, and my wife showed me the text message from our neighbour.
	I left the Lord Elgin Hotel.
	I walked down to Rideau and Sussex, where I knew that the police action had already begun.
	Initially, I encountered the Serté de Québec.
	No one would respond to me, so then I realised that there was RCMP, a line of RCMP officers over closer to the Senate, or the old train station.
	And so I walked over to them.
	I approached the line.
	I presented myself.
	And I said, something to the effect of, I hear that you're looking for me to arrest me.
	Is that true?
	And then I was arrested for mischief.
	And were you ultimately charged?
	No, I was not.
	Were your bank accounts frozen?
	Yes, they were.
	Can you tell the commissioner about that, please?
	To my recollection, we realized that our bank accounts were frozen.
	So, two different banks and a primary credit card.
	I realized, I think, how I recall it going was that accessing online banking with our primary bank, and it was just like a blank dash where the account balance would normally be.
	And then my wife confirmed with the other bank, attempted to use the credit card, and it was declined.
	And my wife spoke to a banking professional, a friend of ours, to ask if with our accounts frozen, would our mortgage payments and automatic withdrawals still be paid?
	And we were advised that it would not be.
	And so I would say roughly a period of five to six days, we were completely dependent on what cash we had.
	And after that, how long were your accounts frozen?
	I believe my accounts were unfrozen on the Tuesday, the 22nd or the 23rd.
	So they were frozen for how many days?
	I believe I realized they were frozen on the 17th.
	And then I think that was the Thursday.
	I didn't receive any kind of notification about it until I think the bank, one bank, called me and left a voicemail message on the Saturday.
	And then it was unfrozen after the Emergencies Act had been revoked.
	And were you able to meet your day-to-day expenses during that period?
	Well, fortunately, we didn't have a whole pile of expenses that we had to incur during those days.
	But we had some...
	Help from some family.
	Okay.
	Thank you, sir.
	Those are my questions.
	If I may add one thing about the accounts being frozen.
	I was never notified by the police that my accounts were frozen.
	Contrary to what was said to Parliament by the RCMP when they testified in committee.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Okay, next we have the Ottawa Police Service, please.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Bulford.
	My name is David Mizzykowski.
	I'm a lawyer for the Ottawa Police Service.
	Good afternoon, sir.
	Good afternoon.
	You talked about your interactions with the PLT.
	And I gather from reviewing your statement, you had many interactions with the PLT.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	And they were very helpful?
	I think they desired to be, yes.
	And you had the sense that they wished they had more ability to negotiate?
	Yes, I would say that's accurate.
	I do recall when there was attempts to negotiate.
	Occasionally receiving the reply to, like, that wasn't their decision to make.
	Right.
	In your statement you prepared, you have a statement that says Canada Freedom Rights Movement, a Daniel Joseph Bulford statement.
	That's a statement that was prepared for you by the Justice Centre's lawyers?
	No, sir.
	I prepared that myself.
	And you put that logo on top or that name on top, Canada Freedom Rights Movement?
	Yes, I did.
	Okay.
	And did you suggest that everyone else do that as well?
	No, I did not.
	Okay.
	In that report, you indicate a number of potentially...
	Criminal actions involving non-convoy members that you reported to the OPS.
	And so I see things in that report about bikers, about the new Queen of Canada, false claims that BRICS had been ordered in your name, potential instigation, concerns about Canada unity, vandalism of trucks.
	Social media posts made by Mr. Lacasse, a shortage, a sabotage of transport, trucks, bikers, and bomb threats, right?
	Those are all things that you referenced.
	That's correct.
	And you're a strong supporter, I take it, of law and order.
	My dad was a police officer for 38 years.
	Both of my older brothers were police officers.
	Obviously, I was.
	And there's only one of us remaining, but my hometown in Alberta referred to us as the Byzantin Blue Bloods.
	And I know from the Ottawa Police Service institutional report that I won't turn up in order to save time, that during the period of the convoy, there were a number of criminal charges laid.
	In fact, we know, and it's on page 14, that there were 533.
	But what I don't see a single notation of in your statement is where you brought any of those criminal offenses to the attention of the Ottawa police.
	Can you refresh me on the dates that you're referring to?
	The dates?
	Yes.
	Your statement, I'm not sure when your statement was prepared, but the evidence that we have in the record is that during the period of the Freedom Convoy, so from January 28th to a date in March, there were a total of 533 criminal charges.
	Okay.
	Sorry, I can't remember if that's laid or people arrested.
	And so I didn't see anywhere in your statement where you brought information about that criminal activity to the attention of the Ottawa Police.
	I have an objection.
	My friend is misstating the evidence to the witness, and I object to it.
	On that basis, the evidence is that...
	The vast majority of charges were laid after the fact and actually, at least based on the one document and evidence, criminal charges that existed at the time before the invocation were only about 19 of charges laid.
	So, with respect to my friend stating in the OPS document, and I can advise the Commission that after I looked at what they had put together, I asked for disclosure.
	From them with respect to when these charges were laid and they've decided not to provide that and they're using a jumbled up statistic.
	So in my submission, sir, my friend's going to ask the witness about why he didn't include OPS information in his statement that isn't clear.
	I think he needs to actually put the actual evidence that is before this tribunal before him and not...
	Jumble it up into a fact that these are 500-some-odd charges that may or may not have been laid during the time period that he was here, sir.
	Okay, well, maybe you can just ask the question without reference.
	I think the question was fair, and my friends now used a couple minutes of my time, but there were a lot of charges during the period of the Freedom Convoy.
	We know that.
	And I don't see anywhere in your statement where you reference informing the Ottawa police of the situations leading to those criminal charges.
	Well, I often reported to the Ottawa police, the various police agencies, anything that came to my attention that I believed to be criminal.
	Or a public safety concern.
	And I believe that the majority of those arrests and charges happened during the dismantle operation of the protest, a significant chunk of which I was in custody.
	You were in custody as of what date, sir?
	February 18th.
	And well, the record will speak for itself.
	And so...
	In your statement, in paragraph 80 of your statement, you say you did everything to cooperate with the police and to maintain public peace and police safety.
	Is that correct or is that incorrect?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	And so I also note that in the institutional report of the Ottawa Police, that the communication centre received many emergency calls from businesses to have protesters removed because they weren't wearing a mask, to deal with complaints about being harassed while walking on the street with masks, to complaints of being sexually harassed and threatened.
	I see as well that questions were asked about OPS's enforcement plans.
	I see as well that there were noise complaints that were received and requests for charges against the protesters.
	And I don't see anywhere, sir, in your statement where you reference any of those things.
	Well, sir, that's not my job.
	To handle the call volume that the Ottawa police receives.
	And there's a lot of allegations that I've heard during testimony at this inquiry that I have no knowledge or have not seen any real evidence of.
	I'm not suggesting that it's not possible, but people were not calling me.
	To report criminal offenses to the police.
	You've heard the evidence of Councillors McKinney and Fleury?
	Yes.
	And you heard about what their constituents had to put up with, correct?
	You heard that evidence?
	I'm just asking you that question.
	Yes, I heard their evidence.
	And so either did you believe what Councillor McKinney and Fleury said?
	Or did you think the...
	Issues they were raising were trivial.
	I wouldn't characterize what they were saying as trivial, but again, I've come to the point where I'm not going to believe anything until I see actual evidence of it.
	You told me about you clearly respect law and order.
	I take it you have a lot of respect for the Canadian court system.
	Correct?
	I sincerely hope it's still functioning the way it is intended.
	Yes.
	It's important that decisions of the court be respected.
	Yes.
	And one of the decisions was that the convoy had negatively impacted residents and the convoy protesters were breaching bylaws.
	You were aware of that?
	Could you specify the bylaws?
	Were you aware of that, sir?
	Again, sir, it's not my profession to enforce bylaws in the City of Ottawa.
	And as a police officer, you understand that disclosing confidential information is an offence?
	What type of confidential information are you referring to?
	Confidential information.
	It's an offense under the Police Services Act, and it's also an offense under the Code of Conduct for the RCMP, correct?
	That's correct.
	You mean, like, as it relates to information I learned during my time as a police officer?
	No, I'm just asking you the question generally, that the disclosure of confidential information is an offense, correct?
	While if a serving police officer discloses information, that is an offence, correct?
	Like if I was to disclose something confidential as an active serving police officer, that would be an offence under the RCMP Code of Conduct?
	Right.
	I would agree with that, yes.
	And same thing would apply to a municipal police officer who discloses information they had as a police officer.
	I'm not entirely certain.
	I would assume you're probably accurate, but I didn't fall under the Police Services Act.
	Okay, sure.
	It would be breach of confidence, if that's of assistance.
	But it can also potentially be a criminal offense as well, correct?
	Breach of trust?
	Yeah, probably.
	And being a person who supports law and order, you would not condone that kind of thing, would you?
	You wouldn't want police officers to be breaching their oaths and providing confidential information to members of the convoy, would you?
	No.
	And so Mr. Wilson, in his witness statement, talks about people working at the Swiss Hotel.
	That was where you were?
	That's correct.
	And so he said there were former law enforcement officers.
	They had radios, maps.
	Many of these ex-service personnel were connected and brought in intel.
	Wilson is unaware of the sources, but the Freedom Convoy was receiving leaked information from law enforcement.
	I just want to be clear.
	You never became aware of any leaked information from Ottawa Police Service officers, did you?
	I will be 100% clear.
	At no time did I receive sensitive information from an active duty Ottawa police officer.
	And you never received confidential information from an Ottawa police officer, did you?
	No.
	Okay.
	And Mr. Wilson never told you who these people were?
	No.
	And you were very involved in the security response and the incident command that was going on at that hotel, correct?
	That's correct.
	So one would expect that you would know if there was leaked confidential information, correct?
	Yes, I expect I would.
	And you're not suggesting, obviously, that if such a thing had occurred, that the Ottawa Police Service would condone that kind of thing, correct?
	I think it's fair to say that the Ottawa police would not condone that.
	Right.
	And one of the things you referenced in your statement at paragraph 80 is you accused the police leadership, and I'm just going to quote you, of, quote, knowingly attempting to instigate a strong emotional reaction from convoy participants by using inflamed rhetoric and threatening the involvement of child protective services.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Okay.
	Mr. Clerk, I wonder if I could ask you please to call up HRF 401553.
	Thank you.
	And if we go to page 22, please.
	At paragraph 103.
	Thank you.
	And I'll just read that sentence, the first sentence, sir.
	I also advise, and this is from your statement, correct?
	That's correct.
	I also advised him of my belief that our own government was committing crimes against humanity, allowing thousands of Canadians to die because they've been denied lifesaving treatment and others have been disabled or have died from the vaccine, something a homicide detective may want to consider.
	And would you agree with me that that would be an example of inflammatory rhetoric attempting to instigate a strong emotional response?
	I don't think it's an example of inflammatory rhetoric.
	I think it's absolutely factually true.
	And that I was trying to elicit a response from Detective Benson.
	Because he, as a homicide detective, should be investigating something of that nature.
	And I won't take you to the paragraph to save time.
	But in paragraph 121 of your statement, you also talk about the extreme dehumanization of unvaccinated people.
	And I guess you don't see that as inflammatory rhetoric either, correct?
	No, sir.
	And in your witness statement, you talk about the the police breaching windows and extracting protesters during the tactical operation, the POU operation.
	You recall that?
	I do.
	And, you know, of course, from your experience in law enforcement, that it's easy to be an armchair quarterback and say what's wrong with the police carrying out a tactical operation after the fact.
	I would agree with that, and I think to add context to the answer is that...
	I believe in my statement, I outlined why I believed that occurred.
	And you would agree with me that in the theater of operations, police may be dealing with situations that may be volatile and more dangerous than appear to onlookers, correct?
	That's correct.
	And you're aware from the...
	Police operations that were carried out by the Ottawa Police Service, the OPP, the RCMP, and a number of other public order units.
	You're aware from your experience that there would generally be an arrest and detention plan prepared for those type of circumstances, correct?
	Yes.
	And so OPP04 to OPP four zeros, four to eight.
	404286.
	if we could just briefly call that up You're going to have to be wrapping up pretty soon.
	If I may just have one more minute.
	No problem.
	Thank you very much.
	That is, if you just be good enough to scroll down.
	That is the arrest and detention plan with respect to the operation that was carried out.
	And you wouldn't presume to say that it wasn't an appropriate arrest plan, would you?
	I don't feel I'm qualified to speak to that for a major public order operation such as what occurred.
	My typical experience with an arrest plan was in a much smaller context and it was very simple.
	Okay.
	Finally, just to finish off, you testified in answer to my friend that you expected, although there was an announcement of a large number of police officers and you realized that they were preparing for a tactical or a public order unit response, you testified that you thought that the police officers would do the right thing, correct?
	I had hoped so.
	and you thought that they would disregard the situation and simply allow the status quo to continue, correct?
	Yes.
	I had hoped that they would see through the false narrative and stand up for us and do what was right and protect us.
	Thank you very much.
	Those are all my questions.
	Next is the Ottawa Residents Coalition.
	Good evening now, Mr. Beaufort, I guess we can say.
	My name is Paul Champ, for the record, for the Ottawa Coalition Residents and Businesses.
	Mr. Bulford, I just want to ask you about the first thing you were talking about.
	You were concerned about being disciplined for speaking out about vaccine rules and restrictions?
	The federal vaccine mandate.
	And you were concerned about being disciplined for speaking out about that?
	Yes, I was.
	I'm very sorry to hear that.
	I think that would have been totally inappropriate.
	Well, that's my lived experience with the RCMP, sir.
	Yeah, I've represented RCMP officers for over 20 years, including people for speaking publicly, and things have been different.
	I would have been happy to represent you on that.
	Now, I want to ask you some questions about your drive around with Sergeant Frost on the eve of the protests.
	So the two of you drove around looking at appropriate spots for the trucks to park, is that right?
	That's correct.
	And during that drive, did the two of you discuss in any way about how long the protest might last?
	I don't recall.
	It may have been.
	It may have come up.
	And at that time, I didn't have an accurate timeline.
	For sure, because you've told us that you expected the protest would last until the federal government dropped vaccine mandates and rules.
	Is that right?
	That was my impression, yes.
	And is that what you conveyed to Sergeant Frost?
	Potentially.
	Okay.
	Now, I just want to ask you as an aside about the crowd size.
	You indicated that it was the largest crowd you'd ever observed in Ottawa?
	I would say that's accurate, yes.
	I believe some of the records we have from police records that the size of the crowds are in the 10,000 to 15,000 range.
	Does that sound about right?
	No, sir.
	What did you think the size was?
	Based on my experience doing Overwatch on Canada Day and seeing the large crowds, especially like, let's say, Canada Day 150, where it was probably the biggest I had seen, I would have estimated the crowds in downtown Ottawa, on Parliament Hill, Wellington, that general vicinity, I would have estimated close to 100,000.
	So, do you think that the police were recording false information deliberately, or they just assessed it differently than you?
	I can't say.
	Well, I doubt very much that they would record it false deliberately.
	Could it be that you maybe just, it was hard for you to assess because all the trucks took up so much space, it was tough to assess the size?
	I thought about that.
	The trucks do take up a lot of space, but...
	The crowd, even between the trucks, was jam-packed from the Supreme Court almost all the way to the Chateau Laurier.
	And I don't recall seeing that before.
	I recall seeing large crowds moving around Parliament Hill along Wellington into the Byward Market.
	But those numbers...
	geographic area than what I'm referring to.
	Right.
	When you do Overwatch, you're up on top of the buildings, like Langevin Block and stuff.
	like that so you'd have a better eye view of the crowd.
	And you weren't able to be up on those buildings during this time, right?
	No.
	Okay.
	Now, I want to ask you about the dance parties you told us about.
	You thought those parties were Fridays and Saturday nights?
	I believe so.
	You and I don't think are so far off in age.
	You weren't going out to the dance parties every night, I gather, Mr. Bulford?
	I didn't have time, sir.
	Yeah, I understand.
	And so if there's dance parties on Wednesdays and Thursday nights, you just, you wouldn't necessarily know.
	I seem to recall them being restricted to weekends, but I could be mistaken.
	Okay.
	Now, I want to ask you some questions about your interactions with law enforcement.
	You've already heard a lot of your evidence on that.
	You, about your...
	Interactions with PLTs, but you also had interactions with officers who were off-duty, is that right?
	No.
	Like, you mean active officers?
	Yes, exactly.
	And just to be clear, I'm not going to be asking for names.
	I'm just trying to understand, because we heard the testimony from Mr. Wilson the other day.
	Yes, I understand.
	And I just want to understand, so is Mr. Wilson getting that information from others?
	I can't say for certain, but...
	All of the officers that were supporting me in a security context were either off work for their own personal reasons, or they had left their service.
	They had made a similar decision to me and had decided to leave policing.
	How many people are we talking about here, roughly?
	A dozen.
	A dozen?
	And so...
	Each one of those officers would have had their own network of contacts in law enforcement, is that right?
	Possible.
	And could have been getting information from current law enforcement?
	I don't know, sir.
	But you have to remember, it wasn't just, it was people from all across Canada, from multiple agents, like they had worked for multiple agencies.
	It wasn't just one service.
	I want to ask you about a different topic, Mr. Bulford.
	Now, the convoy organizers, Ms. Leach, Ms. Barber, others, yourself, you were doing everything possible to convey to protesters to refrain from any kind of violence, correct?
	Yes, I would say so.
	But because you were security, you were dealing with threats at times, is that right?
	Yeah, but not...
	threats from within the convoy protest.
	Most of the, anything that I was receiving that was information of a public safety concern was typically someone who was committing a criminal act or potentially a criminal act against the protest.
	There was one or two instances where there was some vehicles that people had reported They were...
	Kind of presenting the idea of blocking intersections.
	Right.
	And those instances were reported to me by convoy protesters, which then I passed on to the police because we were trying to act within the confines of we do not want to block all of the intersections.
	Mr. Bolford, my understanding, you were concerned and were doing what you could to protect the convoy organizer leaders.
	Is that right?
	Were you coordinating with some of the other officers to ensure that Mr. Barber, Ms. Leach and so forth were safe?
	Ms. Leach did end up getting a former military member to provide some security for her because she had received a number of death threats.
	Other than that, the only people that were really receiving a close protection detail, if you want to call it that, were the doctors and former Premier Peckford when he was in town.
	Because especially three of the doctors in particular had received a number of deaths, or a number of harassing, or they had been subject to harassment and a number of threats themselves.
	Right.
	Now, Ms. Leach, she very successfully raised a large amount of money from GoFundMe, but we heard her testimony.
	She was encountering all kinds of difficulty in...
	Yes.
	And there was many people who were very angry at her for not being able to produce that money.
	There was different theories and so forth that she was deliberately not giving the money to them and so forth.
	There was that going around, right?
	There was fractures within, I would say, the freedom movement, maybe not just specific to Ottawa, but even people.
	I found that the people who are the biggest critics...
	Of people like Ms. Leach were people who are not here presently in Ottawa.
	Sure.
	But what I'm getting at is that, you know, although Ms. Leach was trying to convey what she was, you know, trying to do to get the access, the GoFundMe money to help the truckers, which, you know, we've seen all the documents.
	That's what she was doing.
	But some people at that protest who wanting access to that money perhaps had driven a long way.
	They were getting very frustrated.
	And she was, was she getting threats from some of those people?
	Not that I recall.
	No, none.
	No.
	So what was the security detail for?
	Well, my impression was that she was receiving threats from people that were opposed to the convoy being in Ottawa.
	And everyone else who wanted access to that money, who had driven across the country, spent thousands of dollars, they were just content to sit and they weren't angry about not getting access to the money.
	I don't have any information or evidence to support that, sir.
	Sir, Mr. Bulford, you're a professional, right?
	You're a professional security detail protecting very important people, correct?
	In my past career, yes.
	Right.
	Let's just be honest with each other.
	Someone in her situation, if you had assessed that as a professional, you would have thought she might be at risk or physical safety.
	The people wanting access to that money who weren't getting it were frustrated.
	That was a reasonable threat assessment, was it not?
	Could be potential, yes.
	But I didn't have any intelligence or evidence to support that notion.
	Other than the fact that, yeah, she was the face of the convoy.
	They had raised a substantial amount of money.
	But my experience, when you've seen Ms. Leach in public, people loved her.
	Now, you're aware also, Mr. Bulford, that GoFundMe, they were concerned...
	Because some of their staff were getting threats for not releasing the money.
	Were you aware of that?
	No, sir.
	I was not aware of that.
	You never heard about that?
	No, sir.
	But that was some of the concerns GoFundMe.
	So Ms. Leach and Mr. Wilson and so forth never shared that with you.
	No, sir.
	What about fuel providers who then decided to stop providing fuel?
	Did you ever hear about any of them getting threats?
	From the convoy?
	Yes.
	Well, from anyone.
	No, sir.
	Companies who stopped saying stopped.
	Yeah, right.
	Honestly, no.
	I don't recall information about fuel providers being threatened.
	Now, what about tow truck drivers?
	We've heard a lot about tow truck drivers.
	Were there any threats to tow truck drivers if they tried to assist law enforcement?
	Had you heard anything about that?
	The first time I heard of it was from the police witnesses at this inquiry.
	Right, right.
	And what about Mr. King?
	Did you ever view him in any way as a threat to any of the other convoy organizers?
	Like a physical threat?
	Yes.
	No, sir.
	You'd never heard of him threatening or intimidating any of the other leaders?
	Mr. King came to the Swiss hotel one evening, angry, and he ended up in a verbal altercation with Chad Eros, I believe.
	I didn't learn about that until the following day.
	I was not there when that occurred.
	Mr. King had a couple of very large people with him and was intimidating, Mr. Eros?
	I don't know who he had with him.
	Okay.
	But Mr. King is a large man himself.
	No doubt.
	Now, what about media?
	Now, I know, obviously, you're not very supportive or don't consume what you call legacy media, but you were aware and heard of that reporters for some of those organizations downtown were often being threatened while they were down trying to cover the convoy demonstrations.
	You were aware of that, Mr. Bulford?
	I was not aware of that.
	I did learn.
	That I believe the RCMP may have been providing security for some of those reporters.
	I saw one video just recently, like within the last two weeks, where I think Mr. McGregor, people were yelling in the background while he was trying to give a broadcast, but that was the first I'd ever seen of that.
	Or Mr. Raymond Fillion with TVA was pushed to the ground.
	I did not.
	I was not aware of that until you just said it.
	Or Mr. Evan Solomon from CTV News had a beer can thrown at his head?
	I did not.
	I was not aware of that either.
	And you hadn't seen any of the other videos or just on your own walkabouts ever seeing reporters for CBC or Global whatnot of crowds swarming around them and yelling at them?
	No, not that I recall.
	I remember some mainstream reporters approaching me the night that Ms. Leach was arrested.
	When we were standing up by the stage truck, and they were trying to ask for interviews, and I just declined, but I don't recall anyone being threatening towards them at all.
	Okay.
	So we didn't see any of those things?
	No, sir.
	Okay.
	And then the legacy media, as you call it, you believe that they were misrepresenting the convoy.
	Is that right?
	Yes, I do.
	And so when you say legacy media, you're talking about CTV, CBC, Global News, Post Media, all of those?
	Well, I would definitely say CBC, CTV, Global.
	You're accurate in that.
	Post-media, I'm not so much.
	But also, I would throw in the Toronto Star is probably the worst offender, in my opinion.
	Okay.
	And then, so was it your understanding and belief that they were all kind of working together in some way to cover the convoy in a certain way?
	Well, it's been my experience, Mr. Champ, that they've been...
	I thought your early testimony was that you weren't really watching them during the convoy.
	Were you watching them or you weren't watching them?
	I didn't really have time to watch them that much, sir.
	I did review a few articles that people would send me.
	Like, for instance, the article detailing one of the local Ottawa residents who had been arrested early on in the convoy for carrying weapons in a public place.
	And they wrote the article.
	I believe I saw it in the Toronto Star and CVC.
	But just the whole phrase legacy media, I'm just trying to understand what that means.
	Legacy media, that means like old media that can't be trusted?
	No, it's another name for the mainstream media, right?
	The big outlets that seem to have, I don't know if you'd call it a monopoly, but they dominate the television.
	Sure.
	Right.
	But all journalists, all story, they all have an agenda that's counter to the people that you support.
	Is that what your understanding is?
	I did not say all journalists do.
	All journalists with legacy media.
	I can't say that.
	I can't say that all journalists do.
	But I've seen many concerning remarks come from the legacy media.
	Just last point, Mr. Bulford.
	I heard Mr. Mijakovsky from the Ottawa Police Service.
	Oh, no, I apologize.
	Maybe it was the Commission Council asked me about racist flags that were being carried around during the protest.
	And I believe you were implying in your testimony that you didn't think those were real convoy protesters, that there were others who might have been infiltrating.
	Yes, I suspect that's the case.
	But you don't have any evidence for that?
	Well, I did see a photograph of a gentleman who I know.
	To be a photographer that follows Mr. Trudeau around on a regular basis, taking a close-up shot of a gentleman carrying a Confederate flag.
	Because Confederate flags can be viewed as a racist flag, is that right?
	That's correct.
	It appeared staged to me.
	Right.
	And you didn't think that there was anyone involved in the convoy who brought Confederate flags to the protest, is that right?
	Not that I was aware of.
	The video I seen...
	The video of a masked man wearing a winter bella clava walking through the crowd with a confederate flag.
	And the video that I saw was a number of protesters telling him to get out of there because he wasn't welcome and they didn't want that type of symbol being associated to the convoy.
	Right.
	All the convoy people left their confederate flags at home like Mr. Barber.
	Sir, I don't know.
	What beliefs all of the people that came to Ottawa hold?
	And I don't know what they have in their possession.
	That would be purely speculation on my part.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Councillor Stroud: Thank you.
	Councillor Stroud: Government of Canada, please.
	All right.
	Good evening, Mr. Goldford.
	My name is Victor Ryan, and I'm part of the council team with the Government of Canada.
	You already testified to your previous history of service with the RCMP, but I'd just like to go back to it briefly.
	You stated you began your RCMP career with a posting with M Division in UConn, correct?
	That's correct.
	And within a few years of working in the UConn, you were selected to become a member of the emergency response team, correct?
	That's correct.
	And by virtue of your selection to join the ERT, you were trained as an assaulter, I believe, correct?
	Initially, yes.
	And then as a sniper?
	That's correct.
	And would you agree with me that the selection process for an emergency response team is highly competitive?
	Normally, yes.
	Okay.
	Because ERTs are responsible for resolving incidents beyond the capabilities of regular police.
	In part due to the increased risk of violence that they can face.
	Yes.
	And you continue to work as part of the ERT in Yukon as you stated in both Whitehorse and Mayo before you transferred to Ottawa.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	And when you came to Ottawa, you were working with the National Division Emergency Response Team.
	Yes.
	And you were also often involved in high-profile protective operations for individuals such as the Prime Minister, foreign heads of state when they came to Ottawa, members of the royal family, correct?
	That's correct.
	And you were often deployed around the world to protect the Prime Minister and other high-profile individuals attending various international summits and conferences, correct?
	Two times.
	And you eventually rose to the rank of corporal and second-in-command of the surveillance and reconnaissance team within National Division ERT.
	Do I have that right?
	That's correct.
	And so you would agree that your career with RCMP was a successful one, right?
	I think your evidence earlier was that you felt like you were a dedicated professional?
	Yes.
	And so while you were in Ottawa and while you were working with the emergency response team, I believe the dates were 2013 to 2021.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	You were trained by a variety of external law enforcement agencies during that time?
	Yeah.
	Well, I wouldn't say a number, but less than a handful, probably.
	Okay.
	More than one?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Including the FBI hostage rescue team?
	That's correct.
	Canadian Special Forces Operations Command?
	Correct.
	And the types of things that you were trained in, the various tactical aspects of policing for which you received training, including things like covert surveillance?
	Yes.
	Explosive forced entry and breaching?
	Yes.
	Mass casualty response?
	Yes.
	And so through this training that you received and through your experience working in the National Division, you would have come to have an intimate knowledge of the parliamentary precinct in downtown Ottawa.
	Is that correct?
	Yes, that's correct.
	And so you knew, for instance, how police would train for and plan for a large-scale demonstration like the convoy?
	I would...
	I would say that I'm aware of how a typical deployment or a mobilization would look for a large-scale event, but I never worked on a public order unit.
	But you would have been familiar with how the ERT would have interacted with various other police forces in Ottawa during an event such as this?
	Somewhat, yes.
	And, of course, you'd be keenly familiar with the jurisdictional, I guess, intersections in the downtown area between the RCMP, the PPS, the OPS.
	Yes.
	You knew how police would gather intelligence on the leadership and the key figures of any sort of protest movement that would come in.
	Yeah, I have some exposure to that.
	you knew what the police goals and strategies would be in policing a large-scale demonstration Well, I think it's fairly basic for something such as what happened in Ottawa.
	Well, maybe not basic is the right term, but it's no surprise to me that people would be surveilled and that they would try and learn who...
	Who is a person identified as a face of the convoy?
	But predominantly, most of the events that take place, you mobilize resources for a worst-case scenario, but the vast majority of the time...
	Nothing happens.
	And when you talk about mobilizing resources, one of the ways that you do so is by pulling other police officers from other jurisdictions.
	That's correct?
	Yes, that's common.
	And as an RCMP officer, former RCMP member, you would have been aware of the different RCMP detachments and divisions across the country, have a general understanding of where the RCMP are police of jurisdiction in other areas of the country.
	Yes.
	You would have been aware of the practical difficulties involved in pulling RCMP officers from provinces far flung and transferring them to Ottawa to assist the local police here in any enforcement?
	Well, yes, sir.
	I think the RCMP has been under-resourced for pretty much my entire career, as far as back as I can remember, likely before.
	And I think that's almost, like we've heard from other police witnesses, that's pretty much a universal in policing.
	And you would have had a knowledge, roughly, of how many police officers would be required to manage a large-scale demonstration.
	No, I don't agree with that.
	This was, I don't know.
	My involvement with these large-scale events was very compartmentalized to my role on the emergency response team.
	And that role, you touted quite a bit during the occupation, publicly, correct?
	I wouldn't consider it touting, but I tried to explain who I was, what my experience was, so that I can try and reduce people's anxiety about the heavy police presence that they were seeing in Ottawa.
	And my friend from Commission Council showed you a document that contained a quote from you from a press release where you said, I have extensive experience in protective operations for large-scale events here in the National Capital Region.
	I've been involved in tactical planning for many of these large-scale events, so I'm keenly familiar with what is happening right now in regards to the police presence down around Parliament Hill and the downtown core.
	Does that sound familiar to you?
	Yes, that's correct.
	Also, in that same press conference, you also stated, my primary concern is individuals or groups with the potential to deliberately instigate conflict with the Freedom Convoy movement, correct?
	That's correct.
	And that was, to you, your most important concern, because you knew from your past experience the potential for individuals or groups, whether associated with you or not, to use the convoy as cover for their own means, correct?
	Yes, I would agree that any time you have a large event where there's a large crowd of people, the primary concern from the police standpoint would be a mass casualty attack.
	And by February 3rd, you had already begun to appreciate the number of different factions and elements that were converging on downtown Ottawa, correct?
	Yeah, I would agree with that.
	For instance, you were involved, as I take your evidence, with Mounties for Freedom.
	You were volunteering with Adopt-A-Trucker.
	You were also closely associated with the Freedom Convoy, correct?
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, my role with volunteering with Adopt-A-Trucker was in direct support of the Freedom Convoy.
	But you were not associated with Canada Unity, correct?
	No, sir.
	But Canada Unity was there at the convoy.
	Yes.
	Yeah, and you were not associated with James Bowder, correct?
	No, sir.
	No, and the MOU that he brought with him?
	No, like I said, the first time I read it was last week.
	But he was there at the convoy, correct?
	I heard that he was.
	The first time I ever seen him was here at this inquiry.
	And you were not affiliated with the Farfadas that were at Rideau and Sussex, correct?
	I also had no idea who Farfadas was or what that was.
	Until after I read about Mr. Charlin's arrest out near Van Cleek Hill after the convoy had been dismantled.
	And the individual describing herself as Queen Ramona and her supporters, you weren't associated with her or her supporters, correct?
	No, sir.
	But they were there at the convoy, correct?
	Yes, I did have an interaction with some of her supporters.
	And you weren't associated with any outlaw motorcycle gangs, correct?
	No, absolutely not.
	No, but they were there at the convoy, correct?
	I believe that there was two men identified as potentially belonging to an outlaw motorcycle gang in the crowd early on.
	I don't recall ever seeing them or hearing of them again.
	And again, I...
	That's a bit of an assumption on my part, because I don't specifically have any knowledge of that particular group.
	So you heard that they were there, but you didn't actually see them?
	I saw a photograph of them.
	Okay, so you saw a photograph of them at the convoy, but you didn't actually encounter them?
	That's correct.
	You've already testified that your main role was to collect intelligence from the convoy, collect, you know, threats of violence, assess their credibility and forward them onto the police.
	But I also take your evidence that this was a peaceful protest, correct?
	Yes.
	And in the chronology that's set out in your witness statement, I won't take you to it unless you require it, but it's, again, HRF401553.
	You state that on January 29, 2022, you sent a photo to OPS and RCMP of an unidentified man in Ottawa who reportedly wore body armor and stated they don't realize what things will be like when the hard boys show up with the legitimate beef.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	On January 30th, the next day, you emailed PLT about a conspiracy to stage a hit-and-run with a tractor-trailer hitting a horse that contains specific information regarding a member of the Prime Minister's protective detail, correct?
	That's correct.
	And you relayed information to PLT regarding fights that you either saw or that were relayed to you, correct?
	Well, there was the aggressive mail up at the stage truck.
	Don't recall other fights beyond that.
	Other than the one instance where a male pulled a crowbar out of his car.
	I believe you're referring to the individual referred to as Black Buffalo?
	That's correct.
	And so, speaking of that...
	Black Buffalo became very angry at what he perceived to be an incursion into his territory, began yelling, pulled a crowbar from his truck, pushed a female actually into you, as I understand it correctly.
	Would you agree that that's a fight?
	I think it could have become one, but we were able to move people away and de-escalate the situation.
	You're over your time.
	I would just like to add that based on my experience in policing, especially my time as a general duty officer, I suspect that the man who presented himself as Black Buffalo was suffering from some mental health issues.
	Okay, and just one last question.
	You also dealt at the insistence of, I believe, Keith Wilson with people at Coventry Road referring to themselves as sovereign citizens who were deputizing themselves and planning to arrest peace officers, correct?
	I never dealt with those people.
	I received word while I was at the Swiss Hotel that that was occurring, and the information that I received is that someone was pretending to be me.
	And deputizing people.
	And so the people at the Swiss Hotel took photographs and maybe even a video of me to have proof that I was currently at the Swiss, not falsely deputizing people at Coventry Road.
	And so I called one of the gentlemen who was a point of contact at Coventry Road.
	And asked him, was this taking place?
	And he knew nothing about it.
	But he was in, I think he was in a tent or a shelter of some kind.
	So I asked him if he could go outside and check.
	He went outside and checked and confirmed that there was nothing going on there.
	I did later end up questioned by the, I think it was Ottawa police, questioned me about that.
	And I relayed the same information I just said to you.
	Okay, so just one last question.
	These examples that you and I have just discussed, in your view, are they examples of a peaceful protest?
	Well, I don't believe any of those instances resulted in any real violence.
	Thank you.
	Those are my questions.
	Thank you.
	Next is Council for former Chief Loli.
	Thank you, Commissioner.
	Sorry, Corporal Bulford.
	Tom Curry for former Chief.
	Slowly, just a couple of things.
	Many of these questions, the other questions I had, have been asked by my friends.
	Could I just ask you to look at the statement that you prepared with us, please?
	HRF 1553, Mr. Registrar.
	Just when this comes up, I just want to go, please, if we could, to paragraph 19. When we get there, I hope we find...
	There it is.
	Maybe 18, if you don't mind.
	Just a little higher.
	Thank you.
	I think you told us that you emailed an introduction to those representatives of the OPS, RCMP, and PPS early in your tenure with the convoy and identified who you were and what you were going to do.
	Is that right?
	Yes, I did.
	And then just scroll down if you don't mind.
	You see the sentence, please rest assured.
	All organizers of the convoy group are operating under strict instructions that every single person involved must be respectful and lawful at all times.
	And that was your mandate from those with whom you had been dealing.
	That's correct.
	Yes, that was, I mean, I would not have been involved if I didn't think that was going to be the case.
	One of the challenges is, as you've described, that this was a very difficult organization, that is the convoy in its largest sense, to have any command or control over.
	Yeah, I don't think we actually, without any official authority of any kind, you know, you're not operating within a police organization or a military unit.
	You're trying to do the best you can as a bunch of civilian volunteers to make sure that people are all on board with the messaging.
	And try as you might, and others have testified to this, try as you might to have imposed a requirement for respect and for conduct that is respectful and lawful.
	You weren't always able to achieve that goal.
	Fair?
	I think we did a very good job considering the size of that convoy and the crowds that that protest generated.
	But you weren't always able to control the conduct in the way that you might have liked.
	Is that fair?
	Well, sir, honestly, my intention was never to try and exert control on people because I was no longer a person of any kind of authority in Canada.
	The reason I ask is because...
	As you watched this, especially with your experience, as you watched the convoy, the events of the convoy unfold from the earliest days when you arrived until the end when you yourself were arrested, you must have had a sense that the end was coming through this public order exercise unless there was some other breakthrough.
	Is that fair?
	Well, I don't think any of us expected this to go on indefinitely.
	But my understanding was that we were trying to take pressure off the City of Ottawa and Chiefs slowly, you know, with the negotiated deal that I learned about after the fact.
	And I was 100% on board with whatever negotiations that...
	The truck captains could accomplish and legal team could accomplish with the police to prevent a massive takedown of the convoy occurring.
	I was in support of that.
	Right.
	Because in the absence of some successful effort by the convoy organizers to be able to eliminate the consequences for the residents and the city of Ottawa, the businesses and the like.
	You understood that it was going to come to an end via a police enforcement action.
	I knew that that was a possibility.
	I didn't know, I didn't, like I said before, I had hoped that it wouldn't come to that.
	Right.
	And that, honestly, sir, I was hoping that the police would stand up with us, which would then basically be a symbolic gesture.
	For the federal government that what they were doing was no longer lawful in Canada and they weren't going to have the police as their enforcement arm to do anything that was unconstitutional and unlawful and not backed on evidence.
	Which would require police services, not just Ottawa, but OPP, RCMP, PPS, all of the other services who had come to help to disclaim their duty to uphold the law.
	You were asking quite a lot.
	Yeah, I was.
	But it happened in Ontario earlier in the declared pandemic when Premier Ford tried to exert more power and the police said no.
	Can I ask a couple of other things then, just in the time remaining?
	You told the Commissioner that you, upon arrival and getting this underway, you imposed a form of ICS model or incident command structure to the best that you could.
	Yeah, I mean, it was a joint effort.
	But, I mean, myself and a number of others were familiar with that system.
	Right.
	And so it was brought to our attention.
	Maybe we should set something like this up because the first, that initial few days was absolute chaos.
	And to whom then did you bring, if you were, were you at the top, were you the designated incident commander?
	No, sir, I was not.
	Who was?
	Well, Mr. Guerra was in charge of Adopt-A-Trucker.
	And then my, the overall, if you want to call it incident commander, volunteer, was a former Ottawa paramedic.
	Got it.
	And then Mr. Guerra, would he have taken direction, strategic direction, from the board of the Convoy Corporation once it was incorporated?
	Or were you aware?
	I would say that's accurate because our whole purpose of being there was to support the truckers.
	I mean, the whole initial mission was to provide food and shelter and transportation services to protesters.
	Was part of your effort within that group, the Incident Command Group, to keep track of the...
	The number of police personnel who were on the scene?
	No, sir.
	Okay.
	No, that was not something that we were interested in.
	I mean, the police were going to do what they were going to do, and we were trusting them to do their job.
	Then just finally, a couple of things, if I may, if I could, Mr. Register, I'm sorry to drag that document back up, 1553.
	Thanks so much.
	And if you could go to paragraph 99. I just want to get your help with one thing, please.
	These go to the events of February the 15th.
	And you had a visit at the Swiss Hotel described here in which OPP and OPS liaison officers attended to meet with volunteer coordinators and Ms. Leach.
	You were one of the volunteer coordinators?
	Yeah, I was the volunteer security coordinator.
	And who were the other volunteer coordinators, if you recall, with whom that meeting, or who attended that meeting?
	Well, it was myself, Tamara Leach, and the former Ottawa paramedic.
	Okay, got it.
	So three of you and three police personnel?
	To the best of my recollection, yes.
	And it was at that meeting that they...
	You've written that they attended to discuss the recent document provided by police to convoy participants, and that's the document that laid out that the Emergencies Act having been declared, it was now required that people vacate the protests.
	Is that fair?
	Well, it's more nuanced than that, because when I reviewed that document, I know which one you're talking about.
	It had the red border outside of it.
	I read through the criteria, and...
	I don't think any of us in that room with those liaison officers met the criteria laid out in that document from the OPS of people that were no longer permitted into the downtown.
	Right.
	And what you engaged with, I won't read all of it, but you spoke to those officers to express your concern that the use of force by police against the peaceful protests without negotiation was...
	Was wrong, and they ought not to do that.
	Yes, I did.
	And scroll down, if you don't mind, please, just to paragraph 102.
	Now that we're on the 17th, and you had an encounter with another officer, Detective Benson, who replied to your inquiry about whether people were on the lookout for you.
	No, Mr. Benson contacted me by text message after Tamara Leach had been arrested.
	Okay, thank you.
	And you had an exchange with him.
	I'm just interested in the second last sentence.
	He responded by saying that the occupation was beyond a protest and the trucks had to go.
	And you replied to him that it was not an occupation.
	Well, my...
	Belief that a definition of an occupation is usually like a foreign military has taken control of another country.
	Do you now accept, thinking back about it, that from the perspective of the residents of the City of Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Service, that the protest, embedded as it was, was the equivalent of an occupation?
	No, I don't agree with that.
	Okay.
	Now, final thing.
	My friends asked you about whether you had information from active serving officers or service personnel of the Ottawa Police Service or any other police service.
	Tell the commissioner, if you know, in respect of the information that Mr. Wilson had, am I right that, so far as you know, the information Mr. Wilson had was the same as the information you had, that is, only from retired, that is, non-active police personnel?
	I can't say that for certain because Mr. Wilson spent the majority of the time Mr. Wilson was at the Ark Hotel and the majority of the time I was at the Swiss Hotel.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	I don't have any other questions.
	Thank you.
	Next, if I could call on the Ontario Provincial Police.
	Next, if I could call on the Ontario Provincial Police.
	Commissioner, I have no questions.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	For the Democracy Fund, JCCF and Citizens for Freedom.
	Commissioner Rob Kittredge for Justice Centre.
	We have no questions for this witness, and to the extent it may be necessary, we'll cede our time to Mr. Miller.
	Okay.
	Convoy organizers.
	For the record, Brendan Miller, Mr. Bulford, I'm counsel to the convoy, or sorry, Freedom Corp., who is the entity representing the protesters that were in this city in February and January of 2022.
	Good evening.
	Commissioner, just for ease of reference, what I'm continuing to do now, just to get to the point, your counsel have been excellent in adducing evidence-in-chief, and I'm just going to deal with examination.
	From the questions that arose from the other parties and so I'll try and be quicker now for you.
	You won't hear many complaints I think from the Hall on that.
	Thank you very much.
	It's of course your entire time.
	I just think it's helpful.
	So there's a couple things and there will be a couple documents that arose that are in the system already from my friend's questioning I want to put to you.
	But the first thing I'd like to ask you about Mr. Bulford is Parliament Protection Services, this is, of course, to most Canadians, a sort of police service that nobody understands and nobody knows much about.
	What can you tell me about it?
	Well, after the October 22, 2014, shooting at the War Memorial and Mr. Bibeau storming the centre block, there was a big review afterwards that took place because there was...
	Three different agencies that were responsible for security on Parliament Hill.
	And they were all amalgamated into the Parliamentary Protective Service so that they would have one cohesive unit for the precinct.
	Right.
	And can you tell me, who does the Parliament Protection Services, who does it answer to?
	Well, when I was working...
	I still believe they fell under the RCMP's command, but that may not be the case anymore.
	They may be completely independent now.
	Right.
	And the RCMP command, then that falls under Commissioner Lucky?
	That's correct.
	And is it fair to say that from what you've seen from being within an RCMP, from being within the RCMP and seeing on the news, that you've witnessed or heard of Commissioner Lucky relaying?
	Public messages on behalf of the elected executive branch or relaying information that the political executive branch wants to relay to the public.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, the next question I want to bring up, if I can bring up document 7722 _rel.0001.
	Thank you.
	Counsel, are you referring to text messages?
	Text messages, yes.
	So it's going to, and I'll have to get the other one too.
	So it's 7724 is the next one, just so you know.
	Now, I'm not sure if you were present or you had watched this part of the hearing when I referred to these text messages.
	This is a text exchange between...
	One of the staffers with the Prime Minister's office and another one of the staffers with the Minister of Public Safety's office, okay?
	And this is, in this context, the staffer with the Prime Minister's office states to the staffer with the Public Safety Minister's office that got a quick response.
	People are into it.
	Let me know if your boss is too.
	Boss being...
	The Minister of Public Safety.
	Happy to help however I can.
	This is what I sent through, by the way.
	Hi, I just had a chat with Alex at PS, being Public Safety, who had a bit of an interesting idea.
	As you saw in the pod goals chat, the trucker convoy and some of their more extreme comments calling for January 6th style insurrection are getting more coverage in the media.
	Alex was surveying.
	Whether there would be some interest in his boss doing some media on this eventually.
	He was chatting with Mendicino about it right before he went into a cabinet retreat.
	And can you agree the cabinet retreat was on January 24th?
	Were you aware of that?
	That sounds accurate.
	Yeah, of 2002.
	There he goes on.
	I think there could be an opportunity to get in on this growing narrative of the truckers, particularly with the research that LRB is doing into their backers.
	Do you know who the LRB is?
	No.
	Have you ever heard of the Liberal Research Bureau while you were on the Hill?
	No.
	Okay.
	And my thoughts of framing here would be similar to what the PM slash Blair, me being Minister, Baron and Prime Minister, said last year when January 6th occurred.
	And the first point is, our democracy is something we need to nurture and protect every day.
	uh and then if we could bring up the second uh part of the text message at 7724.
	And then it goes on, and this is the points that are being relayed, or that is essentially going to be the narrative.
	We will always support the right to peaceful protest, and some of the calls that organizers of these events are making are concerning and will take them seriously, would need something to back this up.
	We'll continue to monitor the situation closely.
	The fine line to walk would be to ensure we are not looking like we're directing the police, which obviously is not the goal here.
	Hoping to canvass your thoughts, Alex said he'd come back to me with a proposal this afternoon when he gets to chat with Mendocino again.
	Obviously, pending his boss is in our interest in looking into this further.
	So that text is to either the Prime Minister or someone within his office, and they're explaining what Alex, the Chief of Staff for the Public Safety Minister, has come up with.
	He responds, "Thanks.
	I had an initial chat with my boss, and he's supportive, but wants to wait a day or two.
	There's a danger that if we come down too hard, they might push out the crazies," being, I think, the far, far extreme fractions online they were talking about.
	I think that's fair, she responds.
	"Apparently, Global and others are working on stories.
	Maybe we see how those land." So, you had mentioned that you don't trust legacy media, and you mentioned Global News, and that's one of them.
	Yes, that's true.
	Okay.
	Now, I've sent this around.
	I'm not going to try and move this article into evidence at this juncture, but did you know that the following day, Global released the news article?
	Titled January 6th event, or there was going to be a January, a potential January type 6th event during the Ottawa convoy.
	And they managed to get Parliament Protection Services to comment.
	And what was reiterated was one of the points in that text message.
	Again, I'm asking you, if the government was going to try and relay a narrative, from your experience from working on the Hill in law enforcement, would they use something like the Parliamentary Protection Services to relay a narrative?
	I can't say for certain.
	All of my experience with the Parliamentary Protective Service is...
	I've never seen anything political from them because they're limited in scope.
	Okay.
	And so the Parliamentary Protective Services, reiterate, and I'll just read it in.
	I'm just trying to pull it up again.
	I'm not sure you got much from the witness about the parliamentary.
	Right.
	So, in any event, I'll deal with that.
	There are going to be lots of witnesses that will come later.
	Understood.
	You can use your time, but...
	Yeah.
	So, moving on, essentially, the Parliamentary Protective Services in this article states that they're wary of the security and they won't talk about further matters in order to keep people safe.
	I'm just summarizing it.
	We'll put it into evidence through other witnesses.
	But is it concerning to you that, you know, coming from this issue with misinformation that you're concerned about and you've testified to, that the elected executive branch has identified knowing about news articles and what they're going to be about before they come out?
	What's the evidence of that?
	Directly in the text messages, they said that Global's running a piece on it.
	It was on January 24th, of which...
	That was, and the news article I'm speaking of was on January 25th.
	And then Parliamentary Security Services says essentially the byline that is in those text messages, sir.
	And I'll put that into evidence, and I'm just asking if it concerns him if that's the case.
	I'm just trying to understand where the evidence is for that.
	Yes, it's the text messages.
	So you have the text messages between the staffers with both the Prime Minister's office.
	As well as with the Minister of Public Safety.
	They then say what the narrative is going to be.
	They then say that Global is going to be running this story.
	And then when Global runs the story, they quote Parliamentary Protective Services, citing basically one of the lines in the text messages.
	I'm not sure I understand the link at all in the way you describe it, but the record is clear.
	So we'll leave it.
	So with respect to that, if that is the case, is that something that concerns you?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Okay.
	And moving on from that point, my friend brought up with you the issue with respect to danger of people staying and the advice you were giving and everything.
	thing and I'd like to bring up OPS document 14504 please.
	Do you recognize this document?
	Yes, I do.
	And what is it?
	It's the document that the OPP and two OPS liaisons brought to the Swiss Hotel.
	Right.
	And in reviewing that document, does any of it therein say that all the protesters have to leave?
	No.
	All right.
	And so was that one of the documents that formed your understanding of what was to happen?
	I thought it was just reinforcing Justice McLean's decision that as long as we abided by those three conditions of no one coming to Ottawa to commit violence, do not block critical infrastructure, and do not disrupt trade, we were still considered a lawful protest.
	And the people that they were delivering that message to, such as myself and the others, Didn't fit into any of those categories that I'm reading here.
	Right.
	And with respect to the position they're in that says they need to move their trucks, you're not contesting that that was going to have to happen?
	No.
	Okay.
	And so when you talk about lawful protest, you're talking about people, actually physical people, human beings on a street protesting.
	Is that fair?
	That's correct.
	Okay.
	And so it was your belief and you were advising Canadians to come to Ottawa or to stay in Ottawa in order to carry out that sort of protest.
	You know, I hate to...
	It's David Michikowski.
	I hate to spend more time on Friday evening of everyone, but we really are getting into cross-examination.
	That's fine.
	I'll move on.
	More of a leading question, Paul Champ on the record.
	Thanks.
	Pretty leading.
	So if we could please bring up OPP document 4286.
	Okay.
	So this is the document that my friend put to you.
	It's the operational plan.
	And if Mr. Clark wouldn't mind scrolling down to page 31. It's not 31 in the documents.
	Oh, no, it is.
	There we go.
	Perfect.
	So if you can just take a moment to look at that, Mr. Bulford.
	It's a script for arresting protesters.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So you can agree the plan was that the protesters were essentially going to be released with just a court date and some release conditions as soon as possible.
	They weren't being put before a justice of the peace or a bail hearing.
	That was the plan?
	Yes.
	All right.
	And so other than Tamara Leach and Chris Barber, do you know of anyone else this plan just wasn't applied to?
	Just got a promise to appear with conditions, undertakings, and, you know, they all got, they didn't get massive bail conditions imposed upon them by the Crown or on behalf of OPS.
	Do you know anyone else other than those two individuals who wasn't released under this sort of release plan?
	Well, I know at least Pat King.
	Yeah.
	And his friend, I believe his name is Tyson Billings, were both incarcerated for an extended period of time.
	Was anybody else that you know of?
	I've heard of other people that were charged, but I don't know the particulars of their release.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Those are my questions.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Any re-examination?
	No, thank you, Commissioner.
	Okay.
	So, thank you.
	You're free to go.
	Thank you, sir.
	So, we've completed the list for today, and we will come back on Monday morning at 9.30.

▲