Volume 11 (October 27, 2022)
Volume 11 has 314 pages of testimony. 19 people spoke before the Commission, including 1 witness.
Very important disclaimer: testimony from this site should not be taken as authoritative; check the relevant public hearing for verbatim quotes and consult the associated transcript for the original written text. For convenience, testimony includes links directly to the relevant page (where a speaker started a given intervention) in the original PDF transcripts.
The testimony below is converted from the PDF of the original transcript, prepared by Wendy Clements.
Speakers, by number of times they spoke:
- Thomas Carrique, Commissioner (Comm) - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 1098 times)
- Eric Brousseau, Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 366 times)
- Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 229 times)
- Tom Curry, Counsel - Peter Sloly (spoke 108 times)
- David Migicovsky, Counsel - Ottawa Police Service / City of Ottawa (Ott-OPS) (spoke 90 times)
- Brendan Miller, Counsel - Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers (spoke 71 times)
- Paul Rouleau, Commissioner - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 70 times)
- Jennifer L. King, Counsel - City of Windsor (Win) (spoke 58 times)
- Christopher Diana, Counsel - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 41 times)
- Paul Champ, Counsel - Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses (spoke 39 times)
- Sujit Choudhry, Counsel - Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) (spoke 34 times)
- Alan Honner, Counsel - Democracy Fund / Citizens for Freedom / Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Coalition (DF / CfF / JCCF) (spoke 29 times)
- Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel - City of Ottawa (Ott) (spoke 11 times)
- The Registrar - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 11 times)
- Lauren Pearce, Counsel - National Police Federation (spoke 9 times)
- Thomas McRae, Counsel - Windsor Police Service / City of Windsor (Win-WPS) (spoke 9 times)
- The Clerk - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 2 times)
- Mandy England, Counsel - Government of Alberta (AB) (spoke 1 time)
- P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel - Government of Saskatchewan (SK) (spoke 1 time)
Upon commencing on Thursday, October 27, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l’ordre. The Public Order Emergency Commission is now in session. La Commission sur l’état d’urgence est maintenant ouverte.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good morning. Bonjour. This is the first day of our third week, so it's only five more weeks to go. Okay.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good morning.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
For the record, Eric Brousseau, Commission Counsel, and I'd like to call the Commission's next witness, OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Morning.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Morning, sir, How are you?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Excellent. So we're going to swear you in and then get started.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
If you need a break, you'll let us know, but we normally have a morning break of 15 minutes, and lunch break of an hour, and a break in the afternoon.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you, sir.
The Registrar (POEC)
Commissioner Carrique, will you swear on a religious document, or do you wish to affirm?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would like to swear on the Bible, please. Thank you.
The Registrar (POEC)
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thomas Carrique, T-H-O-M- A-S C-A-R-R-I-Q-U-E.
COMM. THOMAS CARRIQUE, Sworn
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. ERIC BROUSSEAU
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Commissioner Carrique.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Good morning.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I’ll try to refer to you as Commissioner Carrique, since there are a couple of Commissioners on the stage. I’d like to pull up Document WTS00000039, please. And, Commissioner Carrique, you sat for a couple of interviews with Commission Counsel this summer; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And I’m pulling up your interview summary. You reviewed this as it was finalized, I take it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And do you have any corrections to make to it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I do not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I understand there was a spelling error on page 8, if we could go to that, just in terms of the name of the police chief for York Regional Police. His name is Jim MacSween and not MacSweeny? Is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. I provided that information this morning. And as well on page 9, I think it refers to insurance and it should refer to permit. That’s the first word at the top of page 9.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You’re welcome.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And otherwise, the balance remains accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And if I could pull up now OPP.IR.00000001? I’m showing you now the OPP’s institutional report. You’re aware of its contents?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am aware of its contents, but I don’t believe the document on the screen has changed.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Yes, it’s coming. Thank you. This is the OPP’s institutional report?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it is.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, its contents are accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To the best of my knowledge, the contents are accurate.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I take it you adopt it on behalf of the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do adopt this on behalf of the OPP.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Prior to being appointed as Commissioner of the OPP, you were a Deputy Chief of Police with the York Regional Police Service? Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. Yes, I was.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And you’ve been Commissioner of the OPP since April of 2019?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, sir.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And can you tell us briefly what that role entails?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that role entails having overall operational administrative responsibility for the Ontario Provincial Police. We police 330 municipalities across the province across five regions, each led by a Chief Superintendent, plus a Highway Safety Division. We also are responsible for providing various provincial services through our Investigations and Organized Crime Section, our Traffic Safety and Operational Support Section, and a variety of other specialities.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Commissioner, if I can just remind you, you may not know, this is being translated as you speak and sign interpretation as you speak, so if you could scroll down just a bit, that would be appreciated.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you, Commissioner.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And I think you sort of told us just now about the various departments or divisions within the OPP. Can you tell us who was in charge of each of those in January and February of 2022?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. So our Field Operations was Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins. We then have Corporate Services, which was Provincial Commander Mary Silverthorn, Traffic Safety and Operational Support, Deputy Commissioner Rose DiMarco, and Investigations and Organized Crime, Deputy Commissioner Chuck Cox.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And during these Freedom Convoy events of January and February, how often were those individuals reporting to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It would vary. It could be from multiple times a day, to daily, to weekly. We were in constant contact throughout the entire duration of the convoy.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And within the OPP, is there anyone else that you were in that level of contact with on a daily basis during these events?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Supt. Mike McDonell, who leads our Corporate Communications and Strategic Management Bureau.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I want to ask you now about the OPP’s role in general. And I’d ask the clerk to pull up Document COM00000819, which is a copy of the Police Services Act. And if we go to section 19 of the Act, it sets out the responsibilities of the OPP.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it does.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And while we’re getting there, if you could just sort of describe them in terms of your understanding of what the OPP is responsible for?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, the OPP, and ultimately I, am responsible for providing policing services in municipalities where they do not have a police service, or under contract. Once that contract and agreement has been approved by the Solicitor General, responsible for policing of navigable water ways that fall outside the jurisdiction of a municipality. Also responsible for maintaining traffic patrol on King’s Highways and providing investigative support and specialized services as directed by the Solicitor General or the Crown Attorney.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand from the OPP’s institutional reports that the OPP provides policing services for 328 municipalities? Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. I believe we’re 330. So 328 is approximately correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And what percentage of the OPP’s sworn members would be engaged in that kind of front-line policing?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Front-line policing, we would have on a day-to-day basis approximately 3,000, and specifically if we go back to the duration of the Freedom Convoy, there were 3,000 provincial constables assigned to Field Operations.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that includes maintaining policing in these 330 or 28 municipalities?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That it does. That does not include the other policing responsibilities that we have for all the other provincial services that we are mandated to provide.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so other than the list in section 19, which is on the screen which you just took us through, is there anything else that the OPP is responsible for?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So we have a wide variety of special services that we provide, from aviation services, Provincial Operational Intelligence Bureau, which you’ve heard a significant amount about. Also, our Provincial Liaison Team, which I know you’ve also heard a lot about. There’s a wide variety of specialized services that the province relies on us to provide from a policing perspective.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And one of those, I understand, is Public Order Units? Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We are responsible for maintaining public order in the municipalities for which we police. We do not have a jurisdictional responsibility for municipalities outside of our policing responsibilities. We can, however, provide those services if requested.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you tell us about the structure of the OPP’s Public Order Units?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Our Public Order Unit is approximately 257 trained members. They are primarily assigned to a function which we referred to as our Emergency Response Team. They have 10 mandated functions all related to having a flexible emergency response across the province, one of which is the function of public order.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand public order maintenance is in fact part of the core police services for any municipal police service? Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. It’s one of five core policing responsibilities that every police service in the Province of Ontario has an obligation to fill to an adequate and effective standard.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if a local police service doesn’t have a Public Order Unit, do they enter into agreements with the OPP for the OPP to provide that service?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
They are required to enter into an agreement, but not specifically with the OPP. That agreement could be entered into with another municipal police service. There are 10 Public Order Units across the province. OPP is one of those 10. So there were nine other police services that a municipality could enter into an agreement with.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And one of those is Ottawa Police Service; I take it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
One of those would be Ottawa Police Service, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
What about Windsor Police Service?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Windsor does not have a Public Order Unit.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so do they have an agreement with the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We do not have a standing agreement with Windsor. Utilization of Public Order in Windsor would be assessed on a request-by-request basis.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I understand the OPP has sort of divided the province up into five different regions? Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And how does that work in terms of the administration of the different regions?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So each region is led by a Chief Superintendent. They are then assisted by Superintendents that form part of their command team, and they oversee the operations of a variety of detachments who have Detachment Commanders. So to put it into a municipal context, the Detachment Commanders share a lot of the same responsibilities as would a municipal police chief, as it relates to communicating to a local Police Service Board, establishing community and strategic priorities, and providing day-to-day policing services. The regional Chief Superintendent oversees those operations across a variety of municipalities, and they all report up through to the Deputy Commissioner of Field Operations, Chris Harkins.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And when a detachment's resources are overwhelmed or they need assistance, how is that escalated up the chain within the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So first and foremost, if there's a neighbouring detachment, that can be something that is mitigated detachment commander to detachment commander. If it's not able to be resolved at that point, it would then be escalated through the regional Command Team, and it could eventually end up into the hands of the Deputy Commissioner of Field Operations. However, if it was an emerging and emergent circumstance, those types of needs for resources would be coordinated either by our provincial Communication Centres or our provincial Operation Centres. And if it was a long, protracted event or a planned activity, we would establish what we'd call an Emergency Operations Centre, and our Emergency Management Unit would be involved in that very complex process.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is it the same process if there's an external request by a municipal police service for OPP assistance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
An external request would normally come into my office, and then it would be assigned to the appropriate provincial command. If it was for an investigative type of request, it would go to Investigations and Organized Crime. If it was for additional uniform officers, it would go to Field Operations, public order would go to Field Support Bureau through what we call TSOS, Traffic Safety and Operational Support. That does not alleviate local municipalities reaching out directly to a detachment or to a regional commander, but formal requests for assistance should come in through my office. At this particular juncture in 2022, we had already received approximately 30 formal requests for assistance from other police services, and typically, I would receive between 220 and 230 formal requests from Municipal Services for assistance of the OPP.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
In a year?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In a year. On an annual basis, correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I understand from the OPP's website that it is a division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. So can you explain the relationship between the OPP and Solicitor General's office?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, absolutely. As you've articulated, we're a division of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The Ministry of the Solicitor General will set strategic priorities for the OPP, provide overall administrative direction. The day-to-day administrative and operations of the OPP is my sole and exclusive responsibility.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So maybe you can just help us understand what kind of direction would come from the Solicitor General's office.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that would come in the form of we have a three-year strategic plan. So that is essentially the Solicitor General's plan that the OPP operationalizes. It's at an extremely high level that sets the priorities for the organization. There could be provincial initiatives whereby the Ministry wants to support the OPP in achieving certain operational objectives and would provide us with the necessary funding and support to do so.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And how does the reporting up to the Solicitor General's office work?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So there's an annual report that is submitted to the Solicitor General's office, and then as it relates to day-to-day reporting, there will be many occasions where there will be no contact between myself and the Deputy Solicitor General for days or even for weeks. If there are certain situations for which he requires a level of situational awareness, then it's my responsibility to ensure that he receives that information.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so at the time that that was Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did you on a general or frequent basis report to anybody else within the Solicitor General's office?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did you -- so you didn't report directly to then Solicitor General Sylvia Jones?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I want to ask you now about a term that we've heard, which is police of jurisdiction. Can you help us understand what that means and where it's kind of grounded?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Certainly. Police service of jurisdiction relates to the police service that has a legislative responsibility under the Police Services Act to provide adequate and effective services. That police service of jurisdiction will report to a local Police Service Board who is responsible in concert with the Chief of Police in ensuring that those adequate and effective services are provided. And you've already highlighted the five core areas of responsibility that formulate adequate and effective services.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And when we talk about a police service of jurisdiction, does that police service have exclusive jurisdiction in their sort of physical bounds?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
They have exclusive jurisdiction within their physical bounds, but just for clarity, that does not mean that another police officer doesn't have full authorities to operate within that jurisdiction. That doesn't mean that another police service may not enter into an investigation that takes them into that jurisdiction to conduct interviews or do follow-up, but if there is an incident within that jurisdiction, that starts in that jurisdiction, that is taking place in that jurisdiction, that is the exclusive and sole responsibility of that police service of jurisdiction.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you've just sort of drawn the distinction between jurisdiction and authorities. Maybe you can ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- help us understand the difference.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Jurisdiction relates to the legislative responsibilities under the Police Services Act; whereas, authorities relate to the authorities that a police officer has to execute their duties.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Now I want to ask you about the circumstances in which the OPP might be called on to step in, and this is addressed at Section 9 of the Police Services Act, which is on the screen, page 11. So the first, subsection 9.1, is at the request of the Commission, which I understand is the Ontario Civilian Police Commission; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so what would that look like? Why would that come about?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In my experience, that's usually a situation where there's been ongoing and long-term concerns over the administration of a police service and/or their ability to provide adequate and effective policing.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so the Commission can direct the OPP, essentially, to step in?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And then if we go down to subsection 4, a local Crown attorney can request the assistance of the OPP; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's correct. And that would normally be for an individual situation, and most commonly for a criminal investigation that is warranted.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Subsection 5, it could be requested by a resolution of the local Police Services Board as well.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it can.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
What circumstances would that occur?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would be a specific event perhaps, or where the Board has concerns over its ability to provide adequate and effective service.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
The Board's ability or that local police service?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It's a shared responsibility. In legislation, the Board has a responsibility to ensure adequate and effective policing, as does the Chief of Police.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we go down to subsection 6, a local Police Chief can ask for that assistance in the case of an emergency; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we go down to subsection 8, it says, "When a request is made under this section, the Commissioner shall have the [OPP] give such temporary or emergency assistance as he or she considers necessary and shall have the Ontario Provincial Police stop giving temporary or emergency assistance when he or she considers it appropriate to do so." And so am I right in understanding that it is mandatory, if there is a request for assistance, the language of Section 8, it requires the OPP to provide whatever assistance is necessary?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Whatever assistance that I deem necessary, correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right. And other than the sort of mechanisms in Section 9 here, are there any other ways in which the OPP's assistance can be formally or informally requested?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Other than, as I mentioned earlier, there may be a reach out to a local detachment, but in terms of as it's prescribed in law and the formal process, these are the only ways for which we can be called upon to provide that level of assistance.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so just to be clear, there's no provision which would enable the Solicitor General's office to effectively direct that it occur?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not direct that it occur. If the Solicitor General's office had a concern over adequate and effective policing, the appropriate routes and legislation would be to refer that concern to OCPC.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I want to ask you now about the origins of the Freedom Convoy and when it first came across the OPPs radar; what can you tell us about that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
As documented in my witness summary, we became aware of that, from the Provincial Liaison Team’s perspective, on or about the 12th of January. I believe an analyst actually became aware of it on the 10th of January. That information was then transferred to a member of the Provincial Liaison Team. And by the 12th of January the Provincial Liaison Team was starting to engage in relation to the Freedom Convoy.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Other than the Provincial Liaison Team, or PLT, what other preparations were under way within the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
As of the 13th of January, the Provincial Operational Intelligence Bureau was also engaged in the collection and dissemination of intelligence. And as information continued to come in, then various aspects of the organization became involved right up to us appointing a Major Critical Incident Commander, and local Incident Commanders for every region for which the Freedom Convoy would travel through.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And do I understand it correctly that the OPP was the police of jurisdiction, all the way, essentially, from the Manitoba border until the convoys reached Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes and no. As long as the Freedom Convoy remained on King’s highways, or was travelling through municipalities for which we were the police service of jurisdiction, yes, but they’re were a number of events and activities that happened off of the King’s highways, that would have fallen into the jurisdiction of other police services, for which we worked in cooperation with those services as the convoy travelled on its way to Ottawa.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what did that cooperation with the local services look like?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The cooperation was integration in terms of responding to the convoy as it travelled through that jurisdiction, or there were moments in time where other people would congregate to show their support for the convoy; there may be a stop at a parking lot. We’ll use Vaughan Mills Mall as an example, where there were a number of protesters and vehicles that gathered in the Vaughan Mills Mall, and that would be a coordinated response between the OPP, who was looking after the traffic aspect of it, and then once that convoy, or that congregation was to form on municipal grounds, like the Vaughan Mills Mall, that’s where York Regional Police would engage as it related to what other policing provisions were required.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now I want to ask you about the OPP’s intelligence gathering; and I’m sure you’re familiar with the Hendon reports?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Very, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did you personally receive every Hendon report that was published?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I did.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did you review them as they were published?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I did.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And did you speak with Supt. Morris or anyone else from POIB about them?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
On occasion I would have had conversation with Supt. Morris but not specifically related to every Hendon report, or at regular intervals. The Hendon reports were very thorough, very complete, and I found them -- they provided me with the necessary information I required to have full situational awareness.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The January 20th Hendon report mentions that: “Police of jurisdiction resources could be stretched if rallies are organized at the local level to coincide with the arrival of the convoys in a given community.” Is that -- did the OPP take any action in response to the concern that local police of jurisdiction might be overwhelmed or stretched, to use the term?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it’s my understanding, and you’ve heard from Supt. Craig Abrams that Supt. Abrams was engaged with Ottawa Police Service, offering and providing some support from the Ontario Provincial Police. And I’d also made enquiries with Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins in relation to our knowledge in relation to Ottawa’s level of preparedness.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I’ll ask you about that in a second. But what -- going into the first weekend, which is the 29th and 30th; what was your personal understanding of what this protest was going to look like in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
This was going to include a high degree of active participation; a large number of commercial motor vehicles and personal vehicles, as well as a commitment for longer-term activity. There was no exit plan from the protestors, and there were also demands that we knew could not be realized in the short term, if at all.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is it your understanding that the Ottawa Police Service had that same understanding of what was going transpire over the weekend, and potentially longer?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it was. I was well aware that Ottawa Police were also in receipt of the Hendon reports and had been for at least a year leading up to. And in fact, on January 21st, I made an enquiry with Supt. Morris to ensure that all Police Chiefs in the province were receiving the Hendon report.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What prompted that enquiry?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The content of the Hendon reports; wanting to ensure that there were no gaps within organizations, and that the Chiefs of Police had access to what I felt was necessary and important information.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What -- you know, to your knowledge what steps did the OPP take in that -- again, in that week up leading up to the first weekend to provide assistance to the OPS?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
We provided resources; we had provided frontline personnel to assist with traffic management; we had provided Critical Incident Commanders; we had provided a Public Order team that was shared between Parliamentary Protective Services and the Ottawa Police, and we had offered additional resources if required.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Were there any resources sought in that first week that you weren’t able to provide?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To my knowledge, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we heard from Supt. Abrams last week; what was his role in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
He was fulfilling the role of Strategic Superintendent, or Strategic Commander, and his primary responsibility was to maintain relationships with Ottawa Police Service; facilitate any requests for assistance; and coordinate our deployment in terms of logistics; and be the link of communication between the OPP and the Ottawa Police Service.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, he testified about participating in a January 27th Intersect call; do you know what Intersect is?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And learning on January 27th, which is the Thursday before the first weekend, that the OPS planned to allow 3,000 trucks into downtown Ottawa, did you -- was this information relayed to you before that first weekend?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it was not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What was your understanding of what was going to happen with the trucks that first weekend?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
My understanding was that Ottawa Police Service had designated parking areas for the commercial motor vehicles. And that those commercial motor vehicles would be contained in these parking areas. And that they were readying shuttle buses to transport participants to allow them to engage in lawful protest. And that they would not be permitting any large commercial motor vehicles into the Parliamentary precinct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And where did that understanding come from?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
From Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if you had known, if you had been told on January 27th that 3,000 trucks were going to park in downtown Ottawa, what, if anything would you have done differently?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I certainly would have asked some additional questions to ensure that they had the adequate resources that they required. I would have asked some additional questions around the integrity of the block of Parliament and Wellington. Keeping in mind that it is not my role or responsibility to sit in judgment of an operational plan, but it would have warranted further enquiry to determine whether Ottawa required any additional assistance, then we certainly would have had those conversations.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And again, I appreciate we’re in sort of in a hypothetical, but what additional assistance could the OPP have provided, based on if you had learned of that plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We could have amassed additional resources if were required; we could have contributed to contingency plans; and we could have just offered some advice and guidance, if it was appropriate. Being mindful that Ottawa Police Service has always been very highly regarded and respected for its ability to manage protests, lawful and otherwise. And in fact, as a Sergeant, I was deployed to Ottawa as a Member of a Public Order Unit and it experienced first-hand Ottawa's ability to not only plan for events, but to manage those events.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
In speaking about this particular time period, Superintendent Abrams basically described what I think he called a sort of stay in your lane mentality. Is that what you're describing essentially?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, I wouldn't say a stay in your lane mentality. I think as a good policing partner, if we identified something that was of concern to us, that we have a responsibility to engage in conversation. Ultimately, the decision as to how the operational plan should be executed is that of the Ottawa Police, and I'm not sitting in judgment of those decisions, but we would have initiated some further conversation just to offer any additional inputs that we thought may be helpful or additional resources. And that did happen on a number of occasions throughout the Freedom Convoy where we did reach out to individual police services to make inquiries, not to provide a direction, not to sit in judgment of operational plans, but to ensure the collective success of policing across this province.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And I understand, again, prior to this first weekend, you didn't see and didn't request a copy of the operational plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And if you had known that the plan was to allow 3,000 trucks in, would you have asked for a copy of the plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would have asked additional questions. I wouldn't necessarily have asked for a copy of the plan. That is not my purview to be requesting operational plans from other police services. Most times, I would not even see an operational plan within the Ontario Provincial Police. There are various levels of subject matter expertise that have the autonomy, the knowledge, skills and ability to approve those plans.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I'm sort of expanding out from you personally and just asking, in what circumstances would the OPP ask for the operational plan of another police service?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If we were being asked to perform an active role as an active participant in a unified or integrated command, that is a situation where the appropriate critical or major incident commander or strategic commander would want to see a copy of an operational plan, but that is not something that I would request or be provided.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Mr. Clerk, if we could pull up OPP00004582? I'm taking you to your text message exchange with Deputy Commissioner Harkins. And if we could go to page 10? These are texts exchanged on January 27th, although I believe the timing might actually be sort of Greenwich Mean Time, and so it might be off by a few hours on these text messages. But if we go there, not sure -- and so I think in blue is Deputy Commissioner Harkins. I think green is for your texts; is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. The blue is Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins, and the green is myself, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So Deputy Commissioner Harkins says, "Not sure you got my message. Reference a briefing tomorrow from mcic. Having RC's all taking part with us as well as Mike from Corp comm's. Karl has concerns around traffic in ottawa core. 417 and 416 may become an issue" And your response, "I did and I'm looking forward to it. Also very interested in what POIB has to say about any risks to Parliament."
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So what were Deputy Commissioner Harkins' concerns about traffic and what were your concerns about Parliament?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So you would have to speak to Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins specifically for his concerns, but from my perspective and my independent recollection of our conversations is the concern was around the congestion that would be experienced in the City of Ottawa by prohibiting the truck traffic to enter into the downtown core, the potential shutting down of access from the 417, and the backing up of traffic that would be related to trying to coral all of the commercial motor vehicles into designated parking areas. And you can see from my inquiry there, this is in and around what activity is anticipated to take place, in and around Parliament, and it was subsequent to that that I was advised that there would be no commercial motor vehicle traffic permitted into that area.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I believe Superintendent Abrams, at least in his witness summary and he may have said last week that he reported the 3,000 trucks downtown to Deputy Commissioner Harkins, but you're telling us you never got that information from Deputy Commissioner Harkins?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not prior to the arrival of the convoy, no. It became evident on the 28th and 29th of January that there was an inability to contain all the commercial motor vehicles into designated parking areas and that they had permeated onto Wellington Street and into the area of the Parliament buildings. But prior to that, there was no communication relayed to me about that, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand you spoke with Chief Sloly on Friday, the 28th of January. Had you spoken with him prior that week?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I had not spoken to him prior that week in relation to the Freedom Convoy, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you tell us about your discussion with him on that Friday?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, and I believe it was the Friday. I would have to look at the records, but prior to that, the Freedom Convoy arriving in Ottawa, I received a call from Chief Sloly asking for assistance with public order, for which I said we would facilitate, passed that request along to Deputy Commissioner Rose DiMarco, who also advised me that we were lending support to Parliamentary Protective Services from a public order standpoint, and I asked that the communication take place between PPS and OPS to ensure that they had the adequate Public Order Units that they required. I then followed up with Chief Sloly via a text message to ask him if he had all the necessary resources, for which he responded he did, to please keep the intel coming.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand one of the issues, which we'll get into and talk about, sort of the need to have a plan, or to understand how your officers are going to be deployed before deploying them. But I take it you didn't have a plan for how these Public Order Units were going to be deployed by the PPS or by OPS on that first weekend?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I didn't have a plan, no. And as previously indicated, I would not normally be provided with an operational plan if we are asked for assistance.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right, okay. But you're not aware of whether anyone from the OPP received a plan in response to which the request to sort of loan Public Order Units to OPS and PPS was fulfilled?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I'm not sure I completely understand your question. Are you asking me if the request came in concert with a defined plan as to how Public Order would be utilized?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I'm asking if you know whether anyone from on the OPP side saw a plan for how those Public Order Units would be used that first weekend, and said, okay, we can, you know, give PPS Public Order Units, give OPS Public Order Units.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The deployment of Public Order Units also comes with a Public Order Commander and Critical Incident Commander. So those discussions in relation to plans and how those assets would be utilized would have taken place between those respective commanders, and that's not something that I would be involved in.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we could pull up OPP00001583? This is an email from Chief Sloly on January 30th, which is going to come up on the screen. Could go down -- thanking a number of I think they're Chiefs of Police for assistance provided during that first weekend. And you respond -- if we go back up to the top, "Thanks for the update and your leadership, Peter." Did it appear to you by the end of this first weekend that everything was under control in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don't know that I would have an opinion in terms of whether everything was under control. I was certainly aware that there was an ongoing protest, there were a number of Public Order Units on the ground assisting Ottawa, and Ottawa was doing their best to facilitate a peaceful protest and to deal with any unlawful activity.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was reported up to you during that first weekend about what was happening?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So as previously indicated, the first form of reporting was that the trucks were not being contained, there was no ability to contain them in preidentified parking locations. And then throughout the weekend, I received situational reports in terms of the number of resources that we had assigned to Ottawa, and high-level overviews of the number of protesters.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could go to OPP00004582? This is -- I’m taking you back to your exchange with Deputy Commissioner Harkins, and it’s at page 17. Deputy Commissioner Harkins writes to you: “Just FYI. Our incident commander that is in the ottawa [sic] command center said its [sic] the most unorganized they have ever seen. Comments like they got in here let them try to get out… inappropriate F bombs etc [sic]… being addressed.” “Apparently willing to wait till Wednesday before action to remove if they haven’t already.” And then your response is: “Thanks - you available for a call in the [morning]?” Did you have that discussion with Deputy Harkins? Deputy Commissioner Harkins?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did. So the 31st, I believe, is the Monday.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
That’s correct.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Right. So we’re past the weekend now. You had previously asked me about my level of knowledge as it related to activity over the weekend. So this is the first indication that there is this type of activity being reported. And I had also had the opportunity to engage in a meeting with Chief Sloly and Commissioner Lucki also on the 31st of January.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I want to ask you about that meeting. Can you tell us your recollection of that meeting?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, from what perspective?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
The meeting with Chief Sloly and Commissioner Lucki, ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- what was discussed?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so Chief Sloly provided us with an overview of the situation. And we talked about providing any resources that he may require and how this could be managed moving forward.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And we’ve got notes taken by OPS legal council, Christiane Huneault.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So if we could get those up on the screen? It’s OPS00014454, and it’s pages 1 to 3 of those notes. This is a recording by Christiane Huneault of the meeting. And so I think you see the second point there: “we planned for a spring Frid[ay] - Sund[ay] and negotiate our way out of it” “wanted to demobilize Mond[ay] - Wed[nesday]” I think it says. “gone from 3 day demo to multi-day/month occupation” And if we go down a little bit further: “can’t safely remove them unless we have hundreds of officers to maintain…” I think that says “risks.” It’s not clear. The bottom. They’re: “Now transitioned in an occupation” So first of all, did you agree with Chief Sloly’s assessment that it was an occupation at that point?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I had no reason not to agree with Chief Sloly. It certainly had turned into a situation that I felt Ottawa Police had not anticipated, and I do not think describing it as an occupation would be inaccurate at all.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You said it turned into something the Ottawa Police had not anticipated. Is the continued occupation something that the OPP anticipated?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well I think the best way to answer that is to refer to the Hendon Reports, and the Hendon Reports clearly indicated that there was no exit strategy and there were discussions around a long-term presence in Ottawa. They could not, certainly, identify how long that would be. There was reference to multiple weeks, but also demands that would not be realized and committed protestors that would not be leaving unless those demands were realized.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And Chief Sloly said, you know, “We can’t safely remove protestors without hundreds more officers,” essentially. Was that -- did you understand that to be a request to you and to Commissioner Lucki for more resources?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There was an indication that a request for additional resources would follow. And it did follow. I believe it’s on or about the 2nd of February where I received a formal written request from Chief Sloly for additional resources. However, we continued to provide resources in real time through having a presence in Ottawa through our Strategic Commander, Supt. Craig Abrams, as well as our Emergency Operations Center. So if you look at the deployment records of the Ontario Provincial Police, you’ll see that we’re providing resources throughout this entire period and the amount of those resources build as time goes on.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we go down to page 2, I think sort of your interjection here is recorded: “Assessment is spot on. This is now an occupation.” “There is sustainability to this movement.” There’s a reference there. No: “…injunction puts us in a different space - then have to act on it. prepare one but timing of getting one is crucial/dangerous.” Why did you -- why were you not supportive of an injunction at this point?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So these are not my notes. This is the first time I’ve seen these notes. I would not say that I was not supportive of an injunction at the time. My advice was if seeking an injunction, we ought to make sure that we do have an operational plan that we can move to enforcement when appropriate and necessary. You do not want to be in possession of an injunction order, which implies you have a responsibility, and not have the capability and a plan to affect that injunction order.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we could go down to page 3? I think there’s, again, another -- comments which are attributed to you. And you’ll let us know if they’re accurate. But the first point: “we will facilitate all of [the requests or your] requests and get embedded in the command structure.” Can you tell us about that in terms of being embedded in the command structure?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. So offering our assistance to embed into the command structure in any way that we can be of assistance, knowing that we have very experienced critical and major critical incident commanders, public order commanders, planners, PLT commanders, any way that we could assist the OPS with advancing an operational plan, that was that.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And would it be fair to say that as of the date of this meeting, which is the 31st, the Monday, that the OPS was overwhelmed in terms of their capacity to respond?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And sort of how quickly was the OPP able to actually mobilize resources to the OPS in response to this conversation in particular?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Immediately. We provided all resources, to my knowledge, that were requested when they were requested. So at no point in time am I aware of us not being able to fulfil any requests.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. A few days later, on February 2nd, you mentioned this already, Supt. Abrams was actually kind of formally appointed as the strategic superintendent? Is that right? What did that -- what change did that bring about to the OPP’s role in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Really, that change enabled us to make sure that we were able -- properly able to provision the logistics that were required. As increasing numbers of OPP officers were assigned to Ottawa, it meant we had to have lodging, we had to provide food, we had to provide vehicles, we had to provide radios, we had to ensure appropriate shift schedule, we had to ensure that those officers were backfilled in their home locations. Every officer that we deployed to Ottawa or elsewhere around this province, for example, January -- on the 12th of February, there were 20 simultaneous events that were responding to. That means an OPP officer out of a community for which I have policing responsibility for. So that takes a significant amount of coordination and cooperation. So Supt. Abrams was working very closely with our Emergency Operations Centre, Emergency Management Unit to make sure that all of those provisions were in place, and then also he would have had an entire command structure that he would have been managing to facilitate the deployment of OPP officers while in Ottawa.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I want to pull up an email now which I think you referred to previously. It’s OPP00001576. And this is a request from Chief Sloly on February 2nd for some additional assistance. Go down to the bottom. Chief Sloly -- so if we -- sorry, if we go back up: “…I am seeking your assistance in providing resources to assist the Ottawa Police with our operational plan.” And so are you aware of whether, at this point, February 2nd, anybody, and I appreciate it wasn’t necessarily you, but anybody on the ground, Supt. Abrams, had seen a copy of the operational plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’m not aware. You would have to ask them that question directly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
All right. And there's a series of requests there. Were those requests fulfilled?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To my knowledge, all of those requests were fulfilled.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Do you know how long it took to get the PLT, the 50 to 60 uniformed officers there?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We had PLT there. I believe we saw an influx of PLT between the 2nd and the 4th of February. Inspector Beaudin, who appeared before the Commission yesterday, would be able to provide you the specifics of that. I know he, himself, at my request, attended Ottawa on or about the 4th of February. So it would be best to speak with those that were responsible for these assets to be able to get the timing of exactly when they were there, but many of these assets were already on ground, in Ottawa, ready and able to assist at this time.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Why did you ask the Inspector to attend Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It had been relayed to me that PLT was not necessarily being utilised to its fullest extent, and I felt that Inspector Beaudin could provide Chief Sloly and his Command Team with some experience and guidance as it relates to Marcel's expertise, and wanted to ensure that the Chief had the availability of that subject matter expertise.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And through this kind of first weekend and up to about February 2nd, how often had you been briefing the Deputy Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would vary on the day. At a minimum, at least once a day.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And were those -- I mean, we've got your sort of text message exchanges ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- which are -- which do brief the Deputy Solicitor General. Would you also have daily phone calls?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not necessarily daily phone calls. If something came up, there was a question about something, or there was something that went beyond what had been reported, we may connect by phone, but there were not scheduled daily phone calls, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, I understand from Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso's witness summary that you and he spoke on February 3rd. Do you recall that conversation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not specifically without referring to any materials that you may be able to provide to me.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, we don't need to sort of pull it up, but his witness summary relays that you first told him about the possibility of a blockade of the Ambassador Bridge on that day. Does that sound roughly accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's fair. That's fair. I can't say for certain that it was on that day. I have disclosed all of my situational updates to the Deputy Solicitor General to the Commission, so it may be contained in there. There was also the Hendon reports that were going to the Provincial Operational Security Adviser, but I can't say for certain that it was on that date during that phone that I would've provided that information.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the first time that you relay that information to the Deputy Solicitor, whether it was on the 3rd or otherwise, were there any concerns raised in response to what impact that might have?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Any concerns raised by me or by him?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
By the Deputy Solicitor General.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We certainly at some point had a conversation about the potential of a protest in Windsor specific to the Ambassador Bridge, and I had shared with him that we had offered our assistance to Windsor.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we'll -- I'll sort of deal with Windsor as a sort of separate subject because I want to keep the focus on Ottawa for the moment. If we could go to OPP00004580. This -- and page 47. These are your -- this is your text exchange with the Deputy Solicitor General. And there it is: "[Good morning] Deputy. No events reported overnight." Sorry, the date on this is February 4th: "I spoke with Commissioner Lucki, Chief Sloly, and Chief Ramer last night. All have access to the necessary OPP resources. We will be continuing to assist OPS and TPS with their requirements today and throughout the weekend." And the Deputy says: "[Thanks, Commissioner Carrique.] Much appreciated." Can you tell us about that discussion with Chief Ramer, and Chief Sloly and Commissioner Lucki the previous evening?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. And that was -- as I recall, it was not a discussion with them all collectively. I had spoke to all of them throughout the day. We had numerous events that were transpiring, and in particular, there was a planned event to take place in Toronto on Saturday, February the 5th, so we were doing our best to coordinate access to the necessary resources and provide the necessary supports to the competing and concurrent events that were taking place around the province. So I was giving the Deputy some assurance that we were lending that necessary support and we were fulfilling any requirements that had been asked of us.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what resources were deployed to Ottawa and Toronto that second weekend of the protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So there was ample resources. There was frontline resources provided. There was intelligence resources provided. I don't believe at the end of the day we ended up providing any Public Order assets to Toronto, but that evidence would best come from the hubs that we established. We had a -- we had hubs that were ensuring that the Public Order teams were deployed where they needed to be, when they needed to be, which could mean any one of the ten Public Order Units would have been deployed to any one of these locations. So that level of detail would have to be shared with you from the hub.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And based on what you were hearing from Superintendent Abrams, who was the Strategic Superintendent on the ground, what -- you know, did it seem that everything was under control at that point, on the 4th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I'm not in direct contact with Superintendent Abrams. My information is coming at this point in time from situational reps that are coming -- reports, sorry, that are coming multiple times a day which is providing me with a level of situational awareness in terms of the number of vehicles, the number of protesters, any reports of criminal activity.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to -- so Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso, again in his summary, told us that he spoke with the Toronto Police Service Chief Ramer on February 3rd, which is the Thursday before this, and who explained to Deputy Solicitor General that TPS needed additional resources, and DSG Di Tommaso told him that Chief Ramer, or sorry, told Commission Counsel that Chief Ramer said "the OPP doesn't have resources for us", essentially. Is that accurate that there weren't actually OPP resources to be directed towards Ottawa ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So ---
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- or actually, Toronto?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- first, I can't say whether Chief Ramer's conversation with the Deputy was accurate based on what they knew at the time. Deputy Di Tommaso did enquire with me. Being under the understanding that Toronto Police had asked for OPP resources and they were not available, I directly enquired with Toronto Police and we sorted that miscommunication out. There were OPP resources available. We were already integrated into their Command Centre, we had a presence in their Command Centre through Intelligence, our Highway Safety Division, so we were providing resources to Toronto Police.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So it's not accurate, then, that there weren't OPP resources available, that they did get sent that weekend?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There were OPP assets and resources available, and they were sent that weekend, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And this weekend of the 5th to the 6th, was the potential blockade of the Ambassador Bridge factored into resource allocations in any way?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We had made a number of enquiries with Windsor Police offering assistance and resources, and we were advised that that assistance was not required. If it was required, that a request would be made. The Chief of Windsor seemed confident that they were able to handle the anticipated activities with the resources they had available to them.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to take you now to OPP00001507, which is a forward of an email that Chief Sloly sent to a number of people on his team the morning of February 5th. I'll just -- if we can scroll down, I'll let you review it, see if you can recall seeing this email. It kind of went up through a number of OPP individuals, but if we go down to the main email from Chief Sloly -- there it is -- it’s directed to Deputy Chief Patricia Ferguson, and there are a number of individuals copied on it.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry. What are you drawing my attention to?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I just -- do you recall receiving this email as a forward?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not without having had the opportunity read the entire string. I can only see a small portion of the email, so I would have to ask your indulgence to be able to ---
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Sure.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- review the entire thing.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
If we can just scroll down, we’ll let you review it quickly.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It would be most helpful if you went to the top of the string.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Where you received it, you mean?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay, sure. You received it from Deputy Commissioner Rose Demarco.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Please, if you don’t mind stopping there, I’d like to -- can you go back up? Okay. Thank you. Stop there, please. This is the part that has my response. (SHORT PAUSE)
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you, yes. I do recall this email.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
You recall seeing this.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you for your indulgence while I familiarized myself with it.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
That’s all right. And so you received this email that morning, and I understand that you actually spoke with Chief Sloly later that day. Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes, I believe I did speak to Chief Sloly later that day to relay concerns over moving forward with positive action as it related to Public Order that had been relayed to me.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what were your concerns?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Concerns were around not having a sufficient plan in place as it was relayed by my team, so whether a plan was in place and had not been clearly communicated and not having fully exhausted the opportunities through PLT.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was the response to your concerns as expressed on that call?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If I recall correctly, he thanked me for sharing it with him and he was -- he was going to review those concerns and next steps.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, did you raise those concerns with the Deputy Solicitor-General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I would not have raised those concerns with the Deputy Solicitor-General.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So by this point, we’re February 5th, you hadn’t relayed to the Deputy Solicitor-General that -- you know, any concerns about what was transpiring in Ottawa, whether the OPS had control of the situation.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I had had numerous conversations with the Deputy Solicitor-General and I shared for -- with him concerns as they came forward and how we had mitigated those concerns, so concerns had been shared that we were not in receipt of a clearly-communicated plan and that we were working towards ensuring that we did have a clearly- communicated operational plan. Certainly there were concepts of operation, but we required a plan to move forward and facilitating all requests for assistance. At one point in time I had made him aware that there were numerous changes within the command structure that was challenging the development of a plan and moving forward with a plan. At one point in time I made him aware that I had the -- concerns had been expressed to me over the under- utilization of both RCMP and OPP resources that had not been tasked and were not being utilized and could have been leveraged. And at one particular time I made him aware of a situation where there was some conflict that emerged on a call with the Chiefs of Police that I believe Superintendent Morris has already provided evidence on, so at each interval I made him aware of those situations and also made him aware of what we were doing to address them in a cooperative manner.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And as far as you know or as far as you could tell, was the Deputy Solicitor- General concerned about the sort of leadership and what was happening in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You’d have to ask the Deputy Solicitor-General whether he was concerned or not. My perception was that I had provided him with the information for his situational awareness and what we were doing to provide assistance. And at this point in time, we were doing our best to assist Ottawa Police. That’s our role. This is an extremely stressful, dynamic situation for the Ottawa Police, and our role is to provide the necessary assistance. And that’s what we were really focused on.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I’d like to pull up OPP00004583. If we can go to page 3. This is -- these are your text exchanges with Commissioner Lucki, and we’ll go to an exchange on the same day of February 5th. You sent Commissioner Lucki a kind of update on what -- essentially what the OPP has done. And if we can go down, she replies: “Thanks, Tom. Very helpful. Between you and I only, GOCA losing/lost confidence in OPS. We’ve got to get to safe action/enforcement ‘cause if they go to the Emergency Measures Act you or [supposed to be I, I assume] -- you or [I] may be brought into lead, not something I want.” Is this the first time -- so first of all, GOCA, I assume -- I take it that’s Government of Canada?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s the way I would have interpreted that, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And so Commissioner Lucki is relaying to you that the government has lost confidence in OPS. Did you still have confidence in the OPS at this time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s a difficult question to answer as to whether I had confidence in the OPS at the time. I was certainly aware of the challenges that they were experiencing and I did feel with the support that we were providing that there was an opportunity to develop and execute a plan that would bring upon a resolution to this. And ultimately, that’s what happened. And I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that this whole situation was resolved while preserving life, without any serious injury, and with preventing any serious damage to critical infrastructure. A significant impact on quality of life to the residents, the local residents, impact on local economy, but a resolution through providing the necessary assistance was eventually the outcome of this.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And there’s a reference to the Emergency Measure Act. Was that the first time that that had come up in your discussions with Commissioner Lucki?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Certainly to my recollection, at no time did -- do I recall her or I ever having any conversation the Emergency Measures Act. At one point in time, I did ask her if that afforded the Government of Canada to actually provide that type of direction and actually appoint RCMP or OPP to take over policing because I certainly was not familiar with any federal legislation that would allow that to happen.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Were you surprised to see it at this point on February 5th, a reference to possibly invoking the Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say whether I was surprised to see whether there was reference to invoking the Act. That certainly would not have been the focus of my attention. It was more around the confidence that the -- there was an indication that the government had lost confidence in the OPS. That is something that, you know, obviously would be of great concern not only to me as a policing leader, but should be something that the Police Services Board would have been engaged in. And I was aware through conversation with Commissioner Lucki that there had been some dialogue taking place, the details of which I was not privy to, but there were conversations taking place between the City of Ottawa and members of the federal government.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And it’s, I guess, sort of a fair reading of Commissioner Lucki’s text that she’s reluctant to have the RCMP come in and sort of take over. Did you share her concern about having the OPP step in and take over the situation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Did I share her concern with the OPP?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
She says, "You or I may be brought in to lead. Not something I want." Commissioner Lucki doesn't want the RCMP to be kind of pointed and put in charge. Was the OPP taking over the lead role in Ottawa something that you would have welcomed at that time, or would you have been as reluctant to take over as Commissioner Lucki appears to have been?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If the request came as defined in the Police Services Act, it would not have been something that I would have been reluctant to take over. It would have been a responsibility. And as you've clearly articulated the responsibilities in the Police Service Act, it would have been one that would have required an assessment of me, but we would have absolutely been willing to move forward and fulfil our responsibilities, and that would have included working with resources within the Ottawa Police Service to succeed.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to ask you about a text exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso the next day. So if we can go back to OPP00004580? It's at page 61. And you forward a link to a CBC article, and then go down and say, "To date, [approximately] 1501 OPP officers deployed to Ottawa in response to the Freedom Convoy." So was that information that the Deputy Solicitor General had requested from you in terms of the number of OPP officers deployed?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that had been requested from the Deputy Solicitor General's office to my office. It had been -- also been provided in an email, and this I know became a point of contention for the Ottawa Police. And that is in relation to an obligation that I have to take administrative account for the number of officers that are providing services. If I am planning on seeking financial reimbursement, that needs to be approved by the Solicitor General. So there was an interest in the number of resources that we were providing from a financial accountability standpoint, and to ensure that we were assisting. That 1501 is an administrative number. That is derived at looking at approximately, I believe it was 135 to 150 offices a day over a 10-day period is where our analysts came up with that number. So at no point in time at that -- on that date would we have had 1500 officers in Ottawa at 1 time.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And later that same day, the Solicitor General, Sylvia Jones, made a statement sort of recycling that number, I guess, if I can use that term.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And as you've alluded to, that was something that Chief Sloly was unhappy about; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you tell us about -- did you have a discussion directly with Chief Sloly about that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
He and I did have a conversation about that directly, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Could you tell us about that discussion?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I certainly explained how the number was derived at and that it was, in my opinion, not having spoken to the Minister's office, it certainly would not have been done without any ill intent, and that it was important for he and I to remain focussed on operations and not engage in any political conversations that could detract us and distract us from the operations.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did he appear to accept that explanation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I felt the conversation was positive. I didn't feel that it had any adverse effect on our operational relationship, but it was clear that he was disappointed that that number had been shared publicly, and that caused him concern, and that he anticipated that causing him additional pressure, which was fair.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we scroll down on this page, your follow-up text message to the Deputy Solicitor General, "Not for discussion with OPS, but for your and SOC, at one point, we had three times for uniform officers the ground in Ottawa than OPS did. This has since been balanced out/corrected." What -- can you explain that? You're telling Deputy Solicitor General that the OPP had three times more people on the ground than OPS; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was my information at the time, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And this is -- we've had the experience where the 1501 was released publicly. This was not for public consumption. There was great concern over OPS being provided the number of resources that they required, so this was providing the Deputy Solicitor General with a level of situation awareness. Should he receive similar information from his federal counterpart over the same concern that the RCMP had expressed, that this had been corrected.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So maybe you can help us understand the concern expressed about the numbers being requested. What was the concern?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, can you repeat that?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
You said this was to help the Deputy Solicitor General fend off questions because there was a concern about the numbers that had been requested. What was that concern?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so and I don't believe I said to fend off questions. To provide him with an appropriate and professional level of situational awareness. There had been concerns relayed to him over RCMP officers allegedly sitting around, not being provided direction. We had received same information from some of our officers, and the Deputy Solicitor General, I wanted to assure him that there was similar information, that we had had more officers there than Ottawa; however, that that had been corrected and balanced. So should he have to explain that, enter into a conversation with regards to that, that that situation had been resolved.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now we've heard witnesses testify about what I'll call the Coventry Road incident. Does that ring a bell?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it does.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. What were you made aware of in terms of what happened at Coventry Road?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So my level of awareness on that was very specific to feelings from PLT, Provincial Liaison Team, that that would have damaged the reputation and progress that they felt they were making.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we could pull up OPP00001532? This is an email that Deputy Commissioner Harkins forwarded to you. Sorry, I just want to make sure that the Commissioner caught at the top that it was sent to him.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we could scroll down now to the -- it comes from Superintendent Abrams who wrote the email. And just give you a second to read it.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
The part I want to ask you about, we don't have to sort of read the whole email, but I want to get down to the two major operational plans upcoming. So if we could scroll down to that part there? So Superintendent Abrams was briefing others, and then this email gets passed onto you about a couple of planned actions, one at Rideau and Sussex, another, which other witnesses have described as sort of snatch and grab or was described as snatch and grab. Then if we scroll down, we see that Superintendent Abrams spoke with Superintendent Patterson and said, as a result -- basically, Superintendent Abrams was not satisfied that there was any sort of plan or legal authority for the OPP POU to be participating in this -- these two plans. Is that a fair assessment of the email?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I would say it is.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And do you recall having discussions amongst your team about that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, and I also recall having a follow-up discussion with Chief Sloly on this as well.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can you tell us about that discussion?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I shared the concerns that were relayed by my team, and it was the next day that we had the Integrated Planning Team that had arrived or had started to make their way to Ottawa to assist with more thorough planning.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
But you were concerned with the request for OPP members to participate in the Rideau and Sussex dynamic plan to clear that intersection?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I accepted the advice of my team. I didn't personally have enough in-depth knowledge of what was going on the -- on on the ground to have a personal concern, but certainly accepted the concerns and advice of my team, and ensured that I relayed that to Chief Sloly, who I believe -- as a result, and maybe as a result of other inputs that he received. That action did not move forward.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to take you back to your exchanges with Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso, which is OPP00004580. If we could go to page 71 at the bottom? So this is on February 7th, the day after Coventry Road: “Is it appropriate to suggest that all officers in Ottawa be advised that jerry cans (whether filled with diesel or water) ought to be investigated and potentially seized. Still seeing some social media of groups of men carrying jerry cans into the red zone.” And then your response: “They have provided that direction, supported by a crown opinion. The latest response is protestors walking around with diesel can[s] filled with water.” What can you tell us about this exchange with the Deputy Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t know that I can too much more to what’s in the text conversation. If you scroll back up to his question of me, he is asking if it’s: “…appropriate to suggest that all officers in Ottawa be advised that jerry cans (whether filled with diesel or water) ought to be investigated and potentially seized.” He’s asking a question and I’ve answered that question to say that a Crown opinion was been sought and there are protestors walking around with diesel cans filled with water, which made it very challenging for the officers on the ground to proceed with that enforcement. Not all of the jerry cans actually contained fuel.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And I note that the Deputy Solicitor General’s text is prefaced with “Is it appropriate”. Did you take this to be a sort of suggestion that people carrying jerry cans ought to be arrested in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t know that I would take it as a suggestion. He’s asking me if it’s appropriate, and I’ve responded, I think, accordingly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could go to OPP0001546? I’m taking you to an email now, again, which was a forward from Supt. Abrams arising out of the call that he had participated in with Chief Sloly and his team on February 6th. So if we just stop there? This is your response, ultimately: “My thanks to Craig. Important info to have.”
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
M’hm.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
But if we can go down to the text of the email from Supt. Abrams? And so why did you feel that this was important information to have?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I felt it was important that Craig share that with his deputy, and in turn, with me. although it was important information to have, this did not impact, in any way, shape, or form, the resources that were facilitated to Ottawa Police. There was very clear direction provided to Chief Supt. Carson Pardy that whatever resources were requested to perform permanent functions or identified functions, that we would provide them to the best of our ability. But there was all sorts of public communication taking place over the number of officers, what was required, had been provided. So I did see this as important to have, but not impactful in terms of how we would continue to assist Ottawa Police, not a big enough concern for me that it was something that I would even bother following up on with Chief Sloly. It had no material impact on our planning process and the assistance provided.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So you never discussed what you learned from Supt. Abrams’ email with Chief Sloly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t believe I ever discussed this with Chief Sloly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If it was to impact my assessment on resources required or ability to provide them, I would have. I had previously discussed with him concerns over the underutilization of our resources, which you identified in the text messages between myself and the Deputy Solicitor General, which he had not been aware of and he addressed. But I did not feel that this was something that warranted the Chief’s attention.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I think about 25 minutes after you received that email, you had a call with the Deputy Solicitor General and Chief Sloly about the City of Ottawa’s forthcoming request for 1,800 officers. Do you remember being part of that call?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t recall that being a call with all three of us. No, I do not. But if it’s the call that I think you’re referencing, I think it may be cited that there was discussion around twice the number of resources, if you could take me to that document. But if I am recalling correctly, I certainly did share with the Deputy Solicitor General that this information had been relayed to me, and I assured him that it would not impact the resources we were providing to Ottawa. But I do not recall a three-way conversation where this was discussed.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well let’s pull up your witness statement, because I believe it’s in there, which is WTS00000039. It’s at page 4. Paragraph 2. The actual comment might be in Ontario’s Institutional Report. That’s fine. But you recall being aware of it and making the Deputy Solicitor General aware of this kind of doubling the numbers information that you had received?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
But it’s -- I just want to make sure we understand. That had no impact on the response to any subsequent requests for additional resources?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it did not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could pull up ONT00002343? This is a letter that Mayor Watson and Diane Deans sent to the Premier, Doug Ford, and to the Solicitor General, Sylvia Jones, formally kind of requesting 1,800 additional officers. Would that -- was this sort of politician to politician request unusual?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In my experience, it is unusual. Normally a request of this nature would come from the police chief of jurisdiction to me to be facilitated.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And do you know why it didn’t come directly from Chief Sloly in this case?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think that’s a question to ask of the Mayor. I do not.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And ultimately, you know, I take it you received a copy of this letter from the Solicitor General’s office?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was -- I mean, there’s a request for 1,800 officers and you had heard just that morning about the doubling of the number. And did you not approach the 1,800 number with some level of skepticism, given what you had you had learned a few hours before that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think it would be fair to say that it would cause me to question the number. But the number really becomes irrelevant in the absence of having a plan to define the number. And as you’ll see in my witness summary, the eventual plan not only was not far off the 1,800, it actually exceeded the 1,800. So the number really becomes a red herring. We require a plan to define the number of resources required, what are the expertise of those resource, what date are they required on, how long are they required for. Those are all details that get sorted out. So whether it’s twice what they think they need, which may be out of context. Maybe they needed half of that on one day, but for sustainability, they were going to need twice that. This is all noise, as far as I’m concerned. We needed to get a fully developed plan so we could provide Ottawa with the assistance that they needed, which exceeded the 1,800.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But they’re saying -- I mean, here you have the Mayor saying, “We need 1,800.” And so what is the -- and then you’re telling us, but we need the plan to know what you actually need. Is that sort of a fair assessment?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t know that that’s a fair assessment. It’s much more detailed and complicated than that. Right away, as you heard from Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy, he was identified to lead a planning team that was sent to Ottawa to assist Ottawa. We assembled what I felt were the foremost subject matter experts required to assist Ottawa in the development of the plan. I had a conversation with Chief Sloly to obtain a contact for them to get his agreement with the team coming. And I did indicate to him that they were going to be there to test and verify the plan. These are a lot of resources to be sending, you know. On any given day, on any given day, this is more than the number of Ontario Provincial Police officers that are on duty. 1,800 officers on any one day would be equivalent to one of the largest municipal police services in this province. This needed to be planned out and that we would be there to test and verify the plan, but to facilitate the necessary subject matter expertise and the resources required to execute the plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I want to take you back to your exchanges with Deputy Solicitor Di Tomasso -- Solicitor- General, sorry, OPP0004580. And if we could go to page 67. So this -- there’s a text exchange with the Deputy Solicitor-General. Go down. This one lacks a little bit of context, but it says: “Sounds unreasonable ask that will require specific details.” And if we go down to the top of page 68, it says: “Deputy, when you have a minute, we should talk re” pending OPS request for resources.” So what was your discussion with the Deputy Solicitor-General about this public request for 1,800 officers?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You know, I can give you a general overview as to whether it was that specific conversation or a compilation of conversations, but it was our overall strategy to facilitate this request. One, I had a concern that this request was made in the public, that it was made politically, that by Ottawa -- the City of Ottawa indicating they needed 1,800 officers to resolve this matter, that showed that Ottawa Police was overwhelmed and how did that impact our ability to ensure that we had the appropriate level of police resources to respond to concurrent, multi-jurisdictional events that were happening across this province, to let him know how we were intending to respond to it by sending a Chief Superintendent that could work peer to peer with Chief Sloly on the development of the plan and the necessary resources to develop a fully-informed plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
You mentioned your concern about the publicization of the number. You know, the day prior, the Solicitor-General had published the 1,500 number. Isn’t that the same issue, that, you know, you’re publishing the number of OPP officers -- it turned out not to be an accurate or correct number -- but publishing the number of OPP officers that have responded. Isn’t that the same concern?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It is the same concern and the Deputy Solicitor-General and I had that same conversation. As you will recall, those numbers were never shared with the intent of them being made publicly available. It was a financial account for the number of resources that we were providing and to give assurance that we were providing the necessary support to Ottawa Police. That information was never shared with the intent of that being communicated publicly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we can go down to page 70 of this document, you ask the Deputy Solicitor-General whether the request for 1,800 officers will be referred to the OPP and then the Solicitor-General -- Deputy Solicitor-General says, “Confident it will be referred. Not certain.” And then below that referral to -- sorry, below this text, “referral to OPP for assessment only is approved”. Can you help us understand what “for assessment only” means?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think that question is best answered by the Deputy Solicitor-General, but my interpretation of it is they were not directing me to provide 1,800 officers, or I think it was 1,700 officers and 100 civilian, is what the request was actually for. But they were going to refer it to me for my assessment, which is consistent with the Police Services Act. As you recall, when you walked us through section 9 of the Police Services Act, any requests for assistance is to be assessed by me.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can I just ask why it seemed uncertain or why you had to ask whether it would be referred to you? Would it not be the case that that kind of a request would automatically go to the -- go to the OPP Commissioner?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, as -- yes, you’re correct. As we discussed earlier, normally that request would come directly to me. So at this point in time, I’m responding to a request that has been made public and is yet to be received by me. The request was directed to the Premier and to the Solicitor-General, so I wanted some assurance that that request would be passed over to me, which I was the appropriate recipient of that request. It should have been sent to me initially.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we can pull up ONT00000851. This is the Solicitor-General’s response sent on February 10th, which is three days after the letter, the February 7th letter. And so my question, Commissioner Carrique, is just do you know why it took so long to respond and what happened on the OPP’s side in the interim?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t speak to the length of time that it took to formally respond to the request, but I think you have already heard in great detail from Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy what transpired after we were in receipt of the letter or the information as it related to the 1,800 members required. On the 7th, Carson Pardy was assigned the task of leading the Integrated Planning Team. On the 8th of February, he was briefed by myself and Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins, and then he immediately made his way to Ottawa and commenced his relationship with Ottawa and the rest of the subject matter experts in contributing to the development of a plan and the assigning of resources.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I did want to get into the Integrated Planning Team. Where did that idea come from and why was it necessary?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that was my idea as it related to the request that I was furnished to respond to. 1,800 officers -- or 1,700, sorry, and 100 civilian staff, if that was what was going to be required, the Ontario Provincial Police did not have that capacity to fulfil that request on its own. It would take integration, cooperation from across the province and perhaps outside of Ontario, which it did. There were more than 20 police services that ended up contributing to the final operation. And knowing the status of the operation as it was, the reported ongoing challenges with moving forward, I felt it was mot appropriate to support the Ottawa Police with providing the foremost subject matter experts to ensure that a plan was built that could satisfy the requirements that they were facing.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I won’t take you there in the interests of time, but in a text message exchange with Commissioner Lucki on February 7th, you write: “I spoke with Peter. He is agreeable. I will have C/Supt Carson Pardy in Ottawa tomorrow to get things started.” So ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- I take it you spoke directly to Chief Sloly about this Integrated Planning Cell.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I did.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can you tell us about that discussion?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. I think we covered this a few moments ago. So we did have a conversation where we talked about the manner in which the request was received and also that I would be sending Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy, if he was in agreement, to establish an Integrated Planning Team. It’s been referred to as a planning team, a planning cell, a planning group, various forms of description before this Commission, all essentially meaning the same, and that we would assemble the foremost experts. And I previously highlighted for you that included in that conversation was my responsibility to ensure that we had tested the plan and that we verified it and that we provided the appropriate level of expertise to that plan and the right number of resources.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Just a reminder, you’re speeding up again.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I know you’re enthusiastic, and we all love to testify, but ’t's -- if you can just try and keep in mind.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you. My apologies, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
No, that’s fine.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
The City of Ottawa had requested the 1,800 additional resources the day before, on February 7th. So while the Integrated Planning Cell, or group, or team was getting set up and assembled and starting their work, was any work being done to actually gather those 1,800 officers ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- so that they would be ready?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. So there were ongoing meetings taking place with chiefs across the Province of Ontario. There were federal partners engaged in those meetings as well. Resource requirements were discussed there. There were various forms of communication sent out to policing partners. Our Emergency operation Centre was actively identifying resources across the province that could be deployed. And I'm sure you will have heard in his evidence from Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy the great efforts that were undertaken to provide resources, and the evidence will show that the number of OPP officers steadily increased from that point forward.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to pull up OPP00004561, which are minutes from a meeting of the Commissioner's Command Team on February 8th. First of all, can you tell us who -- what is the Commissioner's Command Team?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So a Commissioner's Command Team is comprised of what we would call our provincial commanders and myself. So that is Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins, Deputy Commissioner Rose DiMarco, Deputy Commissioner Chuck Cox, and Provincial Commander Mary Silverthorn.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we can just scroll down. There it is in the middle. "Commissioner", this is attributed to you: "...will need the process with OPS to be established. Where is the plan - can't do anything until we either have it or assist with building it. How are you going to use the resources that you've asked for. Have a SMEAC for the next 24 hours at very least." And so is -- again, I think this is reflecting that, you know, actually sending resources to Ottawa is contingent on either having a plan or assisting in building a plan. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's not completely accurate. So not sending 1,800, so 1,700 officers and 100 civilian, could not be done without a plan, but that did not prohibit us from continuing to support Ottawa with frontline police resources, with PLT, and with Public Order.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That support continued throughout.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Can I ask, what about -- why did it take 10, 11 days to get this Integrated Planning Group up and running? There were a few OPP planners who were embedded in Ottawa from a very early stage, but what is it that caused you to put this group together at this time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, the sheer number of the resources that were being asked for that would likely end up being required, and as I have identified, were required and then some, and the challenges that were being reported with developing and advancing the plan. And we had had subject matter experts in Ottawa previously, we had offered their expertise and support, but not to the development of a plan that was ready to be executed.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could pull up OPS00014454. These are -- I think we saw these earlier. These are notes taken by Christiane Huneault, who is counsel for the OPS and was taking notes at various meetings. And if we to page 130. And this is not a meeting that you were at ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- Commissioner Carrique. I just -- there's a reference here I want to ask you about. If we go down, it says, towards the bottom of the page, I believe. It says -- this is a meeting that is occurring on the 8th, I believe. "Tom C", and then it's got "OPP" kind of written on top: "...is assessing if we are worthy of getting the additional ask resources." Do you know why that would've -- I mean, that would've been a sense from somebody within the OPS? Why would they have used the word "worthy" of getting the resources?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I certainly wouldn't use the word "worthy" to describe the process that was necessary, but I can sympathise with why somebody may feel that way. We've advised that we're sending a group of subject matter experts. There has been various intervals along the way where we've asked that a certain number of our subject matter experts be consulted and their advice considered. And Chief Sloly and I had a very open and transparent conversation where I did indicate that we would be required to test and evaluate the strength of the plan. So I can certainly see why that might be described that way.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could pull up OTT00005590.001. You're not on this email chain, but I want to show you a table at the end of this ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- email. This is internal to the City of Ottawa, but it's something that Chief Sloly sent to them. And this is a table with -- I think the total number of resources required there is -- it says 1,790 at the bottom. Maybe make it a little bit larger. Do you recall seeing this table in any other context?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did see something similar to this at some point in time, yes. I can't say that it was precisely this, but at some point in time, through the process, I had seen a table that identified what resources were anticipated being required or were required at that time, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is this table, I guess there's a couple of tables, is that a level of detail that would be sufficient for you to approve or agree upon sending 1,800 officers to Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not in totality, no. However, during this period, one thing that was clearly communicated was any requests for frontline resources we would facilitate, and I think you will find that during this period all requests for frontline uniform assistance was provided. The number again becomes a red herring. We need to know, for example, a thousand general duty officers, specifically what dates are they need for, what shifts are they going to be working, where are they going to be staying? These things all have to be coordinated. It's not as easy as just pulling together a thousand police officers and sending them off. Every officer, as I have articulated earlier, every officer sent to Ottawa was an officer out of the local community. We don't have a warehouse of police officers where I can pull them off the shelf one at a time. They are being pulled out of a front seat of police cars and our communities across this entire province.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I understand from Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso's summary that you spoke with him on February 8th, and he recalls, and it's recorded in his summary, that during that conversation you told him that the OPP was under enormous pressure and that he understood you to be referring to political pressure. Is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say what he felt I meant by that, but I don't ever recall sharing with Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso that I felt under enormous political pressure. At no time was I under any political pressure in relation to this. There was a lot of political or public pressure being felt I think by every police leader, but at no point in time was I under any political pressure. I would suggest it would be worthy of asking Deputy Di Tommaso further on that. He may have been referring to staffing pressures. So at this moment in time, I only had 3,000 frontline police constables available to us to fulfill all of our responsibilities in 330 municipalities. I was running at an Operational availability of only 73 percent. So to amass this amount of resources is a significant Operational pressure, but at no point in time would I have ever communicated, nor did I ever feel as though I was being put under political pressure.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So is it possible you told him that you were under enormous pressure and he misread that and misunderstood that to mean political pressure?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No. No. At no point in time would I have ever communicated that I, myself, was under enormous pressure.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, I'm referring to the OPP, General.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Operational pressures, Operationally stretched, absolutely. With a 73-percent Operational availability, I'm down almost a thousand police officers on the frontline for various reasons, this puts an organisation under enormous operational pressure, which is completely different than political pressure.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I appreciate that. Commissioner, I'm about to change gears, so I wonder if now is an appropriate time for the morning break?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Certainly. We can take a 15-minute break and come back in 15 minutes to continue the examination. Thank you.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La commission est levée pour 15 minutes.
Upon recessing at 11:22 a.m.
Upon resuming at 11:39 a.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l'order.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes, I'm not a judge today.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is reconvened. La commission reprend.
COMM. THOMAS CARRIQUE, Resumed
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. ERIC BROUSSEAU (Cont'd)
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Back, Commissioner Carrique. I just want to ask one follow-up question from this morning. You mentioned that all police chiefs in Ontario are receiving the Hendon reports; do you recall that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Is this working?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Oh, no. Is there the ---
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
We're good?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
We're good. Go ahead.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We're good now? Okay. Thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So my question is was -- is Commissioner Lucki herself on that distribution list?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Commissioner Lucki herself would not be on that distribution list, but numerous members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are on that distribution list.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Now I want to switch gears and talk about Windsor. And so can you help us understand, I mean, there's Windsor Police Service, there's CBSA, and then there's OPP, so can you help us understand what the OPP has jurisdiction over when it comes to Windsor?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
As it relates to the City of Windsor, we have no jurisdiction. We police through municipal policing responsibilities in and around the City of Windsor.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Nothing within the city?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, not as it relates to frontline uniform patrol, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now we spoke this morning about the sort of early intelligence, and if we could pull up OPP00000819, this is a January 31st Hendon report. And if we go to page 3, there is -- point 13 is a reference. "Open source information suggests that truck drivers from the United States plan to block the American side of the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor to coincide with Canadian drivers blocking the bridge in Windsor. The available information does not include a date or time." To your knowledge, did the OPP take any sort of positive steps to try and figure out when a blockade might occur after this January 31st report?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That level of detail isn't something that I could provide you with. That would be more appropriately asked of Superintendent Morris, who's previously attended, or those that were assigned taskings related to the intelligence. Where there is intelligence that requires further information, a lot of times, there'll be taskings that come out of that, but that's not a level of detail that I would be privy to.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we go ahead to the February 4th Hendon report, which is OPP00000825, page 6. This is the evening of February 4th. There's a little bit more specificity to the threat here. In a section called "Ontario: Open Source Information", "A social media message is calling for Canada-wide rail blockades on [February 5th]. Commercial truck drivers and supporters may conduct slow rolls on roadways near the Ambassador Bridge over the next three days, and may attempt to block the bridge on [February 7th]." Do you recall being made aware at that time, February 4th, that there was an impending blockade?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was aware of the pending blockade, and I had communicated with Chief Mizuno to determine whether they required any additional assistance, and we were connected at an operational level, and at that time, we were not required.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Additional assistance was not required?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Was not required. No, sir.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we pull up OPP000001519, this is -- and it's page 1 at the bottom. This is sort of a note to yourself or an email to yourself from the -- on the same day, February 4th. And it says there, the second to last point, "The Chief of Windsor Police has requested assistance with convoys [...] and a potential blockade [...] at the Ambassador Bridge" So it's my understanding that as of February 4th, Windsor had, in fact, asked for assistance. Does this kind of give you a better sense of what had been requested and when?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, could you go back up to the top? Yeah, so this is -- this looks as though it's some notes that I've transcribed. We were not formally asked for any assistance as it relates to public order. We may have been providing some frontline resources and we may have had some quick response teams available in the area through west region, but we had not formally been asked to provide any assistance as it relates to integrated command or having a Public Order Unit on ground.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I guess I'm just -- I'm confused because your note records being asked for -- a request for assistance, but you're saying there hadn't been a formal request yet?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, there was not. I don't -- this obviously is something that I've pulled together in the form of constructing some sort of note, but it doesn't look as though I sent it anywhere or did anything with it, so I'm not sure specifically what that would be in relation to, but there was no formal request from Windsor for any assistance. There had been going -- ongoing communication with Windsor. In particular, there was a call leading up to the 7th, a conference call, where the Chief of Police indicated that they had all the resources they required.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And that they would obviously be monitoring it. This being a roll -- potential rolling blockade as opposed to a large convoy making its way to a designated and identified area.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, I think the Hendon report we saw talked about both, like, rolling -- slow rolls on the weekend and then a potential blockade on the Monday.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
If we could pull up OPP00004580, which is -- this is your thread with Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso. I just -- I'm just bringing it up because if we go to page 52, I think the same information recorded in your note to self there, it was provided to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso, if you see that at the bottom. "The Chief of Windsor Police has requested assistance with convoys [...] and a potential blockade [...] at the Ambassador Bridge." And this was sent on February 5th. Do you recall any discussion with the Deputy Solicitor General around that time about the potential impact of a Windsor blockade?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, other than the situational update that's been provided here. So this is obvious that these two pieces of information are the same, so what I’ve likely done has been pulling information constructed into an email format, then being able to pull it out and provide the necessary update. So I can’t say for certain, but reviewing the information I would say that this was requests at a local level for instance. So as I described earlier, sometimes those requests can go from Detachment Commander into a Detachment Commander. Sometimes they can come in at a Regional Command level. And sometimes they will come in formally to me. I did not have a formal request for assistance and I had inquired with the Chief of Windsor if there was anything that they -- she had needed from me additionally.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I hope that clarifies that.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
It does. But just so we understand, I mean, even a sort of detachment level request is a request and it’s -- like it would be actioned. It’s not that a request would need to be made directly to you by the Windsor Police Service for assistance. Is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. So there will be requests on a day-to-day basis that will come in at a detachment level that I may or may not be aware of, at a Regional Command level that I may or may not be aware of. In most cases where it’s requests for specialized services, the police service of jurisdiction will be asked to send a formal request. And I don’t have any recollection, nor any record, of a formal request.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. On February 6th, just very briefly, there was a blockade at the Blue Water Bridge in Sarnia. Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not exactly. There was not a blockage at the Bluewater Bridge. There were -- there was a blockade on Highway 402 which was some distance from the Blue Water Bridge, approximately 30 to 40 kilometres out from the bridge.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But that fell into OPP jurisdiction?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That did, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And how was that resolved?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was eventually resolved through PLT. Actually, my belief is the EMCPA, so the Emergency Measures and Civil Protection Act, that was invoked by the province that provided police with some additional tools as it related to being able to seize vehicles, seize commercial motor vehicle permits, to be able to seize vehicle permits, those tools assisted us in being able to resolve that. There was a lot of very expensive farm equipment that was part of that blockade that was legitimately required for operational farms, so I believe the risk of those pieces of equipment of being seized by the police and them seeing the action that had been taking place around the province enabled our PLT to resolve that particular issue.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Going back to Windsor, Deputy Chief Crowley told us about that he attended an OACP meeting on February 7th, OACP being the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And that there were RCMP and OPP officers there. I don’t believe you were at that meeting. I think it was Superintendent McDonell. Does that sound accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If I wasn’t there, I couldn’t say. I’m sorry.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
He told us -- this is Deputy Chief Crowley -- told us that he raised the possibility of the blockade, which hadn’t yet happened -- it started that evening - - and that he was told by his RCMP and OPP colleagues on the call that Ottawa as the priority at the time and there essentially weren’t any resources for Windsor. Is that an accurate representation of kind of what was available on February 7th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say it is an accurate or inaccurate representation. Had there been a request for Public Order resources, that would have been examined through what we call the Public Order hub, and they would have determined what was available to be deployed or not. But we certainly were able to amass the resources required later that week and you’ll note that there were over 400 police officers that attended to assist Windsor. But not being party to that conversation, I don’t think I can accurately comment on the contents of it or the accuracy of it.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Prior to the blockade occurring, which was some time on the 7th, did you have discussions with the Deputy Solicitor-General about whether there would be a need to prioritize Windsor over Ottawa if a blockade did occur?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say at what point in time I would have had conversations with the Deputy Solicitor-General over the need to prioritize. I can tell you that I did have open conversations with the Deputy Solicitor- General over how we prioritized operationally our resources. And once the blockade had occurred in Windsor and we had been asked for formal assistance, there was a request for 100 OPP officers and 100 RCMP officers that came into our possession a very similar way as the Ottawa request. It was forwarded directly to the Province as opposed to me. And it had come in only, I believe, hours after I had already spoken with the Chief of Windsor and offered support and was advised that there was no additional assistance required. And certainly throughout that entire period, I made my decisions known to the Deputy Solicitor-General when appropriate, that when it was time to deploy Public Order to Windsor, that we did not have a defined plan in Ottawa yet. Therefore, we did not know exactly how many resources were required. That the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor was something that we felt we could clear up in two to four days. Ottawa would be five to 10 days at least once a plan was established. We also had concurrent events happening in Toronto at Queen’s Park. We had attempts being planned to put blockades at the Peace Bridge in Niagara. We still said -- had Highway 402 on the go. We had plans emerging to attempt to block the bridge in Cornwall. We had things happening in Nippagon. So it was a priority to resolve Windsor. First, we had the resources available, ready. We had a plan ready to go. And there was an enormous, enormous national financial impact on the closure of that bridge totalling $700 million a day in my understanding of two-way trade.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did the financial impact of the blockade affect the fact that Windsor was a priority?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not merely the financial impact, but economic security is something that needs to be taken into consideration when you look at the totality of national security and quality of life in our communities. If $700 million a day in trade is not able to take place, what is the -- what are the ramifications of that? I would suggest that perhaps factories start shutting down, people start losing employment. People may start to lose their homes, et cetera. That’s a significant economic that affects quality of life in community and in those conditions can affect crime in community, so it is something that needs to be considered in and amongst all of the other factors that we need to weigh as it relates to public safety, quality of life in community and the bigger picture of national security. This is -- I don’t know if it is the most active or relied upon. CBSA would be in a better position to share that. But this is a significant international crossing which is a concern, obviously.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And you said that that is something that needs to be considered, but I just want to be clear. It is something that was considered in the need to quickly clear the blockade in Windsor. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
One of many factors. How many officers were required, the existence of a plan, how long it would take, proximity to other events that were going on. We also had plans that we were for the Peace Bridge, so by having Public Order assets in Windsor, we can quickly pivot between the Ambassador Bridge and the Peace Bridge. We can pivot over to the Blue Water Bridge. That’s a big difference from being in Ottawa. Make no mistake about it, I believe that it was by intent and design that we had activities happening at the furthest points from each other in southern Ontario. It is not circumstance that we had an occupation in the City of Ottawa and we had a blockage at the Ambassador Bridge at the exact same time. That was intentionally designed to challenge the capacity of our police, so that had to be very strategically and methodically managed to ensure that when we took action, it just didn’t disperse a problem and make it so it was unmanageable. This was a -- this had to be surgical, this had to be strategic, had to be well thought out and it had to be planned.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I want to go back to just working our way through what happened in Windsor. And I think you referred to this earlier, but similar to what happened in Ottawa, the Mayor of Windsor in fact had conversations directly with Solicitor General Sylvia Jones and Minister Mendicino. You’re aware of that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am aware that there was conversations. I’m aware that those conversations resulted in a letter. I’m not privy to the details of those conversations.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Again, and does that strike you as sort of an odd way to request police resources in the circumstances?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It is not the typical way, nor the preferred way that police resources would be requested. In particular, when just hours earlier I had spoken to the Chief of Windsor, had offered additional assistance, I was advised it was not required at that time. And then an independent request came in seeking additional resources, which caused me to then follow up and ask again and confirm that that request was in fact the request being made on behalf of the Windsor Police Service.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And did you ever ask former Chief Mizuno why you had been told they didn’t need anything, and then very shortly thereafter, there’s this public request for additional resources?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was under the impression and understanding that as a result of having further conversations subsequent to my conversation with her, that those resources were now being requested and would now be required. But I would suggest it would be most appropriate to ask her that question directly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did you ever ask her why -- again, you had a contact with her, so did you ever ask her why she didn’t just come to you and ask and instead the Mayor -- well, she sent a letter, ultimately, but she never made that request directly to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
She did not, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And sorry, did you ever ask her why that was the case?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. And she said the request was subsequently being made as a result of having further conversations with the Mayor, and she was now asking me for my assistance.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I’d like to go back to your exchange with Deputy Solicitor General, OPP00004580. If we can go to page 72? Scroll down. So we see here, so the Deputy Solicitor General says: “Also. What’s the latest on Ambassador bridge? Fed DM Stewart asking also impact on Stellantis?” What is Stellantis?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t know what Stellantis is. I can’t say I have any knowledge of Stellantis. I would be interested in my response, whether I followed up to find out what Stellantis is, but I don’t have a recollection of what it is without looking at what my response was.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. There’s your response.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’m guessing that’s perhaps a company or something otherwise. I’ve obviously done some follow up to say that there’s no direct mention of Stellantis being intentionally targeted. But I can’t tell you today what Stellantis is. I’m sorry.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Stellantis is -- you know, if I were to tell you that it’s an auto maker, essentially, a manufacturer of parts, does that sound accurate? Does that ring a bell?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would absolutely sound accurate. Yes. Thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And do you know why the Deputy Solicitor General was passing on a sort of question from a federal counterpart about, like, a private business, essentially?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can only estimate that it was significant to international relations. But that would be me surmising that.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can you tell us what assistance was provided in response to the letters seeking 100 additional officers from each of the OPP and the RCMP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So again, similar to the situation with Ottawa’s request, there were more officers provided than were requested. And there was some confusion. One of the conversations that I did have with the Chief from Windsor at the time was what it a request for 100 each, totalling 100, or was it 100 in total, because they went independently -- that request went independently as well. But again, we ended up deploying over 400 officers to Windsor. Again, showing that the plan drives the number, the number doesn’t drive the plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did you -- did the OPP deploy officers to Windsor in the absence of seeing the operational plan that they were going to use to clear the blockade?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So like Ottawa, we did have officers deployed to Windsor. And as you pointed out to me, we obviously had officers deployed assisting Windsor leading up to the blockade. So those would have been frontline officers we would have been assisting with traffic management. We very likely would have even had a quick response team in the area. But we would not be deploying public order and taking positive action in the absence of a plan. It would be wholly irresponsible to do so, not only operationally, but ethically as well. There are many factors that need to be articulated and described in a plan to ensure the rights of those that may be lawfully protesting to ensure the safety of officers, the safety of community, the sustainability of a plan. I can’t overemphasis, you simply cannot just send an arbitrary number of officers to a location to deal with something so complex.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I understand on February 9th, OPP Superintendent Dana Earley was appointed in sort of in charge of the OPP’s Windsor presence. Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. Yes, she was.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And did you appoint her or was she appointed by a Deputy Commissioner?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In conversation with Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins and I, we identified Supt. Earley to be the Commander in that particular event, and he was the one that had the conversations with her, assigning her that role and responsibility. Then she built her Critical Incident Command team out from there. And Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins was also the one to have communication and direct contact with a Deputy from Windsor, subsequent to my conversation with the Chief to say that we would be assisting and we would be sending whatever was required.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And now I want to sort of return to the issue of Windsor being a priority, because again, this is something that came up with the Deputy Solicitor. And so his summary records that it was his understanding, the Deputy Solicitor General, that the occupation in Ottawa was limited to the red zone, with a main impact on Wellington, and it was in -- he calls it a significant inconvenience, but not an overriding public safety risk, whereas in Windsor, the blockade had a significant and substantial impact on economic security, resulted in plants shutting down, loss of jobs, and that law enforcement had finite resources and could not effectively address both situations, essentially. And so I want to understand if you agree with these sentiments about what Ottawa represented, what Windsor represented, and the fact that law enforcement couldn’t clear both at the same time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So it’s absolutely true that law enforcement could not clear both at the same time. I don’t think it’s fair to try to separate them in terms of assessment and/or necessarily in terms of risk. We have to separate them in terms of prioritizing where we can take action first, based on the level of risk and the amount of resources available. I think for an accurate description of what was happening at the time, you truly need to go to the Hendon Report of February the 7th. And in that report, in the Hendon Report, the assessment is, taking into the consideration of the totality of all the events around the province and the country, that it posed a possible threat to national security. That was clearly defined in the Hendon Report. So it is impossible to separate all of these events and say, “I’m going to deal with this one in isolation, and when I’m done this one, I’m then going to move to the next.” It couldn’t be managed that way. And if you look at the evolving increase in police resources in Ottawa at the time, during that same time period, the 12th to the 14th of February, I think you will find that the number of OPP resources in Ottawa almost doubled during that time period. So it wasn't as if attention was taken away from any one particular event, this all had to be managed as a multi-jurisdictional event happening concurrently, all connected to each other. And whether there is evidence to prove that they were connected, that is irrelevant at this stage. This is about a strategy that ensures we can mitigate the risks that were before us as a province and as a country, and that needed to be done in a strategic way.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You mentioned the February 7th Hendon Report, which I think the language is "potential" ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Potential threats.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- potential national security threat. The next day's Hendon report said potential threat to Canada's sovereignty and national security. Those are the only two times that phrase appears in the Hendon reports.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, you may want to go to the 19th of February, which I believe there is similar language around that. And with your indulgence, Commissioner, I think it is important to talk about the terminology. When we say "potential threat" the term "threat" in a Strategic Intelligence report is to indicate something could happen. This is not about establishing a threshold as defined in the CSIS Act under section 2, and not even defining the threshold of reasonable grounds to pursue charges as terrorist activity. This is talking from a strategic level what are the risks that need to be taken into consideration when making decisions and developing plans? So the word "potential" is almost immaterial. It's like saying "there's a threat of rain today." Does it change the situation when you say "there's a potential threat of rain today"? I would suggest to you it does not. What is required is further analysis of that threat, and Hendon POIB did have those conversations with the appropriate security partners, CSIS, as well as INSET, the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team, to see if that potential threat rose to the point that would warrant them enacting their mandates for the items that they're responsible for. And in the -- as we know, is in the CSIS Act, it says "the security of Canada." It doesn't actually say national security. Public Safety Canada goes to a much broader context when describing national security, and one of the items in national security, if you look at the national security strategy and how it's described by Public Safety Canada, actually includes impact to economy, activities at critical infrastructures, international border crossings. So as you can see, it's a very complex situation that requires detailed analysis.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
But I take it you're aware that once the February 7th Hendon Report was published, using the phrase "potential threat to national security", CSIS and INSET contacted Superintendent Morris and were concerned with the use of that phrasing and that language in the Hendon reports?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I'm not aware of who contacted who, but I certainly was assured that those conversations took place. And I think Superintendent Morris did a very eloquent job of explaining the intention of the Hendon reports. He is the foremost subject matter expert in this province as it relates to Intelligence. And I would've hoped that he would've described to the Commission that those reports were for strategic purposes, for decision-making and planning, and those references to possible threats to national security, I would suggest to any police leader, ought to be taken extremely seriously.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I think the Superintendent's evidence was that there were now threats that materialised and he ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- said there were no credible threats to national security. Do you agree with that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do agree with that. I do agree with that. And that's a very important part and piece, is that when you move from Strategic Intelligence into Operational and Tactical Intelligence, and establishing thresholds for mandates and thresholds for charges, that further analysis needs to be done to determine whether it's credible and whether that threat actually came to fruition.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just so I understand, based on your testimony just now, when the Hendon reports use the phrase, "national security" are you saying economic security is part of that -- like that's bound up in national security?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would say that economic security forms a part of that from a strategic thinking standpoint. Again, I don't want any confusion over a threat to the security of Canada as it relates to the CSIS Act. We're talking about a strategic approach to overall national security. Transportation, critical infrastructure, border crossings, economic security, all of those things, cybersecurity, all of those components encompass a multi-faceted approach to national security, and are identified by Public Safety Canada as being important to national security.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to go back to Windsor now, and just make sure I understand it. Did you ever receive a direction from the Deputy Solicitor General's Office that Windsor ought to be prioritised as a result of its economic importance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely not. Never.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But it's fair to say that the OPP did prioritise it, in part, as you've told us, due to its economic importance.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In part. I think I provided a very detailed description into all of the factors that needed to be considered and how that was identified as an Operational priority, not at the expense or at the cost of other Operations that were maintained, and enhanced simultaneously while we were dealing with Windsor.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You say not at the cost. Again, just returning to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso, and I will say he sort of speculated, but it was his opinion that Ottawa might have been cleared sooner had Windsor not been prioritised essentially. Is that -- would you agree with that assessment?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No. No, I would not. What I would say is that Ottawa may, may have been cleared sooner had we not had to deal with the blockades in Windsor, had we not had to deal with the protest in Toronto, the blockage on the 402, the blockage at Cornwall, and the attempts to block the Peace Bridge in Niagara. That may have allowed Ottawa to be cleared sooner if there was a plan in place ready to go. The plan, to my understanding, was not in place and was not ready to go on February the 12th. It's not until February the 13th that there is a plan in place agreed upon by all the stakeholders that is a safe and viable plan to proceed with, and we were done in Windsor with positive action at that point, we were in a maintenance phase, and all roads were opened up I believe on February the 14th. So I don't think that that is a fair assessment as you have proposed to me.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Is it fair to say that resources went from Windsor to Ottawa to action the plan in Ottawa once Windsor was cleared? Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would be fair to say. And just for a point of clarity, I can't say that specifically Tom Carrique went from Windsor to Ottawa. What I can say is I know that there were some Public Order assets that when done in Windsor were able to reposition to Ottawa. But I can't commit to you that level of detail that specific people moved from Windsor to Ottawa.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I understand. I want to take you now to notes of a call from February 10th with the Deputy Solicitor General. It's ONT00005155. These are not your notes, these are the ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay, thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- Deputy Solicitor General's notes. And it's hard to tell if it's a seven o'clock or a nine o'clock. You might remember. It says: "Call [with] Comm Carrique, OPP. Direction to CIC that they are in removal mode." Do you know what is being referred to there?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I don't know what that would refer to being in removal mode. So we don't commence Operations in Windsor as it relates to Public Order activity until the 12th of February, I believe, without having that information in front of me, but from my recollection I believe it is the 12th of February.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right, and that is accurate. I'm just wondering if as of the 10th, which is the day after Superintendent Earley had been dispatched to Windsor, there was a direction that you know, we -- like, we have to clear this blockade. Removal -- I take from removal mode, like, we were removing the protesters. And I don't know if that helps.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So we were certainly planning for that as we were in Ottawa, but that does not alleviate the responsibilities of trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution. And I think you will have been provided information as it relates to negotiations that were attempted through PLT including a letter from the Solicitor General. So there were ongoing efforts to deescalate this before we would ever move to enforcement. But you need to be building that plan while those activities are ongoing. You ought not to wait until all opportunities to deescalate have exhausted themselves and then turn your mind to an operational plan to utilize public order, if that is eventually going to be required. All operational plans require contingencies.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to take you now to Superintendent Earley's notes, scribe notes. I believe OPP00004543, if we can go to page 8? Again, these are her scribe notes. You're not part of this call, but I want to ask you ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- about what is transcribed. It's a call, again, the morning of February 10th, 8:30 a.m., with Deputy Commissioners Harkins and diMarco. And Deputy -- so this is what's recorded, "Deputies advised whatever is needed for plan will be available"
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
M'hm.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And you go down a little bit more, "Harkins advised there is an urgency to get this resolved" Had you communicated to Deputy Commissioners Harkins and DiMarco that there was an urgency to getting Windsor resolved?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I wouldn't have necessarily used that terminology, but I think it was well known and agreed upon and certainly my intent that there was some urgency to get this resolved. We needed to be able to minimize the number of protests that were going along -- going on around the province simultaneously. We've already discussed the impact that the Ambassador Bridge had, as well as we needed to be able to deal with what was going on in Ottawa at the time. So absolutely, I would agree that there was some urgency to this. The longer it was left, the harder it would be to resolve. We were at risk of people moving from Ottawa, which was some of the information that we were managing at the time, that people that were actively protesting in Ottawa would be making their way to Windsor. We know that's a day's worth of travel. So the quicker we could resolve Windsor, we also mitigated that risk of a protest just dispersing itself as opposed to us being able to resolve those matters.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now I understand on this day as well, February 10th, Superintendent Earley actually sort of established a call for joint command with WPS; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It appears to be correct, yes. I do see that, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And can you explain for us the concept of joint command and why it's so important in a situation like this?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so joint command isn't necessarily a technical term. So a lot of times, we'll refer to an integrated command or a unified command. And again, those aren't defined in law or nor are they necessarily defined in procedure, but an integrated command is one where one police service provides the other police service with a level of subject matter expertise within the command structure to assist them with developing and executing an operational plan. Overall command and control remains the purview of the police service of jurisdiction. So they have final say on the plan. A unified command indicates that it is just that, that the decision making is equally shared amongst the participating police services.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was the status of joint or integrated or unified command in Ottawa at this time on February 10th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
On February the 10th, I would say we had not arrived at the point of a unified command. We had introduced the Integrated Planning Team, but I would say that there was not even an integrated command at that point in time. The plans were still being developed. There was an operational plan, or what I've heard referred to as a concept of operations, I believe, that was established on February the 9th. That was provided to the Integrated Planning Team, which they built upon, and they had submitted their inputs to that to Ottawa on or about the 11th of February. And then I believe by the 13th of February, that integrated team had come to agreement that that was the plan that would move forward. There was some obstacles from the 13th through to the 15th with operationalizing that, but that was the sequence of events.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we'll get into those obstacles. But in Windsor, on the 11th, this idea of a letter to the protesters comes about. Can you speak to us about that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, in general terms I can. More specific evidence would probably be best to come from Provincial Liaison Team Inspector Beaudin, but certainly it was brought to my attention as a proposed strategy through Deputy Commissioner Rose DiMarco, who ultimately oversees the Provincial Liaison Team, as a way of deescalating the activities that were going on in Windsor. I supported the idea. I thought it was appropriate, and it was certainly worth the effort of trying to deescalate those activities.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did you understand that there was the POU plan, or a sort of plan to clear the blockades that was ready at that time as well?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Whether it was ready or still in development, I certainly knew that we were working towards that with the intention of activating that plan on the 12th, so thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And were you the sort of point of contact with the government in getting their sign off on agreeing to the letter and agreeing to this proposal in general?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Point of contact is probably a fair description. There's many people that assist with the administration and the flow of information, but essentially, the request would have been made at my direction, with my support, with my endorsement, absolutely.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And just so I understand, when you said the request, the request of government to sign off -- of the provincial government to sign off on this idea?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The request of the Solicitor General to sign the letter extending the invitation for further discussion or a meeting if the blockage -- blockade was to end immediately.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right. And did you personally make that request through the Deputy Solicitor General, for instance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Ultimately, yes, it's my request, yes. I can't say whether I personally emailed the request, but ultimately, that is my request, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could pull up that letter, it's ONT00000858. I believe this is the letter, if you can just -- if you could confirm?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I recognize that letter, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So why was -- who made the decision to have it be directed towards you as opposed to directed to the protesters, for instance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Ultimately, that would be my decision.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so why did you ask that it be addressed to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, we were presenting that on behalf of PLT, and it would be important, I think, for PLT to be able to speak with some sense of authority, that they are carrying the message that was relayed to me, and it created that appropriate separation between the Minister and the protesters and allowed PLT to have that empowerment. PLT needs to be able to build rapport, establish a relationship, be able to create win-win situations to try to deescalate the situation. That's, I think, in part why it would be most appropriate to come from me. That was the request that I received. More detail on that and the philosophy and the theory behind that PLT would be much better -- in a much better position to describe in more detail, but certainly my understanding.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, this is February 11th, it’s the same day of the provincial Declaration of Emergency; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It would have been, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And are you aware there was also an injunction that went into effect that evening as well?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would have been aware. I can’t say at what time I became aware, but I certainly am aware and was aware at some point in time of that, yes, absolutely.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So can you just sort of speak to -- you’ve got this letter from the Solicitor- General, you’ve got the injunction which has gone into effect, I think at 7:00pm that evening, and the provincial Declaration of Emergency; how did those three interact together and which of them, if any, did you believe were the most effective in that circumstance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, the letter proved not to be effective; it did not have the desired outcome. The injunction -- I can’t say that that was effective because we still ended up moving forward with deploying Public Order; certainly a helpful tool, but I can’t say that any of those were effective in isolation. But what was effective was a holistic, complete plan to deal with the situation, and the Incident Commander having the discretion as to when they would execute that plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. The described notes for Supt. Earley, we won’t go there, but they record some concern that delivering the letter or taking action in Windsor would have an effect on what was going on in Ottawa. Do you recall that concern being raised in any of the calls on the 11th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say I independently remember that specifically being brought forward. But as I’ve shared with you earlier, these are all intertwined and connected and you can’t make a move at one location without it impacting and affecting the other, so that’s exactly the type of thought process and discussion that ought to have taken place. These are not isolated incidents.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Did you see -- did the OPP see any effects of taking action in Windsor on the 12th and 13th on what happened in Ottawa or elsewhere?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t have that level of detail; I can’t say that I personally noted anything. I don’t think I can answer that question, honestly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so -- did you participate in the drafting of this letter with the Deputy Solicitor-General’s Office?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I approved this letter. So we provided -- PLT provided the recommended wording in the letter. This was a request by us to the Solicitor-General to assist in trying to de-escalate the situation. This was driven and borne from our Provincial Liaison Team, but this was not something that independently came out of the Minister’s Office. This was a request that we made of the Minister, and was granted.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Was there a similar -- was any similar requests made to have a letter delivered to the protesters in Ottawa, for instance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t speak with great knowledge on that. I know that there was discussion; I know Insp. Beaudin, who’s already provided evidence, I know he had discussion with Ottawa Police; he had discussion with Deputy Minister Stewart. There was discussion around it. The details of that discussion, he is in the best position to provide you with a firsthand account of that. I also know that there was communication that took place between the Mayor in Ottawa and protest organizers, or those that were identified as such. But I don’t know that I can say with any level of knowledge what letters may have been provided. But there was certainly dialogue, and I believe that one point in time they had agreement for partial components of the demonstration to move, which would have moved them into OPP jurisdiction but cleared up some of the area of concern in Ottawa, and that did not come to be either.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right. But I guess what I’m trying to understand is why this letter came about as a result of, as you say, an OPP request, essentially, that it be delivered?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry; I don’t understand your question.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
This letter was the result of a request to the Deputy Solicitor-General’s office; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So it was the result of a request to me.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Which you passed along to the Deputy Solicitor-General’s office?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. I did, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And so -- and this letter is drafted four days after the blockade starts in Windsor?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And so -- but by the 11th it’s two weeks into what’s happening in Ottawa, and there wasn’t a similar request for a letter in Ottawa. That’s what I’m trying to understand; why not?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s a question you would have to ask of Ottawa Police, that’s not a question that I can answer. We were not at -- we were not in charge of the operation in Ottawa. One of the slight differences with Windsor, we did agree to assist but it was with a clear understanding that although it was a unified command, that we would be in charge of the development and execution of the plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And why was that important to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was important to me, given the situation that we found ourselves in. With all of the activity taking place, I felt it was absolutely crucial that we maintain the trust and confidence of Ontarians, and that we absolutely needed to succeed with the development and the efficient and effective execution of a plan, and I felt that we were in the best position to take responsibility for that. Not to push Windsor Police aside; it was something that they would have to agree to. But that was something that I had requested of Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins, and his initial discussions with the Deputy from Windsor, and it was something that was agreed to. So our Major Critical Incident Commander was ultimately responsible for that operation, which is why this request would come to me. We were never ultimately responsible for the operations in Ottawa up to this date; therefore, I can’t speak to why a request would not have come to me, of this nature. Did provide access to Insp. Beaudin on multiple and numerous occasions, to provide advice and guidance as it relates to PLT strategies. But why I did not receive a similar request, you’ll have to ask that of the Ottawa Police, I’m sorry.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You mentioned there that -- again, I’m paraphrasing, but you felt that public trust in the police couldn’t suffer another blow, essentially. Is that -- when you say that, you’re referring to the fact that the situation in Ottawa is entrenched and it’s not being resolved by police action at that point in time; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is fair to say. There was all sorts of public and political attention on what was happening in Ottawa Police -- in Ottawa, sorry, and with the Ottawa Police and there was all sorts of public comment. This was an opportunity to work in a coordinated and collective way to resolve the matter and to ensure that public trust and confidence in their police was maintained. And then from Windsor, we looked forward to doing the same in Ottawa, which was ultimately accomplished.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, I understand that the Saturday, February 12th was one of the busier days for the OPP in terms of responding to protests; is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was. I believe we had approximately 20 protests that we responded to around the province, and without referring to records but going by memory, I believe during the whole duration of what we would define as the Freedom Convoy, we responded to 137, approximately, of demonstrations or protests across the province.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so on the 12th, one of the busier days, were there places or protests, or requests for assistance that the OPP just couldn’t fulfill?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not to my knowledge, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And it’s -- you know, it’s important, I think, to speak about the amount of integration and cooperation that was happening at this time. There’s been reference to the calls that included the Police Chiefs of all of the affected jurisdictions, included Canadian Border Services Agency, included the RCMP. So at this stage in activity everybody is pitching in, leaning in, propping each other up, all of the resources are coordinated. By the 8th of February, we have what we called the Public Order Hub officially established. They are making decisions on where Public Order assets need to be when, and what amounts, and when they can move. So this is a very coordinated integrated effort that I think policing across the province deserves to get some credit for the coordination at this stage of the events and activities.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, going back to Ottawa, the Integrated Plan Group starts its work on the 8th or the 9th, but there isn’t a sort of fully developed plan until the 13th, fully developed and signed off on. So why is that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, you know, that direct evidence is best to come from those that were actively participating in the development and the approval of the plan. Anything I can share with you is from my arm’s length viewpoint and is hearsay. And I think you’ve already heard from C/Supt. Carson Pardy, you’ve heard from Supt. Bernier, you’ve heard from a number of witnesses that I think have been able to provide you with their detailed account of those events.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did you receive and review and sign off on a copy of the Integrated Plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not. I participated in a meeting where I was connected by phone. I believe there was a PowerPoint presentation of an overview of the plan delivered in Ottawa. There was members from RCMP in that meeting. I listened in on the briefing. I did not see, nor did I approve the plan, nor would I be expected to. We had a Chief Superintendent there that was given the autonomy and the responsibility for the development of that plan in an integrated format. That’s not something, as the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, I would be involved in.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And so it would -- it was up to C/Supt. Pardy? He would have had final kind of approval on it without the need to escalate it any higher?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. Whether he chose to escalate that higher to his Deputy Commissioner, that would be his choice. But he had full authority and autonomy to approve any plan that was binding the Ontario Provincial Police. He certainly kept up informed and updated and made us aware of the intentions of the plan, but that was his responsibility that he fulfilled exceptionally well.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, we heard evidence on Tuesday from Insp. -- Acting Supt. Beaudin about this proposal from Deputy Minister Stewart in which Commission Lucki was involved as well. So I appreciate you weren’t involved in the back and forth, but I want to ask you what you knew about it and sort of what you reported to the Deputy Solicitor General’s Office about it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so as you’ve indicated, certainly aware of it, endorsed it, approved it, in terms of Insp. Beaudin having those conversations, and determining whether there was a de-escalation tactic that could be used through encouraging a meeting, encouraging correspondence, whatever that would look like. And of course, I absolutely would make the Deputy Solicitor General aware of that. If I am granting permission or supporting one of my members to meet with a federal Deputy Minister, my provincial Deputy Minister needs to be aware of that.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was the provincial Deputy Solicitor General’s view on it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t share with you what his view on it was. I certainly don’t recall him expressing any concern. Would have been, “Thank you for the update.” I can’t specifically say. you’re best to ask his viewpoints of him, I think, with all due respect.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And sorry, when I asked for his view, I just mean as it was communicated to you, obviously. Was he -- he was supportive of it, as far as you understood?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say that he was supportive. He certainly was aware. He didn’t express any concerns to me. it wasn’t something that I was seeking permission on. This was an operational activity, but out of respect for the Deputy and his position, and ensuring that he has the appropriate level of situational awareness, it was something that I felt he needed to know.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I want to take you to OPP00001585, which is an email thread about lining up tow trucks. You had stated, February 13th, if we can go down to page 3, when we pull it up. So I believe you’re -- I’m not sure if you’re on this initial chain, but it’s ultimately forwarded to you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, there’s a lot of activity in and around the coordination of heavy tow trucks at this point in time. There was a lot of challenges with identifying the number of tow trucks that were available, those that would willingly provide those services, those that were looking to be compelled or indemnified. There was a lot of work that went into the administration of this, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And sorry, even prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, there were tow trucks and towing companies looking to be compelled?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not looking to -- well, I shouldn’t say not looking to be compelled. My understanding was that there were some of them that were reluctant. There may have been some that were refusing to assist, but there had been some identified that were willing to assist. There were concerns that they may back out at the last minute, which prevent -- or presented a risk to moving forward with the plan. The biggest concern was around indemnification. So one tow company in particular was seeking indemnification, which is not something that we would normally provide. And we were trying to determine the best way forward through the Province, and how, if -- and if so, how we could provide some indemnification.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And where -- you’re talking about prior to the invocation of the Act? Is that ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. This is all happening simultaneously. And as you can appreciate, we are not paying any attention to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. There was no pre-warning to me. There was no heads up. There was no consultation. Learned of it as it was happening, and we are adjusting in real time. So this is work that is taking place concurrently. So it’s not as easy as stopping and starting with a demarcation point.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Right. And so I was going to ask you, after the reference in the February 5th text message exchange with Commissioner Lucki, had you heard anything about the possibility that the Act would be invoked or was it, as you say, sort of a surprise?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t know that I’d categorize it as a surprise, it was just something that was not known to me, nor was it something that I had turned my mind towards. It had nothing to do with the Ontario Provincial Police. It was something that the Federal Government chose to do. I wouldn’t -- yeah, I wouldn’t have necessarily expected that I would get a heads up, but it was not something that I had at forefront of mind, nor did we ever contemplate if it happened, how would this impact us.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I want to go back to sort of February 15th, ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
M’hm.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- which is the day on which former Chief Sloly resigned. You had two calls with Commissioner Lucki and other members of the OPS on that day? Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. Yes. Yes. One was with RCMP and OPP and then the subsequent one included Ottawa Police. So it was the difference in those two meetings, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And the first one, which was just RCMP and OPP, was prior to Chief Sloly’s resignation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I want to take you to the minutes of that call, which is OPP00000787. Just while that’s getting pulled up, you referred earlier to sort of a plan being ready by February 13th, but not being operationalized by the 15th. To your understanding, what was the delay? What was the problem?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So what became increasingly known, or reported, was that there was confusion over whether the plan had been approved or not, who was required to approve the plan. And that was creating a delay and actually operationalizing all components of that plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And we can kind of scroll through these minutes, but I want to -- I want you to tell us what was discussed on this first call, if it was just RCMP and OPP.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was the concerns over being able to move the plan forward, the perception that that plan needed to be approved by the Chief of Police and if not the Chief of Police, then by the Chief’s counsel. And there was confusion within, it appeared, OPS, certainly within OPP and RCMP in relation to that. So the discussion was in relation to that confusion. Certainly on the 13th, the email is clear from Chief Sloly, which I thanked him for. I was under the understanding that the plan was ready to be operationalized and, as we move towards the 15th, we’re now in a position where we appear to have challenges that are preventing that integrated plan from being realized.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And what was -- and to your recollection, we can go through the minutes, but was the solution that you and Commissioner Lucki were -- how were you going to deal with this decision?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah. So we got to the point where I was going to speak to Chief Sloly post the Police Services Board meeting, so I knew that he was tied up in a Police Services Board meeting. We had offered or agreed to lend the support of Superintendent Morris to assist him in communicating with the Board as well as Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy was supposed to attend that Police Service Board meeting. So I had undertaken the task of speaking with Chief Sloly when he was free to ask if he would consider if he needed or was willing to allow us to assume command and control if we were not able to move the plan forward had we got to that point that there were enough barriers in place that the plan was not going to move forward. And I was planning on having that conversation with Chief Sloly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You told us, as we saw the text message from Commissioner Lucki previously, where she was relaying that the Government of Canada had lost confidence in the OPS by February 5th. By February 15th, had you lost confidence in the OPS’s ability to manage the situation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
“Lost confidence” is a harsh and strong way of putting it. This is a police service that is in a very unenviable position, is struggling to move forward with an operational plan. My job was to support them, provide whatever assistance was required to see that plan succeed, and to have that further dialogue with Chief Sloly to determine whether he felt that could be done under the current command structure or whether us taking command and control of that incident, allowing them to focus and he to focus on the policing responsibilities for the entire rest of the city, may be a resolution to that. Subject to the outcome of that phone call, I would have then had to make a determination as to whether I had confidence or did not and whether I escalated that to the Ministry. But at that point, I needed to have that conversation with Chief Sloly. All of the information that we were receiving about the obstacles and challenges that were not firsthand, I owed it to him to have that conversation and to offer our support. As you are well aware, he’s able to make the request of the OPP legitimately through the Police Services Act for that assistance.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Did you feel that it was time for that request, that the OPP be asked formally to step in?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Based on what we were hearing in that meeting and all of the events that had taken place or had been reported to take place up to that point in time, I felt that we were at that point that I ought to be offering that assistance in making sure that he was aware that if that was what he wanted, we were willing and able to take that on.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But isn’t -- I’m just trying to understand. Isn’t that another way of saying you had lost confidence in the OPS’s ability? You wanted to be asked to step in and take over.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It may be semantics. They needed -- they needed our assistance at that point in time. There was no question about it. They absolutely, in my opinion, needed our assistance to succeed. If you want to describe that as lost confidence, I certainly wouldn’t describe it as that way. In need of our assistance, was our assistance required to succeed, depending the response to that request, that may further clarify whether I was in a position to say I had lost confidence. This was a police service and a police leader that was in need of assistance and we were able to provide that assistance, willing to provide that assistance. If that assistance was not received, then I may have been in a point where now I’ve lost confidence and would have to escalate that for further consideration.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And you say if that assistance was not sort of received. I take it you mean sort of willingly welcomed.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah. I’m -- yes, absolutely. I’m not in a position to say I’m coming in and taking over. I don’t have that authority or that ability. That is not the role of the Commissioner of the OPP. So the appropriate, the lawful, the professional next step was to have that conversation and then to be able to make that determination. Were we going to be able to move this forward in a collaborative way by taking the lead? Was it actually necessary? Maybe Chief Sloly had other information that would cause me to reconsider where I was at at that point in time. But that’s where I was at. I was at that juncture that had we not been asked to assume command and control of this operation that I would have felt obligated to make that known to the Minister for consideration to be known to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. You never had occasion to have that conversation with Chief Sloly; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did not, no.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
He resigned some time after or maybe even during this call. Is that -- is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah. Some time between us having this call and plans to seek a meeting with Chief Sloly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then you had a follow-up call with Commissioner Lucki and this time with members of the OPS as well.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And if I could get OPP 00000788. I think these are the minutes from that second call on that day. While they’re being brought up, can you tell us about what -- what was discussed during that call?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was confirming that we were in a position to operationalize the February 13th plan. There were no obstacles standing in our way. There was a clearly articulated and described command structure. There are various forms of describing Incident Command, so we wanted to make sure there was a clear understanding, so we diverted to a model most commonly known to the RCMP, gold, silver, bronze, and at that point came to agreement that it would be an absolute unified command and that we would be sending Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins and the RCMP would be sending Deputy Commissioner Mike Duheme to represent our services on the gold level, which was on the same level as the Chief of Ottawa.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And had you not had success in achieving unified command until this call with then Interim Chief Steve Bell? Like you just described that, okay, we’re going to have unified command. We’ve got this plan and we are going to action it. What had been the impediment to doing that on the 14th or on the 13th when the plan was completed?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think Ottawa Police Service is in the best position to answer that. You know, not having had the opportunity to have that conversation with Chief Sloly, I can’t say that I’m in a position to sit in judgment as to specifically what prevented that plan from moving forward from the 13th to the 15th. You’re going to have to discern that from the evidence provided by Ottawa Police and your discussion with Chief Sloly, but I had yet to have that conversation with Chief Sloly.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But the result of this second conversation -- the resignation and the second conversation and the plan for unified command was that you no longer had concerns to escalate to the Deputy Solicitor-General. Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did you –- on the 15th, before, between, or after these calls, did you speak to the Deputy Solicitor General about what had transpired?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
On the 15th, yeah, I can't say exactly at what time, but we did have communication throughout the day, and certainly by the time we had concluded things he was well aware of the way forward. There -- I did have some concerns over the resignation of Chief Sloly, and what the Board would be doing for an interim chief. My concern was that if an interim chief was appointed that was unfamiliar with all of the work that had been done, and we were in a position that we had to start from ground zero and do a briefing and seek commitment and agreement, that was a concern of mine. And I did have that conversation with the Deputy Solicitor General just to make him aware that I was concerned as to how the Police Service Board would choose to move forward. And again, that was for his situational awareness. As it turned out, somebody from within the Police Service assumed that position, so we did not have to start from ground zero.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Was your concern because you had heard that there was going to be an external interim chief?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's correct, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And you relayed that to the Deputy Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
At some point in time throughout the day we had that conversation, yes. And not concerned in terms of the Board exercising its authority, but it would need to be clearly defined in that if somebody new was being introduced to the relationship it would have to be exclusive to the day-to-day Operations of the Ottawa Police Service outside of this event. We needed to be able to move forward seamlessly with this plan without having to start from the beginning.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And did you specifically mention Steve Bell as an appropriate interim chief or did you just ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- relay the concern?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I just relayed the concern. In the event that the Ministry was going to be providing any advice there are policing advisers that advise Police Services Boards, so should that discussion be taking place, I thought it was appropriate that my concerns be relayed in the event that that would have any impact on decisions that would be made by the Police Services Board. But at no point in time did I recommend anyone or oppose anyone for that position. It was not about the individuals.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. Commissioner, I see we're at one o'clock, and now would be -- I'm about to change gears, so now's a perfect time.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So this is time for our lunchbreak, so we'll take an hour and come back in an hour to continue. Thank you.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess for one hour. La Commission est levée pour une heure.
Upon recessing at 1:00 p.m.
Upon resuming at 1:59 p.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l'ordre. The Commission is reconvened. La Commission as reprend.
COMM. THOMAS CARRIQUE, Resumed
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay, are you prepared to go on?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am. Thank you, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Go ahead.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Commissioner. We have about 20 minutes and then we'll be open to the other parties.
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. ERIC BROUSSEAU (Cont'd)
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I just want to pick up on something that you mentioned before the lunchbreak. I think you referred to a public -- in talking about national security, you referred to a Public Safety Canada definition of national security, which you've distinguished from the sort of CSIS Act definition of national security. Do you remember that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. I don't think I called it a definition. It's in reference. When they reference national security. I'm not familiar with an actual definition as it relates to Public Safety Canada, and of course, the CSIS Act refers to the security of Canada. But in the context of speaking to national security, there are many components that Public Safety Canada referred to, and referred to it as a multi-faceted approach that is required across various programs, initiatives, and considerations.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And when you say Public Safety Canada, are you talking about your dealings with Public Safety Canada, like their website? I guess I'm trying to understand where this arises.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, there's all sorts of materials on Public Safety website for anyone who is -- Public Safety Canada website for anyone who is interested. There is various Acts. There has been reviews of the CSIS Act. There is all sorts of material that references and responsibilities in reference to national security.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Is there anything that -- non-public about what you're referring to, or is it just Public Safety Canada material?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
This is Public Safety Canada material. I cannot point you to a specific document. There's certainly lots of reference to it in the various materials, and that is my understanding.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you. I'm not going to pull up the document, but there's -- the Commission has seen an email from Commissioner Lucki to Mike Jones the evening of February 13th, and I want to read the -- what Commissioner Lucki wrote and ask you if you agree with it. She wrote: "This said, I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all available tools that are already available through the existing legislation. There are instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities for various Criminal Code offences occurring right now in the context of the protest. The Ontario Provincial Emergencies Act just enacted will also help in providing additional deterrent tools to our existing toolbox." (As read) Do you agree with this sentiment that Commissioner Lucki expressed there?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, what was the date on that?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
February 13th. The...
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Evening of February 13th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I would agree with that sentiment, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
If we could pull up OPP00001580, please? This is an email that you wrote to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso on February 16th.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And the second paragraph, "A good portion of the demonstrators don't care about being charged criminally, or they would have left already; however, if they live in Ontario, they will care about losing their vehicle insurance and/or license." Can you explain that view to us and how and why you formed that view?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, absolutely. In reference to trying to deescalate the situation, not only in Ottawa but elsewhere around the province, this had been going on for a considerable amount of time, and those that felt at jeopardy to be charged criminally, I feel, would have left through negotiations or discussions with PLT. And having the additional tools in the emergency EMCPA of the province provided encouragement for those to discontinue their illegal activities, as was borne out on Highway 402. And this was in relation to public messaging that was going to be distributed through PLT on Ottawa letterhead, and I felt as we moved forward and considered the larger impact across the province, we could word it differently and get different inputs, for example, from a forensic psychologist as to how best that should -- could and should be structured, not only to prevent additional disruption, but to disperse it and deescalate.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now the tow truck issue, if I can call it that, as we've heard evidence on it, and so I believe you told us in your interview that the OPP did not compel the provision of tow truck services; is that accurate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So I would like to pull up document PB.NSC.CAM00007378 with the REL 001 suffix. This is a letter that you wrote to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso on February 22nd. Have you seen this letter recently?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not recently, no, but I do recognize it, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we could just scroll down to page 4, I understand the power to compel tow truck services was delegated to you; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, it was.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Is ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And it formed art of the negotiations that took place with the tow operators that were done by other -- people other than me, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we could go -- and, sorry, what's on screen is the actual delegation of that authority?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
If we could go up to page 2? So that last paragraph, "While this situation is unprecedented, the OPP worked with Legal and determined that because we are engaging [tow companies -- sorry, engaging] companies under the provisions of the Emergencies Act, not as a procurement, contract or agreement, that we should work within the 'reasonable compensation' provisions consistent with the terms of the regulations." And so I just -- is that not -- are you not saying in that paragraph that you have, in fact, compelled companies under the Emergencies Act? And if not, can you help us understand what that paragraph means?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, this is correspondence that was pulled together with assistance from Legal Team, trying to satisfy the requirements of our procurement policies as it relates to engaging these services. Not compelling them I think is somewhat semantic in that tow trucks were coordinated, they were organized, they appeared willing to proceed. Many of them wanted indemnification, which was not something that we could provide them with without making additional arrangements through emergency provisions with the province. So when the Emergencies Act was invoked, that ability to provide that indemnification was extremely helpful. We were also concerned at the time that those that had agreed to provide their services would back out as we got closer to the operation. So technically, could we have compelled them? Did we provide them with information in writing that would insinuate they were compelled? Quite likely. But did we actually have to direct them? No, they had willingly agreed to assist. It was the indemnification that was the issue, and we were trying to make sure that with new legislation and procurement processes that everything was done appropriately and legally.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So it's fair to say then that they were indemnified under the Emergencies Act, but they were not actually compelled under the Emergencies Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's how I would describe it. You would be best to speak with those who had direct contact with the tow providers. They were provided correspondence under my signature and the authority to disseminate that correspondence. My understanding is they did not have to rely upon that to compel anyone to provide their services. It was the indemnification that was the critical part.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And if we actually scroll down, I think that correspondence is attached to this letter, pass the authorization to all identified towing companies. That's the correspondence you're referring to?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's correct, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Commissioner Carrique, in my last sort of 10 minutes, I want to ask you a few bigger picture questions. And the first one is about incident command. You are one of very few people who are going to testify at this Commission who has sat atop a police organization. And so I'm sure the Commissioner will be interested in your thoughts on proper role of a Police Chief when it comes to the Incident Command System.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So proper role of a Police Chief, depending on the -- depends on the situation. It depends on the circumstance. It depends on the size of the police service and the capacity of a police service. For a small police service, a Chief of Police may fulfil many roles, some of which will be very operational. To mid and large-size police services where the larger the police service, the more distant the Chief of Police becomes from operations. Ideally, your Chief of Police would be that of a strategic level, if they have the necessary, qualified people within their command to fulfil the other operational roles. But what is most important is there's clarity on command and control. When embarking upon any situation, planned or unplanned, there needs to be that clarity of command. And you will have likely have heard reference to SMEAC, which is the operation planning format, Situation, Mission, Execution, and Communication or Command and Control, depending what form you use. And those terms need to be clearly defined who is in charge, who has what roles, and who has what responsibilities. There are various forms of Incident Command Structure. What would be very helpful is having a consistent Incident Command Structure that is relied upon by policing right across Canada.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Yeah, we looked at Section 9 of the Police Services Act ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
--- earlier, and that set out the situations under which the OPP might be called on to assist. In your view, is there -- should that be revisited, or should there be other mechanisms by which the OPP could become engaged when an event overwhelms a local, municipal police force?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think given all that we've experienced as of late, I think it's very worthwhile being revisited and appropriate consultation taking place with the affected police leaders, with the affected police boards. I don't think it would be fair to suggest that, you know, I as the Commissioner of the OPP would necessarily have the authority to go in and take over operations, but I think there is value in examining a mechanism by which a threshold could easily be identified that would allow that to happen seamlessly, and more integration as it relates leading up to these events. So if, you know, we can take one lesson away from this, it would be absolutely ideal that we had one central repository of how many police resources are on duty at any given time and projected out for a period of time. So if we found ourselves having to plan something, that integration is able to respond and react much more quickly, efficiently, effectively, and we do manage what's called the Provincial Operations Centre, which would make good common sense to house that type of information as to the resources that are available and accessible.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Looking at Ottawa and what happened in Ottawa, you told us, and we've seen emails that you offered whatever support was necessary. Whatever you need, Chief Sloly, OPS, it's yours. We've also heard, again, from witnesses who have testified, that -- and you’ve said this yourself, that it wasn’t -- it’s not possible or it’s not advisable or feasible to send resources without -- in the absence of a plan. And so -- and I know we’ve touched on this, but I just want to -- I want to put this to you, that there’s sort of a contradiction there, that, you know, “we will do anything we can to help you” versus “we really need to see a plan from you before I send one more OPP officer to Ottawa”. Can you help us understand it, you know, why that’s not a contradiction, if it’s not a contradiction?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, I think it’s a really good question. And on the surface, it may appear to be a contradiction, but I think to be -- to be fair to the proceedings, that contradiction is mitigated by actually looking at the data and the evidence. Look at the number of officers that were deployed on each and every day at various intervals. Look at the requests that were made and how they were responded to. And it’s only till we get to a point in time where we need to be able to manage the availability of those police resources for a protracted period of time across the province and manage all of the logistics that are associated to that that there needs to be a more defined plan. So I don’t think they’re contradictory in any way. There’s a point in time where we hit a threshold where it’s just not possible to provide 1,700 police officers and 100 civilians. On any -- on any given day, as I’ve mentioned, we may have a little over 1,000 working with the OPP and we’re managing on a daily basis, on average, approximately 3,400 calls for service, 20 percent of which are what we call priority zero or priority one, so those are emergency 911 calls that warrant an immediate response. To manage all of that across 330 municipalities and a critical event, you need to have a plan. And in the absence of me being satisfied that there is a plan to deploy those resources, I and every police leader would be negligent in their duties.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Turning to Windsor a moment, I believe OPP counsel in their opening referred to it as a success story in terms of how it was handled, which may be true in terms of the amount of time it took to clear the blockade, but based on the fact that there was intelligence that this blockade was potentially coming for several days, if not a week, before it happened and the importance of Windsor, was it preventable?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Windsor? Was Windsor preventable?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think you’d have to ask Windsor Police that. I think they felt -- they felt prepared to respond to the intelligence that they had before them. I think you would have to ask them what prevented them from being able to mitigate the blockade. It’s a very tenuous situation. We have to allow the environment for lawful protest, so you know, it sounds easy -- it sounds easy to those that may be listening to the police evidence to say there’s a clear demarcation and delineation between lawful assembly and criminal activity, and it’s not always that case. So although there may be rhetoric, there may be very good intelligence that some parties are planning on participating in what we would describe as an unlawful protest, we have a responsibility to facilitate lawful assembly under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So how do you find that demarcation? It’s not the difference between saying on this side of the road is long distance and on that side it’s not when we had old telephone networks. It is extremely difficult to decide in some cases at what point this is going to become unlawful assembly and how do you prevent that in that moment of time. Sometimes you cannot prevent it. When presented with it, I think the important question is, how do you de- escalate it. And that’s where the framework, the national framework that this Commission has spent some considerable time hearing about, I think that’s really where the focus needs to be. How do you leverage that framework that once you find yourself in that situation that you can de-escalate? And if you do have to move to enforcement, how can you do that in the most efficient, effective and primarily the safest way to those that are involved in the protests, to the officers and to the community? So that is not a straightforward question, nor have I provided you with a straightforward answer. I apologize.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
That’s okay. My final question. You told us this summer that there’s a limited formal role for the OPP to kind of coordinate resources across Ontario. Do you think, looking back in hindsight, that a more active and early engagement by the OPP in bringing resources together could have prevented certain protests or shortened the protests that did occur?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think that’s -- I think that’s an unfair question. I don’t know that I could say earlier, active engagement of the OPP. The information was there to the police services of jurisdiction to build the plans as they saw was appropriate. The intelligence was provided. We’re there as a willing policing partner and, as in my previous very longwinded answer, I apologize, Commissioner, I don’t know that it’s always possible to prevent these things. Are there mitigation strategies that could be put into place and maybe should have been put into place? I will concede that. But I don’t know that I can say that there would be a different outcome if the OPP were put in a different position.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Thank you, Commissioner Carrique. Those are my questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. So I’d like to call on the Government of Canada to go first, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRENDAN van NIEJENHUIS
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon, Commissioner Carrique. My name is Brendan van Niejenhuis, and I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada. I’ll have some questions for you today.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you. Good afternoon.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon. I’d like to start with an issue my friend was just asking you about after the lunch break, and that has to do with the issue of towing. Actually, before I start, I want to take you to - - that, I want to take you to a document he had taken you to, which is OPP00001580. This has to do with the messaging to the demonstrators.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you could look at the third paragraph, you see there that your advice to the Deputy Solicitor-General was that the messaging to the demonstrators should start with the Emergency Measures and Civil Protection Act; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And secondly, it should go to the FA. I take that as a typo for the EA. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think that is very fair, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the EA would be the Emergencies Act; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Because it refers to the enforcement of the designated restricted zone; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the prohibition of children.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And those were measures that arose under the Emergencies Act.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And your point there is that you want to emphasize the Emergencies Act consequences and the EMCPA consequences ahead of emphasizing the criminal charges; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is the way that I’ve articulated it, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Because those messages would be more effective than the ordinary available charges under the Criminal Code in reducing the footprint of the protest site before the POU operation took place in earnest.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
They may be more effective, depending on the situation, depending on the circumstances. They were definitely and -- definitely an effective tool for those three areas that I’ve highlighted. We have common law authorities to prevent entry into restricted zones. That is available to the police. But the messaging that went along with the Emergencies Act about those restricted zones specifically being able to highlight prohibiting children from entering into those zones, which was a concern for the police, was an effective tool, I believe. Also, being able to message the other consequences, that is an effective tool that was available to us. Absolutely.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Could we go now, please, to PB.nsc.can.00007378? I want to take you back to the letter that you wrote on February the 22nd to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso; do you recall being asked about this a moment ago?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, I just want to make sure that we read the whole of the letter. If we go down to the first paragraph, please, you say this is further to an original letter you’d sent him of February 15th; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. We had sent initial correspondence on February the 15th regarding a non- competitive procurement process while we were procuring the services of tow operators, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And you say, at the time, you thought that the best approach would be the provisions of the Ontario Public Service Procurement Directive and the Emergency Provisions underneath it which allow for non- competitive procurement; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you say, as matters unfolded operationally in real time, the OPP learned that the vendor community was highly reluctant to assist the police?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And initial conversations with them revealed that they required an unusually broad and high-risk indemnification from the province; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Secondly, a commitment not to reveal their name; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In some cases, that was a concern by tow operators, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And you were advised by the Solicitor General’s legal that the OPP could not provide such an indemnity absent the approval of the Minister of Finance or the President of the Treasury Board Secretariat; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t recall the specific advice but that advice that we received was what generated this letter that was constructed for me.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s what you conveyed to the Deputy Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Can you point me to that paragraph, sorry.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This third bullet point, you say: "As advised by the Legal Services Branch, the OPP could not provide an indemnity." Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, thank you. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. And you could not promise confidentiality, if you look at the fourth line there, because of the obligations the OPP has under FIPPA; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Next bullet: If the OPP were to enter into such agreements, a separate agreement would be needed to be negotiated each time you retained a vendor and there simply would not be enough time for that to be achieved when services had to be in place by February 17; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Next page, you continue and say: "On February 15th, we learned that the Government of Canada announced the declaration of a Public Order Emergency under the Emergencies Act." Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you pointed out in the next paragraph that the Emergency Measure Regulations include provisions whereby the Minister or the Commissioner of the RCMP, or a person acting on their behalf, can require a person to render essential goods and services; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s right.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That includes towing services, as noted there; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the next paragraph, in the second sentence, you say: "Additionally, the regulations were support by Legal as the appropriate way to address the need to have services available quickly…" (As read). Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s because they included provision for, first of all, compensation; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Secondly, compensation for any loss, injury, or damage suffered as a result of performing their duties?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And lastly, protection from personal liability, which would serve the function of an indemnity; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then you enclose -- you tell the Deputy Solicitor General you’re enclosing the letter and fee schedule that you provided to all of the identified towing vendors; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right, if we can go to the next page, please -- I’m sorry, the fourth page, that’s the -- my friend showed you that. That’s designating you as a person who may exercise the authority of the Commissioner for this purpose; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes, signed by both myself and the Commissioner of the RCMP.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Signed February 17th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, next page. If you look at the second paragraph, this is a letter that’s signed by you. It says: "The OPP thanks you for your wiliness to engage in discussions to date to determine a solution that will help us move forward in this emergent situation." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s what it says, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there had been discussions, at least to help determine whether a solution could be found that would protect the towing companies appropriately?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There had been discussion with the towing companies, many of which had agreed to provide services. Some were concerned over indemnification. Some were concerned over identity. And there was a concern that some of them may back out as we got closer to activating the operational plan, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And in view of that concern, what you say here is that: "Pursuant Section 7 of the regulations, […], the OPP is now requiring you to make available, and render, the essential goods and services needed for the removal, towing, and storage of these vehicles." (As read). Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the next paragraph, you confirm, then: "This letter is written confirmation of verbal instructions from the OPP, […], to provide these services from the date the regulations came into force on February 15th, and notice that you are required to continue to comply and provide them." (As read). Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And so, as you said, it’s a bit of a semantic issue but in fact, sir, the OPP did require towing companies to provide the services under the auspices of the EA; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, we had provided that written direction and, had they failed to provide those service, we would have been able to compel them to do so, absolutely.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you appreciate that the -- under the Emergency Measures Regulations, where this authority came from, that the power is to request them to provide the services; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if they do no do so, then that creates an offence under Section 10 of the Emergency Measures Regulations; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am aware of that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go now to -- well, actually, go to the next page. You see there’s a note about compensation, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then if you go to the next page, there’s a second that also goes to the towing companies that sets out the compensation levels; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes, it does.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it’s got a schedule on the last page of the document, page 9, and that sets out the hourly rates for these services, right ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it does.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- ranging from $175 or so an hour up to $750 for the really big 65-tonne rotator trucks; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It appears that the range, yes, absolutely.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go now to PB.CAN.00001628? Sir, I’m showing you what appears to be an invoice from the Government of Ontario and the Ministry lists OPP there among the notations; do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s the form of an invoice that comes from or on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’m assuming so. I have never seen this or another invoice like it, but it certainly appears to be, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You appreciate you had advised the Deputy Solicitor General that, of course, you’d be seeking recovery or compensation from the RCMP for the money you paid out under that schedule to towing companies; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you just go down the page to the amount, you see there that there’s been a bill issued in the amount of $666,000 and change to the RCMP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I do see that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And sir, am I correct that that accounts for the amounts that were paid by the OPP to towing companies and then billed back to the RCMP.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It appears so but I would not have that level of detail. That would have to be determined by our business management bureau but it certainly appears so by virtue of what you’ve presented to me.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I have no reason to dispute that.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It’s –- it indicates services received as of February 27th, and that accords with the general timeframes that we're speaking of; yes?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it does. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. All right. I'd like now to go to your text messages with the Deputy Solicitor General. They are at OPP00004580. And we'll begin at page 16. First, sir, a general question. If we just go to the bottom of this text. You see there on the bottom right it's got a time and date stamp; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so this says 26th of January, 3:19:58 p.m.(UTC+0)?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's what it says, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And understand that UTC is coordinated universal time, and that refers to a time that is during Eastern Standard hours, which is five hours ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I didn't know, but thank you for the explanation, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I will accept your explanation.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. So it's five hours -- it's basically subtract five and you get the correct time. So you're looking here at 3:19 p.m. This is a text message actually sent at 10:19 a.m.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And in fairness, you'll see in other texts that you talk about the time that it is that will assist in confirming that ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay, thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- but if we could just go with that, that'll help us orient what happens when.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So in this text message, I understand, and I'll represent to you that this is the first indication of you reporting, at least via text, about the incoming convoy to the Deputy. Does that appear reasonable?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It appears reasonable, yes. Via text, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And that's what we have to work with in the productions at least, so I'm not sure ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, absolutely.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But you'll see that they're already the largest convoy to date you estimate as being approximately 830 vehicles?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then you note below that there is convoys anticipated from the east, from Quebec; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And other southern- based convoys from southwestern Ontario.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And if you just move down the page to the response from Deputy Di Tommaso. You'll see he thanks you; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I see that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he would like an early morning report as he'll be reporting into SOC. Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is that the Secretary to the Cabinet?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would be Secretary of Cabinet, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to the next page. This is now the 27th. If you go down to the second text on the page on the page, And you're providing a further update on the progress of the convoy?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go to page 21. You'll see there on the bottom text on the page on the 28th, again you're providing a further update. Sorry, it's 21. A further update on the 28th now; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So this is dated the 27th; sorry?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh. You know what, you've got me. You're right. It's the -- there's that UTC issue. So you're saying the 27th, but this is actually five hours earlier. It's 9:40 p.m. on the 27th.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay, thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Does that make sense to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That does. It's helpful because I had put the date at the top; otherwise, I would've fallen victim to the same timestamp. Thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Easy to do. If you look at the bottom entry in your report that there's a focus by OPS... Just go to the bottom of that text. That: "OPS is focused on access and egress routes to hospitals and any risks associated to vaccine clinics." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That's because there is a concern about the purpose of the convoy and the potential for disruption of vaccination sites; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 23. At the top of the page. You'll see, you're reporting now on the 28th, and we know now that that's approximately 11:00 a.m., and you're indicating that there is convoys now commencing their travels to Ottawa from Huntsville, Owen Sound, Kingston, Innisfil, Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie, Cochrane, Little Current, and Quebec; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're expecting crowds of demonstrators all along the various routes, and the leader of the Opposition in fact you note there.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yeah. And if you go to the bottom of the page, you're providing an estimate on this date. And if you could just scroll so we can see the timestamp. Thank you. So about 3:45 in the afternoon, 1,350 estimated at this point; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're reporting on: "...flatbed trucks...[with] heavy equipment, utility vehicles, seating, portable toilets, and a boat with graffiti directed at the Prime Minister spray painted on it." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Social media messaging indicating that demonstrators intend to stay beyond the weekend?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Some extremist views and comments encouraging unlawful protests are being posted on social media.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you note that $7.1 million have been raised now on GoFundMe.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. Correct. And I also note there, for your attention, the belief that: OPS will not be allowing any trucks carrying heavy equipment or other items of concern to travel into the city." I know that was a topic of discussion earlier.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I do, thank you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go to page 25. The second text on the page, please. This is a 29 January update?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You note here that "Yesterday on "Arnprior" was the destination, 65 kilometres west of Ottawa, "for over 600 convoy participants." Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Arnprior became a site where a sort of encampment ended up persisting; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is fair, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the OPP did not have full visibility into the content of the encampment in Arnprior; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You -- we would have to seek that clarification from those that were actually deployed there to see, you know, what type of visibility they had. I can't say.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. You're not aware?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I'm not aware, sorry.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 26. The text at the bottom of the page, please. You see there now you're reporting to the Deputy Solicitor General that a farmer's field has been cleared on Route 200 in Embrun for parking. Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
A site that can hold 400 trucks?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And a shuttle had been arranged ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- I guess to shuttle protesters back and forth to the city?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It appears so, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And again, the site in the Embrun, and maybe you don't know, but the site in Embrun was one in which the OPP and other Police Services did not have visibility as to what was set up there and what was occurring at that site?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I certainly do not. Those that were operational during the time could answer that with more accuracy, sir.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you know where Embrun is? About -- I think about 40 kilometres to the southeast of Ottawa; yes?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Generally, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, if I could just interject quickly. I got a request from the translators that counsel slow down when -- especially when reading. They're having a hard time keeping up.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I apologise. I will do better at that. Can we go to page 28. The third last text on the page. If you see, there's an indication there you're giving at, it would be 7:44, so 2:44 in the afternoon on the 29th; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that is that a: "Private helicopter [is] flying over Ottawa with an anti-government sign [on it]." Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso responds to you. If you move down: "I saw that on the news. How is it permitted to enter into restricted airspace?" Yes?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Was that a concern to you as well?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not at that particular time. I had not thought of that as a concern of mine with a provincial mandate, no.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, fair enough. At any rate, you thought it was a sufficient concern that it should be brought to the attention of the Deputy Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I did. It was all part of providing accurate situational awareness as to what was happening at the time. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you go over the page. You got a 3:00 p.m. update, and you're indicating to the Deputy that: "Some protesters have exhibited aggressive and threatening behaviour towards uniformed police officers." Already on the 29th; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go to page 30, the top of the page, update of the 29th and around, it would be 4:30 in the afternoon, you've indicated that protests have concluded -- in other words, they've occurred but they've concluded in Bracebridge, Huntsville, and Thornbury, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And they were ongoing at Kapuskasing and Cochrane?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Moving down the page, you continue in the same update, your police have been managing incidents of fighting amongst crowds, tractor trailers driving around or through police barricades, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Windows have been smashed in the Rideau Centre?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. And sorry, when you say -- did you say "your people"?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I said -- I'm not sure which police, but police.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Okay. No, thank you, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It's not clear as to which police, whether they're Ontario Provincial Police or OPS in this case.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, thank you for the clarity.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 31, the middle text on the page, 30th of January update. That’s the Sunday, I believe, of the first weekend, yes?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes, it is.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you note there that in Waterloo, 100 vehicles were expected at the Wilmot Recreational Centre from a convoy travelling through Baden, New Hamburg, and finishing in Stratford, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the organizer there was concerned that with growing numbers, that other participants might not feel the same way about having a peaceful event, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 33? Bottom text on the page, please? This is a 3 o'clock p.m. or so update, again on the 30th, the Sunday. Okay. Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it is. Yes, sorry.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the second last item in your report that you indicate that is a precaution, "and for special attention, we are in the process of messaging all police services in the province with vaccine clinics in their respective areas for the coming week," correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You were concerned about possible obstruction or other criminal or concerning, at least, activity occurring near vaccination clinics because of the apparent motivations of the protestors?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 36, the bottom two texts on the page, please -- or the bottom three, rather. This is initiated by Deputy Di Tommaso, and he says, "Good morning, Commissioner Carrique." I take it as CC?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that it me, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"Can you ensure that the issue of healthcare worker access and egress to hospitals and clinics is raised?" Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"The Minister of Health -- Ontario Minister -- sorry, excuse me -- the Ontario Deputy Minister of Health raised the issue this morning with the Secretary of Cabinet."
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he committed to the Secretary of Cabinet that you -- that "we would make Ottawa Police Service aware of this issue," right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You then respond and confirm you'll do that, and you say there's no change from the 7:37 a.m. update in the city, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This is on Monday the 31st, the day that everyone hopes the convoy would leave?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I -- yeah. I'm not going to suggest that -- I would say, yeah, everyone hoped it would leave, but certainly was not expecting it to leave.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And you see that Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso has his fingers crossed that that will indeed occur, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I -- yeah, there's not enough information there for me to assume that that’s specifically what he's hoping for. It may have been that things do resolve, nobody gets injured; it could have been a number of things, but obviously, he's wishing good luck and doesn’t want to see any harm come to anyone.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well, I think he's being more specific, because he's responded to your message which says, "We're experiencing traffic congestion outside of the city which is hopefully associated to people leaving the area," right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, yes, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So he's hoping for it too?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would hope so, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 39. In this update on the 31st, you now say that the OPS estimates 1,000 trucks remain within the City?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Page 41, and if you could just go to the timestamp, this is -- it says 1st of February but we know now that that is about 8 o'clock -- or sorry, 7:38 at night on the 31st?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And it indicates in your last report in your bullet that OPS PLT is advising that all hotel rooms in Ottawa are booked for the next weekend due to additional convoys attending the area, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So the hope was not really materializing?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it was not.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Page 43, you're giving a status update on the 2nd now, which is the Tuesday -- or sorry, the Wednesday, I think, of that week, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, it's February the 2nd, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And now you're reporting that a group from Quebec, 10 to 20 protestors known as Farfadaa have formed at Sussex and Rideau, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that group became quite a concern to the OPP, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
To all the police services, not to single yours out. And that was a group that was noted in some of the later intelligence reports that we see with respect to the situation on the ground, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It has been noted in various Hendon Reports, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Let's move forward to page 47. You are now giving a national picture. This is February the -- well, I guess it's February the 3rd in the evening. It's timestamped 2:53 a.m., so it's about almost 10 o'clock at night?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you're now reporting to the deputy that the ongoing truck blockades in Ottawa and now in Alberta have the potential to develop into a national civil obedience movement -- disobedience movement that could extend to Maritime transportation and potentially other major transportation sectors, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I am.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you confirm, as you said today, that the strategies relied upon by various levels of government and/or police to resolve matters in one province are likely to influence the actions of the protestors in other provinces?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Some events are likely to be well organized; others may develop organically or spontaneously with little warning?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you were seeing that in various locations in Ontario already, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to page 48 to the top text on the page, which is sent by you at approximately 9:40 in the morning. You list events planned for the weekend outside of Ottawa and Toronto at Iroquois Falls, North Bay, Cochrane, Sudbury, Hurst, and Echo Bay, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so you had make provisions, or your officers in these detachments need to make provision to be able to police these events as well as what's going on in Ottawa and ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is exactly what would be ---
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Toronto.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- happening across the organization, yes. Not me personally, but absolutely, our team would be making those provisions.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we can go to OPP00004579? These are your text messages with your Deputy Cox.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay, thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it looks like you didn't text as frequently with Deputy Cox as with Deputy Attorney General -- Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso; fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, very fair. So Deputy Cox oversaw the Provincial Operational Intelligence Bureau, so he was in receipt of all of the Hendon information. He was also in receipt of the situational reports that we were receiving at various intervals. So not even comparable, my communication with the Deputy Solicitor General is to keep him informed and provide an adequate level of situational awareness. Deputy Cox would have access to all of that same information. So a different relationship, but very fair to say not near as much communication.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 4? And he's reporting you here -- to you here on the 29th about the continuation of the daily Hendon report; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then down the page, you thank him, and then he texts you again on the 5th of February. You see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
He said, "I had an interesting call with Pat Morris this evening. He had a call with Mark Patterson, Intel Superintendent for OPS. Indicated his Chief had a vastly different view over the nature of the protests than he did. Pat and Mark share similar views on the protests. I will call you to provide more detail in the morning." You see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
He's sending that to you about quarter to 11 at night.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you respond and thank him, and you say, "We'll talk in the morning"; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it looks like, from the text on the next page, you did speak sometime after 9 o'clock or after 9:30?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Do you recall that conversation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do recall having that conversation with Deputy Commissioner Chuck Cox, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And what was -- what do you recall?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The concerns that were relayed, which could be more accurately relayed by Superintendent Morris, but in general sense, the concerns were that the description, to the extent of the protest and those who were involved and how it was being represented in the media was not consistent with the intelligence.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to I believe it's OPP00004579?
The Clerk (POEC)
Counsel, I believe that's the document we're currently on.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sorry. Oh, it's the same document. Got the wrong document number. Just give me a moment. I've got to get the correct document number. Shoot. OPP00003444, and it'll be page 7. This is a email from Pat Morris to Chuck Cox; right? And that's Deputy Cox?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it is.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you'll see here that Deputy Cox twigs to him earlier that day on February the 2nd to send him an email as a follow-up to an earlier conversation so he can raise it with CCT; do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yeah.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Is CCT you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I lead CCT, so that's a abbreviation for Commissioner's Command Team, which I previously described who comprises of that, and I can re-explain that if it's helpful, sir.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go down the page to the -- so the next page, it's the email that comes in response from Superintendent Morris; okay?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this has to do with requests for intelligence with respect to various individuals; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you could just go to the third-last paragraph on the page, this is, of course, February 2nd. It's occurring in the context of the convoy; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it is.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
He says, "There appears to be an incredibly heightened appetite for any [and] all information on entities that cause discomfort to the status quo..." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then the next paragraph, "I am concerned that "success" is seen as satisfying intelligence requirements and requests quickly..." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's what he says, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
"...as opposed to satisfying the correct [ones] to the correct actors." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. He says, "I have acted to prevent/slowdown these requests and/or [...] responses to them." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And is that the topic that was raised with you by Deputy Cox?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So we talked about this as well. He certainly was concerned about individual requests coming in outside of the channels of Hendon and what those requests were, but also about the dis and misinformation that was out there as well.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Did he refer to you about slow walking effectively, or preventing requests from being fulfilled?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not in the sense that I think it's being portrayed here. In relation to making sure that all requests are prioritized, they're ethical, they're in keeping with standard operating procedure, this is not about slow walking or not responding to requests that should not be happening. And Superintendent Morris I think goes on to cite his reasoning for that.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, and he's suggesting that it's inappropriate for this intelligence to be, you know, gathered and passed along outside of channels that he characterizes as correct.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To being reported in the media, and there had been some Hendon documents that had made their way into hands to people that should not have been receipt of them -- in receipt of them. So he was concerned about protecting the integrity of the Hendon reports, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. we go to OPP00003443? This is another email from Superintendent Morris dating to August of 2021; do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It appears to have been circulated to a number of different police services across the province in the Big 12?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It does, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. If you look at the second paragraph, here he's indicating that -- he's reflecting on, "...the hate crime and hate/bias motivated crime occurrence having spiked [...] by approximately 37% [to the previous year]"
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he says here that, "There has also, understandably, been a significant appetite for this information from government[...] and the public." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that suggests, does it not, that that's an appropriate appetite to, you know, in consequence of the significant spike in these type of crime occurrences?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, did you say inappropriate?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Appropriate.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Appropriate. Yeah, I don't see anything inappropriate about it.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes, he says, "...Hendon has these matters in our Intelligence Collection Plan and has been capturing much of this information from all of our services..." And he references, "...the White Lives Matter Movement, Patriots' movement, anti-government activity and [...] extremist entities engaged in anarchism, environmental issues, etc." Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, he does.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the appetite for that information is, therefore, understandable in the view of Superintendent Morris of 2021?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's what he's communicating, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Can we go back to your texts with the Deputy at OPP00004580, and we'll go to page 99. In view of the time, Commissioner Carrique, I'm going to skip ahead to February the 12th in terms of your updates. At page 99, you're asked at the top of the page by Deputy Solicitor General, he's referring to Windsor here, the Windsor clearance operation. "Have we started as planned or did [the] minister letter have an effect?”
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s the letter we saw earlier from Solicitor-General Jones; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it was. Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Which I think was Ontario -- no need to go to it -- but 00000858 for the record. And you respond to him that you’re proceeding as planned, no effect; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The letter had no effect, the offer of negotiation had no effect on the determination of the Windsor protectors to stay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And neither did the injunction that had been ordered the previous day; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And neither had the invocation of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act by the Province of Ontario which had occurred the previous day as well; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It actually didn’t come into effect, I believe, until the morning of the 12th. But no, it would not have had any effect at that point. It was later effective for us on Highway 402, but that’s a different date and a different situation.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s -- and that’s fair. But in this -- this crowd, these three instruments did not seem to affect their determination to stay and block the bridge.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
They certainly did not, no. And I know you’ll have Superintendent Dayna Earley before this Commission in the future, and she can speak in more detail, but from a strategic level, no effect. You are correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go to the next entry on this page, it’s -- we’re at 1:15 p.m., roughly, UCC, so that’s about quarter past 8 in the morning.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’re now reporting to him that the port of entry in Cornwall has been blocked by 50 to 70 vehicles.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s right.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there’s conflicting reports about that, but it now adds Akwesasne to the mix; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s a -- that was a significant concern for you; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it was.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Let’s go to OPP00004584. These are your texts with -- is it Superintendent McDonell?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It could be. We’ll see the texts. Where are they; sorry?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m just trying to get the rank right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Oh, okay. Sorry. Yes, it’s Superintendent Mike McDonell, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. And he texted you information much more frequently than, for example, your Deputy Cox?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, he would have.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’d like to go to page 57, please. And if you look at the -- 12:58 p.m., so about 8:58 in the -- or 7:58 in the morning, he says: “It’s totally different dynamic [referring to Cornwall]. The Mohawk community of Akwesasne gets a vote on this one. This is their lifeline, reliance on healthcare top priority. All residents of Akwesasne, Ontario, Quebec and New York rely on Ontario health care.” Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you go down the page, the further report you get is -- if you just go down to the very bottom here. It’s being reported to you by your individual on the ground that this could cause the territory to react unfavourably towards the protestors.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry. This is blocked out. Is this a text message to me from the Superintendent?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s correct.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If you go over the page, he gives you some background about the connection between Akwesasne, Kanehsatake and Kahnawake?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, he does.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
They’ll be quick to mobilize if the ask is made. The first level is a community ask. Next will be a warrior ask; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that’s reflecting the possibility, as he saw it, of violence inflaming that particular convoy blockade in Cornwall.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s a very jurisdictionally complex place, is it not? Probably even more so than Ottawa.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It certainly is.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Go to the top of page 59. He’s reporting to you that, in his view, first there will be messages of support from Kanehsatake and Kahnawake, and then an ultimate from the warriors; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s what he’s communicating, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he’s concerned and you’re concerned about the possibility of serious violence erupting from that scenario.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We are concerned about violence erupting from that scenario, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Could we go to page 51 of these texts? Sorry, 52. Second text on the page. You see that he’s reporting to you that on February the 11th here, 7:40 in the morning, that: “Customs and border protection at the US Embassy has been in contact with RCMP probing Canada’s law enforcement plans.” Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I do see that. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Next text on the page, he’s reporting that in Windsor, the auto workers’ “anger and intent to counter-protest today is no doubt influencing the attitude”; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Openly expressing anger on mainstream and social.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you look at the bottom text on the page, he reports to you that the U.S. call went well. “Cut to the chase, they’re watching the 1000 Islands bridge.” Right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
So they’re very concerned as well about the situation in Akwesasne.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is the information that the Superintendent has provided, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And of course, you relayed that to the Deputy as well.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say whether I did or not. I would have to review my reports. But certainly this information was very helpful to me and it informs a lot of the thinking that I’ve already provided to the Commission in relation to potential threats to national security and the need to coordinate all of our efforts. This is all in relation to that fateful day that we talked about, being the 12th of February. All this activity is happening simultaneously, Windsor, Cornwall, Ottawa, Toronto, Fort Frances. It’s happening right across the province.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If we go back one last time, I think, to OPP00004580, page 114. This is back to your texts with the Deputy. All right. At the second text here, you’re reporting about the protestors apparently -- this is the 13th, so Windsor has been cleared or sort of in the process of being cleared?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. In the process of being cleared. We stood down operations there from a Public Order standpoint on the 14th.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’re receiving information that protestors are talking about going to the tunnel instead of the bridge; yes?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that would have been a problem, too.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would have been a problem.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the bottom of the page, you refer here to -- “For further discussion”, you say to the Deputy. We see: “Best step for government - I would rather not see [Canadian Armed Forces] playing a role off of government properties. We could use special constables controlled by police for unarmed patrols, and immediate long-term commitments to adequate policing resources to both prevent and respond to these events.”
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You’re actively considering whether or not the Canadian Armed Forces should be involved from the Ontario perspective?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I was not. That was a discussion that was taking place and you can clearly see from my communication that that was not something that I was recommending.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Oh, I thought you were suggesting that the CAF should not play a role off of government properties but that you could use special constables controlled by police from the CAF for unarmed patrols.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, absolutely not, sir. Not special constables from the Canadian Armed Forces. We employ special constables within our police services and I was specifically talking about police-controlled assets. At no point in time did I ever support, suggest or recommend the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Page 121. This -- if you just go to the time stamp, you’ll see this is at about 2:40 in the morning, so about 9:40 at night in actual Ontario time on February the 13th, okay, so the night before that the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay. Thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. And just a few highlights of what you’re reporting. If you can go a bit further up on the page, you note under Ottawa: “A 300 person counter-protest disrupted a convoy attempting to enter the city.”
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The prospect of counter-protests increasingly occurring, whether in Cornwall, Akwesasne or in Ottawa was an increasing safety concern, was it not?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Counter-protests were a concern throughout the duration. They were.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The anger of the auto workers you described in Windsor from the blockade of the bridge. That was a concern about generating counterprotests that could become violence?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There was a counterprotest concern, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In Niagara you say two attempts by demonstrators to disrupt the Peace Bridge were prevented; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
At Fort Frances, OPP secured the bridge and border in anticipation of a demonstration that was attended by 230 protestors and 92 vehicles; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you identified four outlaw motorcycle gang members there?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, we did.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you have a national report that the Pacific Highway in B.C. was blocked by demonstrates? Convoys in Vancouver; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The Coutts border remained blocked at that time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The Emerson border in Manitoba remained blocked?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In New Brunswick, you had two demonstrations with two arrests?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We didn’t, but they did, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me. We Canadians did.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in Prince Edward Island, we experienced a convoy attempt to block the Confederation Bridge that was fortunately disrupted?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Now, you’ve told us that the OPP’s Intelligence Bureau commenced reporting to its policing partners on January the 13th through Project Hendon; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And as the convoy crossed over the Manitoba/Ontario border and travelled across the province, and until it arrived in Ottawa on the 28th, OPP officers professionally fulfilled their duties without incident?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you’d agree that in support of the Ottawa Police Service throughout the occupation, an increasing number of OPP officers were engaged?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I would agree.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Your members responded to many other convoys and demonstrations that consistently and repeatedly emerged in communities across Ontario?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I agree with that.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
This was a provincial and national emergency that garnered international attention?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And the OPP and more than 20 other police services from across the country worked collaboratively to address public order emergencies that were unmatched in recent history?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, these are all statements that I have made. I believe you’re reading an actual statement that I have delivered.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m trying to be careful not to do so in an impermissible way. The illegal Ottawa occupation was accompanied by numerous other high risk Freedom Convoy related protests and blockades across Canada?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes. I’m not sure whether you’re asking me a question, asking me to confirm your reading of my previous statements. So there’s a little delay when you look up at me.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Well I know nothing of previous statements, but I have you under oath, so I would like to ensure that I understand your answer to these questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay. Thank you. So you are asking me questions as to whether I agree with each of these statements?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That’s correct.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sufficiently trained Public Order officers were amassed from throughout Canada and deployed in an integrated, strategic, and measured manner?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
That resulted in the collapse of the occupation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It required unprecedented national collaboration to prevent injury, preserve life, and protect critical infrastructure?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The Emergencies Act was an extremely valuable tool?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The situation was identified as a threat to national security?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So we’ve talked about that. Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In fact, through the collection of intelligence right across the country with the simultaneous events going on and the events in our nation’s capital, you and other law enforcement agencies collectively identified a risk to national security?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. That is the -- that is my opinion, that collectively, based on everything that was going on around this country, that posed a risk to national security. Yes, that is my opinion.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Mr. Commissioner, I think I have four minutes left. I’ll give them to Mr. Curry.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes, well I think you should give them to the interpreters. But I will call on Mr. -- counsel for Mr. -- former Police Chief Sloly.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY TOM CURRY
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner Carrique, I’m Tom Curry.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Pleased to meet you, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Nice to meet you. And thank you for your help with this -- the work of the Commission.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Sloly. You have known him for a long time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I have. Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if I understand, you’ve known him in the capacity of a police leader; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. So we were both deputy chiefs at the same time for neighbouring police services when Chief Sloly was with Toronto Police Service and I was with York Regional Police.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in that capacity, as I understand it, you had interactions, professional interactions dealing with matters of mutual interest? Sometimes you came to his jurisdiction to help the Toronto Police Service and sometimes he was in York Region to help your police service?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you know him to be a professional of the highest integrity?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And a person who has devoted his professional life as you have, to public service and the pursuit of improvements in policing?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Among other things, as I understand it, you know him to have worked on improving the provision of policing in racialized communities?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And working to advocate for an improved diversity and inclusion within policing and the broader community?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
As well as, for the Commissioner’s purposes, you also have had experience with him working in major police investigation and incidents, and the hardcore work of policing?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We were never assigned together to a specific investigation, but our services were involved in what we would call joint-force operations. Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you talked a little bit about the role of a chief or a commissioner and the obligation to provide or ensure that there is adequate and effective policing in the community.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Shared responsibility, sorry, sir, with -- in the case of a municipal police chief, that is a shared responsibility between the chief and the board.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And in yours, the Ministry of the Solicitor General provides that oversight?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Provides that oversight. And as the Commissioner, I’ve got some additional responsibilities with regard to that that a municipal police chief does not have.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you’ve reviewed them with my friend, Mr. Brousseau, I think, for us. When we speak about providing adequate and effective policing, or the roll of a chief or commissioner, it is to provide all of the elements for the police service: resources, training, and to ensure all of those -- equipment -- all the policies are in place? Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is right, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And of course, as you’ve explained today and gone through some of it with us, the police chief, or the commissioner, in your case, is also the face of the Service to not just the community, but also to government?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that’s fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In your case, to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, as we’ve described, providing situational updates and the like?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, there’s a lot less interaction between the Commissioner of the OPP and, in this case, me and the Ministry, or Provincial Government, than there would be with a municipal police chief, ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- who has monthly meetings, committee meetings, and various intervals of reporting that are required, where mine is an annual report and interaction on an as needed basis. So ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I was going to say, and you’ve played both roles in your work previous to your appointment as Commissioner when you were a deputy in York Region. You would have had much more contact with your Police Services Board than you do, perhaps, as a Commissioner in respect of the Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that -- as we have understood it, that doesn’t mean that you take political -- or take direction from the political sphere, but nonetheless, in the case of a municipal police chief, that chief is employed by the Police Services Board; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So two answers, if you don’t mind. No, I do not take direction from any political entities. And two, yes, the police chief is a direct employee of the Police Services Board. In fact, under the Police Services Act, there is only permissibility to have two identified positions employed directly by the Board. That is the Chief of Police and the Deputy Chief of Police.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you have attended Police Services Board meetings and you’ve probably observed, as these convoy events -- the protests were ongoing, the public statements and other issues raised by the Ottawa Police Services Board as they struggled with this problem?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Some of which, yes. I did view on online meeting. I believe it February the 6th but certainly had been privy to other comments that were circulating around via media and social media.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the Police Services Board, in trying to exercise its authority to ensure adequate and effective policing in the community, was applying tremendous pressure to the Police Service and to Chief Sloly; do you agree? From your observation -- and I mean I’ve seen that one, too. That one ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So, from that meeting, I would agree with that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That meeting, the questions that were being asked, the level of detail that was being requested, that would have been most appropriately conducted in an in-camera private session. The Board has the ability to ask the Chief information, but that -- those particular questions, I felt, many of which should have been done in-camera.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you also observed, probably, as this was unfolding -- because it had some relevance to the -- to your role in respect of this resource request, you probably also observed the attendance by Chief Sloly at meetings of the Ottawa City Council. Or did you become aware of those?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say I became specifically aware of those. I did not watch or participate in any of those meetings but I would not be in any way, shape, or form surprised to learn that he was participating in those.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair. And similarly, you wouldn’t be surprised to that, at the level of City Council, there was tremendous pressure on Chief Sloly in respect of the protest that was ongoing in this community?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not be surprised at that at all, no.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you know, from what you saw at the Police Services Board, the Board was demanding action, effectively, “When are you going to end this illegal occupation,” and the like; you observed that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I would hesitate to say that I specifically observed demanding action but certainly observed the questions, and I’ve shared my opinion that I felt that should have been done in-camera.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So back to the command structure, if I can, for a minute. Chiefs, you’ve described, have -- back to a municipal police service, Chief of Police would have deputies usually responsible for certain functions organized as, in this case we’ve learned, operations and intelligence separated between two deputies?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, the command structure, for the benefit of the Commission, is clearly defined in the Police Services Act as it relates to a municipal police service. There are specific ranks identified that the chief can choose to utilize. Chief, deputy chief, superintendent, inspector are the senior officer ranks, and then staff sergeants and sergeant.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And then, below that, the executive command, the chief and deputies, the chain of command that you’ve described branches into the organization all the way down to constables with specialized services and the like; that’s usually the organization?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is usually the organizational structure, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, as a police leader, you rely, and Chief Sloly would rely, on those deputies in the chain of command, including subject-matter experts, to provide and deliver police services?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I rely heavily upon my chain of command and police experts as a “command team”, we often like to refer to ourselves as, so yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And they would, for example, for the development, in a situation like this, of plans, operational plans, in order to provide the kind of operation that we saw played out here?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Somebody other than the Chief of Police would be responsible for the development of that plan. Ultimately, the Chief of Police is responsible to ensure that there’s a satisfactory plan in place -- that equates to adequate and effective -- but a Chief of Police would never be writing that plan, no.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the only time -- I think you mentioned this in your examination earlier this morning, that assuming that the police service has personnel with the experience and expertise to execute those directions, then a chief would rely on those people to deal with the matter. If those people lacked experience or required additional direction, then it would be appropriate for the chief to provide it; would that be fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To provide it to the extent that they are qualified and capable of doing so and/or to request the assistance of another police service to provide that assistance.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
But they are responsible for ensuring that that level of expertise is present and available.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if the level of expertise is not demonstrated in one or another role, the chief, or a deputy chief, could substitute personnel, for example, an incident commander or an event commander, as appropriate?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, as appropriate, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, a couple of things, if I can, first of all, just to go back to the time that these events unfolded. And you’ve talked to us, and others have, about the Hendon Reports, and the Hendon Reports have really provided -- really -- and quoting something that Chief Sloly has said, “They’ve really filled a void in intelligence,” and the OPP has, through the Intelligence Bureau, taken on the responsibility to provide intelligence that was not being provided otherwise to police in communities; do you agree with that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would agree that we satisfied a need for intelligence, as Supt. Morris has articulated in relation to Shutdown Canada Movement, the Patriot Movement, a need for intelligence that we saw existed in this province and for collaboration in intelligence-sharing across the country.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think Supt. Morris described -- I’m not going to get the right words, probably, but he had told the Commissioner this isn’t a silver bullet. The Hendon Report provides intelligence but it is for others to receive it and interpret it and take action as appropriate; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is fair, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in respect of the Hendon Reports that were produced in advance of the Freedom Convoy, as you know from your experience with your own service and observing what happened elsewhere across the province, different people took different things from the Hendon Reports; fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would say the information was used differently. In some cases, it was not used; in other cases, it was not even known.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. In the case of Ottawa, were you aware that some members of your service had seen and understood what the Ottawa Police Service had planned for the demonstration starting on the weekend of -- beginning, I suppose, January 27th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was aware that, specifically, Supt. Craig Abrams was engaged with the Ottawa Police Service and did have a level of awareness over the planning that was taking place, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And knew more than you would be expected to know, obviously, about that matter; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He’s the OPP’s -- as an East- Region Commander, he was deployed here to Ottawa in order monitor that situation, provide whatever support was required; fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not to monitor the situation but to lend the assistance that was required.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And he was responsible for picking up the convoys that travelled through the East Region and ensuring that they were -- and he described it that OPP assets were around the convoy to make sure that their truck passages were safe; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
He was part of an overall operational plan that was overseen by a Major Critical Incident Commander, Insp. Varga, and then there were various incident commanders along the way. Fair to say that Supt. Abrams was the strategic superintendent that was overseeing the operations in East Region that had responsibility for the convoy as it travelled on the King’s Highways.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And no consideration came to you from anyone in the -- in Ontario within your service that the convoy should somehow be stopped outside of the -- either at the Manitoba border, or the Quebec border, or outside of the City of Ottawa; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would not be fair. That was considered. That was discussed but there were no provisions in law to stop that convoy any time while enroute to Ottawa. There was no way to determine that any of those participants were going to be engaged in any unlawful activity. We have a right to ensure lawful assembly, respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and had there been any criminal infractions along the way, I’m confident my officers would have dealt with that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. So -- and in respect of what might have been described in the Hendon Report at the absence of an exit strategy or that kind of language. That would not have provided a basis for the OPP to deny the protesters the right to access the municipality; fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We would not have had sufficient authorities to deny them the right to access the municipality. I think as you get closer to locations of concern, there are ample authorities in common law, as well as in the Highway Traffic Act, to prevent access to certain areas.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And the same was true, obviously, in Windsor. Based on what was known, the OPP did not ever come to the conclusion that it should block access to the Ambassador Bridge, for example, prior to that blockade taking place?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Ambassador Bridge is actually in the jurisdiction of Windsor Police and not in OPP jurisdiction, but certainly not prior to that. And a different situation as well, not hundreds of trucks travelling at one point in time together. That was a slightly different situation. But to directly respond to your question, sir, we did not have the authorities to stop any of that movement while on the King's highways or within our jurisdiction.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Even after the Ottawa protest was underway and had started by that time I suppose to become labelled as an occupation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's right. You know, there's nothing saying that even though the Ottawa protest is on way, that does not mean that somebody wishing to engage in lawful protest should be stopped from doing so.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So it's determining that demarcation point that I talked about earlier, when does it become unlawful? When does it become necessary for the police to exercise their authorities, which I believe they managed very judiciously.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of quick things. I'm not going to pull up the document, but are you aware that a situation report dated January 27th from the OPP described the Ottawa Police Service as having developed a robust plan that would allow for the capacity to accommodate 3,000 commercial vehicles?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am aware of that, and it was my understanding that Ottawa Police did have a plan to deal with the enormous amount of vehicles that were arriving.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know that Superintendent Abrams knew that they were going to be allowed to go downtown?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That I did not know. No, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- once the -- one quick thing, if I could, just in terms of the timing. Is it fair to say that some folks in the OPP felt that this would likely be over by the end of the weekend?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say what folks within the OPP would have ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- opined on. I would hesitate to say that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. I was just trying to take a shortcut but let me help you with it. And, Mr. Registrar, do you mind showing us, please, OPP4582, and when you get there, it's page 13. These are just ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you for your assistance.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- some messages, this one from I think Deputy Commissioner Harkins. Should be the 27th of January and, yeah, there -- it's the middle blue one. Yeah, just stop there. So and I'm not -- leaving aside the time of day, 27th, do you see it says "just FYI, I was to be off on a [vacation]..." It says vday, must be "vacation day tomorrow..."
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"...but with this protest I can't, to [sic] much on the go. So I switched it to Monday." And he was taking -- he was subbing out a day off on Friday for a day off on Monday.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you see that? In the expectation, do you agree that whilst there would be business to do on Friday, it would probably not be interfering with his vacation on Monday?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not agree with that, no.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Deputy Commissioner Harkins is indicated here he's going to work remotely from the house in Orillia. He had a construction project on the go where he would have had to be at another location, I believe, on the Monday. He was also not directly supervising this particular operation. As we talked about the rank structure and the distance between a command officer and operations, Deputy Commissioner Harkins is responsible for almost 6,000 people in field operations spread over 5 regions. He has other responsibilities other than this. This, at this point, was being managed by East Region with oversight from the Emergency Operations Centre through the Major Critical Incident Commander. So long-winded way of saying I don't find that this indicates in any way, shape or form that he thought it would be concluded on Monday.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And but who knows whether he got his vacation day Monday. He might not have.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don't know. I can't say. I somehow suspect he didn't, and ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- even if he tried to, I'm pretty sure I would have interfered with it.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, got it. Okay. Because very quickly, the Ottawa Police Service was overwhelmed with this protest; fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Very quickly they were overwhelmed with this protest.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they were never going to have had the resources themselves to manage the numbers of people, the numbers of trucks and the nature of the protest as it turned out to be; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not on their own, and as it turned out to be, no, they definitely required assistance.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the resource issue was identified very early on as something that was going to be required; is that true?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You know, I -- generally I would say yes. I think Ottawa Police can more specifically identify when that was identified, but I was aware that Ottawa Police had made provisions with other police services as well for additional resources. So OPP was not the only police service in Ottawa that first weekend and throughout, and that's where it became even more valuable to coordinate all of those resources.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in so far as you learned, they knew -- they needed, by the time it was said and done, I think you told us they needed around the 1800 that Chief Sloly had identified.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Actually, in excess of 2,000. I think it's closer to 2,200. Please don't hold me to that number, but an approximate number.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when the -- when Chief Sloly first raised the need for resources, and I think you told us you had early contact with him and consistent contact with him through the piece; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that would be fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when he asked for those resources, the resources were -- was it flagged with the service that those resources would have to be organized to come along to Ottawa to help out?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So not 1700 police officers and 100 civilian members. The OPP could not facilitate that. It was absolutely flagged with the service to provide the resources that we could, that were required for identified tasks, and you see the numbers build throughout the duration of the convoy that ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- exemplify that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the resources that were required, that were set out and my friends asked you about the table that set out specific roles and responsibilities and so on, would have allowed your -- I assume that that got to the right people in the sense of the resource centre ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- so that they could know that those resources will be required at some point soon; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
They started to work on amassing the availability of resources. That is fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at the same time that a plan is being made, resources can be mobilized; is that true?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Can be coordinated and the mobilization would depend on the phase of the plan and the timing of the plan, but certainly, you ought to be starting to coordinate the availability of those resources.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there were -- you had Chief Superintendent Pardy on the scene by I think the 8th of February?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. So I received the request on the 7th of February. We assigned Chief Pardy the assignment that day, that evening actually. He met with us first thing on the 8th, and then he made his way to Ottawa immediately.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly had -- you reviewed with us an email I think that Chief Sloly sent to you in the first few days. I can't recall -- I won't pull it up in the time that we have, but recall that he had identified some frontline officers required, and he had identified I think, as well, some command structure that he required; is that true?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that is true. So we had a conversation on January the 31st, and then on February the 1st, he gave me a heads up via text that a request for resources would be coming, and then I believe that that formal request came on February the 2nd, and it was actioned immediately.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And some of those resources were already on ground in Ottawa.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Now, in the case of Windsor, I understand from the -- and I won't take the time to pull the document up, but just for your reference, Commissioner, the -- and for my friends, the witness statement of Superintendent Earley, which is WTS22, identifies that she had - - well, maybe I better show you, just so that we can ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- we have it. Please, WTS22. And when you get there, if you could go to page 6, please. This goes to the question of when Superintendent Earley got resources in relation to when her plan was finalised?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Essentially two tracks there; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I'm not sure I understand the statement there in terms ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. Let's go to ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- of two tracks.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- go to the second... Well, resources are being mobilised while the plan is being drawn.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, as was in Ottawa. If you look at the number of resources that we had on any given day on average 135, building up to over 400 resources on any given day before the plan had been finalised.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when we speak about a plan, we're talking really about a Public Order Plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It's much more than that. The Public Order component is one piece of an overall Operational Plan.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Is it the piece that requires the most resources?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It is typically the piece that requires the most resources. I believe the initial assessment, when the Integrated Planning Team arrived to provide assistance in Ottawa, was that they would require 800 Public Order Member Units, and that would require initiating requests from outside of Ontario from other provinces to assist us.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Okay, just look, please, at the February... Sorry, that is page 6? And -- there it is. See the paragraph, second paragraph: "At the February 10 planning meeting, Superintendent Earley selected a February 12 end-of-day deadline... she would have received and approved Inspector Younan's public order plan and all...required resources would have arrived." So at the 10th planning meeting, very different operation in Windsor, much easier than Ottawa; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Different, not as complex. I hesitate to use the term "easier" because of ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- connectivity to all of the other activities happening nationally across the country.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'll take "complexity".
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A much less complex. Thank you. So at the planning meeting on the 10th, and I think that may have been when Superintendent Earley arrived, she had already by then initiated the resource requests. Is that true?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It appears as though she has, and she has also identified a specific date in which the plan would be operationalised. So there would need to be significant amount of detail in terms of how many resources we required on what date and for what anticipated duration.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And I believe they were estimating a two to four day duration on this event.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Some of those resources came from Ottawa.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
My understanding is there were two Public Order sections of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that did reposition from Ottawa to Windsor. I do not believe that there was a single OPP officer that was moved from Ottawa to Windsor, and in fact, our numbers increased by almost 200, I believe, between the 12th and the 14th in Ottawa.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We also had to rely upon Public Order Units from other jurisdiction. London, for example. So this is where the Public Order Hub that we activated on February the 8th formalised. They were able to analyse and determine what Public Order Units were required when to mitigate what threats within what time period.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. It was RCMP assets that moved from Ottawa to Windsor?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is my understanding, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, mine too. Could we go to page 9, please. Second paragraph. This is just to... Just a little bit up, please. Thank you. Do you see it says: "Superintendent Earley discussed the relationship between requesting resources and planning...when she took command February 9..." I was wrong. It's the 9th not the 10th: "...[Windsor Police Service] did not know the specific numbers and types of officers it required and that the on-the-ground situation on February 9 dictated bringing in additional frontline and traffic officers to ensure public and officer safety. OPP accordingly sent as many officers as possible."
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
As we did in Ottawa. So you will recall from Superintendent Abrams's message, we initially deployed frontline officers to assist with traffic management and traffic points. That started with 18 officers, that built to 30, and then when it built to 60, it went beyond the capacity of East Region, and we started moving resources from around the province, and that was done in the absence of an overall -- an overarching Operational Plan to bring an end to the demonstration. So very similar situations.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. In those -- I'm going to move -- I've only got a few more minutes. I'm going to just ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- move real quick if I can to the plan, the Operational Plan ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and this question about whether Chief Sloly had impeded the finalisation of the plan. You had some dealings with him throughout you've told us?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And with Commissioner Lucki. If I could show you, please, OPP4580. And Mr. Registrar, when we get there, could you go to page 109, please? Just while that's coming up, Commissioner, there were -- as you were receiving -- you were receiving information from a lot of different people; right? Some of it turned out not to be reliable. Would that be fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In terms of relationships within the Ottawa Police Service or just in general?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Well, I could say in general, but take your example. There were a lot of rumours circulating around that turned out not to be true about Chief Sloly's attitude towards this issue or that issue or what he was doing or not doing, and you went sometimes straight to him to get things corrected. Is that true?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Where I felt appropriate.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was not also going to be bothering the Chief with rumours that I did not think were relevant or were impeding or hindering the Operational progress, compromising officer or community safety.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. One of the problems that you observed, you agree with about this, that in a number of areas, owing probably to the unique nature of this event, Chief Sloly's ability to deliver a solution here was impeded by rumours and unreliable information? Can I give you an example?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes, please.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. The 1,500 -- the miscommunication about 1,500 OPP officers on the ground caused, I think you told us, it caused an unfortunate -- it caused issues for Chief Sloly because he then had to answer to people as to why he wasn't making effective use of 1,500 OPP officers.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that turned out to be an unfortunate situation.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Equally, the idea that on the 5th of February, the Government of Canada, in whatever that means, because the note isn't so obvious, I suppose, had lost confidence in Chief Sloly by February the 5th, was -- made it more challenging for him to succeed. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was definitely challenging.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he had a lot of... One of the things that you've talked to us about was Superintendent Abrams's comment that Chief Sloly's estimate of the number of resources that he needed had been the result of simply a random doubling of the actual number he needed. That turned out not to be correct.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That turned out not to be correct. Whether the statement was made or not, I have to accept Superintendent Craig Abrams at his word, and Chief Sloly can confirm or deny that. But we certainly determined that the number was not far off ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- what was required.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I won't trouble you with what the record is about that, but ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- suffice it to say it might've operated in the minds of others, I appreciate it didn't operate in your mind, you disregarded it, but others might have imagined that there was something unreliable about the number. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it would be unfortunate if they had?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Real quick. You see this 12 -- this is February the 12th. This is a text message from you to the Deputy just updating him. And if we take Mr. van Niejenhuis's calculation, we back that up, that's about 4:58 on the 12th. Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"Chief Sloly has accepted the plan. Hope to have it signed tonight."
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you had that directly, I suppose from Chief Sloly; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, that would have either been through Deputy Commissioner Harkins or through Chief Supt. Carson Pardy. So at this point, Chief Pardy is the primary contact with Chief Sloly there to support him.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So at least from the afternoon, late afternoon of the 12th, so far as the OPP was concerned, the plan was approved by Chief Sloly, or at least, there wasn’t any further requirement for him to do anything about it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, can I ask you please to look at OPS14454, just to get your help with a couple of other things?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're out of time, as you know, so ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. I'm going to wrap this up. So I have taken us to the wrong document, Mr. -- oh, no, I have not. I guess it's 160 -- page 164. Page 164, scroll down, please. And I'm going to leave it. I'm going to - - oh, there it is. Thank you. Just scroll down if you don’t mind. Just up a little bit, please? Chief is Chief Sloly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, sir. Whose notes are these?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
These are scribe notes from a meeting that you had with Carson Pardy and Chief Sloly, Commissioner Luckie, I think, and a number of other people.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
On what date, sorry?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It started -- 12th -- in the afternoon.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But I think essentially it is the plan approval discussion, so I'm going to leave it there. I'm out of time. Thank you, Commissioner.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you very much.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. I think next - - well, we can take the morning break now or a bit later. I think there's a sense we should take it now. So we'll take a 15-minute break and continue on our return.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La Commission est levée pour 15 minutes.
Upon recessing at 3:54 p.m.
Upon resuming at 4:12 p.m.
COMM. THOMAS CARRIQUE, Resumed
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l’ordre. The Commission is reconvened. La Commission reprend.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Just before we continue, I just want to, for the record, I should have noted it when the matter came up in questioning from Mr. Curry, he made reference to the witness statement of Supt. Earley. And for the record, that statement will not be marked as an exhibit until Supt. Earley comes to testify. So just so the media and public don’t look for it on the website, but practice is if we’re calling the witness, it normally will not be made public until the witness adopts it. So with that precision, I think I’m now calling on the Ottawa Police Service. Okay. So there’s been a trade. Fine.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
It’s not a trade.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Oh. And are there future considerations? Okay. So just so I’m clear, are you -- you’re giving up your time to the city?
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
No, I’ll clarify.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
We’ve agreed to swap. I just have a couple of clarifications that I anticipate being quite brief, and I will cede the remainder of my time, should there be any, which I hope there is, to my friend, counsel for the Ottawa Police Service.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ALYSSA TOMKINS
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
So it’s Alyssa Tomkins, for the record. Counsel for the City of Ottawa. As I said, Commissioner, just a couple of little precisions. Not much from us today. So just in terms of the number of resources on the ground, I’m just going to take you to the witness summary for Supt. Abrams. This one is in evidence. So it’s WTS00000013. And it’ll be page 9, clerk. So if we could just scroll down a bit? And, Commissioner, if you see, in the paragraph starting with “After the February 9th meeting,” when we get to, I think it’s a very long sentence. So the second sentence: “By February 14[th], OPP support to OPS had increased from 60 officers per day to 150 per day. On February 15, Superintendent Abrams was informed that 400 additional OPP members would arrive by February 17.” So just in terms of the resources on the ground, do you have any basis to contradict Supt. Abrams here?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not to contradict, but I have been made available to me specific numbers of resources in various charts which are not necessarily consistent with that. And if it’s permissible to the Commissioner, I’d be more than happy to share those through future evidence.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. I don’t think much turns on it. We just wanted to track that. Are those charts -- were they provided to your counsel?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You would have to ask my counsel that.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Well I’ll assume ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
They can certainly be made available.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
--- that your counsel is going to deal with this issue.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
We just want to know what the numbers are, like I said, whose evidence to prefer. So we’ll leave that to your counsel to clarify and explain whether or not these numbers are accurate. So one more small precision.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
In terms of the letter from the Mayor and Chair Deans, I don’t think I need to bring it up, we all -- you recall which letter we’re talking about? The one to the Solicitor General.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I do.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
We just wanted to clarify, so when a copy of that letter was forwarded to you, was that the first time you had received the request from Chief Sloly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe so. So we had spoken. I knew there was a request coming. But that was the only formal request that I had received in relation to the 1,800. Chief Sloly had made previous requests of me, informally and formally, and I think entered as an exhibit into these proceedings have been the communication from February the 2nd.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. But in terms of the sort of larger ask, you did not receive a letter from Chief Sloly that reflected the same ask as is in the letter that the Mayor and Chair Deans sent to the Solicitor General?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not receive two copies of the same letter, or what would resemble a similar request.
Alyssa Tomkins, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. That’s perfect. Thank you so much, Commissioner. That’s ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So the Ottawa Police Service.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MIGICOVSKY
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Good afternoon, Commissioner. My name is David Migicovsky.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I’m appearing for the Ottawa Police Service. How are you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’m good, thank you. How are you?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Not to badly, thanks. I want to talk about the Hendon Reports. And I understand from your evidence that you’re very familiar with those Reports?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. I hesitate to say I’m very familiar. Sounds like a leading question, counsellor.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
That’s what we aim for.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
The amount of information that the OPP obtained about the convoy and its plans for Ottawa I take it was something that evolved with time? Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it evolved with time. It was a constant process of collecting the information, analyzing it, and disseminating it, which was all part of the intelligence process.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so if we looked at -- we know that the first reference to the convoy coming was on January 13th. But at that point, there was little known about it. in fact, even the dates of arrival in Ottawa were not yet known? Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would like to refer to the Intelligence report to say specifically what was in there, but that was the first formal communication through Hendon about the convoy.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And so on -- as time passed, I think more information became known; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so on January 20th, I understand there was still more information, but at that point, there were no numbers with respect to the number of demonstrators or vehicles? Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say that there were no numbers with respect to demonstrators or vehicles. I wouldn’t characterize them as demonstrators at that point in time. Numbers would have been in relation to the number of vehicles in the convoy. So if that information was available, it would have been contained in there.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so I can call it up, although I think it’s ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Certainly.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- already in the record. But if you’d like to see the January 20th one, I can.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I have no reason to dispute it, ---
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- I just can’t say for certainty without having it in front of me.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And as the convoy grew closer to Ottawa, there was more information obtained, and the type of information, and the reliability of the information also changed; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I wouldn’t say that it changed, as much as it evolved. And I believe on the January 20th Hendon Report, there was information about it being a long- term, no exit plan, unresolvable requests were being made. So there was a substantial amount of information in that report.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so there's a constant evolution, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so when I looked at the Hendon Reports on January 22nd and 23rd, for instance, the information that I see there will be more current than the information I see on the 13th or the 20th, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. It would be more current, but you cannot dismiss the information you have received previously. One Hendon Report does not replace a previous report.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. But sometimes there's contradictory information. Something is in one Hendon Report that is not in another, or there's different information because there's social media that’s being monitored in those reports, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There can be new information in those reports, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so I see, sir, that on January 23rd, is actually the first time that we learn in the Hendon Reports of an arrival date in Ottawa of the 28th, which is the Friday. Do you recollect that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say that I recollect that without having the Hendon Report in front of me. As you've identified, they're coming out on a daily basis, so I hesitate to say specifically what was in what report to that level of detail, but happy to review it if you'd like to show it to me, sir.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Well, it is in the record, so I don’t want to waste time by ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- taking you to it, but what I understand is that the very first time we see an indication of numbers in the convoy is on January 25th, and those are very preliminary numbers, and so if you can accept that you do recall that there was a delay until numbers of vehicles in the convoy became known; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not agree as categorizing that as a delay. Once that information was known, that information would have been disseminated.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. I'm not suggesting -- I apologize -- I'm not suggesting that there's any fault, I'm just saying you get more information as you get closer in time and the information evolves, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so I see that on -- when numbers do appear -- and there's some more numbers in the Hendon Report on January 26th -- I see there's always a caveat that you can't be certain about the numbers. That’s something that’s unknown at this point and can constantly change, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would subject to constant change and at various points throughout the travels of the convoy as they went through OPP jurisdictions. There were other products produced over and above Hendon Reports. There were situational reports that would have been shared at a command level made available to each region, and therefore, at the point of integrating in any form or fashion, I would hope would have been made available to Ottawa Police as well. So I just wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that Hendon was the only source of information or operability -- interoperability.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so what I see when I looked at the January 26th Hendon Report is I see something called "Intelligence Gaps", and an intelligence gap means you don’t have information about the subject matter listed in -- under intelligence gap, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, and I believe Supt. Pat Morris did a nice job of explaining what an intelligence gap is. It's where information is being sought to create a clearer picture.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so what I see on the January 26th Hendon Report is, there is an intelligence gap as to plans for departing. And so what that means is, there is no information about whether they're staying or whether they're leaving or when they're staying until, correct, because it's a gap.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would hesitate to say that that is correct. There -- I believe there was information contained previously in the Hendon Reports that there was no date that they would be leaving, and that there was a commitment to staying long term. The specific dates, no, were not identified, but there was evidence or there was information that was available to indicate this would be more than a weekend.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Well, I think you've just agreed with me that an intelligence gap means you don’t have information about it. So I'm happy to turn up the January 26th one just so that you can see where I'm taking that from, okay?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. And I think it would helpful to reference any previous Hendon Reports that may have indicated what they knew at that time.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yeah. I wonder if we could -- just because we've referred to it -- see OPP00000811? And so if we could scroll towards the page 6 or 7, say? Okay. Yeah, sorry, perfect, thank you. And so you'll see "Intelligence Gaps", and then and intelligence gap is the last bullet, plans for departing Ottawa.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
So that tells us we don’t know when they are departing Ottawa. We don’t know whether it's Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or in a week from now, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. Correct, thank you.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Because it's a gap. And in fact, it's actually -- and we don’t see the colours on this version -- but there are certain things that are shown as priority intelligence gaps, which means it's even more important to get information about those things, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so you would agree with me that the last bullet, the gap as to the plan for departing Ottawa, which you don’t have information about, is not a priority, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say that that is not a priority. No, I would not agree with that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. So we don’t, unfortunately, have the -- but my understanding is the bold print is what is in red, and so I'm simply suggesting that the print, the last bullet, which is not bolded, was not shown as a priority intelligence gap.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If that is the case, I will take your word for it.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And I take it from this Hendon Report, there's no indication that some are staying or some are leaving or some may be staying for a period of time and some may be staying for longer. We don’t find that in this Hendon Report, do we?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, I would have to reference the report. You're asking me to comment on the content of a report that I can't see the content of, so I hesitate to do that, sir.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Let me move on. There was an email, if we could turn it up, please? It's OPP00001007. And so that’s an email on the 28th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
If you just want to scroll down to the bottom -- from Deputy Commissioner Cox. Deputy Commissioner Cox reports to you; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. He does.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so Deputy Commissioner Cox says on the 28th, which is on the Friday, that: "There's been great collaboration among our intelligence bureau units as well as with our policing partners along the route to Ottawa, and the established integration and cooperation between the RCMP, Ottawa Police, Sûreté du Québec, Parliamentary Protection Services, and the OPP, along with the planning undertaken by the OPS, have positioned us well to maintain safety and security throughout the weekend." Correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s what he has cited, yes, sir.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And then if you scroll up, and Supt. Morris is the one who's in charge of intelligence at the OPP, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so I believe that what Supt. Morris does is he concurs with that, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So as a point of context, I think it's important to note that Deputy Commissioner Chuck Cox is solely overseeing the POIB initiative in this, the Provincial Operational Intelligence Bureau, and he would be referencing to the integration and information sharing taking place across intelligence units, and he would not be inferring to any other operational entities that he would not have any insight into.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And as I understand it, the OPP had individuals embedded at the NCRCC in the days leading up to the arrival of the convoy?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's correct, sir, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And would have been working side by side with the Ottawa Police, the RCMP, PPS, et cetera?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I'm not sure how they were situated in there, but they were certainly there to ensure that the deployment of our resources were done in accordance with our operational objectives and to lend whatever support was necessary.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And your officers would have also been integrated into the JIG, the Joint Intelligence Group?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You would have to ask that of Superintendent Pat Morris as to specifically where the officers were positioned. I hesitate to mislead you with not knowing that for certain.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And you would assume that the individuals at the NCRCC would be -- who are working together would be sharing information with each other?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would assume if they're working together, they're sharing information. But if you're citing specifically intelligence reports, these are going directly into the Ottawa Police Service, directly in to identified members of Ottawa Police, directly into the Intelligence Unit within Ottawa Police. It would not be the responsibility of an OPP officer sitting in the National Capital Region Command Centre, who has other responsibilities outside of intelligence to ensure that Ottawa Police is in receipt of this intelligence and has actioned it.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
My understanding, sir, and I take it you won't disagree with me because you simply don't know, is that the information was then fed up into the JIG.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I will take your advice on that. If you have that information, I can't disagree with that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I take it that the OPP recognizes the right to peaceful protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely, sir, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And although that -- there's a recognition as well that peaceful protest can result in severe inconvenience for residents of a city and a neighbourhood?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It can, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And significant traffic disruption?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Peaceful protest can result in significant traffic disruption, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And Superintendent Cox noted, and I won't take you to the document ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, sir, if I can, Superintendent Cox or Deputy Commissioner Cox or Superintendent Morris. I just want to make sure I'm orientating myself to the right individual.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. I gather in the document that I think Mr. Curry took you to, we saw that the OPP was of late receiving requests for intelligence and open source information on societal actors and many of those are social movements that diverge from the main stream. And there was some concern expressed about requests for information that did not relate to intelligence operations. You recall that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do recall that, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the concern was potential targets who may not be engaging in criminal actions but oppose government policy and engage in protests.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so we have to distinguish there are those individuals who are not engaged in criminal activities but support peaceful protests, the OPP would support their right to exercise their right to protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
If involved, we would certainly facilitate the lawful right to protest.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And certainly, the information that was available prior to the arrival of the convoy was that by and large it was expected to be peaceful; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There were comments about potential weapons. There were reference to civil war, but there was nothing that empowered anyone to take enforcement action prior to the convoy arriving in Ottawa.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. There was a need to address those sort of fringe elements, and in fact, that was planned for. There was a POU plan. The OPP was available to assist in case there was going to be a January 6 type event?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We did have Public Order assets on ground, and to the extent of a Public Order Plan, I'm not certain, but we did have Public Order assets on ground, as did other municipal police services in the aid to Ottawa, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And we therefore expected that the rest of the protesters were going to be, for the most part, peaceful?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Can't say that we would expect that the rest of the protesters, I'm not sure if you're referring to those that we had concerns about as a possible fringe movement?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
No, I'm talking about we had plans for the fringe movements and for lone actors.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
But for the most part, the intelligence that was coming was that the majority, it was expected, were professing to be espousing peaceful objectives?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Certainly, the contact that was had between PLT and those that they perceived to be protest organizers were indicating that it would be peaceful.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. And because it was expected to be peaceful, you wouldn't stop them form coming; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We would not stop anyone that we didn't have lawful authority to, meaning that we would have to have reasonable and probable grounds that they were about to or had committed a criminal offence.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And, Commissioner Carrique, in a statement I believe you issued to all OPP members in which you were putting them on notice of operational deployment, you refer to the need in Ottawa for unprecedented resource deployments, and you described Ottawa as an ever- evolving major event. And I take it you would agree with that characterization?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Oh, yes, I would.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
In -- can I ask that we turn up, please, OPP00001550? And so if we can just scroll down, please, to page 2 of 4? And if we can continue to scroll down, please? Thank you. Or just go up a bit. Just a little bit further up. Thanks very much. And so what we -- sorry, if we just want to go a little bit higher? I apologize. Chief Sloly asked certain questions. This was with respect to one of the weekends that was coming up in Ottawa. Do you recall that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I do.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so one of the questions that was being asked of Deputy -- of the Deputy Commissioner was there were five questions; correct? And question two was "What will be the exact number of trucks on Saturday?" And three was "the number of protesters in each location currently". Do you recall those questions being asked?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so if we could then just scroll down a little bit to where it says row two, thank you. And so what we see in row two, in terms of the number of trucks to arrive on Saturday, this just cannot be known; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Because it's impossible to have that kind of advance information.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To exactly know how many trucks would be arriving, it would be impossible, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And with respect to number four, the question about the number of people that Chief Sloly was asking about, the answer is, "The number of people to attend any of these locations tomorrow is not the subject of "confirmed intelligence". It[']s a matter of inductive logic and extrapolation based upon precedent and social media organization - and also weather conditions and actions taken elsewhere." Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And we see if we scroll up to that email, go up, please? You will -- continue, please. You'll see that was then forwarded to you from Deputy Cox, and he's asking you here's how we -- like, seeking your guidance on how we send this to Chief Sloly; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it appears so, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And then if we just go up to the very top of the email, you'll see you're in agreement as indicated, please, and then if you keep going. Yeah, and so you'll see -- sorry, at the bottom, he's asking you if you want to send that along, and you indicate at the top to go ahead and send it; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To go ahead and send it, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so it's a matter of logic and extrapolation based upon precedent and social media and weather predicting that information; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is what Superintendent Pat Morris has cited, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And prior to this demonstration, Ottawa had considerable experience with demonstrations and special events.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And obviously had a lot of precedent to draw upon?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you would agree with me that this demonstration was unprecedented?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In many ways it was, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so in future, Ottawa would be able to rely upon this demonstration as a precedent for what it does in the future; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Thanks. You can take that down, please. I understand that things were -- there was a lot going on on the ground in Ottawa, and we've heard that there was a -- an incident where I think there were 18 OPP officers and there was a concern that they had been there and some of them had not been deployed. Do you remember that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I remember concerns over OPP officers being there, available for duty, and had not been deployed, both from a frontline perspective but also the Police Liaison Team. I do recall that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so there is an OPS situational report, and I don't need to take you to it, but that talks about a situation on February 14th where OPP officers by mistake let vehicles into the red zone, but fortunately they were caught and turned back by the RCMP and the OPS. And those kinds of mistakes can sometimes happen in chaotic situations, like was happening in Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, they can, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. I understand that Toronto dealt with a convoy that was expected on, I believe, two weekends in February; correct? The 5th and the weekend of the 12th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The 12th, which was the same date as the email you just reviewed with me, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And when we looked at some notes, I saw that Chief -- is it Chief Ramer?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Ramer.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Ramer.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Toronto Police Chief James Ramer. Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And he referred to the first weekend, and I'll just turn up the document. It's OPP00001132. And it's on page 9. Oh, I'm sorry, I've given you the -- I'm sorry. It's... Sorry, I've lost the reference. But maybe you can... Eleven-thirty-two was actually time in the notes, but ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- in any event, Chief Ramer referred to the first weekend, and what he said was, and I quote: "Using Ottawa, they locked down the city. Had Ottawa not happened, TPS, Toronto Police Service, tactics would not have been accepted." (As read) Do you recall that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say I recall that word for word, but I certainly had conversation with Chief Ramer, and I know that he would tell you that he benefitted from the experience in Ottawa to be able to respond in Toronto. He would also share with you that they have a pre-determined lockdown plan for certain areas of Toronto which is exercised on a regular basis, and built in coordination with the City.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I understand that the OPP, with respect to at least the second weekend, I'm not certain about the first weekend in Toronto, provided some assistance in locking down Toronto and preventing the vehicles from coming to the Queen's Park area. Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We did, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And in that case, I believe in Toronto, the vehicles for the most part were not large trucks; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. For the most part they were not, and they were not in the numbers that Ottawa had dealt with either.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And so we've heard that you assisted Toronto in taking some pre-emptive steps to prevent the Ottawa situation; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so we also heard that in Ottawa, before the convoy arrived, that the OPP assisted in getting the vehicles safely into the city; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We have heard that, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And we heard that on the weekend of February 5th, when Chief Sloly talked about closing all 417 exits because there were more convoys coming, he was told that the OPP would not permanently close all exits unless there was an immediate public safety risk, which there wasn't; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Can't say that there wasn't an immediate public safety risk. I am aware that there was some resistance to closing the 417 exits, that was brought to my attention, and I thought, in my opinion, that that was a reasonable and lawful request and that we would facilitate it.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Now, you're out of time. So if you could try and wrap up, please.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
You indicated that you had some -- you were going to have an uncomfortable discussion on February 15th with Chief Sloly; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don't recall describing it as an uncomfortable conversation. It was a professional conversation that I felt needed to happen, and one that I was confident that I could have with Chief Sloly.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. But you obviously had concerns at that point, and I'll just -- if I just may ask you a couple of questions just to finish this up. You had some concerns about the state of the Operational Plan and what was going on at OPS at the time; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
About the challenges that were being reported with operationalising and activating the plan, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so if I may just refer you to the last document, which is OPS00004578. If you can keep going. Sorry, I'm not going to -- I'll try to do this faster.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Would you agree with me that what -- Chief Bell took over, then, on -- immediately after Chief Sloly resigned?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That he took over immediately after Chief Sloly resigned?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yes.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I would agree with that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I believe two days later you didn't need to have that conversation with him?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
With Chief Sloly? No, I did not.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
No, the conversation you were going to have with Chief Sloly you didn't need to have with Interim Chief Bell?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, we did have a conversation within Interim Chief Bell, a very similar conversation, to determine that there were no obstacles in moving forward with the plan. We clarified Command and Control lines of communication, and we moved forward. So it would've been a very similar conversation with Chief Sloly, I just can't indicate at this point what the outcome would be. I would be, you know ---
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- not in a position to do that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. And just to finish it off. What you said to him a couple of days later was it was an outstanding job and you thanked him, and a couple of days later you told him he knocked the ball out of the park, and things seemed to be going very well. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is fair, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Thank you very much ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- Commissioner.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Next, I'd like to call on the convoy organisers.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRENDAN MILLER
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
My name's Brendan Miller, and I am counsel to Freedom Corp, which is an entity that's representing the protesters and truckers that were in Ottawa in January and February of 2022. First, thank you for your service, and it's nice to meet you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So to begin, I understand -- I'm just going to go through some of your background. I understand you have a Masters in Leadership from Royal Roads University with a focus on justice and public safety; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you also have a Certificate in Terrorism Studies from St. Andrews University in Scotland; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you've been in policing since 1990.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I have been.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So 32 years of experience -- -
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
--- and an education in that area to boot; right? So you testified that you heard the evidence of Superintendent Morris.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Portions of, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And you said that he's, in your Chief, the foremost authority in the Province of Ontario regarding Intelligence. Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is my opinion, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And I take it you agree with his testimonies and opinions he gave? I take it that’s correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I have no listened to his testimony in totality, but I would have no reason not to agree with anything that he would provide as evidence.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And I’m sure you might have heard the answers he gave to the questions I put to him with respect to threats under section 2 of the CSIS Act. Do you remember hearing that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say that specifically I remember that interaction.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. Well he testified, essentially, in summary, that there was no intelligence of a credible threat under section 2 of the CSIS Act. Would you agree with that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There was no intelligence ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
There was no credible intelligence.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There was no credible intelligence of a threat?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yes.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That -- I would agree with that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And so it’s fair to say that based on all OPP intelligence and the intelligence provided by the RCMP and federal intelligence agencies to the OPP, to your knowledge, there was no credible threat to the security of Canada as defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would be my understanding, yes, as determined by Supt. Pat Morris, in consultation with CSIS and the RCMP.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. And I’m sure you’re aware that to invoke the Emergencies Act, that sort of threat is supposed to be required?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do not have intimate knowledge of the threshold that’s required for invoking the Emergencies Act. That’s not something that I have any responsibility for.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. And in my next question, when I say federal civil service or federal civil servant, I just want you to understand that I mean anyone from Deputy Minister down who is a non-elected, non-political actor working for the Government of Canada. Is that understood?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s understood. Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Now, in your interactions with the members of the federal civil service prior to 11:59 p.m. on February 13th, 2022, isn’t it true that no civil servant ever said to you that there was a credible threat of the nature of that defined in section 2 of the CSIS Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And they never said to you that they had reasonable grounds to believe that such a threat existed; did they?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Nobody ever said that to me.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. So I want to talk with you about -- everyone’s given various catchphrases to what was happening in Ottawa, but no one has really gone through what is a protest or, you know, essentially a lawful demonstration, et cetera, and you seem to have an understanding of that. so I’m going to walk through that with you, if that’s okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Certainly.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Can you agree that in general protest law and sort of criminal offences, that you essentially have three types? You have your lawful protest protected under section 2(b) and 2 -- all section 2, really of the Charter?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah. And then you have unlawful assembly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And then you have riot?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So those are really the three sort of categories of these assemblies? Is that fair? Demonstrations.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s fair.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. So I just want to start with lawful protest. And you touched on that. And lawful protest, as you said, is protected by the Charter, and that’s primarily section 2. And can you agree that the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, they collectively, essentially, protect people’s right to assemble and protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And people are entitled to gather in groups in public spaces and protest government action as long as they don’t, essentially, move into an unlawful assembly; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And they can get together in large numbers, go outside parliament, and protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say to what extent they can go outside Parliament. There’s the Trespass to Property Act that has to be taken into consideration as well, and I’m not familiar enough with what is permitted on those grounds to say yes or no.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. But they can go in public spaces?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And then unlawful assembly, police have the power, under section 63 of the Criminal Code to arrest and charge people for the offence of unlawful assembly; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you don’t need any form of special order for that? That can just be carried out by a police officer?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And I take it that you’re aware that an unlawful assembly is where three or more people with a common purpose assemble in such a manner and conduct themselves to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Slowly when you’re reading, please.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yes. Sorry. I’m now fast Brendan. I thought I was slow Brendan after hearing my friend. But I will try to get on to that. So it’s when they assemble in such a manner that conduct themselves to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they will disturb the peace tumultuously, or needlessly cause or provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously. You’re aware of that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’m aware of that. That sounds very familiar with what is in the Criminal Code. I hesitate to agree word for word without having it in front of me, ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- but it sounds very reasonable. Thank you.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And I take it you’re aware that to disturb the peace tumultuously requires there to be more than a boisterous or noisy disorderly conduct? It has to be something a little more?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And you know that causing an actual disturbance to the peace tumultuously actually isn’t required to even arrest people for unlawful assembly, it just has to be that there’s a reasonable fear that it’s going to happen. That’s what really differentiates it from a riot; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would agree with that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And that an unlawful assembly, you know -- a lawful assembly can, at times, of course, become an unlawful assembly when it becomes unruly and gets into the riot category; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And so I understand, and you probably understand, that a riot, in order to get into a riot under the law, it requires actual or threatened force or violence in addition to, you know, the public disorder; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And even without this, if you don’t even get to that threshold, you’re aware, and we’ve heard about the Riot Act and the Criminal Code that a mayor, sheriff, or a Justice of the Peace, or a Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice can come out and read the Riot Act and invoke it and demand people disperse?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’m familiar that that is contained in the Criminal Code. I don’t have intimate knowledge of that though.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And then of course, outside of all of this, you have injunctions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And any individual, or the City, can run off and make an application for an injunction before a court of confident jurisdiction, and if they meet the test, the Court can grant an injunction. And then once that injunction is granted, if it’s not followed, the police then have jurisdiction under section 127 of the Criminal Code to charge individuals with violating a court order?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. So those are the general things that exist outside of the Emergencies Act; right? They’re there always?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. So I now want to talk to you about Ottawa in particular, now that we’ve gone over that. Now, regarding the truckers and the protestors in Ottawa, I understand they rolled in here and did so at the direction of police officers. Once they arrived. Not, of course, didn’t -- they weren’t invited. But when they arrived here on January 27th and 28th, is it your understanding that they parked where they were told to originally and everything was essentially coordinated originally about where they were going to go?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I don’t know that I can comment with accuracy on that, because as you will recall from my previous testimony, I was under the understanding that there would be designated parking, which would not facilitate any form of protest out in front of the Parliament buildings.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that would best be posed to Ottawa Police, who were in charge of the operation ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- at the time.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And we can agree then that, you know, parking on streets and highways in a way that would usually violate the law, right, where they’re essentially blocking everything, that could be considered an unlawful assembly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That could be, yes. And there are authorities to deal with that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And I take it though that you’re familiar with the Doctrine of Officially Induced Error, where the government official tells you to do something that may be illegal, but because they tell you to do it, you don’t believe it to be? You’re familiar with that from your studies?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, can you repeat that, sorry?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
The Doctrine of Officially Induced Error, where a government official tells you to do something that may in fact not be legal, but you do it because the government official tells you to, and therefore you believe that it is legal, because they told you to do it. are you familiar with that Doctrine?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s very complex law - --
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah, okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- that is beyond my education and comprehension. I’m sorry.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
It’s okay. Now, you do know that after these vehicles arrived in the city, that there was construction equipment, as well as, eventually, I believe the following day, cement barriers put up so that no one could come in, but no one could also go out? You’re aware of that? The vehicles.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was aware that there were cement barriers in place, but I was not on the ground to observe where they were or what impact they would have had.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. But you can agree with me that if there’s barriers on both sides of a road where individuals have parked their trucks, the truck can’t drive through the barrier, it can’t drive over it, it can’t really drive around it? Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That sounds reasonable, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. If I could bring up Document SSM.NSC.CAN.00000209_REL.0001. It’s the Incident Response Group Minutes from February 10th, 2022. Okay. And could we just scroll down to page 5 there, please, and zoom in on the first paragraph? Scroll down please. Perfect. Okay. So I just want to take you to the fifth line there. I'm just going to read it out to you. And this is Commissioner Luckie's sort of summary to them on February 10th. And she says: "The RCMP Commissioner added that the engagement continues with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ottawa Provincial -- or the Ottawa Police Service. The RCMP has provided all resources requested by OPS. OPP resources have also been provided and there is good consideration, good cooperation between the OPP and RCMP. There are indications that some of the protestors would like to leave but are unable to do so, given physical barriers. An integrated planning cell is developing a plan of action and the preference remains to continue moving forward with negotiations with enforcement actions to start early next week if negotiations remain unsuccessful. A surge and contain strategy will be employed for the upcoming weekend." Does that summary as of February 10th, 2022, is that summary accurate of where things were at with OPP and your understanding of everything?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would say that that is accurate, save and except surge and contain is -- are not terms that are generally used within the OPP. As it relates to your previous question around physical barriers, those could be barriers put in place by police, could be put in place by protestors. I know there were some concerns that people did want to leave, but they were boxed in by other vehicles ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- and they did not feel as though they could leave of their own accord without the assistance of the police.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And so I'm going to first -- there's two aspects in there I want to discuss with you. The first is enforcement. So on February 10th, 2022, in those minutes, it says -- and this is, of course, before the Emergencies Act was invoked -- it says that enforcement was going to start on Monday, February 14th, 2022 if negotiations did not work, right? That was going to happen anyway?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that was going to happen anyways. They were on a timeline focused on de- escalation and negotiation with the anticipated approval of the plan. There was the intent to move forward, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And as you already said, that could have all been done without the invocations of the Emergencies Act, much like Commissioner Luckie of the RCMP said in that email that you agreed with earlier?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And now I want to talk to you about the issue with the barriers, and we'll sort of address that. Now, that summary there you said is -- there's physical barriers preventing people from leaving, whether it be put there by the City or whether it be other trucks. That’s a fact. Like, people couldn't go and take their trucks and leave?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was a fact, yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. So once the concrete barriers went up and people were stuck, they're stuck there, they can't move their trucks. They can physically walk away, but they'd have to leave it there and go away, fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I will take your explanation on that as fair.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Now, prior to these barriers being put up and prior to not being able to leave -- and you're not going to hear me argue otherwise -- those trucks are an unlawful assembly, but once a government entity like the City of Ottawa and everything is all stuck and they can't move, can you agree that those individuals and those trucks that were struck there -- and I know this is not a question of law -- but is it something that you would charge them with, in your opinion, when they can't actually leave? Are they assembled, you know, intentionally? Are they -- someone there that they would have grounds to lay a charge where these individuals who the only reason they're unlawfully assembled is that these trucks are stuck, but it's not their fault? So would you agree that once the barriers went up, and once these individuals' vehicles were stuck, that there was no unlawful assembly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don't think I could agree that there was no lawful assembly, and it's what came first and what came second. Were people trapped and couldn't get out because the barriers were up, or were they trapped and couldn't get out because other trucks and heavy equipment were blocking them in? But I think what's fundamental to your question is, the discretion is to whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to lay a charge rests with the police officers who would investigate that unlawful assembly.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And I can tell you, already in evidence, is the charges that were laid. And would you be interested to know that there's not a single charge of unlawful assembly that was laid in this case, in all of Ottawa during the protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you for sharing that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah. So the ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're out of time, so if you can wrap up?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yes, I will. So just on the issue with Inspector Beaudin, if I could just scroll down to page 7 of the document on the screen, page 7 and the top -- I'm looking for the bottom of page 7 -- no, sorry -- bottom of page 6, top of page 7. Okay. So here, this document is again, the same one from before, but this is the actual plan that Inspector Beaudin had approved and you approved with the PLTs. It was actually put to Cabinet; did you know that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So a point of clarification, I did not approve a plan. I did authorize Inspector Beaudin to have a conversation with Deputy Minister Stewart. I did not approve a plan, nor did I ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- approve anything that went to Cabinet.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. But is it fair to say -- of course, no one knew it went to Cabinet, and I understand that -- but is it fair to say that the plan that Beaudin drafted, you supported that plan as an action plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did not see that plan, but I have all the confidence in the world in Inspector Beaudin, and ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- he is an absolute national expert as it relates to provincial liaison teams, negotiation, and de-escalation. So I would have no reason to question his advice that he provided.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And were you aware that Commissioner Luckie also supported that plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was aware that Commissioner Luckie had insight into the discussions that had taken place between the inspector and the deputy minister.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And the deputy minister, of course, he had input into the plan. It was his final approved plan that he put before Cabinet, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't comment. I didn’t see a plan. This is the first I'm seeing any documentation in relation to it.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Can you agree with me that when it comes to law enforcement in this province and with the federal apparatus that the three most senior individuals in law enforcement would be yourself, Commissioner Luckie, and the deputy minister Rob Stewart with respect to individuals in the civil service; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, I'm not a federal civil servant.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I mean provincial.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I wouldn't indicate that the deputy minister is part of law enforcement, and policing is not a hierarchy. I am not above a municipal police chief in a rank structure. So I wouldn't disagree with -- I would not agree with that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. But for -- in the provincial apparatus, you are the most senior law enforcement individual in the province; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Within the Ontario Provincial Police, I am the highest ranking police officer.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And then Commissioner Luckie is that for the RCMP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
For the RCMP.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And the deputy minister, of course, is the highest civil servant in public safety that sort of oversees and looks at for the political branch and manages those sort of areas; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s a question best posed to the deputy minister ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- I think.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah, thank you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. We're on a bad run for overstaying. Windsor Police Service is next.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. THOMAS McRAE
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
Thank you, sir. Good evening, Commissioner Carrique. My name's Tom McRae. I'm here for the Windsor Police Service. Can you hear me?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can. Good afternoon. Thank you.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
Thank you very much. I only have a couple of questions, I think. First, my friend Mr. Curry, representing former Chief Sloly, took you to Supt. Earley's witness statement prepared in this proceeding. Prior to today, had you seen that statement?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It would have been available to me. I would have reviewed that as a cursory review, yes.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
Okay, thank you. I think your evidence was this morning that the Windsor Police Service was the service of jurisdiction in the area of the Ambassador Bridge; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
And the Ambassador Bridge, if I recall your evidence correctly, is a very important international border crossing within Canada, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. I would agree with that, yes.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
Your evidence, as I recall, you said it both this morning and to Mr. Curry, was that on February 8th, the OPP established what I think you referred to as a POU hub; is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Public Order Hub, we formally established that. It had been operating since February the 4th at an operational level amongst superintendents, and we coordinated it at a chief level and made it official on February the 8th, yes.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
Thank you. And the purpose of the Public Order Hub was to ensure the fair distribution of Public Order Units to areas of importance throughout the province; is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don't know that I would categorise it as the fair distribution. This wasn't a case of being fair or equitable, it was ensuring that the right resources were in the right place at the right time to mitigate the threats that were before us.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
Thank you. As the Police Service of jurisdiction at the Ambassador Bridge, is it correct that the Windsor Police Service and/or the City of Windsor would have to assume certain costs regarding the disposition of things like Public Order Unit officers attending in Windsor, such as their food and lodging?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So, sorry sir, are you asking me if they would be responsible for the financial costs of deploying OPP officers?
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
No, the other units that were sent through the POU Hub.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So I can't speak to whether there are any charges from other Municipal Police Services to Windsor Police. I can assure you that there has been no cost back sought from the OPP from any other Police Service throughout the Freedom Convoy. Those costs have been borne by the Ontario Provincial Police.
Thomas McRae, Counsel (Win-WPS)
All right. Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. If I could next call on the City of Windsor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JENNIFER KING
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Good evening, Commissioner Carrique. My name is Jennifer King, and I am legal counsel to the City of Windsor. Hi.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Good evening.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Good evening. Commissioner Carrique, are you familiar with the City of Windsor and the location of the Ambassador Bridge?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Generally. I've never policed in the City of Windsor. I have visited the City of Windsor, but I am not intimately familiar with the locations.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
So I will ask the clerk to pull up a map to orient you and those who may not be familiar with the city. WIN00002248 [sic]. And when it comes up, Commissioner, you'll see that it's oriented so that the Ambassador Bridge is marked at the top or north of the map. I don't see it yet on my screen.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it's not here yet either.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
We'll give it a moment. So if you can read the markings, the Ambassador Bridge is marked at the top northside of the map. Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes, I do.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And at the bottom of the screen, which is south, you'll see E.C. Row Expressway. Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I thank you for the assistance of the cursor. Without my glasses that's helpful. I see that, thank you.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And although it's not marked here, the road from E.C. Row Expressway to the Ambassador Bridge is Huron-Church Road. Are you aware that this is a local municipal road, not a highway?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not be aware of that based on looking at the map and my lack of specific jurisdictional awareness, no.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
All right. Well, I assume that you don't disagree if I tell you that this is a local municipal road and not a highway.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not disagree with that, no.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you. And you'll see that, perhaps you won't see it, but you'll see marked there's a -- the College Avenue, which is marked just south of the bridge. Just north of that is the entrance to the Border Plaza. So since you aren't familiar with Windsor, you may not know that the area of the bridge itself and Huron-Church Road is surrounded by residential areas on both sides, educational institutions, and businesses. Are you aware of that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am aware of that, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. And the University of Windsor is right beside the bridge.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay, thank you.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. So you are aware that the Ambassador Bridge is a privately-owned international border crossing that spans the Detroit River between Windsor and Detroit?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I know that it goes over the river. I did not know that it was privately owned.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. And you will agree with me that this is critical infrastructure to both Canada and the Province of Ontario?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I agree with that, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
You'll see that the bridge enters, as we've just discussed, it enters Windsor connecting to this municipal road, Huron-Church Road, and you'll see that there is no direct provincial highway connection between the bridge and Highway 401. Are you aware of that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. Highway 401 is under the jurisdiction and control of the Ministry of Transportation and is patrolled by the Ontario Provincial Police; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
So traffic between the provincial highway moves through local roads for several kilometres to get to this international border crossing; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, it -- sorry, can you repeat that?
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Traffic between the Provincial Highway 401 moves through local roads for several kilometres to get to the international border crossing; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And you'll agree with me that the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge in February 2022 had a significant and substantial impact on provincial and national economic security?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And we know that the Windsor Police... And I -- you can take the map down. Thank you very much, Clerk. We know that the Windsor Police, with OPP and RCMP, cleared the Ambassador Bridge blockade on February 13th; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. There were other Municipal Police Service that leant some assistance as well, but theoretically, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you. The Ambassador Bridge was reopened for traffic just after midnight on February 14th; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
On February the 14th, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
But this was not the end of police operations in Windsor, was it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it was not.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Police resources, including OPP police officers, remained deployed in the area to prevent further blockages of Huron-Church Road.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe until on or about February the 28th.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. And this was to ensure the flow of traffic from Highway 401 to the Ambassador Bridge; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
In part it was to ensure the flow of traffic, it was to ensure that there were no further unlawful demonstrations that resulted in the bridge being blocked again.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. So the purpose of it was to prevent another blockade of the bridge.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And to protect the millions of dollars of trade crossing this international bridge every day.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, I wouldn't say they were specifically assigned there to protect the million dollars --- millions of dollars worth of trade, but as I have shared previously, I think that is important part of overall security in this country is economic security.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you. The OPP and WPS put a Traffic Plan in place on February 13th. Were you aware of that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I was aware there was a Traffic Plan in place that formed an appendix to an overall Operational Plan, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And -- so let's go to OPP00000011, which is the Traffic Plan. And if you could take us to page 3 when we get there. I'm not sure if the clerk got that number. If you need me to repeat it, it's OPP00000011, and page 3, please. Thank you. And you'll see here, if you can read it, Commissioner Carrique, that here we see Execution Planning, and the first paragraph states: "All east/west traffic from College Avenue and E.C. Row will be blocked by jersey barriers running the entire length of Huron-Church Road." Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And so the result of this plan was that Huron-Church Road was only open for U.S. bound traffic, and all east/west intersections were closed to local traffic.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. I could show you a map, but I think that it's fair that that's the result of the plan. Are -- and you just had mentioned that Huron- Church Road remained limited to bridge traffic for sometime for several weeks after the blockade was cleared?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You'd have to go to the details of the plan to determine how long it was limited in traffic. My reference, sorry, was to the amount of time that we had dedicated resources assigned to the activities in Windsor.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was not specific to the control of traffic flow.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Well, we can speak to some other witnesses, including Superintendent Earley, if we need ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
--- to get into those details. So you might not be aware of the exact number, but would it not surprise you if I told you that it took over 1,600 concrete barriers to implement the Traffic Plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not be surprised at that.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And these barriers had to be sourced quickly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, they did.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And the Traffic Plan required support from the City of Windsor, including by sourcing and moving vehicles and jersey barriers?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Superintendent Earley would be the best to speak to the interoperability there, but it would obviously have required the support oof the City, and as I understand it, there was great cooperation.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Yes. And wouldn't -- it would not surprise you, Commissioner, that the Police Operations and implementation of this Traffic Plan was expensive?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would not surprise me.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And it cost around a million dollars for the jersey barriers alone?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. And as a result of the blockade and then the Police Traffic Plan, would you agree with me that access to businesses along Huron-Church Road would be limited and commercial traffic would've been reduced as a result?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That does not seem unreasonable; however, I think it requires some context to say as a result of the actions of the police, the police are responding to unlawful protest to make the area safe and maintain a reasonable flow of traffic and community safety. So I don't think it's fair to categorize it as a result of the police actions.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Well, those -- the operations to preserve or maintain access to the bridge had an impact on businesses and residents in Windsor.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
You'd agree?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't dispute that.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I ---
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
So would you agree with me that Windsor municipal taxpayers should not be asked to shoulder the cost of securing this international gateway alone?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would not agree with you on that. That's not something that is the Commissioner of the OPP, I have any responsibility for, and I think there's other people that should be providing that advice to you.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. I just have a few questions to hopefully assist in clarifying the circumstances that led to the OPP's deployment to Windsor. Commissioner Carrique, this morning you discussed a number of the individuals within the OPP who reported to you during the protests, and one of them was Superintendent McDonnell, who coordinated Public Order Unit hubs during the protests; right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Superintendent Mike McDonnell.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Mike McDonnell. Okay. And he reported to you daily?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
He reports to me daily on a regular basis. This was some additional responsibility that he undertook. The hubs did not report directly to me. They reported through the appropriate Major Incident and Critical Incident Commanders and our Emergency Operation Centres. I was not providing direction as to where those Public Order Units would be when and what amounts, for what length of time.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you for that clarification. It was Superintendent Mike McDonnell who coordinated the Public Order Units then during the protests.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Superintendent Mike McDonnel was the representative of the Ontario Provincial Police that coordinated that in cooperation with the other leads or representatives of the Public Order Units across the province.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. If I could please show you WTS00000026? This is Superintendent McDonnell's witness summary.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Superintendent McDonnell?
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
McDonnell.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not MacDonald? Thank you.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, just -- it's Eric Brousseau, Commission Counsel. Just a reminder that Counsel require leave to cross-examine on a witness statement. Ms. King made us aware of this, but just for the record, leave is required ---
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, go ahead.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
No, go ahead.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
I was just going to add that Superintendent McDonnell is a witness whose statement the Commission intends to enter into evidence. He's not a witness who will be called to give evidence or that the Commission intends to call to give evidence, as a relevant background for the question of leave.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you to Commission Counsel. Commissioner Carrique, did you have an opportunity to review Superintendent's witness summary?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I have not.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. Commissioner, I'm seeking leave to refer Commissioner Carrique to this witness summary. He's advised that the Superintendent has reported to him -- reported to him daily. And as Commission Counsel has advised, they've identified the summary as one that they intend to admit in lieu of oral testimony.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Well, perhaps we could put it up. You could ask the question, but this probably should have come earlier in your examination because you're already over time. So if you could put it up and see what the question is and then I'll -- and see what the witness can say and I'll rule on it.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. If you could scroll to page 4, please? To the second paragraph on the bottom of the page. And you'll see here, Commissioner, that the -- "On February [the] 4[th], Superintendent McDonnell started working with the Windsor Police Service [...] after receiving a call from then- Superintendent Jason Crowley of [the] WPS." Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I see that, and I was aware of that.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. And you'll agree that, "Superintendent Crowley advised Superintendent McDonnell of the possibility of traffic slowdowns to, and potential blockade of, the Ambassador Bridge."
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. And if you could scroll to page 5, please, under "Police Response in Windsor". The second paragraph Superintendent McDonnell indicates that, "On the evening of February [the] 6[th], then-Superintendent [...] Crowley requested help and the OPP immediately sent about 35 cars with accompanying personnel to come up with a traffic plan..." Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that, yes.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And were you aware of that at the time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I very likely would have been aware of that at the time, and the hesitation that you're observing is in relation to documents that were put forward before me earlier today where I had to orientate myself as to where those requests might have come in to the organization. So this was not a formal request that came into my office, but a good example of how those connections are made at an operational level and that assistance is provided. This is not something that the Superintendent would have had to seek my authorization on. He is completely empowered to make that type of decision.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Okay. So we can take that witness summary down and ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're now well over time. So you're going to have to wrap up and ---
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
I have two more questions, Commissioner, if I may.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Make them. That document can be entered as an exhibit, so that it's available to the public.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you, Commissioner. So I just wanted to confirm that Superintendent Earley was assigned as of February 9th; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe that was the date.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
And so you'll confirm that by the time you became aware of the Windsor Chief of Police's formal request for resources, WPS had already requested resources directly from the OPP, including POU assistance; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It would appear so from the evidence that has been provided here, but there was no formal request made of me, and when I inquired whether anything else was needed, I was advised that it was not.
Jennifer L. King, Counsel (Win)
Thank you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Next I'd like to call on the ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Mr. Commissioner, Paul Champ for the Ottawa Coalition. I'm sure inadvertently, but I think we were missed in the series of questions -- questioners.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes, you were. If you want to go ahead now, that's fine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PAUL CHAMP
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Commissioner, my name is Paul Champ. I'm the lawyer for the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses. I just have some questions for you following on your testimony. Thank you so much to coming to Ottawa to answer these questions for us.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you, Paul.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
The first question I have for you concerns the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police National Framework for Policing Demonstration -- Police Preparedness for Demonstrations.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
There is nothing in that framework, Commissioner, about a threshold for seeking and obtaining resources or assistance from policing partners. You'd agree with me?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would agree with you. I'm not familiar with anything in there that would define that, no.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, there's -- and but with a threshold or a criteria for that, it would make it easier for a Chief to seed command to another police service or a unified command I gather. Would that help that decision making?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don't know that the framework would be the right place for that. We'd have to go through the framework in its totality, I think, for me to give you an honest opinion.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, I would just flag this, Commissioner, I've looked through that framework a number of times and it looks like it's a very good document, very good guidance on managing a regular demonstration, but there's nothing really in there about how to deal with a demonstration that's much bigger, or much larger, or more difficult for the police service of jurisdiction to manage. There's nothing about how you get policing partners to come help you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, there would be nothing in that document. That's not what that document was intended for.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
But wouldn't you agree with me that if you have a framework for police services to look to for being prepared for demonstrations, if it happens to be a very large demonstration, it would be helpful to have guidance or criteria in there for how or in what ways a police service should reach out for assistance from policing partners.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
But that varies from province to province, and I don't know that police leaders need direction on that. And here in Ontario, it's very clearly defined in the Police Services Act how to request assistance. It's also clearly defined in what's called Adequacy Standards where regulations state that police services must have agreements for certain abilities and services if they're not able to provide them on their own.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, okay, we can stick with Ontario. So Section 9 of the Police Services Act, it doesn't have criteria for when the -- a chief should reach out, or a Police Service Board should reach out, or the Ontario Civilian Police Commission should reach out; correct? There’s no criteria?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, but there’s a framework and how it is done. So I may not be interpreting your question correctly in terms of a threshold. How would you propose that that threshold is defined?
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, I guess what I’m trying to say, Commissioner, is I understand that how this event unfolded in Ottawa, people -- many people have testified here today being critical of Chief Sloly, that -- or the Ottawa Police didn’t have an effective plan for a prolonged period. They should have given in to a unified command earlier in the demonstration. But really, it was up to the subjective of ad hoc decision of Chief Sloly, you know, absent you going to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. But essentially, it was up to him to decide if he wanted to cede command to a unified police command. You would agree with that, it was up to him?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, I don’t know that I would categorize his decision as “ad hoc”. These decisions are based on the experience of the chief, the advice of their subject-matter experts. If there was a way to quantify a threshold for an integrated or unified command, that would obviously be of assistance?
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, or some criteria?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I -- I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be difficult with you. I just think you’re convoluting it for me to be able to provide you with a very direct and clear answer. There’s the framework that deals with the use of provincial liaison teams and lawful assembly. There’s adequacy standards that deal with how we deploy our Public Order Units, what their qualifications are, what their training needs to be, requirements for a police service to maintain certain capacities. There’s core responsibilities in the Police Services Act. So there’s a number of components to this.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Commissioner, what I’m trying to get at is that by -- well, what we do know -- you’ve already given us testimony that by February the 15th, you were ready to have a conversation with Chief Sloly to suggest to him that it’s time for him to cede responsibility to a unified police command; correct, you were going to have that conversation with him?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To have a conversation with him to determine whether the obstacles that had been communicated to us were seen by him in the same light and to determine whether it was that time ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- whether we should be assuming command of that, whether that was something he was seeking our assistance with. And based on that conversation, I would then have to make a decision as to whether it was something that I felt should be elevated or it was something that could be managed by Ottawa Police with our assistance.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, that’s right. You gave us testimony that to elevate it, you would have spoken to the Deputy Solicitor General to perhaps raise it to the Solicitor General’s level, to then go over to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to possibly make a direction under Section of the Police Services Act to have the OPP take over. That’s what you’re talking about, correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
So that was on your mind when you were thinking about having that conversation with Chief Sloly?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That could be the inevitable outcome, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, by the 15th, it was two and a half weeks on and that was a consideration that you had. You were losing confidence that -- whether the Ottawa Police Service, on its own, could make the decisions to manage the situation; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was a conversation that needed to take place based on the description of what was happening with the activation of the plan.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And you spoke to Commissioner Lucki from the RCMP that day and she also shared the view that you had, that you were losing confidence in the Ottawa Police and its chief to manage the situation; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So you’ll have to ask Commissioner Lucki her opinion ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- in terms of losing confidence. I hesitate to say that we were losing confidence in the Chief of Police. We were certainly concerned about the ability to move the plan forward and it required our assistance, and it may have required us to take command and control.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
You’re aware, by February 15th, it had been 18 days of the streets in downtown Ottawa blockaded; people being unable to access groceries in some cases; people with disabilities, difficulty getting out of their homes; there was horns blaring day and night; there was open fires; there was propane tanks and jerrycans; there was 300 to 400 commercial idling 24 hours a day? You’re aware of all those conditions, Commissioner?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And that would have been very difficult every single day for the people and businesses in downtown Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would have been very difficult.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And no doubt that’s a situation that, in your view, could have or should have been ended earlier; is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s going to be something, I think, for this Commission and others to determine. Perhaps it could have been ended earlier with more engagement through PLT. I would suggest that that was likely the evidence of Insp. Beaudin yesterday; I have not observed his evidence. But earlier engagement and more robust engagement of PLT, it is possible that the protest could have been ended earlier -- possible, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, and you’ve given us that testimony earlier?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah. And if there had been a proper operational plan prepared earlier, that also, perhaps, could have led to the protest being ended earlier; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It could have, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Just because an operational -- just to put it into context, sorry. Just because an operational plan is prepared and ready to go, that does not mean that we immediately move to enforcement. We’re bound by the Ontario Use-of-force Model and de-escalation is always going to be the first and foremost priority, but it is important to have the plan and the assets ready to go should the decision be made by the critical incident commander that deploying the Public Order Unit is the appropriate and responsible next step.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
But, Commissioner, we’ve heard evidence in this Commission from a number of different witnesses that policing resources from the OPP and others were delayed because there were concerns that the Ottawa Police did not have a proper operational plan for the deployment of those resources; would you agree with that? There was a delay in the OPP sending resources who didn’t have confidence that the Ottawa Police had a plan?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I would not agree with that, that there was a delay because we did not have confidence in the plan. We were providing resources for tasks and job descriptions that were required. We needed to define the resources that required and, to do that, we required a plan.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. So until you had a plan, you couldn’t -- you yourself couldn’t identify the resources and you weren’t prepared to have OPP resources go until you’ve seen a plan where you felt those resources would be properly deployed; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Until we had a plan, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
That’s right. So there was a delay until we had a proper plan; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, not an intentional delay to say, “We’re not sending resources.” I think it’s really important to put it in context because there has been some concern and some reference to not enough resources being there for functions that were required to be performed and I just want to be clear that that was not the case.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Believe me, Commissioner, the people in Ottawa knew what the context was at that time when there was that delay because it was February that 7th that the mayor and the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board asked for 1,800 officers and a significant number of OPP officers didn’t arrive in Ottawa until about approximately February 17th; is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is not right?
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Over a thousand ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would describe a significant number of OPP officers being there prior to that. I would describe over 400 OPP officers being in Ottawa prior to that as a significant number. When we only have just over a thousand on any given day deployed across this province policing our communities, more than 400 in the City of Ottawa is significant.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. And while we’re on that, it’s my understanding from your interview summary that there was approximately 400 OPP officers deployed to Windsor to deal with the Ambassador Bridge blockades; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was officers in total; that was not specific to the OPP.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
I apologize, I didn’t bring your interview summary up because my understanding is it said it was 400 OPP, I thought. Now, isn’t it fair to say that the OPP could not have sent the numbers of officers that were ultimately sent to Ottawa to bring the protest to an end at the same time as dealing with Ambassador Bridge crisis in Windsor?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is fair, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
So you couldn’t manage both of those events at the time; you just simply have the -- you didn’t have the numbers?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We did not have the numbers to deploy Public Order Units simultaneously in both locations; that is correct.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
All right, just one last point, if I could, Commissioner. On the letter that went from the mayor and the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board on February 7th asking for 1,800 officers, you’ve testified you didn’t that public request was helpful; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was not helpful operationally, correct.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, because then there could be a perception publicly that the OPS didn’t have the resources to manage the situation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Making OPS vulnerable as well as other jurisdictions across the province.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. But don’t you think it was already obvious to everyone on the city streets of Ottawa, whether it’s the residents or the protesters themselves, that the Ottawa Police did not have the resources to manage what was happening?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was likely very obvious to a number of people but getting into specific number of officers that is required ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- is not best practice. You will note that we never discuss the number of officers that we’re deploying publicly in relation to an operational plan.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, but, Commissioner, is it not the case that one day before, the mayor and the chair sent that letter, it was the Solicitor General of Ontario that announced on February the 6th that they’d already sent 1,500 officers; right? That was publicly stated one day before, right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t know if it was one day before but it was publicly stated before, and that was not the Ontario Provincial Police that released that number.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right, because that wasn’t helpful either?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was not helpful.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
They were politicizing things?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Who was politicizing it?
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well the Solicitor General.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
You’ll have to talk to the Solicitor General about the -- why that was released and in what context.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. On that question about the Solicitor General, we’re going to move on to the next, which is the -- now it is the CCF.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SUJIT CHOUDHRY
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Commissioner, good afternoon. It’s been a long day, and so I’m going to try to make my questions very brief.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So I’d like ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Could you start by introducing ---
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Excuse me.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- yourself, please?
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
My name is Sujit Choudhry. I am counsel for the CCF.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And so I’d first like to begin by confirming some testimony you provided this morning while being examined by my friend, Mr. Brosseau. And I believe you said the following: “If the request came under the Police Services Act to take over policing in Ottawa, the OPP would have been absolutely willing to move forward and fulfil our responsibilities.” (As read) Did you say that or words to that effect?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Words to that effect. We would have had to assess the request and our capabilities, but the willingness would have been there.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So I’d like to ask you some questions about the legal mechanics whereby that would have occurred. And so if I could ask the clerk to please turn up Commissioner Carrique’s witness interview summary, which is WTS00000039? And if we could go to page 3, please? Id like to -- if you could just scroll up a little bit more? That’s great. So, Commissioner Carrique, I’d like to take you to the paragraph that begins “There are a limited number of ways…”
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And so would you agree that in that paragraph, you state that there are three ways in which the OPP could have taken over policing in Ottawa? One is by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to direct it to do so, the second is on the request of the Crown Attorney, and the third is on a request from the Police Services Board or the Chief of Police?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. So really, there’s the four, because you could get a request from the Board, or you could get a request from the Chief of Police. And as it relates to the Crown Attorney, that is normally specific to a very specific investigation or incident.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Good. So I’d like to focus on the first of those mechanisms, if we may. So can we please call up CCF, and I think it’s 00000011. And I’d like to go to page 15. This is the Police Services Act, sir, which I’m sure you’re familiar with?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So if we could go to page 15, please? Thank you. So this is section 9 that we’ve spent a bit of time on today. What I’d like to take you to is subsection 2. And would you agree that subsection 2 says that if the Commission were to find that the OPS was not providing adequate and effective police services, it would have first communicated this finding to the OPS Board and directed the OPS Board to take necessary measures?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And then after that, subsection 3 provides if the Board does not comply with the direction the Commission may request that the Commissioner have the OPP give assistance?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Thank you. And the word “assistance” isn’t defined in the statute? Would you agree?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would agree. I don’t know anywhere where assistance is defined.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Well that’s an interesting question. But in this statute, it’s not. But you’re interpreting “assistance” to include a take-over? Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It could. So normally OCPC would provide direction in circumstances like this over the administration of a police service so they can appoint a temporary chief, they can ask the OPP to provide policing services, they can appoint an administrator. There’s various forms that this can take place.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
But it could include a takeover?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I wouldn’t call it a takeover. It’s providing the policing services in the municipality. That doesn’t mean that the police service becomes defunct, but we would be relied upon to provide the services that the Commission felt were not being provided.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So I’d like to talk a bit about the Commission, because it’s -- you know, it’s a bit of a mysterious body. Could we go to page -- could we go, please, to section 22? So, Commissioner, on this page and the next page, we have a list of the Commission’s responsibilities. I’m assuming you’re familiar with this provision?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Generally. It’s not something that I deal with on a day-to-day basis. So I’m not intimately familiar with it, but somewhat.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And so, just for the sake of time, I was wondering if we could please call up CCF00000041? And so, Commissioner, this is a print out, or a PDF about -- pardon me, can you just go up -- regarding the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that’s on the Public Appointment Secretariat ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Okay. Thank you.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
--- website. And if you could scroll down, please? There. If you could stop there? I’d just ask you to read to yourself how it describes the function of the agency.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, thank you.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Continue to the next page, please. you can stop at the end of this top paragraph.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, thank you.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So would you agree with the following, that the Commission’s mandate is mainly to conduct investigations and inquiries into the conduct of Chiefs of Police, police officers, and members of the Police Service Boards, and to hear appeals on police discipline?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is a general description of their responsibilities, yes. They’re two-fold. There’s the adjudication piece and then there’s the investigative piece. There’s two mandates.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And would you agree that the Commission’s mandate is very different than that of a municipal police board?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Of a municipal police board?
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Such as the OPS Board. So the OPS Board has responsibility for recruiting and appointing and directing a Chief of Police, but the Commission doesn’t have that role in respect to you; does it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it does not.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And the OPS Board establishes objectives, priorities, and policies of the OPS, but the Commission doesn’t have that role in respect of the OPP; does it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, it does not. And the Commission is no exclusive to the OPP. Their responsibilities are overarching over all police services in the Province of Ontario.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So it’s not a police-wide -- it’s not a province-wide police board; is it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It’s not a police board, but they have province-wide authorities. There’s essentially three independent oversights. There’s the OIPRD, the Office of Independent Review Directorate, there’s the Special Investigations Unit, and then there is the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, that are defined in the Act.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And so it’s correct that you wouldn’t have had reason to brief the Commission on a daily basis about the Ottawa protest; would you have?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I have no interaction with the Commission on a daily basis or at predetermined intervals.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. Well then let me ask you this question. So as a practical matter, under section 9.2 and 9.3, for the Commission to exercise its power to provide direction to the OPS Board and then request you to take over or assume responsibility for policing in Ottawa, if you don’t interact with the Commission, and if it’s not a police board, how does it make that decision? Would you have to recommend to it that it take that decision? Or would the Deputy Solicitor General have to recommend to the Commission that it take that step?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would be a question to ask of the Commission. And this is one of a number of ways that you have highlighted. So a Police Services Board can also ask for that level of assistance.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
So you didn’t make that recommendation to the Commission; did you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Okay.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And I don’t make recommendations directly to the Commission.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Thank you. Commissioner, can I ask the Commissioner a couple of questions about Ontario’s emergency legislation or are we out of time?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You’re not out of time as of yet, but you’re working on it.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Okay. So could we quickly turn to CCF00000038, please? And so Commissioner, I take it you're familiar with the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, somewhat.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Could we go to pages -- to the bottom of page 6, please? And so I'd like to direct you to subsection 4 at the bottom of page 6 here of section 7.02. Maybe you could scroll up just a little bit so the Commissioner can see the beginning of this. So this is -- these are emergency powers that are vested in the Provincial Cabinet in the event of a state of emergency. So could we please go down to the bottom of this page. If you could stop there. Would you agree that under a provincial state of emergency the Provincial Cabinet can make an order regulating or prohibiting travel or movement to, from, or within any specified area in Ontario?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, can you point me to where that's articulated?
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
That's subsection -- that's Roman 2 under subsection 4. The very last line on that page.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's what that reads.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Thank you. Could we go to the next page, please, and stop there. Could you please look at Roman 4? Will you agree that the Provincial Government, pardon me... Roman -- excuse me. Roman -- pardon me, point 3. Will you agree that the Provincial Cabinet could evacuate individuals and remove personal property from any specified area in the province under a state of emergency?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I would agree with you that that's what's written here.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Yes. And so do you agree that pursuant to this statute, the Provincial Cabinet could have created a red zone around Parliament Hill?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's a fairly technical question in law, as I would have had to seek legal advice on any such order. The EMCPA that we dealt with, dealt with identifying critical infrastructure, which was legislation that was enacted on February the 12th that did provide very specific locations or descriptions of locations where activities were prohibited and then gave us the tools to deal with those activities.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
And would you agree that under these provisions the Premier, pardon me, the Cabinet could have restricted the movement of heavy trucks into Downtown Ottawa?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that's a legal question that as a police officer I am not qualified to answer.
Sujit Choudhry, Counsel (CCF)
Those conclude my questions. Thank you.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next is the JCCF. And who's on for the -- oh, there are. Okay, go ahead.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ALAN HONNER
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, good evening, Commissioner Carrique. My name is Alan Honner, and I am a lawyer for the Democracy Fund.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
For who, sorry? The signal cut out, I apologise.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Oh, pardon me. For the Democracy Fund.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Commissioner, as regards the Ambassador Bridge blockade, I understand that the Windsor Police Service were the police of jurisdiction, but the OPP took the lead in coordinating enforcement.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct, in cooperation with Windsor Police, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Right. And you told us that part of the reason for that was public trust, but wasn't another reason that the Windsor Police Service were not experienced with large protests?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't speak to the extent of Windsor Police Service's experience, but they certainly would not have the experience of a large city like Toronto or Ottawa.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And this protest at the Ambassador Bridge, it was obviously -- it was a large protest.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It was what, sorry?
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
It was a large protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't specifically state the numbers, but I would define it as a larger protest. In terms of impact, there were a number of motor vehicles, there were a number of people, and it took over 400 police resources to deal with that protest.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
I just want to ask you some questions about how the OPP and their partners managed to clear that process -- that protest. And so I understand from your evidence earlier today that the injunction, while it was helpful, it wasn't effective in isolation.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
What was really effective was the Operational Plan of February the 12th; is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it was the Operational Plan of February 12th that enabled the police actions to successfully disperse the blockade, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And they were able to successfully disperse the blockade at the bridge on February the 12th. Does that sound right to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Between February the 12th and into February the 13th. It was a two day operation.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
So can we pull up OTT0000689?
The Clerk (POEC)
Sorry, Counsel, could you repeat that document ID?
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, OTT00006819.0001. Oh, you know, I apologise. It's OPP00001554. Sir, if you see this document, it's an email from Commissioner Lucki to you, sorry, from you to Lucki, and you say ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
--- and you say here on February the 12th that the OPP, the RCMP, the London Police and "POUs cleared the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge." So I'm just talking about at the Ambassador Bridge, not in the city.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. So there was a large piece of geography that the officers had to contend with, so the specific blockage at the bridge was cleared on that date, and they still had more protesters that had to be cleared out of the general area to ensure that that was secured.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And that happened on the 13th.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The second portion of the Operational Plan happened on the 13th, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, thank you. And then, in the early morning of the 14th, the Ambassador Bridge opened to traffic. Is that right?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Okay. And obviously that was before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, it was.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
The next day, on February the 15th, the bridge was fully operational.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe so. I believe so, but that's best to come from the local Police Service of jurisdiction or Superintendent Dana Earley, but that's my understanding, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Thank you. We'll confirm that with Dana Earley. Earlier today, my friend from the City of Windsor brought you to a document, it was a Traffic Plan, and it was OPP00000011. Did you have a chance to review that plan before coming here today?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I did not. That's the first I have seen the plan is when it was presented to me here today.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
So I'm going to suggest to you that if you did look at that plan you would see that the powers which are listed in that plan to control traffic deal with federal legislation, such as the Criminal Code, and Provincial legislation, but they don't make any reference to the Emergencies Act, and it's for the obvious point that the plan was created on February the 13th, 2022.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That would be correct. There would be no ability to reference legislation that did not exist.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
I understand that there were police officers for -- in Windsor for quite a while after the bridge was cleared, but they wouldn't be required to be there to control traffic.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There specific duties, I would suggest, should be provided by Superintendent Earley, or specifically the Windsor Police. I'm not familiar with what they had them doing day-to-day, I'm sorry.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
That's fine, thank you. Earlier today, you told us a little bit about the economic impacts of the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge, and I think you said it was $700 million per day?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That was my understanding, yes, of two-way trade.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
That's not your specialty. That's just something that you were told.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's just something that I'm aware of, yes. Certainly not my specialty, not anything that I have verified or confirmed, but certainly my understanding.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Understood. You can't tell us, then, whether that financial impact by mitigated by traffic being diverted to the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel or to the Blue Water Bridge?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That's not something that I could comment on no; sorry.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Earlier today, when you were telling us about the Blue Water Bridge, you said that the blockade wasn't actually at the Blue Water Bridge, but it was some 30 to 40 kilometres away.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Do I understand correctly that the OPP were able to clear that blockade by February the 14th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t recall the exact date, but we were able to clear it in and around that date, yes, in very close proximity to clearing the Ambassador Bridge.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And in any event, when you cleared that blockade, what was very useful was the PLT teams and the risks caused to the protestors by the EMPCA.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
EMCPA, yes. Correct.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
EM -- thank you. One last question, just about Cornwall, because that came up in your evidence today too, and you said that there was a point of entry in Cornwall which was blocked on February the 12th, and that there were significant concerns there. Among other things, you said it jurisdictional and complex. You said there were concerns of violence. I was wondering, can you tell us, was there a lot of farm equipment at that protest?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe there was farm equipment at that protest, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And when you talked about the Blue Water Bridge protest -- I know it wasn’t at the Blue Water Bridge -- but I'm referring it to that -- in that way, the 402 protest -- the provincial emergency powers were effective because that was farm equipment. Was it also effective at Cornwall?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say that it was effective because it was farm equipment, but it was an effective tool that we relied upon. I can't say in the case of Cornwall of what effectively enabled them to de-escalate that situation. That was a momentary blockade, a momentary demonstration that did not last for any prolonged period of time.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
In fact, I think it cleared by the same day, by February the 12th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It did, correct.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Those are my questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next I'd like to call on the National Police Federation.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LAUREN PEARCE
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Hi there. I'm Lauren Pearce. I'm counsel for the National Police Federation.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Hi.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Just a couple of very quick questions for you. This morning, in response to some questions from Commission counsel, you referred to having heard concerns about the under-utilization of RCMP resources, that some folks may be sitting around waiting for assignments?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Are you able to tell us a little bit more detail about what you remember hearing?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not specifically. I believe there was -- there may have been reference to up to 250 RCMP resources that were available that were not being utilized, but that’s just going by memory, and that’s evidence best shared with you by the RCMP. I was aware of the concern, but not something that I was intimately involved with.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Okay. And do you remember approximately when those concerns were conveyed to you?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I don't remember. It would have been very early on, so I would say within the first week of February, and it wasn’t so much that they were conveyed to me as much as I became known of it, so you would have to verify that information. I don’t have firsthand direct information of that.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Okay. Absolutely. So moving on to another area, I understand the Ontario Provincial Police is responsible for the security at Queen's Park?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We have responsibilities -- some responsibilities for Queen's Park, but there's also LPS, Legislative Protective Services that has responsibilities for the protection of individuals within Queen's Park. We have responsibility for the physical security aspects of it.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Right. Okay. And at a high level, are you familiar with the Parliamentary Protective Service and their being responsible for the physical security of Parliament Hill?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Somewhat. I don’t have intimate details as to who has what mandate and responsibilities. I know that they exist and that we work in collaboration with them, but I can't provide any direct insight into mandates or responsibilities.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
That’s fair. I saw in your witness statement that you identified one of the key issues for this inquiry to examine as the ability and responsibility to lock down the Parliamentary precinct.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Are you able to elaborate for us a little bit about why you identify that as a key issue?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Well, I think if we look back at the events that have transpired and we look forward, part of our responsibility is to mitigate something like this happening again in the future. This is the Parliament for our country. It's an extremely important critical infrastructure and there ought to be a pre-determined plan that can be exercised to shut that area down if there is a threat relying on hard security features and interoperability between the various security agents that have -- or agencies that have roles and responsibilities.
Lauren Pearce, Counsel (National Police Federation)
Thank you very much. I have no more questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next, I would call on the Province of Saskatchewan.
P. Mitch McAdam, Counsel (SK)
Good afternoon, Commissioner. It's Mitch McAdam from the Government of Saskatchewan. The matters that I was going to ask this witness about have already been covered by others, so I have no questions. Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next, call on the Province of Alberta.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
Good afternoon. It's Manday England for the Government of Alberta. We similarly have no questions this afternoon. Thank you very much.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Next, I'd like to call on the OPP.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHRISTOPHER DIANA
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Good evening, Commissioner. Christopher Diana for the OPP.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Good evening.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
We heard some evidence earlier, and you were taken to a series of text messages with Deputy Minister Di Tommaso. Do you remember speaking about those text messages?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I do.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And I believe your evidence was that your role in this was to provide him with -- I think your words were "situational awareness". Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And there were, if I remember, there were a lot of text messages in that exchange. Is that unusual that there would be that many text messages?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
This whole event and series of events were unusual, so it would be extremely unusual that there would be that amount of communication required back and forth between myself and the deputy solicitor general.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And all the communication that you had with Deputy Tommaso, the text messages, the phone calls, did the deputy ever try to direct you to do anything?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely not, no.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Did the deputy ever suggest that you ought to be pursuing a certain course of action?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Did anyone from the Government of Ontario try to pressure you in any way?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely not.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Were you ever asked by the deputy -- were you asked by the deputy at any point if there were any tools that the OPP could use in helping you resolve this issue?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I was certainly asked by the Ministry, which is under the supervision and direction of the deputy, whether there were any tools that would be of assistance, and I believe the first meeting where those conversations commenced was on February the 10th, and ultimately, I made suggestions towards the Emergency Measures and Civil Protection Act that resulted in the ability to seize permits, seize vehicles, and there were charges related to not following the direction of a police officer.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. So when you were asked for your views on the tools you could use, kind of what do you recall asking for? You've mentioned a couple of things, but what do you remember asking for, essentially?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Asking for the ability if somebody was engaged in unlawful activity that was posing a risk to critical infrastructure, and in this case, border crossings and other ports of entry, that officers had the ability to put an end to that by being able to seize the vehicle, seize a permit for the vehicle, what's called a CVOR which is in relation to a commercial motor vehicle, and be able to seize a driver's licence, and impose fines.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Were you provided with the tools that you requested?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We were provided with the tools we requested, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And were those tools useful to the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe that they were useful to the OPP, and not so much in that there were ample charges laid, but as a deterrent, being able to, as has been previously indicated, rely upon the framework to discourage or disrupt any would-be illegal activity or anything that is currently ongoing.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
I recall you mentioning the Highway 402. Was that a context where those tools were used?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe that those tools were effective in the Highway 402 blockage, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Switching gears to talk about the federal Emergencies Act, did you know that the federal government was going to declare or going to invoke the Emergencies Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I did not, no.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
When did you find out?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
The -- at the time that it was invoked, it was made known publicly. And I think in and around that time as well, Commission Lucki and I very likely would have connected on that, but I received no official notification that it was going to be or that it had been invoked.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Were you consulted by anyone within the federal government or on behalf of the federal government as to whether any of those tools would be useful to the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I was not.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Did RCMP Commissioner Lucki ever raise the issue with you as to whether those tools would be useful?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, we didn’t have a discussion around specific tools that would be included in the Emergencies Act. We made have had discussions in an around, you know, what is required for policing in general but never in the context of the Emergencies Act. I did make her aware of what -- the advice I had provided in relation to the EMCPA but no, no discussions specifically to the Emergencies Act or the contemplation thereof.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Obviously, a big part of what we’re doing here is kind of looking at what happened, but the other part is looking forward. My question for you in that respect is, would it be useful if the federal government, in such a context down the road, perhaps through the RCMP Commissioner, consulted with the OPP Commissioner about whether such tools would be useful?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think that would be appropriate and useful, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Or whether the tools would be necessary?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, certainly, if it related to activities that are ongoing in the Province of Ontario or could be going on in the Province of Ontario, I think it would ne nice to have the opportunity and to provide any insight or guidance that may be applicable.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Now, obviously, you have a number of different types of relationships; you report up to the deputy minister; you have discussions with the RCMP Commissioner. How do you think suck consultation could take place?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think it can -- it could go either -- in both ways. If the Commissioner of the RCMP is the one that is providing that advice to the federal government, then that’s an appropriate conversation to have between commissioners. If the federal government is asking for inputs from a provincial ministry, then that request should flow through the deputy minister to me, if he deems or she deems appropriate that I provide such advice.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. Now switching over to intelligence and Hendon Reports.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
There was a little bit of discussion and evidence about the origin of Hendon, but my question is, considering Hendon looks almost at a national picture and OPP is a provincial police service, how is it that the OPP ended up taking this on?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
We were dealing with a number of event and activities in 2001 and it was extremely important to us at the time that our decision-making considered impacts that may be felt nationally to decision that we would make locally. And we required additional intelligence to be able to make those informed decisions, hence Hendon was born through the cooperation of our partners which include the RCMP.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
But I -- the RCMP did not have a similar program?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There was not a similar product that I was in receipt of, no, not as it specifically related to the activities that were of interest to us.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Were heard evidence yesterday from Supt. Bernier of the Ottawa Police Service who, when he saw -- upon seeing the Hendon Reports, remarked upon how comprehensive they were. In your role as Commissioner, did you receive any feedback on the quality of Hendon Reports?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Regularly and often, yes, lots of positive feedback on the quality of the Hendon Reports, the timing of the Hendon Reports, the briefing that were provided to the Intelligence Bureaus by the Provincial Operational Intelligence Bureau, and also very positive feedback on the briefings that Supt. Pat Morris provided to the affected chiefs of police.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
I do want to go into another area which I think there may be some confusion and I want you to try to clarify this so that everybody can understand your perspective on it. My friend from the Commission took you through your thoughts on whether this was a national security threat. You talked about the word “potential”, what that means. On cross-examination, the two Brendans each asked you to look at different aspects of this. You know, one asked you about definition under the CSIS Act. One asked you whether there was a risk or a threat to national security. And I guess my question is, just to avoid any confusion, at any point, did you become concerned that the situation in Ottawa and elsewhere gave rise to a national security threat?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And what was your basis for that conclusion?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
For the contents contained in the Hendon Report, specifically on February the 7th, that caused concern for the combination of events and activities that were taking place that, as was articulated, in that report, it posed a possible threat to national security.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. And you also referenced the description by, I believe, Public Safety Canada and various criteria. Is your assessment based on the Public Safety Canada criteria?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
And I wouldn’t call it “criteria” as much as I would reference in various material. I think national security is much more complex and broad than the threat to the security of Canada that’s confined in the CSIS Act. National security has a number of components. It’s the extent to which that poses a threat should determine how that is mitigated and how that is dealt with.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. And there is a document, which I don’t believe has been referred to in the evidence that I think I’d like to ask you about, and that’s a Hendon Report dated February 19th. It’s Document ID OPP1634.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I believe this is the one that refers to foreign influences, I believe, counsellor?
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
It does indeed, yes. And so obviously you’ve reviewed this Hendon Report, consistent with your evidence; correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, I -- I certainly can’t provide much more detail than that without examining it further but I know that there were concerns raised in this report as well in relation to national security or the security of Canada.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
So let’s go to page 6 and scroll down. All right, you see under “Assessment” -- if you could just take a moment just to read the first paragraph to yourself, and I want to ask about that.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I’ve read the first paragraph, thank you.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. Now, what’s - - and the context of this, of course, of February 19th, is during the operation in Ottawa, but what’re your understanding of what that paragraph is trying to convey?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I think it -- I think it’s fairly clear and, at the risk of just reading it back, it is conveying that it is almost that the Freedom Movement blockades and protests represent a long-term threat to public safety and security domestically.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. And that certainly is a cause of concern for the OPP?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, absolutely.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. Can you go to page 7, please? And if you can again read that last paragraph to yourself.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
So when you look at this paragraph and you look at the previous one that I read, kind of what’s the time horizon in this kind of assessment?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Sorry, what do you mean by “the time horizon”?
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
In terms of potential threat or risk to Canada, is there a timeframe identified in those paragraphs?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I don’t see a timeframe specifically identified in those paragraphs. It would range from at that moment in time and looking forward.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right, that’s fine. If we can put up -- I’d like to address the concern raised by my friend, counsel for the City of Ottawa, in terms of the numbers that were at your disposal. If we can put up the OPP’s Institutional Report. That’s OPP.IR., probably a bunch of zeros, and 1 -- probably 7. All right, so you’re familiar with this document, I expect?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I am familiar with this document, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. Can we go to page 36, please? All right, if you scroll down -- okay, that’s good there. All right, so do you see that chart?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, that’s representing the number of frontline officers which would be separate and apart from the number of Public Order officers that were in Ottawa and other specialties that were there.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that’s one component of the deployment that was there.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
So to your knowledge or understanding, are those numbers accurate when it comes to the number of frontline officers?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To my knowledge and understanding, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. And you’ll see on the top of the chart, it says, “OPP frontline officers provided to Ottawa Police Service,” and then a footnote, 50. If we can scroll down to the footnote. And that footnote tells us that: “These numbers only refer to frontline officers. It does not refer to the large number of OPP members in OPP POU, OPP Logistics Support Team members, OPP PLT, POIB members, OPP Auxiliary and Special Constables and Aviation Services members.” Do you see that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I do see that. And I see reference to a number of 463 over a 24-hour period.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. You have, again, no reason to be concerned about the accuracy of those numbers?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I do not.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Thank you, Commissioner. Those are my questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. ERIC BROUSSEAU
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Eric Brousseau, Commissioner Counsel, for the record. Commissioner Carrique, just two very brief points and one slightly longer point. The first is if I could get your witness summary up, which is WTS00000039? And if we go to page 5, in the middle of that page? This is just to clarify, in response to a friend -- a question from my friend, Mr. Champ, about the number of officers deployed to Windsor. So if you see there at the last sentence of that paragraph: “In total, the OPP deployed 410 members to assist WPS. The Minimum number of members deployed in a 24-hour period was 38 and the maximum was 263.” And it actually cites, in footnotes, to the Institutional Report?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Is that -- is what is in your summary accurate in terms of the number of officers deployed to Windsor?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. And this is ranging from the time they arrived on ground to the end of February or February 28th.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. and so it’s not 410 at any one time? The maximum, as we see, is 263? Is that correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. In total. In total OPP deployed.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. A second document that I want to put to you is OPS00001547. You in fact -- sorry, Mr. Clerk, as you’re doing that, I think it might be OPP00001457, a mistake the parties make often on their witness lists. This is -- when the clerk pulls it up, it’s an email from Chief Sloly to you and to Commissioner Lucki the evening of February 13th. And I asked you, and when you were cross-examined, sort of about the calls that you had -- the two calls that you had with Commissioner Lucki on the 15th. Do you recall that?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And I think you said one of your concerns was the delay in sort of moving forward. Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so there were reports of obstacles that were preventing the planning team from moving forward. We had had this email exchange on the 13th of February. It was consistent with the communication on the 12th of February, that the Chief was in support of the plan. However, by the time we got into the 14th of February and the morning of the 15th, we were receiving reports that there were obstacles preventing the plan from moving forward, and some of those obstacles were perceived that the Chief had to approve the plan, which was inconsistent with the communication we had previously had, which was part of the need to speak with Chief Sloly myself to determine what was actually going on.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And so I just wanted to clarify, you received this, you were still hearing after the 13th that Chief Sloly was -- there was an impediment and that Chief Sloly might be part of that impediment?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Maybe. Maybe, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Which was inconsistent with what you had received from Chief Sloly the evening of February 13th?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct. That was inconsistent with the email that I had received from Chief Sloly on the 13th.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And the last issue I want to address is the issue of the tow trucks, because I think it’s important that we all understand sort of the order and the sequence of events. And so if I could take you to OPP00001585, which is a document that I took you to this morning. This is the email from Deputy Commissioner Di Marco, which ends up being forwarded to you. If we can go down to Deputy Commissioner Di Marco’s initial email at the bottom, which is dated February 13th at 2:29 p.m. So, Deputy Commissioner Di Marco reports to the group: “Companies who would provide service: 7 [companies] with 34 total Heavy Tow units” Is that consistent with what you understand to be the case as of that time?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. I can’t specifically recall the numbers, but it’s consistent with what I recall.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if we scroll down -- sorry, just at the bottom of that email actually. The last paragraph: “As you suggested, it may be very helpful to have the immunity Emerg Order ready for community members to assist with land/facilities if required.” Do you know what the Deputy Commissioner is referring to here?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
So that may have been in relation to where they were going to stage the tow trucks, how they were going to maneuver the tow trucks, and where they were going to remove the seized vehicles to. What’s the date of this email, sorry?
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
It’s February 13th at 2:29.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
February the 13th. So there was a lot of times that the EMCPA was being referenced, and there were other times that the EA was being referenced. At this point in time, there is no Emergencies Act.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Correct. This is ---
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Right.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
If this -- this is a reference to the EMCPA, if anything?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And it’s -- as I think you just pointed out, it’s a reference to the staging areas for tow trucks or for trucks that are towed, not to a concern on behalf of the towing companies themselves? Is that fair?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
No, I don’t perceive that is a concern on behalf of the towing companies themselves, although there were concerns from the towing companies about indemnity.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And then we’ve -- the Emergency -- so the Act is invoked on February 14th. The Emergency Management -- the Emergency Measures Regulations are published on the 15th. And I take it you’re aware, those required a -- either a written request to render services or a verbal request followed up in writing as soon as possible?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
That is correct. And it was a bit of a scramble to get orientated with the provisions in that legislation, not having any advance notice that it was coming, there was no ability to provision in our planning for the utilization of those tools. We required legal assistance to determine what was possible, and then to be able to look at how we might be able to use those tools.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I won’t take you to it in the interest of time, but you’re February 17th letter, which we saw this morning and this afternoon, you’ve actually written in there, this is the one that goes to all identified towing companies, it says: “This letter is written confirmation of verbal instructions from the OPP acting on behalf of the RCMP to provide these services from the date of the Regulations coming into force [which was the 15th] and notice that you are required to continue to comply and provide these services.” (As read)
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
So your letter, just so we understand, your letter was that sort of after the fact written confirmation of the verbal direction to provide towing services?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes. We had had officers dealing with the tow providers directly and through the Ministry of Transportation. My understanding was they were all coordinated, organized, and ready to go.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And my friend for the Government of Canada took you to your letter to Deputy Solicitor General Di Tommaso on February 22nd. And part of that letter, again, in the interest of time, I will just read it to you, you updated the Deputy Solicitor General and said: “As matters unfolded operationally in real time, the Ontario Provincial Police was made aware of the following:" (As read) And the first bullet point, which you may recall: "The vendor community was highly reluctant to assist the police." (As read)
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
And so -- and my question is if you can assist us in terms of what transpired and the timing because it appears from Deputy Commissioner DiMarco's email that as of the afternoon of the 13th there are tow truck companies lined up, but at some point you have compelled them verbally and followed up with confirmation in writing. What changed for the towing companies between the 13th and the 17th when you sent the letter?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, for direct evidence, Acting Staff Sergeant Kirk Richardson was having the contact or coordinating the contact with the towing companies, but I can certainly share with you my understanding. There was concern that tow operators were becoming reluctant. They wanted to have some protections that there would be no retribution or retaliation leveraged against them for participating, and there was still the ongoing concern over indemnification. So yes, they had been lined up, yes, they had been coordinated, but there were still concerns being expressed by some of the tow operators. The plan had a contingency that they could execute the plan with as little as two tow trucks, and we also had police personnel lined up to operate heavy tow vehicles should we not be able to get the assistance of professional tow operators.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And was the concern across -- sort of unanimous across these 7 companies and 34 trucks, or were there companies, to your knowledge, that would have participated without being compelled?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can't say what the proportion of concern would have been, but I was assured that with or without they would've been able to get the job done. It would've taken more time, it would've required potentially our officers having to operate tow trucks, but we still would've moved forward with the execution of the Operational Plan.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, those are my questions.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Well, I -- it leaves me with the possibility to ask a few questions. Given the hour, I'm going to try and be relatively limited and just a few bits of information. You, towards the end of your testimony, you were asked about the Hendon reports and if there is anything similar in the federal -- from the Federal Police Service. And I think you said not to your knowledge?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not specific to this, Commissioner. So there are a number of products that are produced federally in relation to threat assessments in relation to national security, but there was nothing specific that dealt with the issues we were managing in 2001 specific to rail blockades that were happening around the province. So that filled that need by constructing this particular product.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Now, given the progress since then, and rail blockades are not something limited to Ontario, and the issues that are being dealt with in Hendon from my reading are not limited to Ontario, is this something that should be taken up by the federal authorities to provide a national Hendon report?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It's certainly something that could, and we would need to be an active contributor to that, as would all other Police Services across Canada, but that is something that would provide substantial value having a national picture.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And this is a -- I kind of just -- I have a note that I'd like you to complete for me. You talked about, and I may have the note wrong, that you thought the protests at the two different ends of the province, being Windsor and Ottawa, were -- I have a note something that they're coordinated or planned. Did you say that, and as -- could you explain, unpack that for me?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah. So my thoughts on that are I did not feel it was merely circumstance that we had two challenging demonstrations at the furthest points in the southern part of the province. We had protests going on in Ottawa that were challenging the capacity of police to respond. To then have a demonstration at the Ambassador Bridge to be going on at the same time, knowing the distance that it takes for police to mobilise and look after both locations, while at the same time there were demonstrations taking place in Toronto, I believe that there is a possibility that that was organised and coordinated by somebody or a group of people.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And -- so that's your belief, but I think you said you don't have any concrete evidence of that in terms of any documentation or something to support that other than you as a police officer who has been involved?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely no evidence, Commissioner, just a suspicion, let's say, and something that I think strategically had a responsibility to consider and be aware of.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. And another clarification, and I may have missed it. You'll recall the February 5th exchange you had with Commissioner Lucki where there was mention of the Emergencies Act, and you were asked whether you had any other, and I know you had testified you weren't aware when they declared the Emergency Act, but between the 5th of February and the declaration, did you have any other exchange where the Emergencies Act was raised with Commissioner Lucki or anyone else?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
With Commissioner Lucki, not to my recollection, and certainly not with anybody else, no, sir.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. And then again, you talked about a Incident Command Structure, the need for a consistent Incident Command Structure across Canada, and I don't know if -- I didn't make a note as to whether one exists or does not exist. And if you could help me with that.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
There are defined Command Structures, but it is up to the individual Police Services which Command Structure they follow. So there would be some value in ensuring that all Police Services are following a consistent Command Structure. So in cases like this, where it warrants moving police resources across the country, with more than 20 Police Services engaged, if we ever have to engage in something like this again in the future, having that consistent Command Structure would certainly be helpful.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay, that's helpful, thank you. There's one last area I want to, and again, I'm just trying to get a little more information. And this deals with the discussions you had with counsel for the OPP, and it's the - - your enquiries about tools. And I'm trying to understand, did you say you had some input about what would go into the EMPCA Declaration of Emergency?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not into the Declaration of Emergency, Commissioner, but there was legislation that followed that through the EMCPA, and I was asked for my professional advice from a law enforcement perspective, whether there were any tools that would assist us with managing and protecting critical infrastructure.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Now, did you have any input into the Ontario Declaration of Emergency on what went into it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Not into the Declaration of Emergency itself, but into the legislation that flowed through the ECMPA that gave police officers those enforcement tools, I had input into that, yes sir.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So not the declaration but the legislation that implemented it if you implemented the tools?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
It gave us those authorities, yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And in that discussion, did you ask for authority with respect to towing of vehicles?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Or compelling ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
--- for towing? That was definitely discussed. There were a number of things that I asked for that could not be supported by the Legal Team, and we did have discussion around compelling service providers, but the results of those discussions did not bear out in terms of tools that were made available to us.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And is that because you understood the Act would not -- could not empower the Province to do that or that it was a decision not to include it?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, there was lots of discussion that happened in my absence, and the decision -- it did not appear in the Act, so I can't honestly say why it did not or to what extent that was considered. There was lots of discussion around it, lots of ideas proposed, and then we were grateful to receive the legislation when we did.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
But you're -- I guess I'm simply asking, was that one of your requests and then it went into the black box and you don't know what happened after?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, there was no written request, Commissioner, so this was done through a series of meetings and discussions. So I wouldn't want to honestly say how far that discussion went, but that was certainly on the table and something that had been discussed and we had talked about a situation whereby we did have trouble getting a tow truck to lend assistance when there was a blockade that had emerged in and around the Peace Bridge and we had a challenge getting tow trucks to provide the necessary assistance. So these types of things were discussed but I can’t say to what extent given that it wasn’t a written submission; it was merely discussions where I had an opportunity to provide some input.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I guess, to be clear, I mean, was your input this would be helpful?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
To the best of my recollection, I would say yes, because it was an issue that we were experiencing, but I can’t state with certainty how much discussion we had on that.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Now, we also had some evidence you gave about exclusion zones and common-law power about exclusions, and in fact there were powers given, certainly, about the Ambassador Bridge and Interprovincial Bridges under EMPCA, as I understand it; that’s correct?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Were there discussions or do you have an understanding as to whether the exclusions around Wellington were discussed in your input that you had?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
I can’t say that specific locations were discussed in and around Wellington. It was more the categorization of critical infrastructure. So I can’t say that Wellington was discussed specifically.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Was your understanding from the EMCPA and the legislation that followed that you could create and exclusion zone around Wellington under that emergency legislation?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
My understanding was that the officers could have exercised the authorities contained within to use those enforcement tools, which wouldn’t have been the same as communicating an exclusion zone as define under the Emergencies Act. But if they were asked to disperse from the area of critical infrastructure, the officers had the tools to proceed with charges or seize vehicles, licences, permits under the EMPCA. So that was a tool that was available to officers in Ottawa in and on Wellington.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And that’s on the basis critical infrastructure?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Critical infrastructure. So I don’t have the legislation in front of me but I believe that that would have fallen into the definitions of the types of locations that would be covered by the EMCPA. If it’s helpful, the OPP did do up a chart that explained to the officers where we felt the various powers would apply. It became very complex for officers to try to navigate their way through these new powers that they weren’t used to in real time, so it may be very helpful to walk through that chart at some point.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So, just to be clear, your understanding is Wellington was declared to be critical infrastructure like the bridges and so on?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so I think I can be much clearer. So contained in the EMCPA was the “not to block any highway”. So the definition of a “highway” would include any roadway, so that would include Wellington. So highways were deemed critical infrastructure which addresses the concern on Wellington out in front of the Parliament Buildings. So the roadway itself is deemed to be critical infrastructure.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So blocking any roadway would be critical infrastructure, then, under the Act?
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Yes, at that point in time. And as time went on, those authorities were narrowed to a much narrower scope to be specific to borders. But at that point in time, it was blocking access to any highway, as I understand it.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So it would be -- it would -- I guess you’re explaining that that declaration prevented blocking any roadway in Ontario. Essentially, you had the powers under the Act to clear that.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Absolutely, yes, sir, that was my understanding.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. Obviously, we’ve gone over. It shows how your testimony was important to the parties and with our thanks.
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You’re free to go. NA
Thomas Carrique, Comm (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So we’re going to adjourn until tomorrow. I just wanted to make one additional point. As I understand, we’re starting with Former Chief Sloly tomorrow and his evidence will be in-chief tomorrow. It’s scheduled to take the day. In the unusual circumstances where he will go over to the next day, I’ve been asked whether there is any difficulty with his counsel speaking to him over the weekend before he enters cross-examination and I just wanted to see if there were any issues being raised by counsel. It seems to me reasonable under the circumstance but if there’s any objection, I’d like to hear it. If not, then I will be giving that leave given the circumstances. Seeing no objection, we will rise and will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is adjourned. La Commission est ajournée.
Upon adjourning at 6:46 p.m. Ottawa, Ontario