POEC Report: Rouleau Says He “Disagrees” With OPP Reports Of No Violence At Freedom Convoy

One of the most baffling pieces of news to come out of the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) final report, written by former Supreme Court Justice Paul Rouleau has been the absolute ignoring of hard evidence.

Much of what Rouleau relied on to come to the conclusion that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal cabinet were justified in using the Emergencies Act was pure speculation of what ‘could have happened.’ No actual violence broke out at the Freedom Convoy protest, but Rouleau tries to dismiss this nagging little fact. 

OPP Superintendent Pat Morris, who is in charge of the OPP’s Operations Intelligence Bureau, wrote a report regarding security threats posed by the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa and concluded that there was no evidence of any violence coming from the protesters. During his testimony in front of the POEC, Morris even said “The lack of violent crime was shocking” and condemned those trying to connect the convoy to Russia or the US without evidence.

Rouleau in response to the number of individuals who cited Morris’, to stated in his final report (pg. 147) that:

Several parties at the Commission relied heavily on the testimony of OPP Superintendent Morris, whose unit was responsible for the Hendon reports. He described the absence of credible threats that protesters intended to engage in violence or other unlawful activity, and, in fact, commented on there being no instances of serious violence despite the size and length of the protests. I disagree with his assessment and accept the evidence from several witnesses that there was violence.

This is absurd to acknowledge the report that a certified expert in his field wrote up, an expert who stated he would change his conclusions if someone could show him evidence of violence, and then just say that you are siding with other witnesses who claim there was violence.

Everyone who watched the POEC can attest to the fact no photos, videos, or anything was produced to show the Freedom Convoy was violent. All the anti-convoy side had was Ottawa residents whining about Uber Eats being down (which it wasn’t), and Ottawa Police Chiefs Steve Bell and Peter Sloly claiming the protest was like a “tinder box,” again despite zero evidence of anything ti prove the protesters were willing to commit violent acts or riot. 

Rouleau tries to smooth this issue out further by explaining that: 

Further, the conduct of some protesters was intimidating and highly disruptive. Some disagreement may come down to different witnesses using the word “violence” to mean different things. In any event, the more important point here is that planning for a weekend event, even when there is no indication of violence, is a very different exercise from planning for something that could potentially become a prolonged, large-scale protest.

Rouleau is trying to stitch together something that makes the Freedom Convoy sound violent while also having no shred of evidence to back his narrative up. He has to resort to saying different people have different definitions of violence. Well, if their definitions of what “violence” is have nothing to do with physically attacking people or property then those witnesses’ claims of violence are worthless. 

There should be no wonder why many Canadians are angry with the final report Paul Rouleau released. It has a blatant disregard for the facts, and instead reads like a Liberal Party communications team trying to craft a narrative that gets Justin Trudeau off the hook. Every little subjective perception of Trudeau and anti-convoy witnesses is counted as fact, while every actual fact regarding the Freedom Convoy’s lack of violence is seen as just an opinion.

Rouleau could have chosen to help unify Canada with a report rooted in truth, and instead, he decided to further break Canadians’ trust in our institutions so Trudeau can continue living his consequence-free life.