Volume 7 (October 21, 2022)
Volume 7 has 272 pages of testimony. 21 people spoke before the Commission, including 2 witnesses.
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:
- Carson Pardy, Chief Superintendent (C/Supt) - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 593 times)
- Craig Abrams, Superintendent (Supt) - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 472 times)
- Tom Curry, Counsel - Peter Sloly (spoke 254 times)
- Frank Au, Senior Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 220 times)
- Anne Tardif, Counsel - City of Ottawa (Ott) (spoke 156 times)
- Paul Rouleau, Commissioner - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 90 times)
- David Migicovsky, Counsel - Ottawa Police Service / City of Ottawa (Ott-OPS) (spoke 75 times)
- Jessica Barrow, Counsel - Ottawa Police Service / City of Ottawa (Ott-OPS) (spoke 70 times)
- Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 63 times)
- Paul Champ, Counsel - Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses (spoke 61 times)
- Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel - Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers (spoke 58 times)
- Donnaree Nygard, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 40 times)
- Alan Honner, Counsel - Democracy Fund / Citizens for Freedom / Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Coalition (DF / CfF / JCCF) (spoke 38 times)
- Michael J. Morris, Counsel - Government of Saskatchewan (SK) (spoke 36 times)
- The Registrar - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 15 times)
- Mandy England, Counsel - Government of Alberta (AB) (spoke 9 times)
- Christopher Diana, Counsel - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 8 times)
- John Mather, Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 4 times)
- Eric Brousseau, Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 3 times)
- Brendan Miller, Counsel - Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers (spoke 2 times)
- Unidentified speaker (spoke 2 times)
Upon commencing on Friday, October 21, 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. So we have Supt. Abrams. If you could come forward, please? (SHORT PAUSE)
SUPT. CRAIG ABRAMS, Resumed
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Are you ready to proceed?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, Commissioner. Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So the first up, I believe, is the Ottawa Police Service. (SHORT PAUSE)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MIGICOVSKY
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Good morning, Superintendent. My name is David Migicovsky; I’m a lawyer here for the Ottawa Police Service. How are you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Good, sir. Thank you.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
One of the things you mentioned yesterday, and I believe it’s also in your notes as well, is that police actions in Ottawa, you indicated, can have a provincial and a national impact, so there’s a need for the police to be measured and careful in their approach to dealing with the protesters; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And how the police treat the protesters, I take it, from the time they arrive in Ottawa to the time they leave, will, therefore, be expected to have an impact, both in Ottawa and nationally?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s what I believe, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I believe you said that once the convoy was en route to Ottawa, and some people had come from, you know, the West Coast, far away, there was no way that you could just cause them to turn around and go home without making their statement in Ottawa somehow; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t recall stating that, but I think that I stated that they’re committed in their goal of attending Ottawa fairly because they left their homes, thousands of kilometres away and their intent was to attend Ottawa.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the practice of the police prior to the Freedom Convoy and previous protests was to let groups come to town and protest even if it would cause significant traffic disruption and inconvenience to residents, as long as it was peaceful and not engaging in criminality; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Obviously not being a member of the Ottawa Police Service, they dealt with the majority of those protests. In my role with the Provincial Police, I can’t say that I’ve had to deal with that type of event, but in general terms, I would agree when people exercise their Charter rights, there’s certainly going to be some disruption to members of the public while that’s being done. But, generally, in most circumstances, that disruption is short-lived, in my experience.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. But if somebody says, “I’m coming to protest for one day,” or, “I’m coming to protest for three days,” but it’s going to be peaceful and there’s no criminality, you’ll let them protest; fair enough?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There certainly would be lots of planning, that’s what we talk about; pre-event planning, trying to speak to the organizers, come up to agreements to make sure everybody’s on the same page. I’ve not been involved in agreements where we’ve allowed protests that lasted multiple days. That’s just been my experience. I haven’t been involved in that so I can’t really speculate or experience, whether I would approve something like that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
The OPP has dealt with long-term protests.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As an organization we have, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sorry?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As an organization we have.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. You personally have not.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And some of those demonstrations went on for long periods had injunctions that ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The longest period I was involved in was the three-week protest at the Tyendinaga rail blockades in 2020.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
The Hendon reports, as I recall, indicated that the groups did espouse peaceful protests, although there were concern about fringe groups and lone wolves; is that right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That sounds accurate, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the reports from the PLT’s prior to the convoy arriving in Ottawa had been that they were peaceful and cooperative with police in other jurisdictions?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s what I recall, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the reports from Hendon did not indicate honking horns or idling engines or harassment or antisocial behaviour or fireworks; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The only thing I would say is there was some reports of antisocial behaviour in respect to perhaps not abiding by mask mandates within the Province of Ontario, but outside of that, I would agree with your statement, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And blocking the access to the Wellington Street, or to a large chunk or to chunks of downtown, could have meant that the trucks would go elsewhere, you said, in the city.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that would mean, though, potentially that the footprint could be bigger and there could be more disruption in residential neighbourhoods; fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. It’s a large city so wherever the trucks are going to park there’s going to be disruption wherever they tend to park, for sure.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And because peaceful protest is lawful, and because of the need to take a measured approach, the OPP, as I understand it, is a huge proponent of the use of PLTs.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
They very much are, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
They connect with groups; they get contacts, they form relationships.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And in fact, the OPP PLTs here did have their PLTs connect with the protesters well prior to arrival; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. Many of the convoy organizers they connected when they arrived within the Province of Ontario.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And those PLT who were in contact with the protesters were not, I take it, telling them the message, “You’d better not come to Ottawa. You’re not welcome.” Right? They were trying to establish relationships because they understood it to be a peaceful protest.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. Many times our PLTs will message what you stated but also message the importance of understanding the law; sometimes they’ll educate them on the law, make sure they understand, you know, “When you attend, this is what the expectation is; this is what the laws will be in relation to your behaviour.” So many times the PLT will be part of that messaging to make sure that all participants are aware of their responsibilities and expectations of their behaviours.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And, in fact, consistent with that role that PLTs assisted the convoy in arriving safely in Ottawa.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree. Just through conversation, that allowed more structured movement of vehicles which made things ultimately safer. I would agree with that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I think you said you’d read the Hendon reports and became involved, if I have that right, on January 24th as the OPP’s Strategic Commander in charge of policing?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I became Strategic Commander in charge of the OPP’s portion of the event, which was what we saw at that time as a traffic event involving the vehicles travelling through our jurisdiction into the City of Ottawa.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you set up an emergency operation centre that involved traffic, communications, PLTs.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the plan focussed on traffic along the highways from the convoy; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It focussed on the traffic and also what impacts that they may have in the communities that they overnighted in.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the 400 series of highways, I believe you said, the OPP has jurisdiction on?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that is the -- the 417, of course, leads directly into Ottawa, downtown; correct? It's the -- becomes the Queensway in Ottawa?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And what you and your team did, as I understand it, was ensure that there was the safe flow of traffic and that they could arrive safely, and you and your team took steps to coordinate planning of that with the Ottawa Police?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so you liaised with Deputy Chief Bell?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And he was cooperative in your interactions with him?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Very much so. We agreed that our traffic inspectors would connect with each other and they would do the bulk of the work to do the coordination.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so you had an inspector, I believe her name was Dawn Ferguson, and you had a staff sergeant, Lisa Nicholson coordinate with the Ottawa Police?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. Lisa Nicholas was her last name, but they helped coordinate, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And Inspector Ferguson, we have a lot of Fergusons in this case, but Inspector Dawn Ferguson of the OPP was the officer assigned to be the representative of the OPP, and then I understand she worked with the OPS and others at the NCRCC; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And she was there as of January 25th, so a few days before the protesters arrived.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sounds accurate.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And Staff Sergeant Nicholson, did you say?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Nicholas.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Nicholas, I'm sorry, was placed at a separate OPS Command Centre outside of -- with the Ottawa Police; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I believe Staff Sergeant Nicholas, she kind of moved between the two locations. There was kind of a traffic hub that had MTO cameras that Staff Sergeant Nicholas would work with our MTO partners and Ottawa Police partners at, and she would also make her way over to the NCRCC as well. So she kind of worked at both locations.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And she assisted Inspector Ferguson.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
She did. Inspector Ferguson relied on some assistance from Staff Sergeant Nicholas, so she helped assist her in different ways.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the OPP worked with the OPS to control Highway 17 coming into Ottawa and make sure that you didn't have blockades on the highway?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the -- your team, along with the OPS team, ensured that -- wanted to make sure that trucks didn't just abandon their vehicles on the 417, on the Queensway in downtown Ottawa, but that they safely got off and were staged somewhere?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. And we wanted -- obviously, and when we talk about safety, it's not just safety of the convoy participants, it's the safety of the motoring public who are using the highway. And we didn't close the highway, so the highway was open to normal traffic so we had to make sure that we were ensuring the safety of the general motoring public as well.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
One of the things, and I can turn up the document if you need it, but I think you said this yesterday, was you talked about Chief Sloly on the weekend of the February 5th weekend, the 4th, 5th, wanting -- and again, I think the following weekend as well, wanting to shut down all the 417 offramps. Do you recall that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do recall that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And Inspector Ferguson, as I understand, said in one of those emails, "Will do our best to help the convoys to the identified exits, but the OPP is not going to permanently close any 417 exits unless there's an immediate threat to public safety." And there wasn't; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so the OPP did not exercise its power to close all the exits to downtown as a result?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you instead controlled access so that they could come in safely?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. And just so we're clear, I apologise if I misunderstood your question. The permanent shutdown that Chief Sloly spoke about in us selectively picking offramps for the convoy to come in were on separate dates.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And -- but you did make clear that, and I believe she says it in her email, "we will not permanently, like, close all the exits unless there is an immediate public safety risk, and there isn't."
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. And certainly, we wanted to not disrupt the general motoring public as much -- as little as possible, that was the idea, so we would close ramps as needed and then as soon as we could we would reopen them so that the normal flow of traffic could continue.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. And because if you close everything it not only affects the convoy but it affects everyone else.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure, it does.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
All of the residents, trucks that are -- have legitimate business downtown delivering goods and supplies, other motorists, residents who have a need to be in that downtown core; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And we saw one of the Hendon reports had pictures of some heavy equipment, an air compressor and an ATV.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you didn't receive any instructions, I take it, to stop those transports or to inspect them or to not let them into the city, did you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I never received instructions like that, no.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And some of those -- and there were only a couple of pieces of heavy equipment that we saw; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And some of those may well have come into the city on a 400-series highway.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
If we could please turn up OPP0774, please. Which are -- I don't know if you have the hard copy of it.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
You do. So it's your January 25th notes.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And it is on page 3 of 167 in the PDF. And so this is January 21st, and you'll ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
25th.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
January 25th, I apologise. And you'll see at 8:30, you request someone with the Ministry of Transport of Ontario: "...to see if they plan to use weigh scales for convoy trucks." Correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the MTO has no plans to do so; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so one of the things that perhaps could have prevented some of that heavy equipment or some of those vehicles was to have weigh stations opened along the highway; correct? But the MTO decided not to do that.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I just wanted to see if that was part of their plan, and I was advised that it was not.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And if I could please ask you to look at, again this is in your -- it's not in your notes, I apologise. It's OPP0773. Thanks. That's, as you'll recall, is the will-say statement that you prepared I believe, yeah, in March of 2022?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so you prepared that at the time when the events were pretty clear in your mind, you just finished dealing with the convoy; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you'd read the Hendon reports back in January; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I did.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so if we could please look at page 2 of that -- of the PDF of that. And on the third bullet, you indicate: "It became clear on January 29th...that many of the convoy participants had plans to stay for a [long] period of time and the convoy had attracted thousands to the downtown core." Correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And then if we also look - - if we could scroll down to the bottom of the page. Sorry, just go up a bit. I'm sorry, go to the -- sorry, a little bit - - go up to the top again if you don't mind. I'm sorry, if you could go to the following page as well? Yeah. Just a little bit higher. Thanks very much. You'll see in the bullets that we have on the screen, on February 2nd, it then became clear that this event was no longer a traffic related event; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
In your notes, and I -- again, we can turn them up, but if you recall, then, you know, I don't need you to, but I know in your notes of February 5th, and it's on page 28 of your notes, but you have a note that the Chief is in charge and won't change it.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I'm sorry, you said page 28?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I thought it was. I was trying to also give you yours, but I'll -- it is, I believe, page 28 of your notes, which is February 5th, and it is on page 28, which is the second page.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Okay.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you see what ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, correct, I can see it now.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- I'm referring to?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yeah, can you just explain that? What did you mean the Chief is in charge and won't change it?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So if we go back, this is part of a teleconference I was involved in where Inspector Jason Younan is kind of giving us an overview of an email that was sent by Chief Sloly, and giving an overview of what he saw, and the context of what Chief Sloly's email had to say. And so these are Inspector Younan's words to me saying that there was Major Critical Incident Commander Superintendent Dunlop but no Major Incident Commander. No one was in charge. The Chief is in charge and will not change that. Wants lockdown. So these are Inspector Younan's words being relayed to me and me making notes ---
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so what he's saying is this is a problem that Chief Sloly is saying he has to be in charge of this, no one else is; is that right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
This is Inspector Younan's interpretation of what he ---
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
What he wanted.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Thank you. The following -- on page 29 of your notes as well, you also have a note that, "[Inspector -- Commissioner Carrique must become engaged with --] need to display [i.e.] did a measured approach. Inspector Carrique needs to become engaged with Sloly over members and risks with his unreasonable demands." And what were those unreasonable demands that were being referred to?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So in Inspector Younan's briefing to us, he spoke about what Chief Sloly was asking not only of his members, but what appeared to be also partner agencies, which included the OPP. So there was talk about wanting all streets barricaded and contained, and these were activities I was not comfortable with our members being involved in, and it caused me a great concern. So on this call, I expressed that we needed to communicate with Commissioner Carrique, so that he could become aware of this direction by Chief Sloly through Chief Sloly's email, and then perhaps Commissioner Carrique and Chief Sloly could have a conversation because I felt that these were unreasonable demands, and I directed my Inspector Ferguson that if there was a request for OPP to be a part of any of this, it was not to happen. It was to come through myself before any OPP members would become engaged in the types of activity that I had heard about.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I just have a few further questions. On February 6th in your notes, and you've actually put an asterisk on it, and just for the benefit of those who are following it online, it is page 28 of 167 of the PDF, but I don't need you to call it up. You indicate at the bottom, "lack of autonomy to make decisions." Who's that a reference to?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So further up in the notes at 15:43, I was speaking with Inspector Marcel Beaudin, who's our PLT Coordinator who the Commission will hear from as a witness. And he's describing his member's experiences on the ground in Ottawa and that inability to make decisions and be given autonomy to do their work. That's -- sorry, go ahead.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So that was very concerning for him and for his team because that's what they do. They're job is to get engaged with protesters, in this case it was convoy protesters, establish relationships, determine what their goals are, how can we facilitate and exit? What does an exit look like? All those activities, trying to obtain those win-win situations where it's a bit of a give and take amongst protesters and PLT to try to establish rapport and trust with each other, and they weren't able to do any of that. And I can only imagine, if that's your sole job and you're being prevented from being able to do that, that can be frustrating. So ---
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- in my role as strategic commander, I was asked to see what I could do to deconflict that or resolve that because that was their concern. They weren't allowed to make decisions.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you understood that that lack of autonomy was as a result of Chief Sloly's direction, as I understand?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's what I was informed of, correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
But in your dealings with Deputy Chief Bell and Deputy Chief Ferguson, they appeared to welcome the assistance of the OPP and they were cooperative with you and engaged with you; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Very much so, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Mr. Migicovsky, you're well over time, so I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sorry. Last question then, you talked about the PLTs, and you understood that Staff Sergeant John Ferguson was in charge of the PLTs in Ottawa; is that right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
For the Ottawa Police, correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And you understood that he too was frustrated with the lack of involvement of the PLTs. He was supporting what the OPP was -- wanted?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I understood that, yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Thank you very much. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next up are the Convoy Organizers.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. BATH SHEBA VAN den BERG
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Good morning, Mr. Commissioner, good morning, Superintendent Abrams, and good morning, my friends. My name is Bath-Shéba van den Berg and I am Counsel representing Freedom Corp. and protesters. Thank you for your service, Superintendent and for your forthwith testimony so far. I have a few questions for you this morning. You mentioned yesterday in your testimony that the PLT use a snatch and grab method; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
They do not use that method. I believe in my testimony yesterday I indicated that Major Critical Incident Commander Superintendent Patterson wanted to do snatch and grabs, and wanted PLT assistance with that, and that actually was one of my main concerns, because our PLT Units are not used in that fashion ever. So it actually is the opposite of your suggestion.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So you can confirm that the method of snatch and grab was not used between February 6th and 10th of 2002 -- 2022 rather?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Oh, no, I can't confirm that. Those operations would have been done by Ottawa Police Service if they did them. My purpose in communicating to Superintendent Patterson was if him and his service wished to do that, there would be no OPP support in doing so. They may have occurred, but if they did occur, they would have been done by the Ottawa Police Service without OPP member participation.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I want to speak with you about what snatch and grab means. You agree that it means police officers lined up in a horizontal line and in their riot gear; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's not how I see it. Snatch and grab is not a -- it's not a policing term, to be honest, that I'm familiar with as far as a technique that we're taught or instructed on. When I heard Superintendent Patterson explain that, he didn't explain it in great detail. I pictured it in my mind it was trying to locate certain individual persons who may have a reasonable grounds to be arrested and, essentially, when they're located, grab them off the street wherever they're located and arrest them under those authorities. That's how I viewed what snatch and grab was. I do not view it as a group activity. It was more an individual activity.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
You would agree though that it does involve grabbing protesters; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I mean, the individual person may be a protester themselves, but I just -- I pictured an operation where officers are going out looking for one particular person or persons on a list, but not -- the persons aren't together in a group. And if an opportunity arose, they would affect an arrest of that singular person.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. Was this method, to the best of your knowledge, used after the Emergencies Act was invoked?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't speak to that because I wasn't connected with the Ottawa Police operations at that level.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
You mentioned in your testimony yesterday that you only found out about the creation of the red zone on February 17th; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe that's correct, through media. That was posted on Ottawa Police Twitter and media releases that were released by Ottawa Police where they spoke about the formation of this red zone.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Is it true that you also found out on the same date of February 17th that there would be 900 officers reporting at 6 a.m. the following morning, Friday morning, February 18th for deployment?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So, yeah. Yes, but if I could expand on that answer a little bit to add some context to it, so the evening -- so the date was February 19th you're indicating?
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
The -- in the evening of the February 17th ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
February ---
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
--- that you found out that at 6 a.m. the next morning on February 18th that there'd be 900 officers ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe the 17th was a Thursday; am I correct?
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
The 17th was a Thursday evening ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Right.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
--- that's correct.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So the next date was a planned, large Public Order Unit deployment, which that was the first time we would have seen a large number of Public Order Unit members on the street. And my people's role, the people I was in control of, would be to be at traffic points to help contain and control any ground that Public Order Units were able to clear. And late that evening, I believe it was around 10 o'clock, 50 RCMP members attended our OPP Command Post indicating that they were reporting to our location starting the next morning, along with Ottawa Police. And that was concerning to me only because I was already deploying close to 5 to 600 of my own members, and if we added Ottawa Police and RCMP, that would be 900 members, and we would not physically be able to get that many members onto the street in time to support the operation that was planned for the next day.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So was it, in your professional opinion, that there was insufficient time to properly brief these 900 police officers prior to them being deployed on the ground?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There would not have been sufficient time to brief them and get them on the ground, so that's why that evening, as a team, I gathered my Incident Commander, Ottawa Police Service supervisors were on our Command Post helping us with telecommunications, and I gathered them in a group and we all said we have to solve this problem, because we're literally hours away from a major operation. So collaboratively and together, we all agreed on a solution, so that we did not have to deal with that issue the next morning, and we were able to get officers deployed in a reasonable amount of time.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Was the name of this major operation "Operation Takedown"?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was never aware of what the Public Order Unit operation name was. I just knew that there was a Public Order operation happening the next morning, but I wasn't familiar with the name of it.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
As per the Ontario Police Services Act Regulation 926, all police officers, including Public Order Unit members, performing active duty shall have an up-to-date Use of Force qualification within the last 12 months; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe that applies to all serving police officers in the province of Ontario, so it would apply to Public Order Unit members as well.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Would you be able to confirm that all officers including those 900 received those -- had that qualification before they were deployed?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would not be able to confirm that because I don't have that information. And if I could qualify my answer, there is a provision that allows the Associated Arms Office to provide an extension to that 12 months, whether it be due to an emergency. Best example I can give you, in this case, when the Public Order process started, we had a large influx of OPP members come to the City of Ottawa. I had an additional almost over 400 officers come to the city. To be able to get that many members to the city, we had to do some logistical operations within our organization, and one of those was to cancel block training, which is annual training for members on use of force and firearm requalification. So in doing so, some of those members may have gone outside the 12 months. We needed to seek approval to allow them to maybe be beyond the 12-month period, but that is allowed within the Police Service Act with the proper authorities.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Was your role after the Emergencies Act was invoked ER logistics and planning ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I'm sorry, after it was invoked what was my role?
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah, was it logistics and planning?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, my role was as the Strategic Commander. So I oversaw a team of officers that were led by an Incident Commander, who their job was to organize the logistics of finding out where Ottawa Police needed us because we were a support agency to the Ottawa Police, and then my Incident Commander and his team would provide Ottawa Police with the support that they needed under -- with me with frontline officers. So Public Order Unit Command and what they needed for Public Order Unit was separate from myself and I didn't have direction or control over our Public Unit ---
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- members.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you were reporting to Chief Superintendent Carson Pardy; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
You considered him your commander?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I did.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Were you involved in the planning phase for the operation, the major operation?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Only for -- I believe I said yesterday, only for about 48 hours, just in the initial stages when the Integrated Planning Team got started and we had our initial meetings on the 8th and the 9th, and that was the only time I had direct contact with the members of that planning team, and I reverted back to my role of managing our OPP members and our deployments in support of Ottawa Police.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
With regard to the boots on the ground, were PLT supporting POUs?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was not aware of what PLT was doing. I know PLT eventually had a seat in the NCRCC with our Critical Incident Commander, so there was always -- I believe it was a PLT Sergeant that sat beside our Critical Incident Commander. But I'm not aware exactly of what they were doing in the field because that would not have been reported to me.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And yesterday you mentioned that OPP and OPS PLTs had an integration problem and communication's issues; is that right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's what was reported to me. Correct.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And also with the POUs?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't say that I heard of a lack of integration within our Public Order Units. That wasn't reported to me.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Do you agree with me that after the invocation the Emergencies Act that these integration problems, the communications problems continued and did not improve?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Within the PLT teams, there was still issues. I would have calls with Inspector Beaudin and he would say some days they were making forward progress and other days they still lacked an ability to understand what the plan was. Because until the Integrated Planning Team came up with a plan, there was still no plan. So they still struggled to determine what their purpose was, were they truly integrated team between the Ottawa Police Service PLT team and the OPP PLT team. There were still those issues, yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And that, in fact, that the problems worsened after the influx of 900 additional officers on the ground on Friday morning the 18th of February?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I don't know if they any worsened. I think the maintained and became -- they were similar, but I don't know that they became any worse.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Would you agree with me that due to the lack of integration and communication problems, that that would lead to a problem ultimately in decision making throughout the major operations?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. The information that PLT is able to provide and tell us about conversations they're having with convoy organizers, and plans or what the intent of the organizers are is very important in forming operational plans of how we're going to approach a protest. So being unable to get that information has an impact, yes, in a negative way.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And when I mention major operation, I mean after the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I consider it one giant operation and the lack of communication had impacts all along, from invocation period, prior to and during.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
If it didn’t improve after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, would you agree that it got worse?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can’t say it got worse. It just seemed to be a similar theme throughout my time as strategic commander is I continued to hear the lack of communication, the lack of integration. That was a common theme. It didn’t seem to increase through one day or the other, whether prior to February 14th or after. It seemed to be a similar theme throughout.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And the final phase after this major operation after the indication of the Emergencies Act was called the maintenance phase. Is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I recall that name being used. Just it was a phrase meant to maintain and hold ground that public org members were able to clear streets, intersections, those types of things.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Do you agree that every officer who draws their firearm in the presence of public and uses weapons or improved weapon other than a firearm on another person or uses physical force on a person that results in an injury to that person requiring medical attention shall complete a use of force report prior to the end of duty?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can only speak to the OPP. There is a use of force reporting requirement. I apologize. I’m not certain on the timelines of when it shall be done, whether it’s at the end of their shift or within a certain number of days. I’d have to review the legislation, so unfortunately, I can’t give you the exact answer on that. But I tried to follow all what you were speaking about, but from what I heard you say, it seems to check all the boxes that are related to our members when they have to fill out use of force reports. And all the occasions you mentioned, from what I recall hearing, fit those needs to have a use of force report submitted.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Well, timelines aside, were any of those use of force reports completed at the major operations after the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m not aware.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yesterday you mentioned that you listened and you watched Chief Superintendent -- rather, Superintendent Morris’s testimony yesterday. Is that correct? You mentioned that yesterday in your testimony, that you watched his ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Parts of his testimony, yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And do you agree with it?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t disagree with many of the things that Superintendent Morris said. It was his testimony and was consistent with our organizational values and his public -- Provincial Intelligence Bureau mandates.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. Those are all my questions. And thank you again for your service.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next I’d call on the Government of Canada.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRENDAN van NIEJENHUIS
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Superintendent Abrams, my name is Brendan van Niejenhuis, and I’m one of the lawyers for the Government of Canada. And I just have a few questions for you about your testimony yesterday.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Good morning.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You described yesterday at some length a difference of view or approach between yourself or members of your team at the OPP and Chief Sloly and some of those working under him at the OPS about the importance in this scenario of PLT techniques; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in particular, you described or you relayed information upwards about a significant dispute that had arisen about the arrest of those who were removing gas cans from the Coventry Road encampment.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Those gas cans which were in part there as a supply of fuel to vehicles in the red zone were a serious concern as to safety; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. Flammable products.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And their use as a supply was also a concern about it supporting the continued entrenchment of the trucks in the downtown care; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure. It was.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
The OPP PLT and some of the OPS PLT members as well, I take it, were concerned that the trust that had been invested by them and by the protestors at that Coventry Road site had been disrupted or even destroyed by the arrests that were -- that occurred; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That was our concern, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And some of the PLT team members felt extremely demoralized and as though their work had been set back by days or even longer.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Some days had already been invested, I take it, in building those relationships with the Coventry Road encampment participants.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As I understand it, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And I think that the flash point for that disagreement as we saw from the document was on or around February the 8th. Does that accord with your recollection?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That seems accurate, yeah.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so by February the 8th the convoy had been ongoing in the downtown part of Ottawa for approximately 11 days running from January the 29th?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That seems accurate, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And now it would take several more days in the view of the PLT team to get back to that point, if not longer; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That was -- that was what they felt a worst-case scenario would look like. They were certainly hoping it wouldn’t take that many days, but that was their concern.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
In negotiating with the participants in the fashion that the PLT units do, is it fair to say that some are more susceptible to being reasoned with than others?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Are people more -- are some people more reasonable to reason with than others? Is that what you’re saying?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would say that’s an accurate statement, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And if we -- if I just want to call up a document, OPS00010383. Just by way of example, Superintendent, this is a report from OPS, some PLT members describing -- the name’s redacted, but one of the organizers from the east convoy, give a sense of what certain groups or factions are looking for. Do you see that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And he’s indicating that this individual wants a meeting with the Governor-General and the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Senate; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s how it appears.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was not the sort of thing that would be readily within the control of a PLT unit; fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct, yes. That’s correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And so this would be an example of someone who’s more difficult, at least on the -- by appearances, at least, to come to deal with, so to speak, to resolve the situation peacefully. Is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, certainly harder to resolve and would involve more time in trying to adjust their -- you know, trying to measure their expectations, perhaps.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And that informs the usefulness of a de- escalation or negotiation approach with a particular organizer or group of organizers; right? The reasonableness of their requirements in order to come into compliance with the law.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, it certainly gives you a very quick understanding of are we going to be able to have some type of back-and-forth reasoning or whether we’re just never going to be able to come to an agreement.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Just returning to this Coventry Road site, which was the locus of this, you know, contretemps or dispute, whatever you want to call it, that site is approximately a little more than four kilometres away from Parliament Hill and the centre of Wellington Street. Is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair. I’m not from the City of Ottawa, so I’ll have to take your word for that, but it seems accurate.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I’m going from Google Maps, so it’s -- but it’s several kilometres away. Is that reasonable, at least?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure, sounds reasonable.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in speaking yesterday to my friend, Commission counsel, with respect to your -- the conversation that you didn’t recall, I think, but that was recorded by Dana Earley in her notes from the Windsor side of things -- do you recall being asked about that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I call.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you were asked to, I guess, really speculate or -- about your apparent comment that in Ottawa, unlike in Windsor, the blockade was “not affecting livelihoods”, at least that’s what she had noted. Do you recall that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Like I said, I don’t recall the details of our conversation. I think the notes that were presented yesterday were scribe notes, so she had a scribe attached to her, so was writing down what we were conversing about. I didn’t have a scribe during this event, so I’m trying to use my independent recollection about the details of that conversation.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. And I just want to ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can’t say ---
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- be fair to you to make it clear what you can recall and what you can’t, which is perfectly fair.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But I just wanted to return to what you’d said as you speculated about it. You thought that you might have been speaking from your impression gathered driving around Ottawa outside of the downtown core in the Parliament precinct, that it was quite manageable to drive around town; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I believe, from my recollection, we were speaking about the Ambassador Bridge being blocked and how it was -- if you’re familiar with Windsor, it’s the one way into Windsor and if it’s blocked, it makes travel difficult within the whole city. And I recall having a conversation just about the economic impacts of that international bridge blockade and those kinds of things, and then I recall relating back to her how the blockade here in Ottawa was affecting the city as a whole, not just the downtown core.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure, sure. Just different geography and a different scenario.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Right.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You could get back and forth down the 417, and off to the Coventry Road site relatively smoothly?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't speak to Coventry Road because it's on the -- I believe it's on the north side of 417, but I was speaking more about, you know, areas south of the 417 and the 417 itself.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that's quite distinct from what was going on in the heart of Downtown Ottawa and Parliament Hill?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
If I could just show you a photograph of -- it's OTT, this was from Mr. Ayotte's evidence, OTT00010005, and it'll be page 37. It doesn't want to come up quickly. Well, do you recall at any point, if I can't get the photograph up, there being a large industrial crane on Wellington Street at certain points?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe it was the one that had the large Canadian flag that was extended with a flag on the end of it?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I recall seeing visuals of that, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that industrial crane, for example, presented a potential for serious danger to persons or property if it were to be misused; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree with that statement, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And there was also the presence, you know, again, not on Coventry Road, but on the Parliamentary Precinct and on Wellington Street, of an uncontrolled and unknown quantifies of gas or diesel fuel there as well; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah -- yes, there was fuel in that area.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And just as in the Coventry Road area, those can explode and cause serious fires in that downtown sector of Ottawa as well if they're to be set alight; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
I want to come back now to the difference of view about PLTs. You told us yesterday that in fairness to Chief Sloly, you know, in characterising the difference of view, that he may have been taking quite a high- level perspective in his preference by February 8th to enforce through public order operations in reference to investigating the PLT engagements; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That seemed to be the case, and -- yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And you appreciate that if Chief Sloly's perspective may have been high-level that the perspective at the political level would probably have been at even higher level; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't speculate on the political context.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay. Is it fair say, though, that the differences of opinion and the disagreements or even arguments amongst the participants in the policing operations from OPP, OPS, and later the RCMP, that these were operational in nature?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree -- yes, I would agree.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And these kinds of operational disagreements are not typically brought to the awareness of the political level; fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It's not something certainly not at my level.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It would not be appropriate to directly engage the political level in operational questions like that; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It would not be inappropriate?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
It would not be appropriate.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Appropriate. I've -- at my level it's not something I've ever been engaged with. At a Commissioner level, a Chief level, I can't speculate, I've never held those ranks, so I'm not sure what is appropriate or not applicant for a Chief of Police or a Commissioner to communicate with a politician.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
At your level, it would not be appropriate or you would perceive it as concerning if a Minister, for example, were to try to intrude into or give direction on the operational questions you were discussing?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It would concern me because of the operational impacts of somebody who's unknown to me having impacts on an operation we're trying to resolve.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
When you expressed the opinion yesterday that there were ways to enforce that could've ended the convoy's occupation of Downtown , short of the Emergencies Act, you were speaking just from your own visibility; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I'm sorry, what do you mean by "visibility"?
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Speaking just from the things that you can see on the ground in Ottawa and in the east region of Ontario.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Apologies, I'll have to get you to repeat the question again. I don't know that I understand the context.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Yes. When you expressed the view that there ways to enforce and end the convoy occupation in Downtown Ottawa, short of the Emergencies Act ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
--- you were speaking from your -- what you can see on the ground in Ottawa and the east region of Ontario?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, and from past experience in resolving blockades and prior to the Emergency Act.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
You also acknowledged yesterday, and you'll agree with me that this wasn't an isolated event, and that an event occurring in Ottawa would have an immediate impact on what was going on in Coutts and what was going on at the Ambassador Bridge; fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I agree. All those activities have linkages and have impacts to each other.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that may have been part of the assessment for all you know at the political level in terms of what was visible there?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Perhaps, I can't be certain.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Finally, just with respect to the measures being used, can we turn very briefly to ONT00000168. This is a form letter from Commissioner Carrique "To all identified towing companies". Do you see that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do see it.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And if you just scroll down the page, you'll see that this is -- indicates... Sorry, maybe not that far down. Just go back up. This provides the guidelines for the requirement of towing to be provided by towing companies under the Emergency Measures Regulations; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Okay. It seems to be that's the topic of the memo, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that, you'll agree with me, was used by the OPP to require towing companies to supply services?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It seems to be. I was not involved in that part of the Operations on that.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Okay, fair enough. If we could go to OPP00003660. Do you see this is a Notice To Demonstration Participants from February the 17th?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I see that.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this was distributed by the teams on the ground, including members of the OPP, to protesters to warn them of the legal consequences of remaining in the red zone; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And it refers to criminal offences, but if you go down the page, it refers as well, of course, to the consequences arising out of the Emergencies Act; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's -- that seems to be what it says, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And by the time the public order operations began in earnest that day, the 17th, communications like this had had an effect on reducing the footprint of the crowd; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Because I wasn't involved in the Integrated Planning Group or seeing reports from PLT, I can't say whether it had a positive impact in members or people, protesters choosing to leave or not leave. Just because of my role at that period of time, I was insulated and focussed on just deploying my members in support of the Ottawa Police Service, so I wasn't getting reports on, you know, how many protesters are choosing to leave or the success or non-success of items like this.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
But you'll appreciate, at least from the perspective of the consequence that it's attempting to communicate, that that's the purpose of it, right, is to allow for a peaceful opportunity to depart?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I mean, this is exactly kind of what I spoke about. This is one of those communication mediums that PLT uses to communicate with protesters so that they understand, because some may not understand that they're committing an offence, and this may be the consequences if you don't -- sometimes there's timelines put on them, sometimes there is not, but this is classic PLT communication process, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And in your experience, it's effective; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
In my experience, it has been very effective, and -- because it's -- it follows the measured approach, it follows the framework, it makes sure that anybody involved in the protests clearly understands jeopardy, understands police timelines in relation to what we plan to do, we're open, we're being honest, and so there's no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what may be occurring into the future.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And this public order operation, so far as you're aware, was able to proceed in Ottawa without death or serious bodily injury to any of the participants?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There was bodily injury to participants from my side. I saw some people -- there was some injuries to people. I understand the SIU became engaged in some injuries, so there was injuries to participants that I'm aware of, and that's just me seeing the media. Those weren't things that were reported to me through a chain of command or anything like that.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Sure. But you're not aware of any death or serious bodily injuries?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m not aware of any deaths. I have to say that I saw serious bodily injury, because if you look at the definition and mandate of the Special Investigations Unit of Ontario, they only become involved when there’s serious bodily injury. So because they were engaged in one incident, I’d have to say that serious bodily injury within that definition occurred in that situation.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
All right. The encampment was -- sorry, the occupation at any rate was resolved after the enforcement operation went underway with the assistance of the Communications, as far as you knew?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And that was the purpose of the OPP’s assistance throughout the convoy to begin with; right? Was to resolve the situation?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Along with our partners. It wasn’t really OPP’s job to resolve the situation.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
No, no. But that’s the purpose of OPP’s assistance?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, to try to help to resolve, yes.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And when the EA was revoked, the Act was revoked on the 23rd, you directed the employment of common-law powers to prevent further assembly for approximately another 24 hours?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
And then you concluded that that power was no longer necessary or applicable because the situation had been resolved?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The situation had been resolved, but more so, there was no police intelligence to indicate that the convoy or participants were going to reattend and continue to commit the offences that they were committing. So therefore we needed to fall back.
Brendan van Niejenhuis, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next I’d like to call on the lawyer for former Chief Sloly, Tom Curry.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, just before I begin, I believe I -- I think many of my friends -- some of my friends have gone a little bit over. I would be grateful if I could have a bit of an indulgence? If I need to use some of the time that I have been allocated for the witness this afternoon, I will cash that time in.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I’ve not seen that type of trading going on ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- and I don’t want to encourage it, ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It’s a PLT -- it’s a PLT ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- but I have been a little bit liberal because it’s Friday ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- and we don’t have as much of a heavy schedule. But I -- so I will have some indulgence, but please don’t abuse it.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TOM CURRY
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent, you first got engaged in this, you’ve told us, when you received an email assigning you to this event on the 24th of January; yeah?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Three days out from the first convoy truck rolling into the city?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m not -- I was away from the workplace prior to, so I’m not sure when one truck may have arrived in the city. The majority of the trucks were planned to arrive at the end of that week. So I can’t state what trucks were in town on the 24th of January.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, sorry, three days out from when they arrive. You came on ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I apologize.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- on the 24th; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was going the other way in the calendar.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were -- right. So am I right that you were given, by your commander, and I think you got it on the afternoon of the 24th, so you get it at 4:00 o’clock or some such thing on the 24th, and you’ve now got three days to develop your plan and your strategic command; yes?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And what you did was you looked at the information that was available to you, Project Hendon; yes?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you spoke to your colleague, Supt. Morris?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, Supt. Morris, I was part of conversations where he would inform us of the most current intelligence, what was occurring ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, just stop. After you got the assignment, forgetting that you get the Hendon Reports, I get that you received them all?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. But after the 24th, before you deployed, you spoke to him and got a briefing from him; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sounds accurate.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Pardon me?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m assuming I did. I ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, sure.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- can’t recall.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I’ve got -- let’s help you with the notes.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
OPP00000774, please. You’ve looked at these before you came today, I assume?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
My notes?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you look at your notes?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’ve looked at my notes many times, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, I know. But before you came here, did you look at these?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Good. So it’s -- I don’t want to test your memory, but let’s look. This is Monday. You’re working from home at that time. Do you see?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And 0948, email to INTERSECT. You told us about that: “…discuss the convoy issues […] impacts in all of our areas.” “1305 Tovell.” I think that’s one of your colleagues: “…doing [a] traffic plan for [the] Convoy arrival. [Speaking to] OPS Traffic…” “1554 Intersect email.” That’s you sending them. “convoy - 28-29 Jan[uary].” Everybody thought this was a two-day protest; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I’m just -- when I look at the dates, I think the dates are indicative of arrival date, as opposed to event dates.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well let’s carry on. They were going to get through Arnprior on the 28th. Three convoys above that. 29th of January, into Ottawa. We’ll -- this is OPP’s plan: “[We] will slow traffic but not block. The intention is to hold a peaceful demo[nstration] [with] no hostility. forward to Chief Thomas, Insp Tovell [and] Semple.” That’s your team; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And just to add context, I’m not saying that the OPP will slow down traffic. The convoy organizers have stated that they will slow traffic, but not block it.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you for that. And what you were going to do, to get to this -- the traffic plan was to effectively escort the convoy to Ottawa?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
We didn’t want to do any escorting. So there was no OPP vehicles necessarily, you know, in front and back and follow us. It was more monitoring.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you had cruisers. Did the cruisers have their overhead roof lights on or not?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can’t be 100 percent whether they did or not. We would not. But emergency lights activated or not, that deep into an operational plan, ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- that would be left to the officer’s discretion ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- of how they feel they need to do it on the side of the road.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So sometimes if protestors sympathetic were on the side of the highway supporting the convoys that went by, you might have had -- a cruiser might have had to use their emergency lights in that situation, for example?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you had cruisers in and around the convoy as -- from the time it crossed the Manitoba border until you handed them off to Ottawa; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
How many cruisers?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can’t articulate a number.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Be more than -- I mean, what -- from your experience, we’ve got a train down many kilometres. Do you imagine that it’s 10 unites?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I’m trying to ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Twenty (20) units?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m trying to recall the operational plan, if it listed the traffic units. But I would say at least 15 to 20 units would be a fair number, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then just to carry on: “1622 Chief Thomas Email!” That’s your Chief Superintendent?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“MCIC [something] possibly”?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
“to come over possibly.”
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“to come over possibly. aviation consulted.” That’s your aviation team; yeah?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then it says -- POIB is, of course, the Intelligence Bureau. “Pat”. You spoke with him?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I didn’t speak with him that day. I just -- I knew that his role and what he was doing was he was engaging with police partners outside of Ontario so that we could have a picture of what was coming across Canada from west to east.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And then finally, at 1622, you note that in that conversation, or rather email, with your superintendent -- your chief superintendent, you were asked to be the strategic superintendent for the event and you went into action. Therefore, effectively, the next day, the -- really into action the next day, the 25th; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Two days -- effectively two days before the -- what we understand to be the arrival of some of the first vehicles in Ottawa. Can I show you -- or can I ask you to confirm that what you then did was you got your colleagues, your team reporting to you to do a traffic plan? An operations plan for this event; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
An operational plan, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that operational plan -- we have it. But that operational plan effectively had OPP monitoring the convoy through Ontario until there was a hand off into Ottawa; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, many other regions had similar plans and they were tracking the movements in a similar fashion.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And so we had to create our plan obviously just for our geographic area.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right east region. And the -- you had a -- you then set up some of your own people in your operations centre in Ottawa; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It wasn’t our operations centre. I put Insp. Ferguson in the NCRCC. S/Sgt. Nicholas between kind of a traffic building that OPS had in the NCRCC and I had my Emergency Operations Centre at our East Region headquarters in Smiths Falls.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And where were you located during that time? The weekend of the convoy, were you in Smiths Falls?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was in Smiths Falls.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, good. And you had a couple of people, you've described, on the ground here in different places, and did you have in Smiths Falls any other people with you as part of your team managing the event?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I had assigned an Incident Commander Scott Semple.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In Smiths Falls?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. Smiths Falls to Ottawa, help us with the geography.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Southwest 40 minutes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And then you had -- am I correct you did not have resources, logistical resources, any other kind of resources for an event that was going to be longer than a weekend protest; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the reason that you didn't is because your review of the intelligence available and the information available to you at OPP pointed to a two-day protest? They come, they protest, they leave; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I wouldn't agree with that. I would say that my plan was based on my conversations through Intersect calls with Ottawa Police, who indicated they were planning for that level of event; therefore, so was I.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, so the one thing we don't do, or do we, is defer to another police service when we make our own plans at the OPP. That's an input, but you did not -- you're not telling the Commissioner that you didn't plan for an extended protracted three-week event in Ottawa because the Ottawa Police Service didn't; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly not, because ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- as we saw and as I explained in my evidence before is we expected a traffic event that was going to end downtown in the City of Ottawa. So we did not plan based on intelligence, based on Hendon, based on any other information source that we expected vehicles or protesters to clog up provincial highways, which we were responsible for, or communities for more than an evening, and we expected them to be lawful in that one evening. So all of those parts indicated for the OPP's perspective a very quick event, essentially, a one-day trip from different areas of the city into the downtown core and that would end the OPP's involvement in the movement of those vehicles.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, and the OPP plan, we can look at it if you need it, the OPP plan describes in language the handoff. You were going to hand off after they were finished travelling over the provincial highways into the City of Ottawa; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Right.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Your expectation was that as many as 3,000 vehicles were going to be in the City of Ottawa and you were quite content with what you saw from OPS was their plan to allow the convoy operators to protest; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The numbers were uncertain. Ottawa Police indicated that they thought they could handle 3,000. Hendon and other reports as we've seen didn't specifically exactly say X number of vehicles. But I was satisfied based on my calls with Ottawa Police that they felt they could handle that number of vehicles.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, and you knew it wasn't 3,000 once they got there, but you knew that ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No. Indicators were just the vehicles that crossed from the west that was in the 800 range and they may ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- pick up some as they move south but ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And so you were content to hand off to Ottawa in the expectation that the team that you had put together as the Strategic Operations lead here would allow you to manage that convoy as they left Ottawa as well; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There was no -- we didn't know what the exit plan was, so we always had to be ready and available to write what that exit plan was. So that was an unknown to us as to would they exit on mass, would they exit slowly. That was uncertain.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But in addressing that uncertainty, you were content that the team that you had in place was appropriate; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, we felt we could manage as a mass entry is not much different than a mass exit.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so therefore -- right, and therefore, you did not plan -- you didn't bring any additional resources for anything longer than the weekend protest that you thought was going to be on; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. Because as you noted in my notes, once it looked like it was going to be prolonged, I had to have meetings with my command team to say let's plan for an extended event.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
29th of January, I believe, maybe a little later, is the first time that you began to assemble resources for a different event; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Ottawa Police Service was in the very same position that you were in; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Position as in not planned for an extended event?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It seemed to be.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly, in my conversations with Deputy Bell on the 31st, I believe it was, was the first time that he indicated that he felt this was going to be a protracted event and they were planning for what could be a 4-week event.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they made a shift in their planning and operations just like you did; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, they sent -- yes, for sure, they ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you -- what you did in advance was send a Public Order Unit to Ottawa in advance, this was part of your planning, but you sent them to the PPS, Parliamentary Protective Service; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, so I can explain the structure ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, don't -- I don't -- yeah, I mean, if you need to make an explanation, go ahead, but I just need the facts.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I need to explain because it wasn't my direction. That's why I need to explain.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I'm ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I did not direct those resources. As a Strategic Commander, I did not direct Public Order Unit operations. I did not direct where they went. They reported to me to tell me what they were doing, but that happened through our Field Support Bureau. So in your question, I did not direct that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. Thank you for that clarification. OPP sent a Public Order Unit, but they didn't send them to the OPS. They sent them to the PPS; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then you set out the calls for resources. You need to make a new plan and you began to get resources in the form of additional personnel; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
How many additional personnel?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
At the very beginning, I reached out to say, "Look, we have 18 members right now that we could pull from local detachments." And it started from there and it continued -- every day ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- it continued to rise from there.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was obvious to you as a person with experience in this area that the Ottawa Police Service would not be able with its existing resources to manage this event, correct, once it changed its complexion; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I didn't know that until I heard that directly from their own Deputy Chief.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I had made assumptions that I felt that they had come up with a plan to address many different options that may have occurred.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So the -- we'll talk about plans, but just talking about personnel, you knew from your experience with Intersect, the size of the Ottawa Police Service did not allow it to manage the event that this had become; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, and I learned that through those calls.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, but you do -- but did you need to be told that? If so, that's fine, or did you know it from your own experience that they were overwhelmed ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- in numbers?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- I had to be told that because I ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- couldn't assume. I knew they have I believe it's 1200 or 1400, they have many members, and at that early stage, it was hard to know whether that many members could contain what was happening in those first day or two or not.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Good.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I needed to hear that from them because I wasn't on the ground ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- to see what they were dealing with.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that's fair. So then you needed to be told that by them and they told you that.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what they asked for was help; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They asked you for help as early as what; do you say, the 31st?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I'd have to check my notes, but it was on a Saturday or Sunday, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And when they said they wanted help, they told you they needed help in particular areas; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Very specific areas; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I correct that you were unable at that time to give them all the help that they wanted?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I don't recall that. When I talked to Deputy Bell, he said his immediate need was for traffic control. He needed officers to be able to relieve his officers from downtown doing traffic, so we were able to provide those bodies. We started with 30 a day, and I was able to provide those bodies within my own region in short order. I never ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- there was never delay.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was not adequate; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
He needed more after that, because he had indicated that it would probably come to 60. When the formal letter would come from Chief Sloly or the Commissioner Carrique, Deputy Chief Bell indicated to me that he felt it would probably be around the 60 number that they would be asking from the OPP from frontline, and then there would be Public Order section requests and PLT requests as well.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Am I right though that you were not able to give them the resources they needed when they needed them; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe I was able to give them when they needed them.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So what did you do to get resources? Were you confined to moving resources within the East Region, or did you put in a call to your superiors or the other parts of your command to get additional resources?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. In the early days I was able to contain it within my own region. I believe on my other evidence I described we have a Regional Deployment Plan for emergencies such as this, and we know how many officers are at each of our 16 detachments; we know who’s working each day, and in an emergency we know how many officers we can ask to leave that area to attend whatever the emergency happens to be. So relied on that Emergency Regional Deployment Plan to gather those resources of 30 a day to assist Ottawa. Once, you know, a couple of days goes by and I’m aware that there’s going to be an increased asked of 60, then, yes, I need to call our emergency, or Operations Centre, which is based out of Orillia at our General Headquarters, which falls under our Field Support Bureau, to then gather provincial resources to assist because, yes, regionally I wouldn’t be able to ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
When did you first -- when did you first put in a call to the Emergency Resource Centre:
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Once again I’d have to refer to my notes but within probably three days to four days of the 30 a day when it was clear -- when the letter came in from Chief Sloly asking for 60, I had to make the phone call through our EOC to say, “Okay, I need your help to gather resources to come to East Region.”
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I correct that you came to the conclusion that 60 a day was not enough?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I could only rely on what Ottawa Police said they needed from me.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were told 60 a day was not enough; they needed many more; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As other days went on, that would be communicated to me, say, “Can you give us more?” And we would be able to tell them, “Yeah, we can probably give you this many more or this many more.”
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And on the -- you told us about the -- first, let me go back. You had never been through anything like this before; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Not to this scale.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You’ve never seen an urban occupation -- a protest that had become an occupation; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As it was explained to me, this was the largest unplanned deployment of OPP resources in our history.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, got it. So therefore in your history. You told us that you’d been to some other -- been through some other blockade situations, but they have not involved the urban environment like this, and obviously the sheer scale of this one was beyond anything you had experienced, right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Not in my experience, correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so when we talk about resources, you had participated in a call you told us, on the 6th of February when Chief Sloly requested his team to make an estimate of the resources they needed, right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I recall that was a video call, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And you told us that you thought that it was unusual that he told his team to double the number; if they thought they needed 100, to double it to 200. You made that comment; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, it seemed odd to me, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. It didn’t seem odd enough to you, though, to record in your notes, right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And I addressed this in my Will State, it’s because in the meeting they were discussing Ottawa Police business. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to make notes on Ottawa Police operations, so I purposely did not note ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You made a lot of notes, Superintendent, about Ottawa Police. You’ve made notes about rumours and innuendo and what people told you some other guy said all kinds of times, haven’t you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I have. In that -- in that situation, I purposely chose not to ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- takes notes because it seemed inappropriate for me ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- because they were talking about internal Ottawa Police operation matters that I didn’t -- my purpose to be on the call was to talk about PLT.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you didn’t -- so can I put it this way: That whatever Chief Sloly said that you didn’t record in your notes, you didn’t think it was important enough to imagine that the number that they came back with, 1,800, when they came back 24 hours later with a number, that there was some lack of validity or integrity to that number, did you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I questioned where the number could have come from in that short period of time.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You didn’t -- yeah. And did you tell Chief Sloly or anyone that you weren’t going to take action in respect of their request for resources because you had heard him make a comment to his team, that you didn’t record in your notes, but that you were going to use to deny them resources that they wanted?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I never communicated with Chief Sloly on that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And I never would deny resources. I communicated that to my command, as we spoke about in my testimony to the Commissioner, to say this is what I’d heard. While you’re trying to address operational requests from the Ottawa Police Service, I thought it was important for him and the Deputy Commissioner to know that this statement was made ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- that day.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So what did you think that was going to do, Superintendent? Did you think that was going to get them the help they needed, or did you think that was going to cause people to believe that there was no actual number that they needed that had any validity? What did you think you were doing with that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
What I was doing was protecting the members of the OPP.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And not ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what were you ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Can I finish?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What were you ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Let him finish.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m sorry. Go ahead, Superintendent; how were you protecting the members of the OPP?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Because of a large request like that, it was important for me to communicate to my senior command that, (a), perhaps they’re not truly needed based on what I heard, and (b), since we have no operational plan yet, to send that number of officers into a situation with no real plan on what to do with them was a concern, so that’s why I felt it was important to communicate that to my command about that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Would you agree with me that it had the effect of causing your people, and everybody else, to think that what Chief Sloly was asking for to help the citizens of this city and to help the Government of Canada and to help his own Police Service, did you think you were helping him, or them?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I think it was helping everybody to have the proper knowledge before they made decisions to deploy resources.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. And so of course we now know, don’t we, that the 1,800 estimate that his team put together was exactly right; maybe it was a little under, actually. You know that, don’t you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, we’ve heard those numbers here.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. So it wasn’t a rabbit pulled from a hat, and it wasn’t a bunch of numbers that were just randomly doubled, was it?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It seemed to me as a number pulled from a hat in that short period of time.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you accept now that it wasn’t a number pulled from a hat; that his team worked very hard to actually get the number that they needed? Do you accept that now?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Because there was no plan.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And so I can’t accept that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s, of course ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Please ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m sorry.---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- again, you’re interrupting. Please, let him finish.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I know you’re over your time and I’m being generous.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So it’s important to be fair to the witness.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Of course. Superintendent, go ahead.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
From my experience, as we’ve talked about, we build a plan first and then we add members to it after. The fact that the numbers fit the integrated planning team’s plan, I don’t know that that connects to the work that his team did within those 24 hours.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you look at it?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The integrated plan?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No. Did you look at the numbers that were on the table that his team put together?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
On February 9th when I attended the meeting downtown with the integrated planning team, that’s the first time I was presented with the three-page document that showed the numbers that they were requesting.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So before you even looked at it, you made the statement that it was an overestimate, and it was not a valid number; you didn’t even look at it?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I never indicated in any of my communications that I felt it was an overestimate. I just wanted our senior command to know that when Ottawa Police were trying to determine how many people they needed, this is the direction that their Chief gave them.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s all -- I did not opine on whether I felt it was adequate or inadequate. I never said that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You cast doubt on it, didn’t you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I only said that there was -- suspicious how they could come up with a number like that, and certainly the suggestion that that number would be doubled.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fine. And then you passed that on to the Minister.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I did.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You passed on -- you passed on an incorrect number to the Minister, didn’t you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I did not do that, no.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The Minister, the Solicitor- General?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The deployment ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you see the Minister’s statement?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
We’re talking about two separate events here, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Let’s move to the second one, then, if you want to think it is a second event. Did you pass on the number to the Minister ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Please, let’s -- you get to ask questions, don’t turn things around, please. Be fair to this witness.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So the video call when I met with Chief Sloly, and he talked about having his team go away. That date was February -- you’ll have to help me, counsellor, on the date that video call happened. You just mentioned the date the call ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I had moved on to the statement that the Minister made.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Irregardless [sic] of the date ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m happy to go back if you want.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So February 2nd, I received an email requesting we have in the OPP a representative within the government buildings in Toronto, and they’re liaison between government and the OPP. And I received an email from that unit saying that the Solicitor-General wanted the number of OPP members that have been in Ottawa since the beginning of the event. So I asked my team to create a chart which indicated the numbers from the beginning of the event until the 2nd of February, and I described what that chart looked like yesterday. It include numbers of logistical people, EOC members, frontline members, Public Unit Order members. And I emailed that to my Chief Superintendent, and since we’re a paramilitary organization, we follow the chain of command. And then I assume from that point on those numbers that I obtained were moved up to higher levels.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Minister on that basis issued a statement to the public, and in the House, in the Legislature; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I became aware of that later. I wasn't aware of it at the time.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. And it was erroneous?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't say that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, there weren't 1,500 OPP officers here, were there?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
In a day. Chief Sloly, in his concerns to me when we had our meeting, was he felt that that media release indicated that there was 1,500 OPP officers in his streets, in his town that day.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And that impacted, you now know this, it impacted what the RCMP considered the Ottawa Police Service needed, it impacted the way the public in Ottawa thought that the OPS was handling the matter, it impacted the Council and all of the other things, didn't it?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As I stated to Chief Sloly, I presented the daily numbers with a roll up of the total numbers. How those numbers were used or controlled after that was beyond my control.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, and did you tell -- what steps did you take to tell the Solicitor General that the information upon which she was relying was -- had been misunderstood, misinterpreted? Any steps?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I -- it was not within my purview to reach out to the Solicitor General.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you tell your Commanding Officer ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I did not.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that that had happened?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I did not, that ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- meeting was the first time.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Two quick things: The bridge. Have you seen Chief Sloly's news conference of February the 4th that you told the Commission about yesterday?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I only saw the live portion when I was sititing in the Command Post and I saw him and Deputy Bell doing the news conference.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So you're relying on your memory from February 4th?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I recall hearing that and then reacting immediately ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- because I connected with the Deputy immediately.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, I don't have the time to play it for you, but he never said that he was going to close bridges. What he said in his news conference was that consideration was being given to that, and that bridges or accesses -- access would be closed if needed or as needed. He didn't say he was closing bridges; did he?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's what I heard, and -- so that would naturally precipitate a call to confirm what I heard. Maybe I misheard, that's why I needed to reach out to Deputy Bell to say, "Did I hear this correctly?"
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I needed to understand.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm sorry to interrupt you. And you were told by Deputy Bell that you had misheard it, that there were no bridges being closed; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah. My concern was more about the offramps. The bridges were within the City of Ottawa, so I wasn't concerned about the bridges. My main concern was about what I heard about offramps.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Same thing, though. Deputy Bell said ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It's not the same thing for me as far as my concern and my operations because my operations didn't concern bridges.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He gave you the same answer. "You have misunderstood it. No one's closing a bridge, no one's closing an offramp. Relax."
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I heard it very clearly that there was a plan to close offramps, and that's what precipitated my call to Deputy Bell.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Quick thing about the PLT. This PLT team, unfortunately, never had any success in negotiating the departure of convoy participants or protesters; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would disagree with that. I felt that at the end much of their work allowed some of the convoy protesters to leave voluntarily.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So prior to the -- I should have been clearer, thank you. Prior to the public order operation going into effect to clear these streets, PLT had not succeeded in negotiating an end to this protest, had they?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, certainly the protest was still ongoing when public order had to do what they did.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And so the Coventry Road issue, what PLT had negotiated, am I correct, was that protesters could take their fuel from Coventry Road and place it in a different depo?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I wasn't aware of the particulars of that because PLT didn't report to me. What I was engaged in was solely on the deconfliction end of it, to say that, "This happened, this miscommunication happened within the Ottawa Police Service, and could you help us?"
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as my friend, Mr. van Niejenhuis had asked, the fuel on Coventry Road, whether it's on Coventry Road or it's somewhere else, was a significant public safety risk; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if PLT negotiated that they're going to move the fuel from Coventry Road to a different depo, you could appreciate why Ottawa Police Service would be very concerned; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't speak to what the idea was ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- or what the plan was because ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- I didn't ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So you would not -- you're not telling the Commissioner that you're second-guessing the operational decision to seize fuel if that was a public safety risk; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct, because our teams were intended to integrate and they didn't report to me.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you. And then, Windsor. The information that was available to OPP did not -- was not sufficient to allow it to avoid the blockade at Windsor.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was not involved in any of the Windsor. I would not have any information on Windsor or ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- our plans in Windsor.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And resources have to be allocated among the OPP detachments across the province so that when we saw the note from your colleague in Windsor about whether Windsor was a priority over Ottawa, that's a decision that has to be made at the level of the -- of OPP resource allocation; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Right. In a province the size of Ontario, there is various priorities that have to be decided on how we staff them.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- as to the Emergencies Act, the OPP, PLT notes to protesters included and relied upon terms under the Emergencies Act; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe that's what we saw, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay, thank you. Next, I'd like to call on the City of Ottawa.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNE TARDIF
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Good morning, Superintendent. My name's Anne Tardif. I represent the City of Ottawa.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Good morning.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So I'd like to take you first to your notes. I know you have them in front of you, and I'll give you the date, but I'm going to give the number so that everyone else can follow along.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
It's OPP00000774. And I'm going to go to the date at February 3rd, Superintendent.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And it's page 19 of that document, Madam Clerk. Do you see the date there at the top of the page?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, 3rd of February, yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Correct? And I'd like to the before last entry on that page, Madam Clerk, so just scrolling down a little bit. Perfect. So do you see the entry there, Superintendent? I think it's 1752, it could be 1952, I'm not sure the time matters, but do you see that entry?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And it says, "Supt. Alakas - FSB" in that note, and it's actually the last sentence I suppose of that entry that I want to draw your attention to. It says: "No real plan for them & no meaningful dialogue with truckers occurring." So first, is this something that you're reporting to Superintendent Alakas, or is he reporting it to you?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I'll correct you quickly. My Grade 4 teacher would still not be happy with me, my penmanship is not the best. It's, "There's no real plan forthcoming".
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Forthcoming; okay. It's the second part that I want to talk about, the "no meaningful dialogue with truckers occurring." Do you see that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, that's coming from Superintendent Alakas to me.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And this is with respect to the Ottawa situation?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So by February 3rd, we don't have any meaningful with dialogue with truckers occurring. And you described the events of February 6th yesterday and again this morning; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
PLT went into Coventry to negotiate the removal of gasoline?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, that's what I understand.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And Superintendent Patterson used the opportunity to seize the fuel and charge some of the protesters; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And PLT felt they had lost all the goodwill they were able to reach with some of the convoy organisers.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's what was communicated to me, yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And were you aware that two days later, on February 8th, Ottawa Police asked the City Manager, City of Ottawa Manager, to meet with protesters?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was not aware of that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And we've heard that police felt they didn't have anything to lose by facilitating a meeting, and it would be a win to gain trust with truckers, and they could use it as a bargaining chip to move trucks. Were you aware of that at the time?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was not aware of that, no.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
We've heard as well that the City negotiated an agreement to remove trucks from the residential neighbourhoods in the dates that followed. Were you aware of that at the time?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Not at the time. I can indicate that I received messaging from our PLT members to indicate that they were frustrated by the involvement of municipal leaders and how it was impacting their work, but I was not aware of the exact times these were occurring.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
But -- and I guess that's what I'm getting at, Superintendent, because that's reflected in your witness summary, which has been filed into evidence. And so at the time that you received those concerns from your PLT officers, I take it you were not aware that the City had spoken with protesters at the request of police?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Right. Outside of what may have been reported in public media I wasn't aware of what was happening.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And you were not aware that a senior OPS officer had been at the table to negotiate the logistics of how and where the trucks would move?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, I would not have been involved in that or aware of that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And just given in your -- referenced it already, but in your witness summary, you indicate that your PLT officers were frustrated because they were hearing from protesters that they had met with the Mayor and that they wanted to continue to meet with the Mayor. That's what you were hearing on the 15th of February.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And the evidence this Commission has heard is that the protesters in fact never met with Mayor Watson. I take it you’re aware of that now?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Now I’m aware, yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. I want to switch tracks a little bit and talk about Supt. Earley’s notes. Now, she -- it’s -- I’m assuming Dana Earley is a she. Is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Just want to check. Thank you. And so Supt. Earley was in Windsor during the Ambassador Bridge blockade?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
She was. She was essentially performing my role, but in ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Fair enough. And so I take it that if you did have a conversation with her, it’s going to be about resources? I mean, that’s really the only reason for you to speak to Supt. Earley during the events of February 2022; fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Fair.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Now, when you were asked yesterday initially, you did not believe that you had spoken to Supt. Earley at that time. Do you recall saying that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, I didn’t have an independent recollection of that conversation though.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Fair enough. And to be fair to you, we see that there’s no mention of it in your notes, except for the words “Dana [Earley] -“ on February 10th; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
You were then taken to Supt. Earley’s notes of that call. And I will ask that they be put up on the screen. It is OPP00004543. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And can we go to page 15? One five. Okay. This -- just to be fair to the witness -- oh, actually, the date is on it. Perfect. Do you see at the top there, 10th of February 2022? Can you see that, Superintendent?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do, yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. So just before we get into this, you described at some length in your testimony a meeting that occurred with the planning team and with the leadership of OPS at OPS headquarters on Elgin Street, and I believe that was on February 9th. Is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
At 12:10, I believe.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Pardon me?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe it started at 12:10.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. We’ve got the same meeting in mind. So that’s the day before February 10th, obviously. Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So you explained during that meeting -- and I’m not going to take you back through all of it. you’ve explained it in some detail. It’s in your witness summary, which has now been filed, but at some point, as I understand it, Supt. Phil Lou of the RCMP tells then Chief Sloly to “pump the brakes” on the enforcement plan? Is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And he says that he thinks he can get 400 POU officers to Ottawa in a week’s time?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And sorry, incorrect. I believe it was S/Sgt or Sgt. Darwin Tetreault who was saying that?
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Pardon me.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Not to Phil Lou. The statement is as you claim, but I believe it was made by Darwin Tetreault, not Phil Lou.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And is S/Sgt. Tetreault also with the RCMP?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
He is.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And he has a Public Order component in his work.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Perfect. So we’ve got an RCMP officer advising that they think they can get 400 POU officers in Ottawa in about a week’s time; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So if we’re at February 9th, that means they think they can get their 400 POU officers in Ottawa on or about February 16th; fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. But I think we’ve heard at length that a number greater than that was actually needed in order to bring the convoy to an end; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. And I ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Yeah.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- believe S/Sgt. Tetreault believed that as well. He just indicated, “Let’s start there, and then we’ll work with our Public Order partners across the country to try to gather more.”
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Fair enough. So the 400 was a start?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Now, if we can scroll down here to 1021? That’s the first indication of the call. Do you see that call? I can’t tell if that’s to or from. Not much turns on it. Craig Abrams, to confirm resources. And that’s consistent with what you’ve told us. Any call with Supt. Earley really would have been to focus on resources; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And then: “Ottawa has been sending resource sheets…” Is that sheets?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sheets, yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
“…to EOC.” That’s the Emergency Operations Centre of the OPP?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, based in Orillia.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Based in ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
We use that term a lot. So every region had an Emergency Operations Centre. So in this case, she’s talking about Orillia, because we were both using Orillia to help facilitate logistics, to obtain resources for both our operations.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
That’s right. So you’ve gotten exactly where I wanted to get at. This is the same place that you both are writing to to get resources; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And then 1023 -- and then actually, before I get here, I think I heard you say that you believe that Supt. Earley had a scribe? Is that right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I -- yes. I thought -- I would assume she did, but.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And so you believe that these are notes taken by her scribe?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
And I have no confirmation of that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Just assuming it was. But I could be mistaken.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. That’s fine. So at 1023: “Advised Abrams Windsor is priority according to Deputy” Do you see that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And the next line refers to a gentleman named Hargins. Is that -- Harkins, pardon me. Is that Dept. Comm. Harkins?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And he’s in charge of the Field Services Bureau? Do I have that right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
He’s the deputy in charge of Field Operations.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Field Operations. Okay. And so as I’m reading this, the Deputy Harkins advised that Windsor is priority? Am I -- is that the way to read this?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s what that ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
That’s what that says. And Harkins, Deputy “Harkins told me” -- being Supt. Earley -- “to go through the EOC”. And you advise that that’s what was happening at that time; right?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So you’re both going through the same Emergency Operations Centre to request resources for your operations?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
“Will have a much better idea of #’s this afternoon after meeting w POU commanders.” And then at 1024 -- sorry, 1026. I’m just jumping over the 1024. You can see it there, Superintendent. “Abrams will call EOC to confirm staffing process You are priority - we will take leftovers” Do you accept that you made that statement, Supt. Abrams? Either that or something to that effect?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I don’t recall making that statement.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
You don’t recall?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Do you recall any discussion that Windsor was the priority for resources to be obtained out of the EOC at that time?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I don’t recall, because on that day, literally that day, the 10th, I spoke with Chief Pardy and we made resource requests and an extra 120 officers were coming to Ottawa by the Monday. So that’s why I’m confused by the talk about resource allocations, because I asked and we required another 120 and it was approved, and it just -- obviously to get people across the province into Ottawa was going to take us a couple of days. We planned to have an extra 120 officers in Ottawa by that Monday.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And at 1026 again, the second 1026: “Abrams advised Windsor will need to tell you what you need” So we’ve got three statements between 1021 and 1026 suggesting that you were made advised here that Windsor was the priority, but you deny that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was never told that. I’m not denying that statement was made, but when we had discussions, she told me that the Deputy told her that Windsor was a priority. So I’m saying, “Okay. If you’re telling me that the Deputy told you Winsor is a priority, then okay.” But that information, from what I’m seeing, is the Deputy, Deputy Harkins, I’m assuming, was telling her. I didn’t tell her that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So we may just be lost in language and semantics. When I said you were never told, I was meaning to say by Supt. Earley. Do you accept that you were told by Supt. Earley that her understanding was that Windsor was the priority? I’m not asking you what you were told by Deputy Harkins.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Right. I accept based on the notes. I don’t have an independent recollection of our ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
That’s fine. But you accept it based on the notes. Thank you. If we could keep scrolling down? Okay. So I’m looking at the second 1028 note. And you were taken to this, in fairness to you, Superintendent, yesterday. Do you see: “Ottawa is just trucks on side streets” Do you see that note there?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And I think you said yesterday that you also did not have an independent recollection of this call; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I really don’t. I’m trying, but so many calls over so many weeks. I can’t say that I recall this one specifically.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
But you explained what you may have meant yesterday. You said that it was easy to drive around if you were south of Wellington, i.e., outside of the red zone.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I think he said south of the 401.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Four seventeen (417), Commissioner.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Oh, pardon me. Did you say south of the 417? My apologies. No, that’s fine. I had south of -- south of the 417?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. It would have -- you know, based on what I’m reading and trying to recall, we would have had general conversations about what she was dealing with, and what I was dealing with, and what it looked like in her area, and what it looked like in my area, and we would have had conversations about the impacts to the City of Windsor overall, because of the location of the Ambassador Bridge and those types of things. So I believe that’s the context of where this comes from.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So if I understand it correctly, it was that if you were outside of the sort of impacted downtown core, you could drive around the city? You could navigate the city outside of the downtown core that was blocked? Is that fair? That was you ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That was ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- would have been ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That was just my personal experience in the times I had to be able to do that drive. I’m sure there were days due to traffic backups that there was difficulty in some areas of the city. I’m just stating in general terms from my own experience, I didn’t see a massive impact outside of that core area, traffic wise.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And you were aware, I take it, at the time, that some of the bridges between Quebec -- or between Gatineau and Ottawa were closed or subject to lane reductions?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Lane reductions, for sure. Full closures, I believe they were kind of rotating depending on days because I recall there was impacts with nursing staff that were trying to get from Gatineau to the hospitals in Ottawa so there had to be some give and take to open up some lanes so people could get to work.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
That’s right. So we had health professionals having difficulty accessing their place of work; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s what I recall.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And you recall also, I take it, that we had patients having difficulty accessing their appointments.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I only ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Were you aware of that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t. I only recall that some leaders of the hospitals had indicated that their staff were unable to get to work on time, which had obviously operational impacts for their agencies, and there was a request -- not controlled by the OPP, but there was a request whoever was controlling the bridges on either side that they could make some accommodations for that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And those side streets that the trucks were parked on in Ottawa -- because as you say, they weren’t parked on the bridge or on the 417. They were parked on side streets. Those side streets, you knew, weren’t residential neighbourhoods.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There may have been apartment buildings on them, as I’m -- when you say residential, I’m picturing suburban, but there may be urban apartments that were on those side streets, certainly.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Yeah. And so the trucks were parked at the front door of some of these apartment and condo buildings.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m sure they were, yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
They were idling and honking?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There was lots of honking, yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And we’ve heard complaints of resident harassment in these neighbourhoods as well. You heard, I take it, Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson saying that they received complaints about that.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I heard it personally myself in my own visits to store owners that told me directly.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And I appreciate you weren’t in Windsor, but my understanding is that there were roughly about 100 trucks involved in the Windsor blockade. Is that accurate?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I couldn’t comment. I wasn’t involved and I don’t recall.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You’re well over your time, so you’re going to have to wrap up.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Fine. Can you just confirm that the -- I mean, I don’t think it’s contentious, but that the blockade in Windsor was significantly smaller than in Ottawa in terms of number of trucks?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It was smaller in number of trucks, certainly. Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And I just want to confirm -- last point, Commissioner. Under the not affect livelihoods -- I won’t go into details. You’ve explained yesterday that you were aware that businesses were affected in Ottawa, and I thank you for that. But I think I heard you say in response to my friend’s questions earlier this morning that you and Superintendent Earley may have discussed, in fact, the economic impact of the Windsor blockade, in particular with respect to international trade. Is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, I think we talked about what her blockade was doing in relation to mine, similar to, really, in my experiences to the rail blockades in Tyendinaga and the economic impacts rail blockade has. It was very similar in circumstance.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
More significant than in Ottawa.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Economically.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Yeah. Thank you very much, Superintendent. Thank you, Commissioner, for your indulgence.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Next is the Ottawa Coalition.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PAUL CHAMP
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Good morning, Superintendent Abrams. Thank you so much for coming to Ottawa and answering these questions for all of us here. My name is Paul Champ. I’m legal counsel for the Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses from downtown Ottawa, and I just have some questions for you. Superintendent Abrams, were you aware or did you know about how many residents, roughly, lived in the red zone in downtown Ottawa?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m not aware at all, no.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
So if I said 15,000, approximately, would that ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That would be the first time I heard that number, but based on the time I’ve spent downtown and the number of buildings I’ve seen, it certainly seems like an accurate number.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And so when you were making decisions or being involved in the operations, the police operations in Ottawa, you were aware we’re talking about thousands of people who are being impacted by these convoy protests in downtown Ottawa?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. And when it came to that, I mean, I -- how many people were required or the impacts, I either rely on my partners at the Ottawa Police Service to indicate to me what was happening down there, what impacts were happening and what they needed to address those impacts.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And you would have been aware there was a large number of businesses in downtown Ottawa that were shut down completely; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure. I saw them myself personally, as I said, in my own visits to business owners and saw many businesses were closed.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And obviously, not only those business owners experiencing those losses. There would have been countless workers who were out of jobs during that period of time as well. You would have known that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. I live an hour from the city. I have family and friends who were directly impacted and talked about having to relocate because of the honking, because of the noise, so yes, I was aware.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. And on -- with respect to the conditions on the streets, you were aware of the -- obviously, the large number of semi trucks in some cases right outside of people’s doors honking and so forth, but we also had other conditions downtown like the large stacks of wood, the large number of propane tanks, often together, the jerry cans of diesel fuel, the open fires at almost every other intersection, the fireworks that were going on at night. You were aware of all those conditions; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And we heard evidence last week, Superintendent Abrams, about residents being fearful that their building perhaps could catch on fire, there could be an explosion from this -- the dangerous propane and so forth that’s around. You agree that that was a reasonable fear?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly. I believe there was an actual arson-type incident not linked to the convoy, I guess, specifically, but we saw that it clearly could be something that could happen. So yeah, it was a valid concern of the residents, for sure.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And it was your view that the police -- well, it was the case, was it not, Superintendent Abrams, that the police were unable to effectively control or prevent these inflammatory and explosive materials from being regularly transported on a daily basis to the downtown core; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It certainly was a challenge to prevent the flow of gasoline.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, it wasn’t a challenge. It couldn’t be done. They weren’t -- they couldn’t do it. Maybe it could have been done, but they weren’t stopping it; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I know my officers made attempts at times, but the times they’d get swarmed by other members, they’d have to pull back. So there was attempts made at certain times to do so, but it was difficult.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, for sure. I’m not saying it -- they couldn’t do it. Like effectively, they couldn’t do it given the numbers that were on the ground of police at the time; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It was -- yeah. It was difficult.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, it was -- it was impossible.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I wouldn’t say it was impossible. Our members tried and I believe some gas was seized. I can’t be for certain about my membership because I told my members -- because my members were normally in two- person units, so it was highly dangerous to their safety to try to get involved ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Sure.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- with multiple people carrying jerry cans when there’s just two of them.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Absolutely.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So from an OPP perspective, I can say that yeah, we did not engage in trying to interdict gasoline simply because we were outnumbered with our numbers as they were.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. And yeah, and that’s a very good point that you just made there, Superintendent Abrams. It wasn’t simply downtown residents and businesses at risk. It was -- there was dangers to your officers downtown because of the circumstances or conditions; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Oh, certainly. My officers were subjected not only to threats of physical assault, but yelling. I had to get my public order unit teams hearing protection because it was starting to damage their hearing because they spent so much time downtown.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah. The horns and the diesel fumes, no doubt you were hearing complaints about that from your officers.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Horns, yes. Diesel fumes, I can’t say that I heard.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And now we’ve heard you say, Superintendent Abrams, that on January 29th, it was your view and the view of the OPP that the Ottawa Police Service did not have the capability to bring an end to this incident or this event. Is that fair to say?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I’d have to look at my notes on that. That would have been the day that I had the conversation with Inspector Ferguson?
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. Exactly.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
So I mean, it was clear that they were -- that particular day we were dysfunctional and unable to make a plan. I don’t believe I would make an opinion that just because of what she was experiencing or seeing that day meant that there was no way that the Ottawa Police Service could resolve this event eventually. It was just an observation that day that there was no plan and they were dysfunctional that day.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
But to be clear, Superintendent Abrams, even if the Ottawa Police had a great plan -- and we’ve heard all the evidence about the struggles of coming up with a plan that was acceptable to the OPP. But even if they had a plan, it was very clear to you the Ottawa Police Services simply did not have the resources on the ground to bring that incident to an end; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
As -- on January 29th, that would be an accurate statement, yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. And that remained your view throughout and, in fact, was the reality. It wasn’t until significant numbers came that they were able to bring it to an end; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And it’s my understanding, Superintendent Abrams, that you had a conversation on January 31st with Deputy Chief Bell where he indicated to you that the Ottawa Police Service at that time was looking at a four-week sustainability plan. Do you recall that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I do recall that.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And you were quite surprised, is my understanding about that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
You were concerned the Ottawa Police were looking at already that this could be a prolonged event and they were just going to try to manage it for four weeks? That was your understanding at the time?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct, because I just -- from my experience, we normally plan kind of in 24-hour cycles, 48-hour cycles. To hear that there was a plan that didn't look like it would have a resolution until at least four weeks was surprising to me, yes, to hear that length of time that they were planning because -- and I believe that was the conversation where he basically stated, we don't know how to resolve this.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And I presume, Superintendent, that it was a concern to you because you could observe yourself about the significant impact on the residents in downtown Ottawa; is that fair?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, and I believe in my other evidence I said as in my experience, as more time goes by in these events, it only adds more participants, which makes the job of policing more difficult. As ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- each day and week passes, it makes the job even more difficult. So, excuse me, that's why there is a desire to try to end this type of event as soon as you can.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
For sure. And that leads to another point, Superintendent Abrams, is that, you know, we've heard a lot of your testimony about closing the off ramps to the 417, and the OPP did not prefer that option; correct? You were -- you wanted -- you were content with the trucks to continue to come downtown Ottawa in the weekends that followed; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, we were happy -- in the weeks that followed after the main arrival, we were happy to work with our partners, and most of it was our own partners within the Province of Ontario was saying there was X number of trucks coming to Ottawa, we were happy to try to work out and communicate with them first, hopefully, to say, "Look, there's no more room downtown. You can't try to get downtown. You know, go to Casselman or go to these other areas." We would try to do those communications with those operators first.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Through the PLTs?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
If we weren't successful, yes, Ottawa Police would say, "OPP, can you close this ramp or this ramp, because there was just no capability to accept those vehicles. It's going to cause traffic chaos. So can we try to get them to go to this ramp?" So the only way to get them to that ramp would be to close other ones. So we would do that, you know, off and on, but we certainly weren't supportive of just a total block 24/7 of off ramps or on ramps.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Well, if I understand what you're telling us, Superintendent Abrams, is that the OPP worked with the Ottawa Police to try to identify the best routes for the trucks to get downtown if they were going to indeed come downtown; is that right? It would minimize the traffic impacts on the rest of the city.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly, once the protest was underway and we're into the second or third week, our plan was if -- with a truck was to try to get downtown, we would interdict it, stop it, and make arrests under the mischief authorities, because it was clear their intent was to participate in what was going on downtown. That's why they were going there. So the idea and the plan was, probably in the second or third week, is that if we saw a convoy coming across in the middle of the night and their intent was to come to Ottawa, we were going to monitor that convoy, try to communicate with them to say, "Don't go downtown. This is a risk you take if you go downtown. You're clearly wishing to participate in what is an illegal event. And if you get off at an off ramp and intend to head downtown, we will stop you."
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
But that was just the last four or five days when the operation was being rolled out to bring the event to an end; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Just prior to. That's correct.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, so ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Just I didn't want to make a blanket statement that we were allowing -- we were going to facilitate the arrival of trucks through this whole event. No, at some point, we were not going to facilitate trucks heading into the downtown core.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, but that was around February 16th or 17th you stopped doing that. On the weekends of 5th and 6th and the 12th, there were big signs on the Highway 417 saying "convoy truckers this way"; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct. I just wanted to make sure ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- your initial statement was ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And ---
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- it kind of made it seem that we were going to allow trucks to ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- downtown through the whole event.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And, Superintendent Abrams, I'm not sure if you appreciate how the effected residents of downtown Ottawa felt when they saw the Ottawa -- the Ontario Provincial Police putting up big signs saying convoy truckers this way, apparently rolling out a welcome mat to them downtown. Did you appreciate how the people in downtown Ottawa would have felt at that time?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I certainly can appreciate that. In our perspective is we had to rely on Ottawa Police to say this is where we need those trucks to go. This is where we think we can house them. So we were only doing what Ottawa Police were requesting of us to facilitate the movement of trucks. I appreciate and understand ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
--- the impact.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're out of time.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
I thought I get 15.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
No, you -- according to my notes, you had 10.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
I believe -- my notes had 15. May I ask one more question there, Commissioner?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes, go ahead.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Superintendent, pardon me, Abrams, you've told us that you reported up to Commissioner Carrique and Deputy Commissioner Harkins about your observations and your concerns with downtown Ottawa -- or pardon me, with the Ottawa Police and how they were effectively doing that. You would have assumed that they would have reported that up to the Solicitor General?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
No, because I'm not familiar with what type of communication the Commissioner has with Solicitor General, whether he reports those things to them or not. I'm not aware of that.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Okay. And but given your observations of the challenges, the significant challenge the Ottawa Police Service were having to respond to this event, both based on the problems you were seeing at senior command, as well as just the bare resources, did you consider, or do you know if anyone in the OPP ever considered reporting this either to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission or perhaps the Ottawa Police Services Board, so some type of effective action perhaps could have been taken by others to direct or guide the Ottawa Police Service towards a more effective response?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was never involved in any conversations, like, it was just ---
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
But did you -- was that ever considered, or were you aware of that if that was ever considered?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I wasn't aware if that was ever considered, no.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next call on the Province of Saskatchewan.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Good morning. Can I be heard in Ottawa?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Thank you, Commissioner.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MICHAEL MORRIS
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
My name is Mike Morris and I'm Counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan. Good morning, sir.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Morning, sir.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
We have about five minutes, give or take today, so it won't be too long. I have some fairly straightforward questions for you, I think. Sir, will you agree with me that OPP officers have authority to enforce the Criminal Code and provincial offences including under the Highway Traffic Act?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
They do have that authority, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And am I correct that OPP officers have always had this authority including in the City of Ottawa?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, they're sworn in as officers in the Province of Ontario.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
So it follows that OPP officers have not required the provincial or federal Emergency Act to be invoked to have those powers then; is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. Their powers under the Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act and other provincial offences were in authority in any city in the province of Ontario.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And will you agree with me that intentionally blocking a public road with one's vehicle can constitute an offence under the Criminal Code?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There is a block highway offence under the Criminal Code, correct.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And can it also constitute the offence of mischief?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It can as well, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And can it also constitute an offence under the Highway Traffic Act?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. It's a block highway offence.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Now we've heard some evidence about what's been called the Coventry Road incident, and I understand that occurred on February 6th of 2022; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Sounds accurate, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And I understand that the Ottawa Police Service arrested a number of people in relation to fuel that they were stockpiling at the Coventry Road site; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's -- I was advised of that information, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And are you familiar with the offence that these people were alleged to be committing?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I was advised that they were arrested for the offence of mischief.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And would that be aiding and abetting mischief which was occurring in downtown Ottawa by trucks occupying the core?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That's how I understand it, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Assuming these people were committing an offence, would OPP officers have had the same authority to arrest them as the OPS?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, the Criminal Code applies to all law enforcement officers. If an OPP officer chose and felt they had the reasonable grounds under the mischief section to make an arrest for that offence, they would have had the ability to do that if they chose to, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And that's the offence of providing fuel for people participating with their vehicles in the downtown core and blockading roads; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
If that -- if the officer felt that it fit the Criminal Code and fit as an offence, it would have the authority to do that.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
So at this point, we've heard evidence, a quite a bit of evidence about there being a lot of trucks in the Ottawa downtown core. My question is, were there checkpoints for vehicles entering the downtown core before the Federal Emergencies Act was invoked on February 14th?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Checkpoints leading into the downtown core?
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Yes, sir.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can only go by what my officers were asked to do. My officers, OPP officers were never involved in checkpoints. I can’t speak to Ottawa Police or our partners to the MTO. I recall being involved in a teleconference with the MTO where they were considering doing vehicle safety checks within the city of Ottawa, but my members were never involved in any checkpoints.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
To your knowledge, were there road closures or traffic diversions before the federal Emergencies Act was invoked on February 14th? And I'm talking specifically to prevent vehicles from entering the downtown core in Ottawa.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can say there was, because on the early days of this event those were the areas my officers were asked to attend. And when I attended down there to check on them, they were essentially making sure that certain streets were closed in the downtown core. So there was cement barriers that blocked some streets, and some streets were blocked with physical police officers with cruisers blocking streets.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And am I correct then that decision on blocking those streets would have been -- that would have been the decision of the Ottawa Police Service?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
The Ottawa Police Service or the City of Ottawa under their authorities to do that with their own streets.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And do I understand correctly, I believe I heard you say that there were road closures and blocked streets before February 14th when the federal Emergencies Act came into effect. Is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
There was, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Okay. If I can, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about a demonstration that occurred in Ottawa in April, known as the Rolling Thunder demonstration. Are you familiar with that one?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You’re going to have to do it very quickly, you're already over your time.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Okay. I will be quick, Commissioner. Thank you.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I am aware of it, and I was assigned as the Strategic Commander for that event as well.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And I understand there was no emergency legislation in place when Rolling Thunder occurred in April; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And checkpoints, or I guess, roadblocks or controlled access was used for Rolling Thunder. Is that correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. My members were used in the same kind of context to do traffic points and to restrict flow of vehicles on certain streets, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And Rolling Thunder was successfully managed and resolved; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would call it a successful event, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. And now if I could call on JCCF Democracy Fund?
I believe they are attending.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ALAN HONNER
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Good morning, Superintendent. Good morning, Superintendent. I am Alan Honner. I'm a lawyer for the Democracy Fund.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Good morning, sir.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Earlier today counsel for Canada asked you about towing guidelines from the OPP Commissioner and you couldn't comment on those. If you can't comment on this question, it's fine. But are you aware that on February 13th, 2022, before the declaration of the Public Order Emergency, the OPP had confirmed that seven towing companies were willing to provide services, and a total of 34 heavy duty trucks were available to the OPP in connection with this protest in Ottawa?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would not have been aware of that, because that was not part of my -- under my command, or part of my mandate.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Thank you. I'll ask that question to another witness later on. Can we pull up OPP.IR.0000001? This is the OPP institutional report, and can we just go to page 36? Just to put this in context, what we're looking at here is the OPP role in the police response to the Ottawa blockade. And do you see that chart there -- just maybe scroll down a little bit. So we have a chart here, it's called “OPP Frontline Officers Provided to Ottawa Police Service[s]”.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I see it.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Okay. So do you notice that -- well, first of all, let me ask you, do these numbers seem accurate to you? Do they accurately reflect the frontline officers provided to the OPS on the dates listed?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
It does, and I think it's important to clarify when they speak about frontline officers, it is strictly just those officers. These aren’t -- these numbers don't include Public Order Unit officers, they don't include intelligence officers, they don't include aviation services. There is many other OPP resources that were used in Ottawa that aren't captured in these numbers. Just for clarity.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yeah, understood, and thank you for clarifying that. What I notice when I look at this chart is that the frontline officers increase significantly on February 16th, and then again on February the 18th. And obviously, you would agree with that, it's in the chart.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And now, if we could go back just a page 35. And you know, perhaps, Superintendent, I don't need to go back to page 35. Would you agree with me that one of the reasons these officers were able to be deployed to Ottawa at that time was because resources were freed up from Windsor?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I suppose there were more resources from Windsor, but the reason for the increase in the numbers would have been to bolster increased traffic points that needed to be bolstered in that period of time, in order to support the Public Order Unit plans. So I can't say that the increase that you see on the chart is directly connected to the successful conclusion of Windsor. It was more related to operational issues and plans here in Ottawa.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Okay. Can we just scroll down to where it says February 15th? Pardon me, so it says here: “Ottawa Police Service[s], OPP and RCMP planning sections were physically integrated at the RCMP...” And then later on in the next paragraph: “Following the reopening of the Ambassador Bridge, 400 additional OPP members were rapidly deployed from across the province.” So some of those went to Ottawa and some went elsewhere I suppose?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. And it was in this period of time when we talk about most of those 400 additional officers were frontline officers, and within the OPP the frontline officer component in Windsor was not as strong. We had a larger Public Order Unit component in Windsor, so the 400 additional unit members, those were frontline members that came from around the province, and that's why we had to defer block training and cancel discretionary leave to be able to get that number of officers to Ottawa.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And I'm almost out of time here, but would you agree with me that the reason for the redeployment of these frontline officers two insert was not related to the emergencies act, and that it would have happened anyway?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I'm sorry, you have to repeat your question again.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, absolutely. Would you agree with me at the deployment of these frontline officers to Ottawa, and the increase in numbers on the 16th and on the 18th was not directly related to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, it is something that would have happened in any event?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree with that. It was directly related to what we knew now was an operational plan with Public Order that needed extra support.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And that was the operational plan of February 13th, 2022; correct?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I never saw the plan, so I'm not certain of what the date was, but it was the plan that the Integrated Planning Team came up with.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Was it called the Integrated Mobilization Operational Plan?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I can't be certain of the title of it, I’m sorry.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Okay. But in any event, that plan was in place prior to the invocation the Emergencies Act?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I know it was being worked on because the Integrated Planning Team came February 9th, they started their work on the 10th and the 11th, the Act was in effect on the 14th. Because I wasn't on that side and I wasn't part of that team, I can tell you for sure exactly what date that that plan was finalized.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
That’s fine. I suspect we'll hear that from Chief Superintendent Pardy today. Thank you very much, sir, those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Any examination by the OPP next?
Commissioner, the OPP have (indiscernible)
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. ERIC BROUSSEAU
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Just one series of questions, very briefly. Superintendent Abrams, you gave evidence about the February 9th meeting, and you were asked in cross- examination about Darwin Tetreault and the commitment for -- the commitment sought for 400 RCMP officers, recall that?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I recall, yes.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Can you tell us, was there a similar commitment sought or offered on behalf of the OPP at that meeting?
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t recall us speaking about Public Order Unit commitments. We already had a large amount of public order sections in the city already. I think it was more -- the discussion was more about how we could get extra. Certainly, OPP could provide a couple more sections, but in that meeting, in Ottawa Police Headquarters, I don't recall us talking about the OPP POU component that may be able to assist. Chief Pardy may have talked about that, but I don't recall that.
Eric Brousseau, Counsel (POEC)
Okay, thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So that completes your examination and cross-examination. Thank you very much for appearing and for your evidence. It's complete, you're now free to leave.
Craig Abrams, Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Okay, so we're I think at the time where everybody's entitled to a break. So we will take a break until five after twelve, and then we'll come back and go with our next witness, who I understand is Chief Superintendent Pardy.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La commission est en pause pour 15 minutes.
Upon recessing at 11:49 a.m.
Upon resuming at 12:06 p.m.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good afternoon. Okay, we have another witness, Counsel? Thank you.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Commissioner. It's Frank Au, Senior Counsel for the Commission. Our next witness is Chief Superintendent Pardy.
The Registrar (POEC)
Superintendent, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Swear.
The Registrar (POEC)
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Carson Pardy, surname Pardy, P-A-R-D-Y.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
No, I think he said he'd swear?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
The Registrar (POEC)
Oh, apologies. You'd like to swear on a religious document?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Sorry?
The Registrar (POEC)
Would you like to swear on a religious document or affirm?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I'll swear.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
On a religious document?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
The Bible?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The Bible's good.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay.
CHIEF SUPT. CARSON PARDY, Sworn
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. FRANK AU
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon. Please have a seat. Chief Superintendent Pardy, do you remember attending an interview, well actually, two interviews with me and my Commission colleagues in the summer?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I do, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And after the interviews, we provided you with an interview summary?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You did.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
May I call up the document Number WTS00000033. So Chief Pardy, this is the summary that we've sent you for review?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was the version of it, yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. This is the version that you approved.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And do you adopt this content ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- in its entirety?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Are there any changes or corrections you'd like to make?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think, like all documents, context is important, but I'm sure that will come out in evidence.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That's right. Okay. Now, Chief Superintendent Pardy, I understand that you recently retired after serving more than 30 years with the OPP?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thirty-six-and-a-half years, sir. I started my policing career in '86. I left active duty in July, July 15th, but I'm officially retired now for three weeks.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Only three weeks.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Only three weeks.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Congratulations. Now, you were a former Critical Incident Commander?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you have, throughout your career, worked for many years in the National Capital Region on major events?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I spent 28 years of my OPP career, six wonderful years with the RCMP in New Brunswick, but my 30 year OPP career, 28 of it was spent in eastern Ontario in various roles. And the latter part, the last 12 years of my career was in the senior leadership role as a superintendent, and I did a lot of work in the National Capital Region with major events, presidential visits, North American leader summits, Canada Day events, et cetera, yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And in the course of your career, have you collaborated frequently with members of the Ottawa Police Service?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And what do you know of their reputation in terms of managing or responding to large-scale events like protests and demonstrations?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
First class.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
First class.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
First class.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, are you aware of any changes within the OPS in recent years that might affect their ability to respond to these kinds of events?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, certainly, upon my arrival in -- with the Integrated Planning Team, I asked the question, "What's going on? What happened to you guys?" And certainly the pandemic has had an impact, retirements, people moved on, lack of major events to keeping you -- keeping those skills honed when people move on. The emergency readiness, emergency preparedness is much like crime prevention, nobody wants to pay for it when nothing's happening, and that's across all sectors. But certainly, you know, there's been a lull, perhaps since about 2016, with the massive large-scale events, that since -- that they have had in Ottawa. So it's just been a considerable passage of time that there hasn't been anything major, but yet, Ottawa is renowned for almost daily protests of some sort.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So I'm going to take you back now to the events back in January and February. I understand that in January of this year, you were the Commander of the OPP Northeast Region; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then, in early February, you were asked to lead the Integrated Planning Group to assist the Ottawa Police Service?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So let's talk about the specific assignment, your lead role with the planning group, the Integrated Planning Group. When were you asked to take that on?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was the evening of February 7th that I received a telephone call from my supervisor, who is Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins, asking that -- advising that they were putting together a team of -- a team to go to Ottawa to assist Ottawa, and asked if I would be interested in leading that team. He felt that I was a good fit for it with my background, and he gave me, you know, 10 seconds to say I'm going to do it. I accepted the assignment, and that very night packed a bag and headed to Orillia for a briefing the following morning.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And the following morning, what time was the briefing?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe it was about 9:00 a.m. in the Commissioner's office.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Who attended?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Commissioner Carrique was there, Deputy Commissioner Harkins, Superintendent Mike McDonell was present, Superintendent Craig Abrams was on video link. I believe perhaps the Commissioner's executive officer may have been present as well, but I don't particularly recall.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And we've just this morning heard from Superintendent Abrams. Now, could we call up the witness's Will Say, Number OPP00000792, please? Now, Chief Pardy, we have -- the Commission has received a Will Say that's going to be shown on the screen. I just wanted to ask you, do you recall when this Will Say was first prepared?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was started while I was still in Ottawa.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
When in Ottawa?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
During the month of February. My supervisor, Deputy Commissioner Harkins, said -- suggested that, you know, start putting my mind to developing or preparing a Will Say for the events leading up to and to the conclusion in Ottawa. I started it with high intentions of catching up and keeping it live, but within a few hours my schedule was overtaken, and -- so I had maybe one page done while I was in Ottawa, and I completed it when I went back to my regular duties in North Bay.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And when did you complete it?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
First week of March.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, tell us about the nature of your assignment. What was the mandate?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, the mandate was to provide Ottawa Police support. I was given a broad range to ask for anything I needed. I received from start of the deployment to the conclusion of deployment that type of support from, not just my organisation because I was an OPP officer but leading a team, integrative team from multiple organisations. So it wasn't just OPP, it wasn't about the OPP, but I was giving incredible support to ensure that we got what we needed, understanding the complexities of the events in Ottawa and the evolving events that were happening both provincially and nationally.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So a moment ago you were starting to tell us about this nine a.m. briefing ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- involving, among others, Commissioner Carrique of the OPP. Tell us about that briefing. What was discussed?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I got an overview from Superintendent Abrams as to the state of the union in Ottawa, that the concern was there wasn't a plan. They were asking for a lot of resources, but there was no concrete plan in terms of how those resources were going to be utilized. There was dysfunction. There was a loss of confidence and faith being displayed by the public. The narrative in the media was certainly slanted, you know, there was no -- in terms of the protest and by the protesters. Generally, it was -- reached -- it was a crisis in Ottawa.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now you mentioned earlier that the purpose was to support.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know, one of my most common phrases that I uttered throughout my time is -- in Ottawa with their senior executive, their officers is, we're here to help.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M'hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
What kind of help?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Whatever they need. You know, we were there to help build and complement any plans and direction that they had. There was never an intent, and I was - - this was explicit in my assignment, we were not going to Ottawa to take over, man and control of the event. We were going there to support them. Certainly, there was a goal to integrate or unify commands. This is an event that was clearly now beyond the capability of one single organization just by its size and the need for resources. It stretched well beyond what Ottawa Police themselves could provide, which, in my world, that's generally the kickoff for developing, like, a unified or integrated command with others. So, you know, that was the focus, to get there, to have a team of dedicated people, of which I only knew one of the people that were assigned to me. I was going to be meeting these people that evening when I arrived. We were given -- I was given a contact with the Ottawa Police. And later that morning, I got in my vehicle, and I started making my way, and spent the next four hours on the phone.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So you were in Orillia at 9 a.m., and by 5:35 that afternoon, you were in a meeting with the members of the OPS; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Who did you meet with at that 5:35 p.m. meeting?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I know I had someone taking minutes for that meeting. I know Deputy Chief Trish Ferguson, who I'd known previously, was at the meeting, Superintendent Patterson. There was a number of other folks with them, both on conference and video link. I know that initially, even in my own minutes it reflected that Chief Sloly was present at the meeting because that was on the invite, but he did not make that meeting due to an emergency -- an emergent family issue.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Was delayed; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don't recall him joining and the minutes don't reflect any comments or whatsoever from the Chief. My recollection is he did not join the meeting at all.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right. And we heard from Deputy Chief Ferguson from the OPS yesterday. I believe she said that the Chief -- the former Chief was delayed, but he did join by teleconference or some other means of remote communication.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And that is very possible. As I said, I reviewed the minutes from the meeting and it -- when you look at all the minutes that we took throughout the event, it is very clear, in my humble opinion, who was speaking. There was certainly no indication from those minutes that he was there, but it's very possible that he was, that he did join.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now if we scroll down, this willsay to the next page, right, so this -- the first dark bullet, "Planning team held its first meeting at 1735 hrs from RCMP [Headquarter] with the OPS (all OPS were on video or conference call). Also note that Counsel for the OPS, Christiane Huneault was present..." Do you recall her being present on -- by video conference?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Oh, yes, sorry.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And okay. Now let's talk about what was discussed at that meeting. Tell us what happened.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know, we started the meeting by just doing introductions of those that were available from my team. My team were still not all in Ottawa. They were still arriving. But we did have Inspector Tim Skinner from the York Region Police; one of my planners from our Emergency Unit in Orillia, Brad Taylor was present; Superintendent Phil Lue from the RCMP; and -- sorry, then Sergeant, now Staff Sergeant Darwin Tetreault from the RCMP as well was present. You know, we stated our objective. We're there to help. What do you need? We need a plan. Let's start building on. We're there to build -- building on what your objectives are. And they proceeded to give us a broad overview of their concept of operations for the occupation. And it was just -- there was a concept of operations. We had lots of questions. We received an update from Superintendent Patterson, and he was the incident -- the Event Commander at that time, about things that were on the horizon, or potential arrests and some strategic takebacks, if you will, in the downtown core. Listening intently just to find out. Our goal, start to finish in the meeting is learn as much as we possibly could. You can only help when you have a true understanding for what the needs are and to understand those needs. And we left that meeting with a commitment from Ottawa Police that they would provide the plans to us. We asked for e-versions, whatever version they could get to us would be very helpful, so that we could see what they have on paper in terms of a plan and then what we would reasonably need to do to complement that plan. Also, it was critical for us to have access to the Ottawa Police. This is -- we're there to work with them, to get through this, so we wanted to establish a liaison who had the authority to access and provide the information that we would need.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Was there any discussion at that meeting about the nature of integration between the OPS and the group that you were bringing to Ottawa?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was raised by me at that meeting that they would consider ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- integration or a unified command and that there's inherent benefits with it. You know, from my experience, I -- just about all of my major events that I had been involved, what we ended up having here in Ottawa with the integrated command has been my experience.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know, whether it's a presidential visit, you still have the police of jurisdiction who have the lead, or the RCMP because of their IPP responsibilities or internationally protected persons responsibilities under legislation, but when you call on multiple organizations to participate, they bring their command structure. You inject your advice to them. You work as a team. Ultimately, someone is leading that and makes the final call. But as an integrated team, you're all on the same page. You're not working in silos. You're working collectively with the same objectives and goals.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Let's talk about the members of this team that you were assembling and bringing to Ottawa. It's called Integrated Planning Cell or Integrated Planning Group?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
They call it the -- that was the assignment, to create this Integrated Planning Cell. We quickly deviated from the word cell and just called it our Integrated Planning Group.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But, yes, I was provided with planners from Toronto Police Service, two planners, Sergeant Arlene Duffy and Constable Isabel Ethier. Their background and their credentials were impressive in terms of emergency planning. I had Inspector Tim Skinner, who I already mentioned from York Region Police. His background is in Public Order maintenance and command and control, again, a wealth of knowledge. I had Tom Warfield from the Peel Regional Police Service. Tom came to us with a background in case management to ensure that we were capturing to the best that we could in a very kinetic and dynamic environment as much of the information, versions and what not as we went forward. We had Brad Taylor, a planner extraordinaire from the OPP. Brad is a civilian member, but his expertise is in emergency planning. We rely heavily on Brad for his expertise. Then, of course, we had the two RCMP officers, Phil Lue, who became my right arm throughout the event. Phil’s background was in major incident command, National Standards, and had extensive background in training and developing and mentoring people in the incident command world. And Darwin Tetrault, who to this day has impressed me incredibly with his leadership in public order command.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And he’s renowned nationally and connected internationally as it relates to public order maintenance.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So yesterday when we spoke to -- when Deputy Chief Ferguson testified and she explained the process of developing a plan, an operational plan, she referred to subject matter experts. So this group of people that you’re bringing to Ottawa, are these subject matter experts, then, in the various areas?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir. In fact, I would say that I was the only one that wasn’t a subject matter expert.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I was just brought there to bring in this team together and get them working and lead our way through this.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now, we’ve heard from some witnesses about the importance of operational plans, and I just want your view on what are the components, the key components, of a good operational plan.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, the key components, you know, have to align with your objectives and your goals and your -- and then that drives your strategies in terms of what that operation is meant to entail. Certainly you need to have a clear understanding in creating a mission or the event. A mission statement is something that, in every event that I’ve ever been involved in, whether it was a peaceful event or not, is something that is critical that your members, your employees, your officers on the ground, everybody is in line with the mission of the plan. From there are commander’s objectives and the, you know, what are we looking to achieve with this plan and then every single -- so if it’s a public order issue, you would need -- the key aspect there is the public order consult and a good idea, okay, what is the nature and scope of the event and what kind of public order plan will we need to inject with it. You need crime, you need victims, you need key things like messaging, communication. Logistics is key. In fact, at major events from a policing perspective when we debrief up, then our success or our fail on the backs of good solid logistics support. When you get people there, what are you doing with them, where are they staying, how are we feeding them, what’s their duties, how are they being briefed. That all has to be fleshed out so that when you have people arrive, you have a seamless operation.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now, we’ve heard references to an overall or overarching plan and sub-plans for specialized areas. So were those what you were trying to describe to us?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. And I was speaking with people about -- I had confidence also we were on the same page and understood that.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And in terms of an overall plan or overarching plan, does that refer to something that takes you from start to finish?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
What about contingencies?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, that’s always built into your planning. When you look at public order as an example, it’s filled with contingency plans. If -- this is the intent. If it doesn’t work, this is -- this is our main action plan or direct action plan and then there would be an alternate action plan if they had to deviate.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And command and control structure, should that be reflected?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Why is that important?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Again, you know, you -- when you’re developing plans for major events, the ultimate goal is to succeed. And in order to succeed, there needs to be -- we’re police officers. We’re creatures of habit. There needs to be clear line with communication, there needs to be clear command and control, who is in charge, who is responsible for this right down the line. In major events, you might have a major event commander right down to a commander on the ground. All have distinct roles. But roles and responsibilities are absolutely key to getting through the event and in a successful way.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
At the time you arrived on February 8th, did you know if the OPS had experienced planners like the ones you brought to Ottawa to help them develop this kind of a plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I was making an assumption based on my experience with OPS that, in fact, they did have that depth, although some of the ones that I had worked with in the past were absent and I learned had retired because, as I said, the OPS have always been renowned -- we’ve been there to support them countless times in major events. We’re different organizations. We have different structures. But make no mistake about it, they were good at what they did.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So you told us that on that first meeting -- at that first meeting, you were shown this strategic concept of operations document but you didn’t have a copy; right? You didn’t -- you weren’t given a copy at that meeting.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
There was references to it on that date. I do believe I may have been given a copy, but -- -
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you said you asked for more.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We asked for more and they indicated that there was a nod from Superintendent Patterson that any plans that were approved would be, in fact, supplies to us.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So we go to the next day, February the 9th, at 7:00 a.m. There’s a note in your will say that you weren’t getting the plans yet. And we go to page 3 of the will say, the second bullet -- sorry. Maybe scroll down a bit. So sorry, scroll up, please. The second bullet, discussion around injunctions and then stressed we needed to develop a plan -- I’m sorry. I think I’m looking at the wrong page. Okay. I found it now. So go down again. I apologize. After February -- the heading February the 9th, do you see the second bullet?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And the last two sentences: “I learned that everything had to go to the Chief before it could be actioned or released to our team.” Now, I just wanted to ask you about that. What did you mean by this?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we learned very, very early in the -- in our time in Ottawa that the Chief was very much engaged and that, ultimately, everything that they intended to do had to be approved by him.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Who told you this?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I heard it from just about every OPS employee that I dealt with there in some way, shape or form.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was very clear to me in my dealings with senior officers, Chris Rheaume, whose name is there, Rob Drummond, who was at times working with us in different aspects, Patricia Ferguson. I didn’t deal a whole lot during my initial days with Deputy Chief Bell, but certainly it was very, very clear that Chief Sloly was to be informed of and approving all aspects of the operation.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, in fairness to the former Chief, you did tell us that there was some departure of senior officers; yes? So isn’t it quite understandable that he wanted more things to go through him to ensure that, you know, the important decisions are made with the benefit of his input?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t lay blame, sir. I look at it this was an incredible event unfolding in his city that was -- the loss of confidence that you were seeing in the media in the police service undoubtedly brought a lot of stress to bear. That he wanted to be looped in on everything that was going on, I can’t fault him.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you also mentioned earlier that the OPS counsel, Christiane Huneault, was present.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I did find that to be -- from my experience, to be a little bizarre.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Why’s that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, needless to say, I’ve been involved in a lot of major operations over the years and there’s always consult with legal on our legal authorities and common law authorities and the different tactics were used to make sure that we’re sound within -- in the law. However, it was a first-time experience to have counsel actually sit through operational discussions.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
But wouldn’t it be helpful to have a lawyer around in case any legal questions arise?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well again, as it became more protracted, the event, I suppose it could be. You know, where you would have counsel there immediately to give advice back on legal points that were being discussed. But as we proceeded, it certainly came across a little bit more than that, ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- that she was tantamount to an approver of the action or the plan, which was very concerning. It’s police operations.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm. Okay. So that was your -- that’s the morning of the 9th when you were still looking for a plan and not getting it yet.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then that -- around noon that day, you got to meet with the OPS team again; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Where did you go?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well we had called for a meeting to discuss things more broadly. And it was downtown Ottawa at the Ottawa Police Station, 474 Elgin Street.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was an upstairs board room. We couldn’t bring all of our team. I would have liked to. But we -- you know, we were going to be somewhat restricted. And we were still in the pandemic, so we were mindful of all these things still going on. So we brought a smaller part of the team, including Craig Abrams, who also joined our team initially, along with Mike Francis, two OPP officers who had been in Ottawa already, assisting Ottawa, one, from a POU perspective, one from the strategic command perspective. Myself, Tetreault, Skinner, and Phil Lou, and there was another RCMP officer. I believe his name was Charles Mason, was present with us at that meeting, along with the OPS command team and their counsel.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well tell us what happened at that meeting?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, again, we discussed a few different documents that they provided, their strategic operations.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That was the same one that you saw yesterday?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Very similar. And yes, I believe it was the same.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
A broad or overarching kind of concept of operations for the truck demonstration. And we had discussions about that. We were given -- we were asking for numbers. We had -- there was a sergeant -- or S/Sgt. LeBlanc from the Ottawa Police Service who provided us the breakdown on numbers, what they needed to sustain operations. And the number, if I’m not mistaken, was 516 IFTEs, or police officers, to sustain operations at all the checkpoints that they needed. We had a lot of debate about that. Ultimately, you know, there’s some math issues that we came to terms with. But again, our goal was there to completely understand. We didn’t just go in blank and say, “What do you need? Here you go.” So we had discussions about that and then we had discussions about -- well, overview provided to us by Supt. Patterson of an operation at Rideau and Sussex that they were contemplating. It was -- my notes reflect that it was scheduled for 4:00, with a possibility of being moved up to 11:00 p.m. that night. As I noted, I brought those that I did to this meeting for a specific purpose. And, you know, we had discussed prior to, “We’re going there as a team. If you have input to give, give it. You know, we have a lot to get done here in a short period of time. Let’s not hold anything back here.” So Darwin Tetreault asked if he could speak when he was being presented this thing, and I do appreciate when I heard the tail end of Supt. Abrams’ evidence that he mentioned a number of 400. The number in my mind, in my notes, was 800. He said based on his knowledge of POU, when you look at the dynamics of this event, the number of areas that were blockaded, and the work that had to be done, we would need approximately 800 POU officers to effectively dismantle this protest. But furthermore, and the key thing for me, hearing from a subject matter expert with his level of experience, is that once you start this operation, you should not stop. And their intention, as it was presented to us, was kind of do it -- to use the words that were used, “chunk by chunk”. And there was recognition that it would be very resource intensive, that it would take a significant demand on resources to do it that way.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But we didn’t have a significant number of resources. And we -- the best advice in evidence -- or sorry, best advice I was receiving right out of that meeting from our SME is that strategically, if you’re going to do this appropriately, when you start your POU action, you should not stop. You need to start moving systematically through all the points to shut it down.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And he suggested that we pump the brakes, let’s stop this, let’s not proceed with this operation, and ultimately that is what happened. Although I did have conversations with the incident commander who was assigned to the operation just by happenstance, ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Is that Burnett?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Paul Burnett. Yes. And ultimately, that operation did not happen, but that was -- back to the meeting, that was his inject into it. There was a lot of discussion around resources, because when raised that number, and again, the number sticks out to me because it ultimately was the number of POU, approximately, that we needed to successfully dismantle. So Darwin Tetreault is from the National Capital Region, he lives in this area, he runs these programs nationally for public order maintenance, he is a Public Order person himself, and he had given a lot of thought to in understanding the zones which had been presented the day before in terms of all the checkpoints and key areas of concern in the red zone. So, you know, I thought, you know, very clearly he’s already put some significant insight in terms of what needs to be done to successfully shut this down. So Chief Sloly very passionately, and very concerned about the reliability of getting resources. He was very concerned that we would come through. He wanted guarantees, with no caveats, that “If you’re going to say you’re going to give us X, you’re going to give us x. Period. No questions asked.” We just stressed that we’re building a plan, we have the support of our organizations to get what is needed to develop a plan to successfully shut this down.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right. So you’ve covered a lot of ground there. Let’s try to unpack that a little bit. First, with respect to the numbers, as it relates to the Rideau/Sussex operation. I just want to be clear, because we heard some evidence about doubling the number, but here it’s quite the opposite; isn’t it? Like, they were preparing for an action, planning for using 400, and you’re telling us that according to the subject matter experts in your group, you’re going to need 800?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, they didn’t suggest 400. I think that was Craig Abrams’ evidence, that he thought that Tetreault suggested you would need 400 to do it.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Oh.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
In my view -- my notes reflect that Tetreault said you need 800 to effectively -- because when you start ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I see.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- this POU action, when you start kinetic action in this way, you can’t stop, ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- which means when you look at the number of areas that needed to be ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- controlled, needed to be taken back, that was his immediate assessment, and that proved to be very accurate, as our planning assumption of that day, and as we then engaged all the SMEs to develop that plan. It was exactly what was needed.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Does that go back to something we talked about earlier? Planning from beginning to end and anticipate the different ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It absolutely does, because we did have a number of times throughout my time in Ottawa where there was deviations, like, sudden deviations from the plan that would impact the broader plan if we were to do it. But yes, planning from end to end is always your goal. You always like to have lots of time to plan. We were planning in crisis mode and doing it as quickly as possible and trying to consider everything that needed to be considered, from the residents, to victims, to the cold weather, the conditions in the City of Ottawa. Everything needed to be factored into the plan.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now, you also said something about the former chief being very passionate. Now, I want to take you to your will-say at page 3. Sorry, yeah, page 3 at the very bottom. So here: “Chief Sloly was very passionate about the impacts the demonstration was having on the city and he was looking to break the occupations however they had limited ability to affect this due to base line levels of staffing I offered that we were there to ensure that he had what was needed to sustain operations but needed a plan. He advised they were working on last minute plans.” Does that reflect what happened at that meeting?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It does, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So let me ask you this. As I understand it then, you were offering to help and then you said you needed a plan. But putting this in context, because this happened on February the 9th; right? So we’re already more than a week into the protests, and the Commission has heard evidence how that has caused significant social impact on the residents and so on. And if the suggestion is that you need a plan before we can send resources, isn’t that problematic? Because they may not, at that stage, have even the resources to do the planning? So how do they get more resources?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well that’s a very loaded question. Essentially you need a plan to be able to communicate with police leaders. When you’re asking for resources from around the province, and in this case, around the country, you need to be able to articulate what that need is and why that need exists. And in doing that, it’s always about, you know, what are my officers going to be doing when they get there? How -- what are the logistics? What are the plans, the briefings? Everything is something that you always provide. We’re in a state right now that, you know, I learned really quickly that staffing was an issue for OPS. Staffing is an issue with just about every policing organization out there for a myriad of reasons. So as a regional commander coming into this from another region where you’re going to be called upon to provide resources to supplement an operational plan, you’ll pulling from resources that you have available to police your communities. And oftentimes, in a lot of my detachments, we’re already at our base level. So when you’re still, because of a crisis, you’re going to pull -- you’re going to pull them only when they’re needed, not to sit around waiting to know what they’re going to do when they get there. Plan is absolutely critical. And it can be a concept, because we developed a concept of operations within 48 hours of being in Ottawa. A concept of operations that we ultimately used throughout the event.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
So you can have that and know that you’re building this, this, this, and this, and we’re going to need to staff those up, so let’s start preparing that. But it can’t just be, “I need this number.” We need to know what these people are going to be doing when they get there, right down to where are they staying? Who is feeding them? You just -- we’re human beings. You need those basics in place. None of that was in place.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So let’s take a look at this plan that they did show you on the 9th at this meeting. Could we call up, please, OPP00000774? So if we go to page 91, please?
The Registrar (POEC)
Sorry, counsel. Can you repeat the page?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Page 91.
The Registrar (POEC)
Ninety-one (91)? Thank you.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. So looking at the cover, does this resemble the document that you saw at that meeting on February the 9th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir, it does.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And if we go to the mission statement at page 96? So the mission statement simply reads: “To end the unlawful elements of the Ottawa Truck Demonstration and restore safe and open neighborhoods and businesses.” What do you think of this mission statement?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well it’s a mission statement. It wasn’t broad enough for my liking. You know, it was -- it was just really, really focused and not encompassing the broader event. My experience with mission statements, safety needs to be factored in. Officers -- our officers need to know -- every officer needs to know. It’s drilled into them. every briefing, the mission for the operation is drilled into them. so safety for the residents, safety for officers, safety for the protestors’ Charter rights often are embedded. So you have all those considerations in a more broader mission statement.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now, we heard from Deputy Ferguson yesterday that by February the 13th, your group has collaborated with Supt. Bernier of the OPS to come up with another plan. So can we call up that other plan? And the number is OPP00001851.
The Registrar (POEC)
Sorry, can you repeat that?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
OPP00001851. Can we see the entire front page, please? Or maybe the next page has the date. There we have it. Do you recall this as being the plan that was developed by the 13th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir. That -- and that is my signature on it.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Can we go to the mission statement at page 8, please? So this mission statement reads: “Using an integrated response, the Ottawa Police and policing partners will keep the peace, enforce legislation, and maintain public safety for the duration of the Ottawa Truck Demonstration, with the utmost respect to the individuals Charter of Rights and Freedoms with priority on community and emergency services personnel safety & wellbeing.” How does this one compare with the one we saw before?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well it is a mission. The other one is more an objective. This is the broader mission of the entire integrated response. When it’s all done, we’ll have accomplished this, to ensure safety for all involved, maintain public safety for the duration, et cetera. So the mission is your very high level, your strategic direction you want to go in.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
No you said a moment earlier that the other one, the shorter one, wasn’t so much to your liking, but is it a matter of subjective preference or is it something more objective?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would say no, it’s more objective. I mean, I go back to my training in incident command, my involvement in multiple North American Leader Summits, presidential visits, G8, G20, First Nations issues, blockades. No, we’ve always been taught very early, your mission needs to encompass that broader range to ensure how you’re going to accomplish your goals and what you’re hoping to accomplish.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So your group came and four days later, after the February 9th meeting, you have this plan developed collaboratively with OPS. So I guess my question is, if this can be done within a number of days after your group arrived, why didn’t you come earlier?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well that’s not a question that I can really answer. I went the day ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- that I was asked to go. Before then, I was commander for the northeast region. I was alive to what was going on with the convoy, because it came through my region. We had an Ops plan for that. But that’s a question that perhaps should be posed to somebody else.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes, I’m sorry. It is not a fair question to you. You were chosen to lead ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- the project. You weren’t the one who came up with the idea. But looking back, knowing what we know now about the OPS capacity to develop something like this, would you agree that it would have been very helpful for a group of experts like yours to offer assistance to the OPS, let’s say the Monday after the first weekend, instead of on February 9th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, that’s a fair statement. Sure.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right. Let’s talk about -- now, you said the February 9th plan that was presented to your group missed a lot of the key elements of a good plan. In your view, the February 13th plan, was that good enough?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was getting there. I mean, we were, -- as I mentioned, when you’re building a plan in crisis, you’re ensuring that you are encompassing all key elements to that plan, knowing that there was - literally, things are going to be continuing to be built into that plan once the event is even finished, you know, because it’s based on your concept you know what you’re going to do and how you need to resource it, but you’re still continually -- the plan will continue to evolve through the duration of the event.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now, one of the things that you also told us that arose during this February 9th meeting is the former Chief’s request for -- he was seeking some assurances. He was asking for some kind of a guarantee that the resources would arrive; right? And I take it that you disagree that that kind of guarantee is to be given?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It wasn’t that I disagreed that the guarantees could be given. I think we need the context of the conversation. You know, there’s debate about some misrepresentation of numbers in the media that he had with Superintendent Abrams. There was discussion -- because he made it very clear, from my view, in conversations that I had, that there were people, in the Ministry that wanted him to fail and he had sources in the Ministry that were letting him know that, you know, people wanted him to fail. And I just assured him that, well, we’re not those. We’re here to help.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
But what about the argument that to plan properly one needs to know a little more about what kind of resources you can count on? So for example, if the OPS were to develop a plan based on having 1,800 officers available, that plan wouldn’t have been very helpful if those people are not actually coming; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I’m going to suggest the opposite. If they had a plan that -- an operational plan that encompassed 1,800 officers with duties assigned in a rotating cycle, then we would have been -- refined, likely, that plan to ensure that it was sound, and we could have done that fairly quickly, and started our deployment because we actually started deploying officers on our team pretty much on day one as needs were arising.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right. Now, can we go back to the will say, please? Document number is OPP00000792. Page 4. I’m looking for the -- okay. Do you see the sentence, “The overall tone”?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
“The overall tone of this meeting was somewhat unprofessional and disrespectful. Chief Sloly was very clearly under tremendous pressure to act and was very suspicious of levels of commitments from police agencies.” Tell us more, why you said that.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, as I said, when we attended this meeting we fully anticipated to, you know -- and I’m not looking -- I don’t look for thanks, but expected that we were going to be welcome there, that he was going to be happy that we were there. You know, the meeting -- well, the meeting overall, the tone, I would say, was very antagonistic. It was disrespectful in terms of we’re there to help and he’s just not trusting it. It was very clear he had confidence issues in what we were there to do.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
It wasn’t what you expected.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly not what we expected. I think just about everyone on my team at some point in time within the minutes of leaving the meeting received apologies from other members of his command for his behaviour.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now, if we scroll down on the same page a little further -- oh, we may go into the next page now. I’m looking for the sentence that starts with “After the Chief and his team left”. Right. Thank you. “After the Chief and his team left the room, Insp. Debbie Palmer remained with our team and we again pressed for copies of their plans, e-versions, and she stressed the Chief’s comments that some aspects of their plan had not yet been approved.”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Tell us what ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I want to stress as well notwithstanding the tone of the meeting, it did not change our result. You know, we went -- Debbie Palmer was the person that was initially -- the name that was initially provided to me as our go-to person. She was replaced the following morning by Chris Rheaume, but that’s what -- like the Chief had meant there still was some last-minute planning going on. And she said she would do her best to get it for us. You know, in the end, we really never did receive a plan from the OPS.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So at the end of this meeting on February 9, was there any agreement between the OPS and the Integrated Planning Group on any operational plans going forward?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we just committed to continue to build and work with his team and to build a plan to complement what their objectives were from their conn ops they provided us.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And was there any agreement about the degree of integration?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, we expect that we may hear evidence from Mr. Sloly that, to the extent the -- his approval is required, he gave all the approval necessary on February 9th. What would you say to that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I obviously wasn’t there because I received no such information of approvals. I think it’s reflected in the follow-up meetings we had when I would call him and say, “What’s our status?”. “Well, we need a meeting before we can -- we need another meeting before we -- for me to understand that before we can move forward”. So there was no implied -- certainly no implied or explicit approvals for anything.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, I saw you looking at me. Is that a sign?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
If it’s a good time for lunch ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
This is a good time.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- we’ll take an hour for lunch and come back after.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Very perspicacious on your part. Okay. So they’re going to break for lunch and we’ll come back in an hour.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess for one hour. La commission lever pour une heure.
Upon recessing at 1:02 p.m.
Upon resuming at 2:00 p.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l’ordre. The Commission is reconvened. La commission reprend.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Good afternoon, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good afternoon. Okay. We’re ready to go?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I am.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Go ahead.
CHIEF SUPT. CARSON PARDY, Resumed
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. FRANK AU (cont’d)
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Chief Pardy, just before the lunch break, I was asking you questions about the meeting on February the 9th.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And I just want to finish that off by taking you to one more document of that meeting. This is not your notes, but someone at the OPS was also taking notes. So if I could call up document number OPS00014454, please. Page 138, please. So if we go to the bottom of the page, please. Do you see a reference from the Chief that starts with -- there we go. So the Chief -- the former Chief of the OPS, Mr. Sloly, apparently asked the question: “We can add the info that was provided by the RCMP, but we haven’t agreed not to proceed with our plan for tonight.” And then he asks: “Are we still separate entities or are u folding into our incident command system?” There’s a notation that the OPP said, “Yes, we should” -- I think it’s probably. “Yes, we should prob[ably] fold into the OPS command structure.” Do you recall having that kind of exchange?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I do recall an exchange about working under their command.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
In the Integrated Command Structure, that’s kind of how it does work, but there was some clear differences of opinion, I think, in terms of what integration would look like, which I -- which I’m sure we’ll get to as we go through.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But I had no issues. We had some very loose talk around where we would work. The location that we were situated at had significant capacity to expand, and that also became a contentious issue because it took some time even to get us to work in the same area, which proved the added layers of difficulty to it. Eventually, it did happen and it became quite seamless.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And this is also consistent with what you’ve been telling us all along, that you were there to offer help but not to take over.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We were explicitly -- I was directed from my Commissioner that we are not going to Ottawa to take over. The Chief and the police of jurisdiction still have primacy over his event. We’re there to assist them, hopefully in an integrated and unified fashion.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And this may be a question that’s unrelated to the February 9th meeting, but since we’ve heard so much about the Hendon reports, I’m just curious. Were you one of the recipients of the Hendon report at around January- February of this year?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
As a Regional Commander, I was receiving the Hendon reports.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Were you reading them?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Reading them and just -- oftentimes there was aspects that would just repeat going through the changes and the -- because I knew it was internally produced by the OPP Intelligence Bureau, and attended briefings as required on significant changes that would occur.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So with that, if I could now take you to the events in the subsequent days following the February 9th meeting. Did work continue on February the 10th in terms of working on this plan, a new plan from the Integrated Planning Group or making improvement to the OPS plan that you were shown on the 9th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I appreciate that when you look at it from an appearance perspective, they look like very different plans. At its core, however, the plan that we developed was a build-on in support of, to complement the plan that -- the concept that they had in place ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- which was all strategically directed in the same way about ending the protests and bringing Ottawa back to a state of normalcy.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And that makes sense because you came to offer support ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- and you asked what they had so that you could build on it.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So if I could take you to the next document, OPP00004283. So if we could shrink the page so we could see the entire page, please. So this is a document that we received from the OPP. It looks like a draft document of some sort. At the bottom it says it’s prepared by the Integrated Planning Cell, RCMP, OPP, you know, those police services that you talked about earlier. And I want to take you to Section 3.1 of this document. So now if we can enlarge it. So this part of the document appears to be an assessment of the current situation as you found it on February the 10th, which is the date of this draft document. You see that under “Current”, the first bullet says, “Not intelligence led”. Do you agree with the assessment that the OPS operation at that time was not Intelligence led?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Not in the way, certainly, that I would have anticipated, no. I do not believe. You know, when you look at intelligence-led policing, you’re looking at your threat assessments, your risk assessments and how you can effect some positive change using that intelligence. They were in crisis mode and in crisis mode, they -- I did not feel that they were using the intelligence to look at the broader event, see about how they could dismantle this event peacefully.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And when your group was trying to build on whatever plan that you saw on the 9th, what was your objective like in terms of incorporating any available intelligence that was available to the group?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, two of the key things that we did as a team is I arranged intelligence and PLT briefings for my team at the highest level, so Superintendent Morris and his entire team joined us. Inspector Marcel Beaudin and a number of both, I believe, OPP and OPS PLT joined us. We wanted their perspective on the lay of the land, the current intelligence, what we know, what we don’t know, what are the gaps. And likewise with the PLT in terms of how are things going, what can be improved upon, what is -- what levels of authority did they have to engage, what is the plan moving forward, is there opportunities that we could capitalize on to persuade some of the protestors to leave on their own accord, et cetera. So we see those briefings. I wanted my planners and my team, all the tacticians, I wanted them to be fully aware in that point in time what we were dealing with. We did a subsequent and additional briefings throughout from those entities just to make sure that there was -- if there’s any change that we might need to pivot to adjust to those changes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And I think I saw some references in your notes that on the 10th you got some input from Marcel Beaudin.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Was he the person from the OPP in charge of the PLT group?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Marcel, he’s got a background -- he’s an Inspector with our Indigenous Policing Bureau and he has a background, yes, in provincial liaison.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So on the same document that’s on the screen, if we go down further, we see a section with the PLT. So there we go. And, Chief Pardy, you see there's some -- there's not complete, I assume, because it's a draft a document, but there's some information incorporated under this section. And if we scroll down slowly, so that the witness can have a quick look? Now does this capture in broad terms the kind of information you were looking for in order to inform the new approach?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It does. You know, you need to know the sentiment of the community, what the desired outcomes are. PLT do amazing work at ensuring that they understand all sides, and that's what the good negotiators do, and they are just that. They are negotiators. They're trained to do what they do, to understand the perspective of all sides, to ensure that information around expectations around the law are properly communicated to all sides, and to do their best to prove and gain -- build those relationships, build that trust with the people, so that what they say -- they know that they can take what they say to the bank and they're going to be following through with what they say.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M'hm. Now if I could take you back to your willsay, Madam Clerk, at OPP00000792. I believe it was on this day, February 10th, Chief Pardy, that the -- one of the subject matter experts from the RCMP, Darwin Tetreault, prepared the concept of operations that was based on the information that you were gathering. So if we go to page 5 of this document, I want to go down to the bullet that starts with on February -- on the 10th of February. There we go. Do you see this bullet, that tells us that Sergeant Tetreault was preparing this, "...concept of operations based on the totality of the information that [you were getting] from the OPS but more importantly intelligence that would support a systematic and safe action plan to [dismantle] the entire protest zone." So does this also refer to something you told us earlier about not doing things block by block ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- but to have start to finish of the entire protest?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That's correct, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If I could take you to the next document, I believe this is your notes, OPP00001792. So this is still February the 10th. And if we go to page 28, the time I'm looking for is 1925. There we go. You have a telephone call with looks like Deputy Harkins, and there's a -- can we make the -- look at more of the page? Oh, there we go. I think go down a little bit, please. "Obstacles with OPD still" -- can you read this? These were your ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- notes; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
"Obstacles with OPS still exist at the Chief level however we're working effectively with this rank and file."
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So first of all, why are you saying that there are still obstacles at the Chief level?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we're at this point, we still don't have their plan. It's -- was a frequently -- frequent made request to get what they had, to get access to their people, and the replies were all we're waiting for the Chief.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And the second part where it says we're working effectively with the rank and file?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Who are these rank and file?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Everyone from their command team, their strategic command, Deputy Ferguson, Chris Rheaume, those that were sent to our unit to assist with the planning. We didn't have their planners embedded with us until some days later, but we were back and forth with them as well.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M'hm. If we go to the next day now, so on same -- these are your notes, but we go to page 32, please? And the time I'm looking for is 12:30. So there are two points being made here. You may be -- perhaps you can read those better.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, so the first says, "We don't know what resources are deployed here before and beyond any request [that] we have [made -- we have] been coordinating." And this was -- this -- that bullet is in essence in reference to silos. You know, others are doing something. We all need to be out of those silos. If we're asking for something, you're asking for something, are we asking for the same thing. We need to break those down. It was a constant pressure. We were asking for a lot of resources here, so we needed to ensure that we were effective in our request.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The second bullet says, "Anything sent to [the] OPP POC from [the] Chiefs executive office -- can we get that, please!" And those were some requests that the Chief had made, so can we just please get access to what requests have been made, what replies have been received. He just said he too is very frustrated. I asked if the Chief's Executive Officer was looking after resources. He advised that he was working on getting that information for me.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now on that day, February the 11th, you also attended a meeting with the -- with a group, the Integrated Planning Group. That might have happened actually earlier that day, and I want to take you to the document -- the minutes of that meeting. It's a document provided by the OPP, so OPP00001837. And I want to take you to page 5, near the top. Oh, no, it says not enough memory. Maybe while - - oh, there we go. So if we can go to page 5, please? Right. So there's a reference to something you said at that meeting. "...we're here to build a plan to support our partners, but we have no information. Can't deploy when we don't know what we're deploying to. We have an OPS Plan but it does not give us enough information to deploy 500 officers without a more comprehensive plan. Intelligence picture will inform this..." And so on. There's a reference to 500 officers. Tell us more about that.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Back on our February 9th meeting, I think it was Sergeant or Staff Sergeant LeBlanc from the OPS did provide us a bit of a breakdown in terms of their plan and intersections, what the numbers they needed, and that number was 516, if I'm not mistaken, from the February 9th meeting. We were trying to understand that. We later learned that it was based on a three-shift rotation. Most organizations work on a two-shift rotation, so the needs -- again, I mentioned earlier, we corrected some of the math, but it's around that number at that time. And that was based on their concept -- without duties assigned, but based on their concept of operations we would need approximately -- not approximately. They would need 1600 officers to maintain this on a 24/7 cycle.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I see. Now let me take you to your willsay. At page 6, please? You notice that I'm taking you to lots of documents. Sometimes these contemporaneous record help ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
M'hm.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- to tell the story. So if we go to page 6, at 1645, so scroll down a little bit, please. So 1645, that's 4:45 p.m. "... our team presented our proposed plan to senior command in the RCMP and the OPP with significant support. This plan was a detailed concept of operations for which our team would build the entire POU plan however it still relied heavily on injects from the OPS planning team." Now I suppose that goes back to something you told us earlier that you were building on what was given you ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- that you thought was inadequate for the purposes of resolving the protest situation. And by this time, at 4:45, you had something ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- to present to the senior command. What was that proposed plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well it was the plan that we actually executed in the end. That concept of operations was developed at that stage and with a POU plan that was going to be very detailed in terms of the number of resources that were going to be needed, which came to fruition, that same 800 number I mentioned earlier. We talked about everything from communication to restoring trust and confidence in the Ottawa Police, to responding to the narrative, to change the narrative, because the narrative certainly was not reflective of what was actually going on on the ground, what we could see on the ground. So it was that all encompassing concept of operation and plan to dismantle the protest effectively, start to finish.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. If we go further down. So you see the bullet that starts with: “Superintendent Lue and I presented the plan at a high level to her…” Her referring to the person in the bullet before, which is Deputy Chief Ferguson. You presented it to her: “…and she immediately voiced her full support. She preferred however that she be permitted time to present it to the Chief and we agreed to prepare and forward a slide deck for her use, which was completed, and that we would be available regardless of time to answer questions.” So you’re making yourselves available ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- to answer questions, but you’re waiting for her to get an answer from the Chief? Is that your understanding?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. So we presented it, and her response was very favourable, which we felt good about. And I was prepared to go to the Chief myself if necessary. But based on the dynamic that we’d been seeing, and the feedback, you know, we trusted her judgement, and she felt that it would be best for her to present it. It was -- you know, it was late into the evening, about 9:30ish when we finally got a deck to her, hoping that we would get a response probably not that night, but certainly by first thing in the morning.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, you may or may not know this, but we heard from Deputy Chief Ferguson yesterday that she was actually off that day.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I didn’t know that.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
You didn’t know that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think I found out during the process that she was, but ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. But she still spoke to you ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
She answered our calls ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- at around 9:00 or 10:00?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- always. Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yeah. So that was February the 11th, late at night. And then the next day, so we’re going into February the 12th now, at 11:45 a.m. on the 12th, you placed a phone call to Chief Sloly. So the two of you had a conversation. Tell us about that conversation, please?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, if I could, just prior to that, ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes, yes.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- I mean, I put in the points here, but earlier in the day, I made some outreach to see if we’d gotten any response back from Chief Sloly on the plan and whether or not it would be a good time for me to call him. And I was told it was an ill-advised time to call because he was in a meeting with -- I believe he was in a meeting at the time with Bernier, Rob Bernier. So I said, “Well, fine.” I left it until a little later. And yes, I did make a phone call. So just a short conversation.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But I made that call to him and, you know, when I reflect on my notes and how quickly I was writing, it was temporaneous in that I was writing the note as I was speaking with him. And yeah, that was the context of the conversation. You know, “Got the slide deck? Have you had an opportunity to take a look at it? Your thoughts on it?” His concern was around what does integration look like? Where do we fit? How does it fit in other theatres of operation and what not. And he really felt that a follow-up meeting would be beneficial to answer some of those questions.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
So once again, we’re at 12:00 o’clock on that date, hoping that we would be greenlighted to move ahead with, you know, implementing the plan that we were working on. And we then started preparing for this meeting that we ultimately had later in that day.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. But staying on this call, for the moment, so if we look at what is said in the will-say, on the fourth line: “I advised we were looking to work in a more integrated fashion that insured resources were strategically placed where needed, that I had provided [Deputy Chief] Ferguson with that plan. He advised he wasn’t sure what was agreed to yet as to how that integration was to happen…” So he suggested a call. I wanted to ask you, if you had specific recollection about what he said to you that day?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well I certainly have it from my notes. And at that time, I was using a scribe. I mean, my notes are -- you can’t be on your notes with an event like this. I had over 400 pages of notes. You would never catch up if you weren’t doing them live. I wrote my notes. The time has been my best tool in my 36-year career, to make sure that I captured the essence of what was said. And I’m going to suggest that that is the tone of the conversation.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So this accurately captures ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, it does.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- the nature of the conversation? So if we go further down -- oh by the way, so around the time that you were having this conversation with the former chief, I suppose your other members of your team were having a conversation with Supt. Bernier?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And what did you find out from other members of your team about what they spoke to Bernier about?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Just that we’re good to go.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So they got the message that they were good to go, while you were speaking to the Chief, who asked for a further meeting or briefing?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct. So I felt that maybe there was -- well, not me. There was some obvious miscommunication going on. You know, that we did actually require that meeting with the Chief, I’m going to leave to the response that I got directly from Chief Sloly that a follow up meeting was required. And that follow up meeting did occur with a detailed overview of the plan. So I just felt that maybe Supt. Bernier misunderstood, or -- it was obviously inaccurate.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So if we go further down, that meeting that finally happened took place in the afternoon. So first of all, at 1400, so 2:00 p.m., you placed a call to Deputy Chief Bell upon learning that the former chief would like a briefing on the plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And so you suggested, C. Pardy, you suggested at 3:30; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then at 3:04, you got a call from Deputy Bell who apologized, but said that the meeting was - - has already started and the Chief was insisting that it happen now. Is that still your recollection?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then a few minutes later, at 3:10, you and -- I guess you joined -- when you say “We”, I assume that’s you and the members of your team?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, the key members of our planning group. Specifically I wanted the subject matter expert to present the plan.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yeah.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I introduced it, and then had the subject matter expert present the plan. Phil Lue was on the call. I can’t remember exactly who without looking at the meeting invites.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So I’d like to ask you what you wrote here at 1510, about the third line down. The end of the second line: “The tone of the Chief’s comments during this meeting was very troubling to the point that I asked if the Chief wanted my team to leave the call to allow him to speak privately with his team first. He was blunt in saying no, he would get to us momentarily.” What was this about?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
He was having discussions that were separate and apart from our purpose to be at that meeting and it was really direct. Heads were down. You could sense -- you could feel the tension over the video link in the room. And we just felt -- and I mean, Phil Lue also spoke up. We just felt that perhaps it’s not our time to be in this meeting, if he needed some privacy to deal with his people. And he said, “No, I’ll get to your next.” “I’m getting to you next.”
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then eventually it got to you. And your will-say tells us that there was a presentation of the slides; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And if we scroll down a little bit? The last sentence of this bullet, do you see “Key in the plan”?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
“Key in the plan was reducing the protestor footprint through compliance and that ensuring safety, above everything, was factored in at all stages.” So it looks like when you said “key”, some emphasis was put on that point? Can you elaborate?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was. I mean, this obviously was a significant event in our nation’s capital, it was having a significant impact on its residents, on the policing, but we also were working hard to ensure that what our actions do help rebuild that trust and confidence in the police. It goes back to our mission in ensuring that safety is built into your mission, and that was a key component for us. We wanted to reduce the component -- the footprint of the protest zone to the utmost extent possible. You talk to planners in major events like this, they’ll say, “We’re not going to arrest our way out of this. We’re not going to -- it’s going to be impossible”. So you have to look to compliance and appeal to the better senses of people that are involved to get them to want to voluntarily exit the zone. And that was a key component of our plan because we knew that from a capacity perspective if we had to start putting bracelets on everybody there, we’d need 10,000 officers to do that. So we had to -- we had to put a plan in place that was scalable but one that we could accomplish with the resources that we intended to bring.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now -- so this is a meeting between your team and the OPS command team. Chief Sloly was obviously there. Who else, do you remember, was present from the OPS side?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I guess this is the advantage of video, right. We’re on video. I do believe his command team, his counsel was there.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Was Bernier there?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, because Bernier was very vocal and spoke up in support of our plan.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So he was supportive. What about the former Chief?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Oh, he was -- he was there. He was ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
No, no. But, sorry, in terms of how receptive he was.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, a few things happened during the presentation -- and it speaks to what, I think, integration and/or unified command brings to the table about taking this off the shoulders of one individual and spreading it around and bringing the collective expertise to bear on the problem. But during the presentation, Darwin uttered a statement about single point of failure, and admittedly, it kind of came out that the Chief was the single point of failure. It was not the intent. It was meant to show that, you know, he was -- Darwin was very passionate about the fact that, “All eyes are you on, Chief, what you do, what you say, et cetera. You are the face of this for the Ottawa Police Service. We’re all going to bring a plan to you so that, essentially, you’re not going to be seen as the single point of failure”. The Chief responded -- and understandably. He responded very quickly that he was not the single point of failure in this and he -- unless he had confidence in what his team could do, he’s not going to support it or approve it. He went on a bit of a talk in that regard just to -- I actually, on behalf of our team, apologized because it was not the intent of our being there that day. Our intent was to go there and walk away with kind of support that we were unified and let’s get this done.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So at the end of that afternoon meeting, was anything agreed on?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We still did not have an approved plan, no.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
You did not.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
There was no implicit, explicit approval of a plan that day. That did not come until - - I’m sorry. Was this the -- this was the 11th?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
This was the 12th.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The 12th. That did not come until the 13th.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, if we go down on your will say to page 8, there was a bullet that starts with -- that’s right -- “We had discussion about integrating the command, location of CP”. What’s CP?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Command Post or Command Centre.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So this is in reference to discussion about where to set up the command post if there is to be an integrated command; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you said there’s some apparent momentum being gained with a new IC. What’s the IC?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Incident Commander. Rob Bernier.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So nothing was agreed as of yet on the 12th, but you were sensing apparent momentum from the new commander, who was Rob Bernier.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then if we go down further, I reviewed -- yeah. “I reviewed and signed off of our detailed ops plan by the end of this date, as did the RCMP. All that was required was approval by OPS.” What do you mean by that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we had given them the plan and we had hoped that they would approve it. Again, as supporters of the OPS, we weren’t in a position to start actioning a plan without their approval.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So let’s go to the 13th. The first bullet: “We still did not have approval from Chief Sloly yet. In consult with OPP senior command forged ahead with developing roles of senior and strategic command and the absolute importance of these roles in support of the Incident Commanders.” Could you explain that to us?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And that’s one of the significant benefits of integrated command. So the way that we set it up, we had a seniors table, which is Deputy Commissioners and Deputy Chiefs with the Ottawa Police Service. We had our Strategic Command, which I then, after we went kinetic, became a member of the Strategic Command with -- again, with the RCMP and the OPS. And then we had our Incident Commanders, the three guys. So the whole goal there is to give them objectives, be a sounding board. We’re able to effectively keep anything and everything political out of it. They are able to strictly focus on operations. We’re able to give them feedback, report up, report down. They’re never reporting jumping over a rank. They’re reporting to us and we’re updating the seniors table to ensure that they’re aware of everything that’s going on and the progress that we’re making with our daily objectives.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So you were forging ahead at this time even though there wasn’t a final approval yet.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We -- our team remained incredibly optimistic throughout this and in spite of the adversity that we faced at times. And I mean, I’d like to say this because I think it’s important to be said. There was still amazing collaboration and support to get things done. Everybody in Ottawa, from the Chief down, wanted this to be over and we wanted -- we were with them that way. So there was a lot of tremendous work, and we -- at no time did we just say -- do a full stop and say, “Well, until we get approval there’s nothing else we can do”. There was tons more that we could do. So we never stopped from day one until I left there on the 27th or 28th, whatever it was at that point.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So by 3:50 that day, it appears as though your optimism was justified because you received a call from Incident Commander Bernier, who was accompanied by the major -- Critical Incident Commander Springer. And then if we go down two bullets, sub-bullets, you see that yes, the plan is approved; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So he approved it, as the Incident Commander was entitled to do, and then at 6:05 p.m. that day, if we go down further, you discussed the above with Deputy Chief Ferguson. She advised that she fully agreed with Bernier’s authority to sign off, “that we were good to go”. Was that accurate?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It’s accurate. I made that call because of concerns in all partner organizations that, look, we don’t have approval from the Chief yet, which is what we’d been expecting all along. So that call got made to Deputy Chief Ferguson and, following that call, I forged ahead and was completely confident we were going ahead, we’re moving in.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So with both Bernier and Ferguson confirming the authority to sign off, was that sufficient for you on the 13th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I accepted it and moved on. And I remember telling my boss, “Are we certain that the Chief is on board? I’m good with it. I’m moving in”. I’ve got someone -- I’ve got a signed document in my hands. I’m moving forward.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So there was optimism as of the 13th, but as we read on in your will say, it appears that on the 14th, the next day, there was still a few more issues to iron out. So I want to take you first to -- so page 9, February 14th, the bullet that starts with “Key issues”. Do you see? So scroll up. That’s right. “Key issues dealt with through the day related to OPS need to have their lawyer approve the plan, which was understood based on everything they had been going through, however, was unusual in the context of a lawyer approving an operational plan.” Now, we spoke about this a little bit. And during our interview you clarify that perhaps approval was not the best term, and you said maybe review was a better word. Could you explain that, please?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I challenged this a couple times with some other people, can you help me out here, can you intervene, can you, you know, give me some better context. And I know that Chris Rheaume made a call to the lawyer and that's what came back. Well, no, I'm not approving the plan. I've been asked to review it before it's actioned.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M'hm.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
In my view, however, as much as approval may not be the right word to use, if a plan cannot be actioned before it's reviewed, then it's not approved.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So that's the first issue on the 14th.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Another issue that you spoke about, if we go down the page, please? The bullet that starts with furthermore. "Furthermore, it was determined throughout this date that Incident Commander Bernier was being pulled away continuously to brief his Chief and this was creating frustration within our planning group, especially as it related to the POU component. I tactfully addressed this concern with the OPS." How did you tactfully address it?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I just tell them we need it -- we -- he is critical, absolutely critical to this operation. He is the key decision maker, a key incident commander, and he needs -- his input is absolutely unequivocally required, especially as we were looking at the POU to plan, which was the crux of our plan to dismantle the protest. He was absolutely vital to its success and needed. So obviously, I was the person that often went to OPS to have discussions, but throughout my time there, I would get the feedback from the different planning components that we need access to this. We need access to this. Can we make this up? So I was the guy trying to work our way around any barriers that we were facing. And I know that the lead planners who I had tremendous trust and confidence in just said, "We need him, and he's being pulled away again. We need him back here ASAP. If we're going to put this together, his input is critical. We can't spend hours and hours developing a tactical solution that the incident commander can't support."
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So those are the first two issues. There was a third issue. If we go up the page, I want to take you to the bullet that starts with "while it was established." There we have it. "While it was established that all key commanders would be kept in the loop, it was learned that the mayor of Ottawa had engaged with protesters and negotiated them to all move to Wellington Street and that OPS made some decision on action." So and then the next bullet says that Incident Commander Bernier briefed you at around six -- just after six o'clock, that due to the mayor's decision, it was a good time to take positive action on those who stayed outside of Wellington. Now in your interview with us, you describe this action plan as uncharacteristic of Bernier. Why did you say that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was just that we -- he was well aware of the overarching plan that we had created for them that would systematically dismantle the protest zone. And to go back to the chunk-by-chunk dismantling would require additional resources and we knew that. We challenged Bernier on the plan, but we brought key members of the team in to a PLT intel. POU, they actually supported it. So it wasn't, like, we don't want to do this. Okay. Now we have a plan and we're going to pivot, so we need to adjust. So are we all on the same page as to where we're going. And, I mean, ultimately, it did not happen.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
What did not happen?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
The action?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- the action.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And I'd wrestle in my brain, I do believe it relates to a resource reliability from a POU perspective. So this is the tactical portion of our operation plan with POU. So ultimately, it did not occur either, because it was -- again, it was contrary to the plan, the systematic plan that had been proposed. But, again, when we put the team together, POU said, "Yeah, we think it's doable if it can resource." PLT felt that they had exhausted all that they could do with this particular group. And intel gave us nothing that would suggest that it would be ill-advised to do so, so it's, like, okay, we're good to go. Now we have to start resourcing. And I do believe it ultimately came down to a resourcing issue why it did not occur.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So it would appear that all of these issues on the 14th, the first day of the supposed integration caused you sufficient concern that the -- early the next morning, you spoke to the OPP Commissioner Carrique; am I right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Sorry, which date?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I'm sorry?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The next day you say?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
The next day, yeah, February the 15th.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Fifteen.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Let me show you a document that may help refresh your memory. OPP00001785 at page 28, please. So this appears to be a phone call that you made to Commissioner Carrique where you raised some of these concerns and about the unified command, and you asked for his intervention. So if we go down the page, looking for where it says -- is this page 28? I'm looking for the reference where it says the elephant in the room.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah. So I reviewed those notes. I, unfortunately, after retiring, my notes all went back to archives, and I just got them back yesterday.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So you remember reading that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I remember reading this, but this is not in reference to a conversation with the Commissioner. It might have been from an earlier conversation, but at that time, I was in a meeting with a broader group. I was called out for a conversation with the Commissioner in relation to providing an update to the Ottawa Police Services Board. It was a brief callout from that meeting. I do, however, recall talking about the challenges.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know, I had made statements through this that publicly we're integrated, but in reality, we're still missing a lot, so we're truly not integrated until we reach all of these points. We are still at times working in silos. So if -- in an action that's going to happen if the broader group who's planning for resources to support it is not aware of it, it just makes it difficult to action. You need to have a plan.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So you might have just anticipated my question, because I was going to ask you for the context where this conversation took place and explain this statement that you apparently made to Commissioner Carrique. The elephant in the room is -- can you read that to us?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, it's not my writing, so I ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Oh, okay. So ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
If my scribe wrote that down ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- we're on equal grounds here. The elephant in the room ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
In the room is everything we have been ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
We have done.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- they have done so far have been blocked by the OPS Chief.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So these are notes that attribute things that -- to you things that you apparently said. Have you -- did you say this?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Conversations, yes, that, you know, we were in an intense planning meeting that morning because we got our approval the day before, like, we're good to go. We were in a significant meeting when I got called. My phone started ringing and I did not answer it after multiple times, and finally I got the nod that, you know, the Commissioner needs to speak with you ASAP, can you -- so I x-ed the meeting and I left my scribe at the meeting. And I went and had a separate meeting with the Commissioner and the two deputies, and it's in different notes. So my scribe wasn't with me. I took another notebook, and I took my own notes. So there's other notes ---
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- that overlap the exact same time here.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So in that context, you asked for his intervention.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And I recall -- like, because I knew that they had a relationship certainly much more significant than mine. I had only -- I met Chief Sloly at a swearing in for the -- for his job and at a conference once, I believe. But I really didn't know him like the Commissioner did. And I just thought if you have any influence that you can talk with him so we can move things along, please do so. And again, it's based -- in fairness to Chief Sloly, it is now based on how things have gone and what I'm being told that it's -- you know, we're waiting for the Chief on this. We're waiting for the Chief on that. We have to wait for the Chief on this. So I'm just asking, you know, if there's something we can do to intervene, please, let's do it, so we can move this thing along. Everybody on the team had a goal, to get out of Ottawa as quickly as we could but doing so safely and efficiently with a plan that would end these protests.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So that was the morning of the 15th. As we know, later that day, the former Chief resigned. And in your interview with us, you said that the implementation of the February 13th plan moved more quickly after Chief Sloly’s resignation. What did you mean by that? Moving more slowly -- moving more quickly?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was just that. You know, he resigned and it was like, “Let’s go.” Everybody for OPS were ready to go. And we just fully implemented everything that was in the plan.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And there were still barriers. I mean, we still had our issues. I don’t want to think that -- I don’t want anybody to think that it was just Chief Sloly.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yeah.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We had issues right throughout the plan in Ottawa that we wrestled to the ground. But, you know, once that happened, for example, the meeting that I was called to go to with the Board also got cancelled. So that freed up my time to put focus where it needed to be.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, in my remaining time, I hope I have another -- I believe I have another 15 minutes. Yeah, so in my remaining time, I want to ask -- focus your ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You have a little over 17 minutes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Oh, that’s very good news indeed. So now the -- we’ve been speaking about the February 13th plan, and that was the one that you and Lue, and Bernier approved. And then as I understand it, the integrated planning group continued to work with the OPS to develop that plan until it was finalized on or around the 17th. Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And between those dates, the 13th and the 17th, something happened on the 14th, which was the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So I want to ask you now about, like, can you confirm whether the final plan of February 17th contemplated the use of any powers or any measures made available under the Emergencies Act?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, it did.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Sorry?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It did. It did incorporate.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And tell me about that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, like every plan, one of the things that every operational plan considers is your people. Our people are the absolute most valuable asset that we have in any operational plan. It’s important that we have information and inform them of everything. So we ensured that our officers were aware of the piece of legislation that Parliament had given us, and to use it to the best of our ability.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, during your interview with us in the summer, and I guess in September as well, you said the group had a lot of debate about the authorities that the Act provided and so on. But did the police in Ottawa end up needing the Emergencies Act to tow vehicles?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Explain to us why not.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, you know, if we didn’t have the Emergencies Act, that would imply that we couldn’t tow vehicles. We tow vehicles every day, but for different things. We have laws under the Highway Traffic Act, we have common-law authorities that we use on a regular basis. So we -- you know, if a vehicle is used in the commission of an offence, it’s evidence, or whatever the case may be, we have various authorities to seize and/or remove or tow that vehicle. So we did not need the Emergencies Act. We had legislation under the province that assisted us when it comes to towing or removing permits and CVORs and impounding vehicles. But again, we did not explicitly need those authorities to tow a vehicle.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
M’hm. And you also said that the police would have managed to put an end to the protest without the Emergencies Act. They would have done so within the timeline that the cell was contemplating before the Federal Government declared an emergency. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well I think it just says what it says. Our operational plan, when we put it in place, we did not have those authorities. It did not suddenly turn us on our wheels that we had to change a lot. We just added it. There’s a plan. It helped. I’m not going to say that it was not useful. It certainly -- it provided us with some authorities relating to tow, relating to perimeters, relating to preventing people from going into the red zone, et cetera. But we could have done that anyway.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So in your view, was the Emergencies Act necessary to end the protest in Ottawa?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s a loaded question. I’m a police officer. Parliament gives us legislation. We don’t make legislation. They provide it to us and we use it to the best of our abilities. They gave us a piece of legislation to use. We were thankful for it and we used it to the best of our abilities to incorporate into our plan.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And in your view, was there a police solution to the demonstrations?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
A police solution?
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Policing ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Policing solution?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
There was a solution and we reached that solution. We had some help with EMCPA, the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, regulations that we have with the Province, and the Emergencies Act, but in my humble opinion, we would have reached the same solution with the plan that we had without either of those pieces of legislation.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
In -- within around the same timeline that ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Is there anything else that you want to tell the Commissioner that I haven’t yet asked you?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t think so, sir.
Frank Au, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you very much.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. So counsel for former Chief Sloly, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TOM CURRY
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m Tom Curry. Nice to meet you. Chief Pardy, the events that you became involved in in the first week of February, I think the 8th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Unprecedented, in your experience?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely one of a kind, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And unforeseen by anyone in your command in the northeast region at the time that the convoy protestors who came through the northeast travelled through there? Is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No. I would say that in my role, my operations superintendent, who prepared an Ops plan, which was largely traffic based, but in partnership with the municipal police services that the convoy went through, the Hendon Reports, what we were hearing, we kind of felt that Ottawa was kind of in for it.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And in your command at that time, did the OPP have an opportunity for you to share your conclusions or what was going on in the northeast as the convoy came along?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well all of that was reported up. There was a major incident commander overseeing it as it went through the northwest region into my region. PLT was engaged heavily with the protestors. They were travelling in vehicles. You know, for example, they split at Highway 11 and 17. The weather in the north was terrible. The heavy trucks came down the 17. The smaller vehicles, we felt was safer, the weather was less severe because of the lake effect of the Superior, they went via Highway 11. So the convoy split there. Everything -- I mean, I was not deeply involved. In fact, I was in Sioux Ste. Marie, Ontario, I arrived there 7:30/8:00 p.m. at night for business the next day, because at that stage, I had a team that looked after them and I trusted that they had a plan, the Ops plan that the Ops superintendent has signed off on, intel-led, good to go, “Just keep me informed if there’s any difficulties.” I was doing my regular business. I remember it distinctly, because it took me 15 to 20 minutes to turn into my hotel because the convoy was coming through with a steady stream of tractor trailers, so I couldn’t get a turn.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the -- if I follow that, you were in the Sioux, your team is running the convoy, observing the convoy, presumably you had squad cars, marked vehicles, unmarked vehicles ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- in the presence of the convoy as they came into and exited your region?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And passed along whatever intelligence could be gathered about the scale of the protest and those PLT interactions?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We did, but it didn’t work that way, sir. I mean, this is a major event for the OPP. So there’s an incident commander in Orillia. Everything is being fed up through logs with PLT. We’re seeing it, but we’re not having to really report it because Orillia is actually getting it.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. So does Orillia -- well, two things -- thank you for that. Two things. Northeast Region would never have, on that basis, been in contact with anybody at OPS at that stage.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What Northeast Region does, is feeds that intelligence into Orillia, a Central Command. Is that true?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then would it be -- in your experience, would it be expected that if there was something to be gained from that intelligence, that should be shared with a partner police service, here Ottawa ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that it would be passed along to say “Something troublesome your way is coming”.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, but I mean, I didn’t learn something troublesome is coming based on them coming through my region. I learned that from the briefings that we had.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And is the -- are the briefings that you had, would we understand the same information that you had if we read the Hendon reports?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Generally, yes. I mean, in the case where we participate in the calls just to get, and large it was my Ops Superintendents that would be engaged in those meetings and briefing me. You know, we widely -- it was widely felt that, you know, they’re going to Ottawa for the long haul. They’re going -- just because of what they were looking to accomplish, we knew nobody was going to give in to those sorts of demands like ending the -- ending the demand -- health mandates for the country and shutting down government or having people from government removed. That was just not going to be accomplished.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It made the -- in your view, the PLT effort to engage protestors with that agenda -- well, first of all, it was unsuccessful, wasn’t it?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
In what way, sir?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, the PLT didn’t negotiate the departure of protestors until the moments before the public order plan, your plan ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And the -- at the time that they came through the Northeast Region, your team would have been in touch, presumably, with the next region over, which I guess is this region, the East Region.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
East Region, yes. I mean, in -- again, we’re one organization, so it’s not like we’re separate organizations here. It’s pretty seamless. The PLT, there will be handoffs. These are people that work together, intel, all -- again, these are people that work together. So my point is, my region wouldn’t continue on to here. There’d just be a handoff kind of to the next team and my team go back to their regular business.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And you, yourself, personally, had no contact with anyone in the Ottawa Police Service until the moment that you got a call from your Deputy Commissioner.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That is correct, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, OPS for a minute, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that they would not have had, on their own, with their own resources, a policing solution. They needed help.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they have -- you’ve told us that you’ve been part of providing help to the OPS over the years, as has the RCMP.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as have other municipal police services.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you’ve worked with that group, you told us, on other occasions. And that would be the universe of resource -- pools of resources. Would that be right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Assuming that we’re not going to go another step into military -- aid to civil power through the military, just sticking with police services, it’s OPP, RCMP, municipal police services and I suppose I should add the Parliamentary Protective Service.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the resources that they needed were the subject of estimates provided by the OPS through communications from Chief Sloly to Commissioner Carrique and to Commissioner Lucki, among others. Did you ever see the spreadsheet of the resource requests that had been made to Commissioner Carrique, for example?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t think I saw it before my arrival there. I know we discussed it because I know -- I distinctly recall being broken down right -- even down to civilian members and analysts and e-crime analysts and a whole myriad of resources. So I do recall seeing the list. We may have discussed it on that February 9th meeting. There was a lot of things in a short period of time. But yes, I was aware.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the objective when a police - - and I appreciate it’s unprecedented, so you have not seen previously a municipal police force that has been overwhelmed by protestors as this one was.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No. That’s fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the main -- the main objective from the perspective now of an Ottawa Police Service would be to get the help it needs to restore order in the community.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you learned probably from your briefings and you observed firsthand that the situation was quite grave here in Ottawa during the time of the -- of that protest.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It’s a fair statement.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There -- obviously, residents were in distress and the city was quite -- in its core, quite paralyzed.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was. I mean, I have friends in the downtown core that live in the downtown core and reported to me the devastating impact that it had on their ability to just sit and think in their own living room.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And as to the police service, when we speak about a service that is overwhelmed, the best they could do with their own resources was -- I think I saw in one of your notes was that they could maintain control of the perimeter.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they were not possessed of the -- of sufficient resources to mobilize any kind of operation.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, when the circumstances are those circumstances, would you agree with me that the top priority for that police service is to get help?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And to try to reach out to policing partners, OPP, RCMP, the ones that we talked about; yes?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that -- and to define -- try the best you can to define the resources that you need.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you are in the -- understandably, from the perspective of the Ottawa Police Service, they need to know what resources are available from other municipal services, OPP or RCMP; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the resource demand at -- here in Ottawa was matched by demands in other communities we know, including Windsor.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I don’t know -- it probably doesn’t matter, but the Windsor blockade of the Ambassador Bridge took -- arose following the convoy protest here in Ottawa.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It did.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Was the -- to your knowledge, was the OPP able to prevent that blockade? Did it try to prevent that blockade?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I mean, I was briefed, obviously, that -- because it could impact our requests here in Ottawa. I can’t speak to the specifics of what was attempted prior to, sorry.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, that’s fine. But it -- but once the blockade in Windsor was established, OPP resources were required there.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
As well, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at an overlapping period here with respect to Ottawa.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, a couple of things, if I can. The -- just as to resources and operations, you told us about a plan that was reviewed -- it didn’t go ahead, but a plan that was reviewed here in Ottawa by the OPS to go block by block through the protest and you favoured a one-time, one operation start to finish; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Am I right that the -- that as it was defined at the time it was defined that the OPS team had devised a block-by-block strategy because that reflected the resources that they had at that time? Does that make sense?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, because that’s exactly how it was portrayed in that February 9th. You take it chunk by chunk, understanding it would be resource intensive, but one kind of -- one section at a time. That’s fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And resource demands -- resource requests, I think you told us that you took action when you -- against -- you made a resource request against what you said, I think, was a concept of plan or a concept of strategy.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Concept of operations.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Concept of operations. That’s a little less than a plan. Is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s -- you know, you know all components of what you’re bringing into your plan and you’ve got your SMEs now off building those components, but now we know where we’re going with that concept, with that skeleton. Our concept was much more detailed than the one that they provided us ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- because it did break it down in terms of the teams that we’re going to need to fulfil each concept.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. They had a concept of plan.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You had a more detailed one.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They had a plan; the Integrated Team brought a more detailed one.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, a couple of quick things, if I can, then, just about -- in terms of the plan for a second. Could I please show you a document? It’s, Madam Registrar, OPS three zeros 10470, please? I think you’ve seen this, Chief Pardy. This is -- I don’t know if I’ve got it. Could you scroll down, please, there it is. So you were copied on this. So you see the first email, it’s from ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Phil Lue?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Phil Lue. And I’m afraid I don’t know his rank.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Superintendent.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Supt. Lue. Thank you. He writes to you and mainly to Deputy Chief (Acting) Ferguson, and do you see this? He says: “...find attached a PowerPoint deck that outlines the plan we have been working on. Obviously this plan originated with your plan, which we examined, bolstered and strengthened.” Fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Very fair, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that was your approach?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
This email is just about proper context. In my evidence in-chief, I mentioned we reached out to Trish Ferguson on that evening, and we followed up with a deck. This was the email attaching the slide deck to help her explain the plan to the Chief.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Thank you. And I just want to show you one other document, just to see if... Please could I, Madam Registrar, switch out to OPS -- I think this one has four zeros, 9639. Yeah. So this is 10th of February to the long list there. Mostly it’s -- this is your own service, and it looks like other services, other municipal services. Do you see that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the re line -- if we could just scroll down, please: “As a follow up to our earlier...call, many police agencies have expressed an ability to support Ottawa Police Service...with front line boots on the ground. Our Integrated Planning Cell composed of...are mobilizing resources in support....Could I please ask that any agency which has officers you can deploy to support the Plan to please respond to [that OPP email address] with the number of officers you have available, when...available and for how long.” You sent that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir, I did. And this email was what we call the big 12.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The big 12 police agencies in Ontario, with a couple of additional ones that had stepped up, small agencies that actually stepped up and were routinely supplying OPS with resources.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were able to send out that call for help for resource assistance on the end of that call for help, for resource assistance on the 10th of February, prior to the finalization of your plan after you had your concept ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know, from a planning perspective when you start thinking about your concept of operations and where you’re needing to take it, you need to be thinking about how you’re going to be resource that plan, and we knew that no one organization in the province had the capacity to resource that plan. So it’s like you’re kind of putting the bug in everybody’s ear as early as possible that, “We’re coming, we need.”
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Indeed. And that -- when you looked back at what -- or looked at what you were dealing with when you got to Ottawa, am I right that that’s the kind of thing Chief Sloly had been trying to do up until that time?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It’s fair. I mean, I hadn’t watched closely. I know I saw some of the media and repeated -- asked for a resource, absolutely I saw that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Could I show the witness, please, OPP, I think four zeros 1389? Just get your help, if I could, Chief Pardy, with a couple of other things. This is a situation report. Maybe -- can I see page 8? I’m not certain; I might have the wrong number. If that’s the case, I’ll take this down. But could I see page 8, please?
The Registrar (POEC)
Counsel, there are only five pages in this.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, I’ve got the wrong one. All right. I’m going to back to it, unless I’m whisked off the stage. Can I speak for a minute about what you told us about Chief Sloly? No doubt is there, Chief Pardy, that Chief Sloly had the hardest job in the country during the time he was the Chief during this time?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The city was under siege and the Service was under siege.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know anything at all when you got there about the circumstances of Chief Sloly’s tenure as the Chief of Police?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And any difficulties that he faced here in Ottawa, either with issues that arose because of his race or issues that arose because of his inability to lead the change that he had been asked to lead?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, sir, I was not aware.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Clearly he had, at the time that you observed it, a very difficult relationship with his command team.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And others ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- below the senior command. He -- you agree that you observed during the time that you were here, or maybe even before you got here, there were political issues that were raised about Ottawa Police Services handling of this crisis.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Both at the Ministry of the Solicitor-General, with some controversies about what resources were here or not, right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at the level of the federal government, with political leaders making statements about what was going on in their city.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All of which added to the complexity and challenge here for him?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you also -- I take it towards the end of your time here you became aware that the Police Services Board and the Municipal Council had expectations of Chief Sloly and the Service; that they would tell them that there was a plan and indeed be briefed upon it.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s how you were -- you were asked to go, and you checked in with your Commissioner to see if you should?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I actually just flat- out denied and said, “I’m not going,” and then I was asked in a follow-up with the Commissioner in light of the Borden Report from G20, ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you know, the Board has certain roles and responsibilities, and he felt it would be appropriate for me to make a presentation to the Board in light of those key responsibilities the Board has, which I understood. And that -- but, again, that can only be done with Chief Sloly’s approval.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And it’s unusual, in your experience, to brief political actors on operations plans.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
To the detail that we were seeing, absolutely. Very unusual.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so a couple of other quick things, if I can? Were you aware that a member of Chief Sloly’s service, the OPS, contacted Supt. Morris about his attendance at the briefing?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Without telling Chief Sloly that he was going to do that; you didn’t know anything about that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you aware as to how the senior command had divided its responsibilities here for this event, and particularly did you know that Chief -- Deputy Chief, rather, Ferguson was responsible for the plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, I knew -- I mean, she was the person that I dealt with pretty much exclusively after I arrived in Ottawa, in terms of any -- if I had contentious issues or things to deal with, or questions about getting the plan approval, it was Deputy Chief Ferguson.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that Deputy Chief Bell was responsible for the intelligence lead.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t know if I was aware. I certainly learned that he was but certainly not aware. I mean, I had met Chief -- Deputy Chief Bell at that initial meeting, and until he became Interim Chief, I don’t think I had two words with him.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. I think I’ve now -- with help from my colleague, Commissioner, I’ve got the number I was trying to show the witness. I think it’s three zeros, Madam Registrar, 1839, please. Bear with me, Chief Pardy. If this is not it, I -- I’ll -- okay, here we go. February 10th. Just to orient you, this is a -- these are minutes of an Integrated Planning Cell meeting. You talked about it, I think, earlier. Just the attendees, am I correct -- just stopping there -- all of the attendees are from OPP, RCMP or other non-OPS police services?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was -- just scroll down, if we could, to page 2. And a little bit further if we could. Okay. Stop there for a second. One of the things you were asked by my friend, Mr. Au, is whether thought had been given to taking over the meeting this -- and taking over the -- from the police of jurisdiction?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
M’hm.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you indicated that, no, that was not the plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well I think for that to happen, there had to be a request from the Chief, and the Chief made it very clear that that wasn’t going to happen.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. There was some suggestion within the group on the 10th. You’ll see from the RCMP to support the -- just up -- you’ll read -- just stop there. Thank you. Slowly go back. There was suggestion from the RCMP that maybe you should take over. And you’ll see it says, and I’ve forgotten his rank, Tetreault is ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
So are you at the bottom here?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. “OPS saves face on this - the OPS, in its own words, is on its knees. We remove OPS from this slowly, over the course of 4 [to] 6 or 8 shift cycles. They’re exhausted. They go back to work and police the rest of the City. We’re going to build a police detachment - incident policed by another police service within your city. Same as a terrorist plane crash…” And so on. Just then scroll down. You said: “[The] OPS is listening to their tactical advisors […]. This is brainstorm.” RCMP, I’ll use instead of the word Tetreault, but: “…presents a viable plan. Is that the only plan? No. Is it an option that should be given consideration? Absolutely.” I won’t go through the rest of it, but at this meeting, consideration was given to thinking about replacing OPS?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
So I think context is very important.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And the context is here, starts with “They’re on their knees.” We witnessed officers burn out, just getting up and walking out of meetings saying, “I’m done. I can’t take this anymore.” They were burning out daily. We saw their senior executive, Chief Sloly. The stress was very evident on all of them. That perhaps if they focused their efforts on policing the city, we’ll build a plan for the event. Still going to be involved, but just remove them from the equation to allow them to build some strength, because quite frankly, they were -- we saw the burnout. We saw the stress. We saw the anxiety throughout the whole event.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One of the -- is it fair to say that one of the things that may have eroded trust between the Integrated Cell Team and Chief Sloly, and maybe others, was the idea that maybe there was a plan to replace OPS?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
There was never sure plans to replace OPS. And we never thought -- we had lots of brainstorming sessions. You know, we’d start every meeting by saying, “Listen, we need everything on the table. If you have an idea, let’s consider it.” We -- there was nothing offered.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Page 8 of this document, please. This is just -- just shifting gears for one second. Chief Pardy, help us, if you could, with the issue of Windsor. There’s some references here to the demands on -- just scroll down I think, please. There we go. “RCMP POU will get to Windsor tomorrow. OPP has to pivot - if Windsor is a priority, they have to pivot.” Translation -- or the point being made that Windsor is going to take resources away from, of course, from Ottawa?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well I think, again, context is everything. The support that I and my team receive never changed in terms of we’ll get what we need. But going back to my very first meeting with Ottawa Police, we were very clear that we’re looking at this not just at the local level, but at the provincial and the national level. And we have to keep our eyes on all that. What’s happening in Coutts could have an impact here. What’s happening in Manitoba could have an impact here. So we, as a team, wanted to be alive to this. The word “pivot” became very instrumental throughout the deployment. It was used a lot. We had to pivot daily on things because a plan needs to be able to pivot and adjust the impacts to it. So when Windsor happened, we knew that, okay, we’re not going to get all that is available, because Windsor is going to need some. And Windsor, it became not the priority, it became a priority, ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- in my view. Ottawa never changed, in my -- I did not say, “Okay, I’m going to put my folks on Windsor. Thank you very much for letting me know about Windsor. Now let’s get back to what our problem is here.” Our focus still remained solely Ottawa.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Scroll down a little bit. Last bullet point on this, words attributed to you. There’s -- last point: “RCMP advises 60 hotel rooms [are] available in Vanier…” And that’s on account of the fact that 60 POU members had to go to Windsor -- you had the rooms, but you didn’t have the personnel because, of course, for the reasons you’ve given, Windsor required them?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One thing I forgot to ask you when I talked for a moment about Chief Sloly and his circumstances, I think you told us that he was unable to attend one of the meetings, he had a different commitment. Am I right that that commitment was a risk threat assessment against him personally?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
So him and his family. I understood it to be not just him, his family as well. I mean, uncalled for, but there was threats against him.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And that was a death threat?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There were other death threats that came to your attention?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Municipal politicians, presumably?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Many others. Then could I just ask then, finally, PLT. PLT, in your experience with PLT, they have had success and they have been unable, sometimes, to bring protests to an end on their own without further police action?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we have seen PLT used in a myriad of situations over the years. I’m a big of them nonetheless. I think it’s obvious. We’ve seen them have complete success. But it depends. We use PLT in the OPP in our daily operations now. In my region, for example, I have a PLT officer in every one of my detachments, plus I had a full-time component in addition to a designated PLT in every one of my detachments. They handle contentious issues, right down to a protest as neighbours, between two people, and resolve lots. You know, resolution, if you’re saying complete resolution, there’s a massive process and PLT alone was able to resolve it? That’s a fair statement that it doesn’t happen often. But they are an instrumental part of the solution to get a protest to a workable size that allows us to effectively dismantle it.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. This may be a good time for an afternoon break. I think it’s -- since we’re going to go for certainly an hour or better. so I’ll take a 15- minute break and we’ll come back, if that’s okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you.
The Registrar (POEC)
the Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La Commission est levée pour 15 minutes.
Upon recessing at 3:27 p.m.
Upon resuming at 3:42 p.m.
CHIEF SUPT. CARSON PARDY, Resumed
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is reconvened. La Commission reprend.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. We’re back. Are you prepared to proceed? Okay. Next I’d like to call on the Ottawa Police Service.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. JESSICA BARROW
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Good afternoon.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
My name is Jessica Barrow and I’m representing the Ottawa Police Service. We heard earlier in your evidence that the reason the integrated planning cell was created was to assist OPS; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That is correct.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you listed a few reasons that that was the case, but one of the ones that you listed was to restore the public’s confidence in the police; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And would you agree with me that the loss of public confidence in OPS was related, at least in part, to the public’s perception of inaction by OPS?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that perhaps residents felt like the unlawful behaviour of protestors was going unchecked by OPS?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
In response to that, however, you are not a proponent of leading with enforcement; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, it’s not fair.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
It’s not fair. Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m a proponent to leading a measured approach and if enforcement is a part of that, then absolutely. However, I think you’re attributing that maybe to my comment that you’re not going to arrest your way out of this. I could find a hundred police leaders that would say the exact same.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. So, I guess my point was that it’s not the place you start; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It can be a part of. Strategic arrests are always a critical part of a lot of these types of operational plans, but we -- that alone is not going to solve this problem.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And your goal, I think you explained this earlier, the goal is to try to negotiate your way out prior to engaging enforcement, unless necessary?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Negotiation is a part of the plan. If you looked at our plan in detail, there’s a time when negotiations are no -- and it calls for the next. There’s always graduated steps of enforcement.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Running parallel to, not after, parallel to the negotiations and what method are going on.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair enough. But because you are a proponent of that integrated model of negotiation and, perhaps, enforcement where necessary, you are a huge proponent, and I think you’ve mentioned this earlier, of the value of PLT; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. They have proven their value over and over in major events over the years, and I would see no reason why we would not incorporate them in any type of operational plan of this nature.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you were of the view at the time of your arrival in Ottawa that OPS was not providing a supportive environment for PLT?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That is correct. I mean, I should point out, I have knowledge about, obviously, OPS background. They wrote the book on this stuff. They do it well. It just wasn’t happening.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair enough. And you -- earlier in the Commission hearings, we’ve heard about the National Framework. I take it you’re familiar with that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I am.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the National Framework favours the use of PLT wherever possible to negotiate, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so, is it fair to say that the answer in response to the loss of public confidence wasn’t necessarily to go in right away and start enforcing; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It could, again, be part of that measured response. It absolutely still could be part of a measured response where there’s blatant offences occurring to deal with them. Absolutely. But there’s no one solution to this. Go in and enforce you way out of it? Not going to happen. Negotiate down the size of the footprint? Absolutely a viable option, along with a measured approach on enforcement.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair enough. So, you would say that at the very least, any level of enforcement that was happening or ought to happen, needed to happen in tandem with PLT?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And for that reason, obviously, the operational plan that ultimately was agreed upon with Superintendent Bernier as the event commander did involve a strategic deployment of PLT as part of that, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And in fact, I believe you indicated in your witness statement that the integrated plan involved a vital PLT communication and negotiation plan; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that when you presented the cell’s proposed plan to OPS, the key role of PLT was actually specifically stressed because the cell was concerned about the lack of buy in at OPS in relation to the role of PLT; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It certainly wasn’t being used. We were getting information that PLT were in a tent drinking coffee and not out engaging with protesters trying to have an understanding of their intentions. Whether or not there was any room to negotiate to maybe move or leave the area, they were sitting in a tent drinking coffee.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
So, they weren’t being deployed in a way that you felt was appropriate; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think the standard would be. I mean, you’re putting this that I felt this? This is a program that was in the OPP that was borne out of the Ipperwash Inquiry, and they have proven their weight in gold over the years in terms of the connection that they can make with and trust that they can build with protestors or otherwise. You know, so you can reach some common ground on some issues. If they can fix the issue or resolve the issue, that’s a huge plus, but they have become a vital part. I mentioned in my cross with Mr. Sloly’s counsel, we even use them now at neighbour disputes. Instead of taking the hard hand of law enforcement laying charges on both sides, maybe we can negotiate a settlement here so that people can live in a little bit of harmony. And it works. It brings about better community safety.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
So, I think part of what you’re saying, but you can correct me if I’m wrong, obviously, is that in order for PLT to be effective, they had to have the autonomy to actually negotiate effectively; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
They have to have the autonomy, but at the same time, they had the commander’s intent. They had to understand what that autonomy means, what they’re being given.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And in this case early on, it is my view, based on everything that I heard, all the information that was provided to me, that they really did not have that direction nor autonomy.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair enough. And you were of the view, obviously, again, correct me if I’m wrong, that the reason PLT wasn’t engaged in the way that you’re describing in terms of its effectiveness was because that Chief Sloly didn’t believe in the PLT program?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think it went beyond maybe Chief Sloly that others felt that it’s time to get in their -- there’s a lot of pressure on them to take action that is seen to be taken.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
PLT is action taken that nobody sees.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. So, in terms of ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We see it.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- you’re talking about the optics of it?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The optics of it. And so, I don’t think it was just Chief Sloly. I know that in my meetings and in conversations with him, there was -- he had mentioned, for example, that they didn’t have this type of concept with the Toronto Police Service when he was there. So, he was not overly -- as overly familiar with it as we were. We were told that negotiations had simply failed.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. So, it perhaps is not that he didn’t believe in it, it may be that he didn’t understand its utility?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Oh, he certainly still talked about it and understood where we were going with it. Absolutely. But you know, it was our belief, because they were challenged by Superintendent Abrams in my meeting with him on the 9th of February about PLT, because we already had it directly from PLT that they don’t have authorities. They don’t have autonomy. They’re not doing what they do, and we were told simply that, oh, they’re used, but that’s it.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I’m sorry, who were they told that by?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think that was Superintendent Patterson that said that at that meeting.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so, ultimately, when the integrated plan was agreed upon with Superintendent Bernier, and obviously with buy-in from others at OPS, there was an agreement that PLT played an important role in the dismantling of the convoy, is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, that -- I want to be careful, but that makes it sound like we negotiated what goes into a plan.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
No, no. Yes, fair.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
What we’re talking about what we built is what I would consider in our policing world right now, for major events and protests, standard practice ---
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- in terms of the engagement. So, there was agreement, because it’s what we do, and it works. They do provide that layer of assistance to get us to where we need to be when we take kinetic action.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. I want to talk very briefly about the chain of command, and have you assist those of us that don’t work in policing to understand how the chain of command works. So, you would agree with me that police services are paramilitary organizations; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I wish.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
You wish you agreed with me?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, I wish they were. There was a time when we absolutely did say that we were, but we -- I think police services have largely moved away from being able to characterize themselves. When I joined the job, we were paramilitary.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Would you agree with me there is a chain of command ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But there is a chain of command.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yes. Okay. So, however you describe it.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s the only similarity that ---
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- I probably would agree. There is a chain of command.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
So, there is a chain of command that one expects to follow, correct ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- within a police service, so however that’s described, there is a chain of command?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that chain of command requires that where an officer is directed or ordered by a senior officer to do something, they’re required to follow the command?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And in fact, it is a misconduct offence under the Police Services Act not to follow a command ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
A lawful order.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
A lawful order. Correct.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And in addition to that, would you agree with me that it would be considered unprofessional to directly question the directions of one’s superior in front of partner agencies?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s a relationship thing. I mentioned earlier about my team, I had constables, civilians, up to chief on my team, and they were given -- you know, “I need your voice. If you have an opinion, I need you to tell my I’m wrong.” So it depends on the environment and the expectations of the leader.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair enough. I want to talk a little bit about the integrated command. So when the Integrated Planning Cell arrived in Ottawa, its first activities -- and we’ve heard about this already -- involved meetings with OPS to get a sense of where their plans stood; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the Integrated Planning Cell brought with it a fairly significant amount of planning expertise?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, it did.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you indicated with the exception of you, that these were experts in their field; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And the goal of the Integrated Planning Cell was to work with OPS to work towards a more robust overall plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And we’ve heard throughout your testimony -- and I’ll use the word criticism, but perhaps you had described otherwise -- but would it be fair to say that there’s some level of criticism of the level of integration OPS was allowing with your team at this point in time, when you arrived?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think criticism is probably fair. I ran interference a lot on that very topic to actually -- you know, as I mentioned, at one point in time, publicly, it was announced we have integrated. Behind the scenes, I’m telling my folks, “But we’re not there yet.” You know, integration means they’re actually working with us; we’re no longer in silos. We’re actually talking about the direction that we’re going in. And we had obstacles, but those obstacles were not just human.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Fair enough. And we do know, however, that Superintendent Bernier was appointed as event commander on February 11th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And although perhaps not the integration level that you would have liked, there was an integrated command table after he came in, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It started.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
It started.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The positive work started.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yes.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And that was borne out of -- you know, I think the Commissioner has heard reference to the NCRCC down in Orleans. Well, Ottawa Police Headquarters were at the NOC. We have command posts in various different places that add to the complexities of integration. Ideally, you want your key command positions to be integrated and also have access to one another.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And ultimately that does happen, right? Superintendent Bernier moves his group over to the unit?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah. And as our team worked towards securing the right position -- right location at the RCMP Headquarters that could house the type of integrated team, we’re talking well into 100 plus that were needed on operations day. For every component of the plan, we had to have a rep there.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And that takes time, obviously, to assemble that number ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- of people? And one of the things that Superintendent Bernier did when he was appointed as Event Commander was appoint a Deputy Event Commander; is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that Deputy Event Commander was Inspector Springer?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And he’s from the OPP?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I think he’s retired now.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Oh, a retired member of the OPP then perhaps?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, that’s right.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And part of that integrated team that was assembled and evolved, I guess is what you’re saying, it was specialties from all different specialty units, as well as members from a variety of different agencies. Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you felt at this time, I think you indicated, that even with Superintendent Bernier and the integrated table in place at this time, that there was at least a perceived need for Chief Sloly to approve any kind of planning. Is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was still that perception amongst everyone, right down to my bosses calling and asking me, “But has he approved it?” They understood that Bernier approved it, but they asked if he had, and that was that follow-up call I had with Trish Ferguson, and I trusted her, and when she said, “You’re good to go,” we went.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. And, you know, we talked a little bit throughout this Commission here and with various witnesses about this Incident Command System. We know that there’s multiple iterations of it, but would you agree with me that irrespective of which version we’re talking about, that the Chief’s requirement to sign off on an operational plan is inconsistent with that model; is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Not only the job, but inconsistent with approval, yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Correct. You indicated that your team met with Deputy Chief Ferguson on the 11th to present the plan that your team had created; is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We did that over phone, I believe.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. So there was a meeting of some kind?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And am I correct in saying that the plan involved the creation of a unified command?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you indicated, I think earlier in your testimony, that Deputy Chief Ferguson was very supportive of that plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Very supportive, yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you also indicated that Ferguson was your primary contact with the OPS at this time?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so would you agree with me that that support that she indicated on February 11th was generally consistent with the level of collaboration you saw from her during your interactions with her?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
In fact, in your witness statement, you referred to Deputy Chief Ferguson as a voice of reason; is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. And you also indicated in your testimony earlier that by this time, all of the rank and file of OPS was working well with your team; is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And on the same day of Chief Sloly’s resignation, you would agree with me that Interim Chief Bell agreed with RCMP and OPP to implement a unified command; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Jessica Barrow, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Those are my questions. Thank you very much.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next, we’ll call upon the Government of Canada.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. DONNAREE NYGARD
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Good afternoon. I’ll check my time. You indicated in your ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Just ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Oh, introduce myself, I’m sorry. My name is Donnaree Nygard. I’m counsel for Canada. You indicated in your evidence-in-chief that police services, including the OPP, tow vehicles all the time. You have the authority to do that. And I just want to make sure that I’m understanding what you’re saying. You’re talking about the authority to tow vehicles, that’s something you have, and you didn’t need the EA for that, but you don’t -- or you didn’t, absent the EA, have the ability to compel tow truck drivers to assist with that; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And that the use of two trucks, in particular heavy tow trucks, was instrumental to the plan to clear out the protest in Ottawa, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Unequivocally.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And the integrated operation was not actually able to obtain the services of such tow trucks without the use of the EA, the Emergencies Act, in this situation, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s not entirely correct, no. So very early on, in fact day one, we engaged with our OPP Traffic Services and Operation Support Command, Deputy DiMarco, her team that ran all of our traffic programs. We had a gentleman by the name of Kirk Richardson -- I believe he’s a sergeant with the OPP -- everything tow is expertise, and he had the relationships with the MTO. So they had been working tirelessly behind the scenes to build a plan, and I do know they had some 34 rigs lined up. There were, however, some I’m aware that were reluctant because of some liability issues, and the Act gave that support.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Could I have Document ONT00000179, please? Now, you mentioned Kirk Richardson, that he’s ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- who was doing this, and he was doing the organization with the ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
He was working with -- directly with MTO.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
All right. If we can just scroll down to the first email in the chain, just so we can see the beginning? So this is an email on February 16th from the MTO, and there’s a number of recipients, including Mr. Richardson you can see there.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
M’hm.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And if you can see in the first bullet point there, it says there were 13 heavy tow trucks requested and support equipment, 11 tow trucks confirmed so far from three towing companies, and they were working on securing more. So that was the situation which -- I think if we scroll back up at 1:19 on February 16th, and then if we continue to scroll up to the next email in the chain, at the bottom of the first page we’ll see the time. Now we’re at 5:00 in the evening that same day, and there’s a follow-up email. And if we can just see there that it says in that first line: “Good afternoon: Estimate below (per day) based on discussion with two towing companies. The third towing company has dropped out. We have total 10 trucks at this time.” And then you’ll see that he says: “Need a letter from the OPP requesting these companies to provide services and stating that the Federal Act cover any damage to their equipment and indemnify them from damage or other claims resulting from vehicles towed upon police direction.” And then if we go up to the final email in the chain, you’ll see that it says: “Hi, Veronica. I’ve told them that the letter will come tomorrow. They will be moving tonight based on my and Steve’s commitment, credibility.” So would you agree with me that at the end of the day, MOT was actually only able to obtain two towing companies and that those were only obtained if they were compelled under the Federal Emergencies Act?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Certainly reading this, I would say that was my understanding going through, that we -- when I say “tows”, there’s companies with multiple equipment. It was my understanding we had a significant number available, but there were holdouts that the Emergencies Act absolutely supported their engagement and -- to bring this to a successful action.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
But you’ll agree with me that as far as heavy tows are concerned, this email chain makes pretty clear that they were only able to obtain these two.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. I’m fully alive to the fact that there was significant issue with tows. Our friends from Ottawa Police, in one of their preliminary plans, were going to use police officers because they could not get access to tows. They were going to use police officers that had the ability to drive those types of vehicles to remove them, so I would agree it was a significant achievement.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And that the solution to that issue when it came to the heavy tow trucks was using the Emergencies Act regulation.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It certainly assisted it, yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Thank you. You’ve talked in a fair amount of detail this afternoon about the importance and the role of the PLTs in ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- in the work they do, particularly to shrink the footprint of a protest before enforcement action is taken. And I take it, based on what you’ve said, you’ll agree with me that that was a very important part of your plan here.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And in fact, I think you said that if you had had to go in without shrinking the footprint, you would have needed 10,000 officers to deal with everyone who was there.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It just means putting hands on everybody that’s in there and two officers per, just do the math. You’d need a lot more officers, yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And if you can’t shrink the footprint, not only do you need a lot more officers, but it takes more time to ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- control the situation.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s fair, yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And also that there’s more risk of violence or injuries when you’ve got a bigger crowd to control.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
There’s always risks. I mean, we assess those risks on a day by day, then, on operations, hour by hour, minute by minute. You know, when PLT is engaged, they’re really good at reporting back to us whether or not they believe they’re reached their limit and in our plan, in our measured approach, it’s PLT that gives us that final nod, what’s the status, do you have any more room to move. No. Okay. They’re out. We go in with positive action.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
But the bigger -- the bigger the activity that you’re trying to deal with, the more possibility there is for volatility.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And therefore, the greater chance of violence and injuries.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. Although I think it’s important when I hear the words “violence and injuries”, that was a key aspect of our plan -- of this integrated plan ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Yes, absolutely.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- to ensure that we -- from start to finish, a systematic dismantling of the process is done with everything in our power to minimize injury to anybody, and we succeeded in that.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Absolutely. And you did succeed, and an important part of that was the ability of the ability of the PLTs to shrink the footprint significantly before you ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Again, it was -- yes, it was a good part of it.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And the PLT’s ability to do that job is dependent on how persuasive they can be in convincing people to leave.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
They’re negotiators. You know, their role is to ensure that the protestors or those that are inside that perimeter are aware of the law, of the expectations, you know, around lawful protests. And then when they go to the point that it’s no longer lawful, now you’re committing criminal offences, to inform them, negotiate. It’s about building trust. Sometimes they make concessions and they’re willing to do things. We have to give them the leeway to make some concessions if necessary. But this all happens with the Commanders being fully aware of what’s going on with PLT, what their mandate, what autonomy they’ve been given, what authorities they’ve been given.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Yes. And one of the tools that the PLT has to convince protestors to leave is educating them on the consequences if they don’t leave.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely, yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And presumably the more significant those consequences, the more persuasive the PLT can be in convincing people to leave.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. It’s possible, yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And in this case, when this plan was actioned and the PLTs went in to do their work to try and shrink the footprints, one of the tools that was used was a pamphlet that was handed out; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe so, yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And perhaps I can just -- if I can pull up OPP00001852. This is the Integrated Phased Approach Plan from February -- this particular version is dated February 18th, but I understand this is just an update of the plan that was in place for at least the -- since the 13th ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- and it was going through various iterations. And if we can go to page 5, please. Probably, actually, page 6 of the document. It’s page 5 on the page numbers. Yes. Down towards the bottom of the page. Just under the bolding there, this talks about the pamphlet that was being -- or it was a media release provided, but as I understand it, there was also pamphlets handed out that stated the same thing. Is that your understanding as well?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And so there’s various information that was being provided to the protestors to try and convince them to leave by the PLTs, and it’s listed here. First it mentions Criminal Code offences. And if we can go to the next page, it then names a couple of consequences that, as I understand it, come out of the Ontario emergency legislation. Is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And those consequences, in particular the driver’s licence suspension and the commercial vehicle operator’s registration suspension, those would only be applicable against people from Ontario; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
So the Ontario legislation allowed you to cancel the -- suspend the driver’s licence of ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We -- they seized -- if that was a vehicle from out of province, plates were removed, the stickers were removed and we would seize. And we have those agreements with other provinces, yes. So it’s my understanding on enforcement day that’s exactly how it was used.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
So your understanding is that the Ontario legislation allowed you to ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
They’re in the Province of ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Just let me finish the question. Allowed you to suspend the driver’s licence of someone from British Columbia?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
If it was in British Columbia, yes, that is my understanding.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
If we go down, the following bullets are all, except for the last one, measures under the federal emergency legislation; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct. Correct.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
So the personal business accounts -- personal or business accounts, bringing the minor in -- the fines for bringing minors into the area and travelling to an unlawful protest site or delivering fuel and other supplies, those are all under the federal legislation ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- correct? And you’ll agree with me that the addition of those bullet points provided more persuasive fodder for the PLTs to convince individuals to leave.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Any piece of legislation that we’re given, we use to the extent that we could possibly use it. Absolutely did support it.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And as a result of those additional tools, the PLT would have been able to convince more people to leave than they otherwise may have been able to do.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I don’t have any metrics for their success, but I -- you know, the more that you can give them, absolutely.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
And so that allowed you to have a smaller footprint that you were dealing with and perhaps allowed you to get to that smaller footprint faster.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Possibly.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Those are all my questions. Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next is the JCCF Democracy Fund.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JASON HONNER
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Good afternoon, sir.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Mr. Commissioner, the ---
John Mather, Counsel (POEC)
Can you speak up or turn up the sound a bit? Yeah.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, Mr. Commissioner, can you hear me better now?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Thank you. Counsel for the Government of Canada just brought up a document and showed it to the witness, and it was about tow trucks. It’s against the rules, but I’m wondering if you would grant me leave to show this document -- this witness a single document which we haven’t provided notice for, but which may assist him and which may assist the Commission in understanding how many tow trucks may have been available?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Well, I’m not sure mechanically how we can do this.
John Mather, Counsel (POEC)
A few questions arising out of that. One is, it is a document that exists in the party database?
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, it is.
John Mather, Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And is it a -- are you able to provide the document ID number?
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Yes, I am.
John Mather, Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Commissioner, it’s obviously within your discretion, but the parties nor Commission counsel have had an opportunity to review the document and see what it is. I’m not sure what it is, but one of the things that we can do is once we know the numbers, have an opportunity to look and see what it is.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And for what it’s worth, Commissioner, I was going to ask for leave to introduce probably the very same document.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Well, is there any objection? Obviously, if the OPP seems to have no problem with it, I think it should just go ahead. If you can give the number so that we can then get it before the Commission?
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Commissioner, can I just ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes?
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
My only comment would be if it’s in relation to the questions I was asking, and because I wasn’t given notice that it was going to be put to the witness, it may raise an additional question for me. I suspect I know what document it is, but I’m not entirely sure until I see it, obviously.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Well, if you want to follow up on it, you can ask at the time, and obviously, I have discretion to allow that.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Thank you.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. The document is OPP00001585. Can we just go down to the third page, the top of the third page, please? Sir, here you can see an email, and can you just actually scroll up a little bit so we can see who the email is from? So, this is an email from Rose DiMarco. Do you know her?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, she is a Deputy Commission of Traffic Services and Operation Support with the OPP.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And it looks like this email is being sent to somebody at the Solicitor General’s office as well as the OPP Commissioner?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And if we just scroll down a little bit, she says there are a total of 64 heavy tow companies in the Province of Ontario. Do you see that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And I think this is what you were referring to before. She says, “Companies who would provide service: 7 with 34 total heavy tow units.”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And if we just look down two lines, she says, “10 companies waiting for callback from the 57 total.”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Now, the document that we just saw from the Government of Canada was, I believe, dated February 17th, 2022. So, that’s some four days after this document.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Right.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And it looks like, perhaps, in that time, the number of tow companies who were willing to provide trucks, or the number of trucks that they can provide decreases.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It appears, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And it could be the case, could it not, that the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which happened in between these two events, actually caused tow truck drivers or tow truck companies to become more reluctant to provide their services, or to put conditions on their services such as indemnification for damages?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It is possible, but I personally don’t believe that, sir. There was a reluctance very, very early with tow companies to be engaged. As I mentioned, the OPS on February 9th were unable to get any tow companies to engage, to the point that they were going to use their own people, and I do believe there was even reference to getting even the military to come in and tow some vehicles for them if needed. So, while it may have had an impact, I think it was an issue, and I think that issue was connected broadly to the broader issue that we were dealing with in the public domain, namely, the pandemic, this massive protest, and the unwillingness of some agencies to simply be engaged.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Well, it was an issue on February the 9th, as you say, and it was still an issue on February the 13th, but there were some trucks there.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
There were some 34 trucks. Can you think of anything material that changed between the 13th and the 17th, other than the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which would cause fewer companies to agree to the OPP using their trucks or providing services to the OPP?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think the key comment that I think is appropriate for me on the tow issue is that we knew it was a contentious -- our team knew it to be a contentious issue from the very start of our deployment. I was fortunate to have a team that I could just say, “Can you deal with this?” And Kurt Richardson, MTO and the folks in that email went up to Deputy Commissioner DiMarco, took that off on her plate. So, they might be better -- in a better position to answer that question. I simply asked for a tow plan, and can you give me people that have the capability to develop that plan, and I got a plan, and it worked.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Thank you very much. Let me change topics here for just a moment. We heard from your OPP colleague, Superintendent Patrick Morris not long ago that he thought some of what the media was reporting was problematic. Did you hear that evidence?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I did not hear his evidence, and I think I listened to about 10 minutes of it as I was doing -- arrived in Ontario looking to do some of my own prep. So, I didn’t spend a lot of time.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Are you aware that he testified that he read accounts of, for example, Russia being involved in the protests, and he found that to be problematic?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think I may have read that somewhere, yes.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
In your evidence today, you adopted a will say, and in that will say, you stated the media was not portraying what was on the ground. Can you tell us what your concerns were?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, it’s just that things were happening, and this protest group were incredibly well organized, in my opinion, and the narrative about what was happening in Ottawa was being controlled or was one sided and ---
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
How would that -- sorry, go ahead.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, and -- that’s the basis for that comment, because there was a lot of good things happening. You know, we -- there’s things that were going on within the protest group that, you know, we heard about the bouncy castles and the prayer meetings in the mornings, but we didn’t hear publicly about threats to people inside the perimeter who wanted to leave, and they didn’t want them to leave. We didn’t hear about that publicly. Things of that nature. It’s just one small example of, you know, the narrative that was out there about, you know, this is a family event. Bring your kids. There’s a bouncy castle. We can have fun. Yet there were people within that red zone that wanted to leave, felt threatened and couldn’t.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
And you didn’t think that was being accurately conveyed by the media?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was not being conveyed at all, in my opinion.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
What about something like what Patrick Morris testified to, that the protestors were being portrayed as extremists, and he found that to be problematic? Did you find that to be problematic as well?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I do, because I’ve been involved in the events in the past from OAS summits to some of the G-events where we had a lot of extremists views. There was fringes of it with the two groups, I believe, that were around Nicholas and Waller, and Rideau/Sussex maybe, that were of concern, but they were not a major concern, but there’s always that risk of escalation that you see from those extremist groups. It was -- the profile of the protestor for this event was none like I’ve ever seen in my 36-year career. We had everything from grandparents -- you know, my first day in this assignment, I was shown a picture of two officers that had worked for me in the past who are retired, who were in the crowd with the protestors. We saw children. We saw a lot of crestfallen police officers in the crowd, military, nurses. So, it wasn’t your normal group of people that you were dealing with. I guess that’s the point. Was there still concerns from our perspective on extremism, absolutely. But we relied on and trusted the intelligence as it in came in on that regard.
Alan Honner, Counsel (DF / CfF / JCCF)
Thank you very much, sir. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next I’ll call on the City of Ottawa, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ANNE TARDIF
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Good afternoon, Chief Superintendent. My name is Anne Tardif and I’m one of the lawyers representing the City of Ottawa.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
If I could turn up, or ask to turn up, OPP00001792? And, sir, these are your notes. I don’t know if you have a hard copy there that you’d prefer to refer to, but otherwise, it will go up on the screen.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I’ll wait for the screen, sure.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And could I ask that you turn to page 3, please, of the document? This is just to show you the date at the top, sir.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
The 8th of February 2022. And if we could scroll down to about the middle of page 4? A little bit lower. There we go. Now, do you see there’s an arrow there that has the words “From federal gov’t” at the end of it. And I’m going to ask you if you could help me out with your handwriting for the first part of it?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, you may have to help me with my handwriting. Sorry.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Do you see it there? There’s an arrow just below the middle line of the page.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
What did you write there?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
“Daily siege from federal gov’t”.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
“Daily siege from federal gov’t”?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
What did you mean by that, sir?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Just pressure.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Pressure. And was this pressure that was being placed upon the Ottawa Police Service?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The police service, the community, to get this result.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
On Ottawa as a whole to get this result, ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- basically? And was this siege being applied just, you know, privately in calls to the Chief or to City officials? Or was this occurring publicly?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, this is notes that I took. I’m being briefed on my assignment.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It might be better from those who gave me that, but that was my sense from the briefing, that there’s pressure around, like, we’ve got to get this fixed.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And can you just help us out? Who provided this briefing?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was jointly provided by Commissioner Carrique, Deputy Commissioner Harkins, Mike MacDonell at Injects as related to POU. And Craig Abrams, who was on video link, gave me -- gave us the overview of the state that was leading up to that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Thank you. So we can ask them about this. And I take it they were relaying this to you in your briefing, because that meant that the -- or that was impacting the response in Ottawa? Making things more difficult, if I can put it that way?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
If we could turn now to page 12 of the document, please? Okay. And if you could scroll to the bottom of the page, Madam Clerk? Now, we can go back if you need me to, sir. We’re on February 9th at this point. If you could stop there, Madam Clerk? Do you want me to go backwards to see the date? Or you’re all right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Let me know if you do want me to. Do you see the entry there, 1034 ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- on February 9th? And it says “T/C”, which I take it is telephone call?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
“…from Deputy Harkins…”? Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And he’s the Deputy Commissioner for Field Operations ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- at the OPP? It says: “…need to be looking at this more broadly.” And there’s an asterisk: “Ambassador Bridge shut down”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
If we could scroll to the next page, please? Four oh two (402). That’s the highway; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. “…shut down both directions 40 kms from the border by farm tractors…”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
“economic impact = $350 million/day.” Right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And then it says, “Big auto” and there’s an arrow: “…24 hrs and they shut down [at] factories” Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It’s “shut down factories”.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
“shut down factories”. Okay. And this is being reported to you by Deputy Commissioner Harkins?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And then the next -- I’ll skip over the next asterisk, only because I think that may relate to Toronto? Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s regarding the GTA dump, the waste would be impacted on where it could go.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Because of the closure of the 402?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. So this is an impact on the Toronto garbage dump arising from the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Not the Ambassador, because it’s Lambton County, and I -- sorry, my geography for western Ontario is a little off.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It may have been as a result of the 402.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
I see.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It’s separate from ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Understood.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And then it says: “Planning to block access to impact Toronto.” That’s what you’ve just told us.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And then the final little note here, it says: “Request to determine what the…” and what’s that next word?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
“…current resource deployment is to the City of Ottawa.”
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Perfect. And then if turn over the page to page 24? And so now we’re at February 10th. And I’m actually -- if you could just go up to page 23, Madam Clerk? We’ll just see the beginning of this. Do you see -- oh, down a bit. Do you see at 921?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So this is again a telephone call with Deputy Harkins. And it says you were -- I guess you and the deputy were joined later by Commissioner Carrique? Is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And this is on February 10th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And before we get into -- because I just want to back up a little bit. So we talked about the call just the day prior on February 9th, where you’re alerted to the situation in Windsor and asked about the current resource deployment to the City of Ottawa. And February 9th is the same day that you had the, I’m going to call it the meeting at Elgin Street Headquarters ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- of the integrated planning group with OPS command? Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And coming out of that, you mentioned earlier in your testimony there was an ask for staffing. And I think you said the number was 516? Five one six?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And that was a maintenance ask?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
So in other words, that’s the number of officers OPS needed from OPP just to maintain the current posture and traffic points; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. As I said earlier though, there was some math problem with it. Ultimately, that number, you divide 516 by 3, I think it’s -- sorry, 174 or 178 or something like that. Because they were adamant in deploying a three-shift model. And as we talked through it, it was like, “Oh, we have to tell you, we actually, with the support of the Ottawa Police Association, they reverted back to the two-shift model, which would allow you to spread.” There are inherent benefits with the three-shift model, but with my organization coming in, it certainly would be a benefit to be on the same type of rotation, which they did. The RCMP, however, remained on a three-shift model.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. So I don’t think we need to get quite to the level of specificity of numbers, but if I understand it, the maintenance ask on three shifts was 516, five one six, that’s correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
On three shifts.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
On three shifts. And if you drop it to two shifts, which you’ve said you were able to do, then it’s probably closer to 300? Is that about right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would put it in the range of 350.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Three fifty (350). In other words, it’s about a third less?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It’s a third less.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Whatever that number amounts to. Fair enough. So that’s the number that comes out for maintenance of the February 9th planning meeting. But of course, the OPS was also looking for additional POU supports for their enforcement action; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And the decision of the OPP coming out of that planning meeting was, “We will meet your maintenance ask. We’ll supply what turned out to be approximately 350 officers to maintain the current posture, ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
M’hm.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- but at this time, we’re not going to move forward with the POU ask for the reasons you’ve already explained relating to the plan, et cetera.”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah, no, that’s not accurate.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
That’s not accurate?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We continued to deploy POU, to make plans for POU. We had -- there was obviously a plan in Windsor at the Ambassador Bridge for action down there. But that did not slow us down. We knew that of course there was going to be impact, because we’re drawing from the same pool.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Sure.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But it did not stop. We just realized at that stage that -- if I’m not mistaken Darwin Tetreault, in that same meeting, said, “We need that 800.” That’s about all that we have in the Province of Ontario. Suddenly we have to pivot. We’re not going to get all that we have in the Province of Ontario because they’re going to be used and they’re going to be needed down in Windsor. And we started our outreach to Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and the Province of Quebec.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Well in fairness to you, let me show you where I thought I saw that information, and you can perhaps correct me if I’m wrong. Can we go to page 19, please, of this document? Okay. And -- actually, just scroll up a little bit, please, Madam Clerk. The following page. So there’s that 516 number; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
M’hm.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Three shifts as documented by OPS, 516. That’s the maintenance number. And we’ve explained that they went down to two shifts, so it ends up being more like 350; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And now let’s scroll down, Madam Clerk. Now, I see a number of POU requests here. And if we keep scrolling down? Okay. Stop there. You’ll see the lowest POU you get. POU by this stage, 55 plus 600. So that was their POU ask coming out of the planning meeting on the 9th; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I believe so, yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And can we scroll down a little bit more, Madam Clerk, please? And you’ll see where it says 1635. Do you see that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
It says, “Briefed team”. These are your notes, right, sir?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And then it says, “Will staff to the maintenance plan which has roles and responsibilities built in. Continue to build our plan.” Right? So that’s what I was referring to.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah. And that’s accurate, but ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But when we talk about that in our plan and we continue to build, we’re asking as we need. You know, we add -- also, we’re not taking action. We’re not in a position.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
We needed 800.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
And that’s what I meant earlier. For the reasons you’ve discussed, the plan’s not there. Right now you’re staffing to the maintenance ask because that’s what you think is needed in Ottawa right then.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And our ask will immediately go out for others now. We want others to join in and we need -- we need Vancouver, we need Calgary and Edmonton to join the team because we need this number and then the logistics around arranging all that, getting the approvals, the supports for them to be deployed.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
I understand that. But at this point, the immediate decision is to staff to the maintenance plan. Can we agree to that?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. Now, back to page 24, please, Madam Clerk. We’re going to move ahead to February 10th. And we’ll scroll up to the following page, sorry, 9:21. This is where we were, telephone call with Deputy Harkins. “Joined later by Commissioner Carrique.” We’ll scroll down to page 24. And if I could stop you, Madam Clerk, at the “CC”. Do you see that there?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s Commissioner Carrique, I’m assuming, since he joined the call later?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think so.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And it says, “Provincial priority has changed due to ongoing” -- now, you’ll have to help me with the next word.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Issue.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Issue. Thank you. “...due to ongoing issue in Windsor. Both from [I think that’s] intel and impact assessment...”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. “...it is now our priority [it being Windsor] while continuing to support the RCMP/OPS in Ottawa. We may not be in position to supply Ottawa with all they need at this juncture.”
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Right. And that’s what Commissioner Carrique told you on the morning of February 10th; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Just to put us in time, that’s the Thursday, right, before the weekend? Correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay. And it’s my understanding that the maintenance ask, the approximately 350 officers, was actually only fulfilled on the morning of Saturday, February 12th. Is that accurate?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know what; I’d need a lot of information in front of me to be very specific in terms of when we finally did it. We certainly made the ask and ---
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Yeah. And I -- no one’s suggesting otherwise, sir.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
I can pull up a document. It’s not a problem.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, if you say it was reported that it took till then to do it, I believe that.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was a struggle. A lot of people did not want to be deployed to Ottawa.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
A lot of people did? I missed the last part.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Did not want to be deployed there.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
To Ottawa.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You want people to want to be there, but it was a struggle.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Right. So there -- and the circumstances you’re describing, Windsor and the reasons you’ve just described, that explains why the ask being made took, you know, from February 9th to February 12th to be fulfilled by the OPP.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
And when you say OPP, OPP and partner agencies.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Of course.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It wasn’t just -- I just happen to be OPP, right. We’re there with an integration with multiple agencies. We’re all in it together.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
I understand. To be fair to you, it took three days for ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- OPP together with all of its partner agencies ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Sure.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
--- to fulfil the maintenance ask by OPS.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Anne Tardif, Counsel (Ott)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Next are the Convoy Organizers.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. BATH SHEBA VAN den BERG
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner. Good afternoon, Chief Pardy. My name is Bath- Sheba Van den Berg, and I’m counsel representing Freedom Corp and protestors. I have a few questions for you this afternoon.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I’d like to ask you about the February 9th plan referred to earlier today. It contemplated building a public order unit plan. Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. Sorry. The February 9th plan that the Ottawa Police presented to us?
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
That’s right.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Was the first operation of that February 9th plan to clear Rideau-Sussex on Thursday, February the 10th at 6:00 a.m.?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It was going to be 4:00 a.m. with a possibility of being moved up to 11:00 p.m. on that date.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And was it Event Commander Patterson who wanted to deploy POUs as part of executing that plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we didn’t get into the weeds in terms of numbers, but POU was part of the plan that they were going to execute and an Incident Commander had been assigned on that plan.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. And yesterday, Superintendent Abrams testified that the police liaison teams, PLTs, were not involved in the planning process. And he suspected that Event Commander Patterson did not communicate this plan to the PLTs. Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, that’s fair.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Were you aware that at the same time as the Integrated Cell Plan, what you called the group, that the PLTs were negotiating a plan with some of the protestors to start moving trucks on February 10th from the Rideau-Sussex intersection?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t have independent recollection right now. There’s so much that was going on. It’s possible, yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Was the February 9th plan abandoned because there were not enough POUs?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, what happened, myself and Phil Lue, prior to leaving Ottawa headquarters, met with Acting Superintendent Burnett. We both knew him, and Phil had worked closely with him in the years prior. We stopped by to say hello as we were leaving the building, aware that he was being assigned the task. We did not -- we didn’t get into the details of it other than he told us that he had some legal concerns that he was seeking advice on, and that from there he was going to be consulting with his POU experts. And it’s 1820 that they -- we learned that they did consult the broader group and they didn’t find it to be tactically sound and decided to defer.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And that was on February 10th?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I learned that on February 10th, yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Notwithstanding what was ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No, sorry. I learned that on February 9th that it was ---
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Ninth.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- that it was shut down.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
We just discussed now on February 10th we learned that the Commissioner Carrique mentioned to you that there was a lack of availability of POU resources. Also, did RCMP Sergeant Tetreault also tell you this, that there was a lack of POU resources?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we knew that, you know, POU was going to be stretched in the province with the capacity that we had.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Are you aware that the RCMP put a freeze for 72 hours from February 10th to 13th on any POU intervention?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I’d need to know some greater context. I’m not sure where that’s from. I don’t recall it, but I’m not saying it didn’t happen.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. Thank you. Earlier today, the mission statement of the February 13th plan was put to you, and it included a reference to the utmost respect to the individual Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And part of that February 13 plan to contain a main action plan. Is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And the mission statement provides strategic direction to operations. Is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And that the objective of the main action plan was to de-escalate and negotiate a peaceful resolution and demobilization of the Ottawa truck demonstration. Is that right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
On February 14th, you continued to work on developing the February 13th plan with a group of POU SMEs. Is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
The February 17th plan referred to in your testimony, officially titled “Integrated Public Order Unit Concept of Operations”, is also referred to as POU tactical plan or action plan; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes. It’s a sub-plan of the master plan.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And the objective of that February 17th action plan was to systematically clear and take down the protests; right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I put it to you that the mission of the February 17th action plan was to ensure the removal of the protestors in the area of the blockades in relation to the freedom convoy 2022. “This will be achieved by securing, isolating and evacuating persons within the designated blockade zones, to ensure the safe detention and arrests of any participants taken into custody, ensure public and police safety.” You agree that there is no reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the February 17th action plan?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The mission has it. That’s normally where it’s contained, but what you read there, no.
Bath-Sheba Van den Berg, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. Those are all my questions, and thank you for your 36 years of service.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. If I could now call on the Government of Saskatchewan?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MICHAEL MORRIS
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Good afternoon, sir. Can you hear me?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Thank you. Sir, my name is Mike Morris, and I’m counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan. I’m just going to have a few questions for you today. Would you agree with me that the OPP, the RCMP and the OPS did not need the Federal Emergencies Act to be invoked to set up an integrated command structure?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
For the purposes of setting up an integrated command structure, no. We’ve done that in ever major event that we’ve had with OPS in the past.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And I gather you’d agree that those same police forces didn’t need the Federal Emergencies Act to be invoked to come up with an operational plan for removing the occupation in Ottawa, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would agree with that.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And you signed off on the operational plan that was ultimately used on February 12th on behalf of the OPP, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That was a version. There were multiple versions, but that was a version, yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Okay. And I understand the RCMP approved that same version of the plan on February 12th as well; is that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, sir.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And I think we’ve heard that the OPS approved that same version of the plan on February 13th, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Correct.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And when you signed off on that plan, you were confident that it could be implemented to end the occupation, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And the February 13th plan did not contemplate any powers under the Federal Emergencies Act, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Not at that time, no.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
And as commander of the Integrated Planning Cell, if you had thought that such powers were needed, you would have told someone, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we certainly felt that we had what we needed to develop a plan to dismantle the protest with what we had.
Michael J. Morris, Counsel (SK)
Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Next, if I could call on the Government of Alberta?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MANDY ENGLAND
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
Good afternoon. My name is Mandy England, and I’m asking some questions today on behalf of the Government of Alberta. Sir, you mentioned in your response to counsel for the Government of Canada that some tow truck operators were reluctant due to liability issues to engage in the towing, and so the Emergencies Act was helpful in that respect. Was that correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
And so would it be fair to say that there were tow truck drivers who were willing to do it? They would not have needed to be compelled to do it, but they just wanted that additional reassurance about liability?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, that’s fair.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
Okay. Isn’t it true that there are also provisions under the Ontario Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that protect individuals who are acting in good faith in performing an order under that Act from an action against them for a liability in performing that duty?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I do believe so, yes.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
And is it true that there’s provisions under that Act that provide a way for anyone who’s property is damaged where an order under the Act is being carried out to seek compensation from the province itself rather than from an individual like a tow truck operator who’s carrying out the order?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, I’ll be honest, now you’re getting into weeds of it that I would have to say I need to look at it.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
Fair enough.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
But I was looking at it, and I focused mostly on the enforcement powers it gave us.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
If what I had just said was true, that there was a mechanism for that individual to have sought compensation, would you agree that between those two items, that if there was an order under the Ontario Act authorizing the tow truck drivers to provide those towing services, that those operators would be protected in the same way by the Ontario Act?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I’m not sure, because I know we had some difficulties with our earlier planning where we had a robust tow plan in place, and it all fell apart because of the indemnity issue and the length of time for that indemnity, that the operators just felt that given the nature of the protest, the fear of reprisal, that they needed an extended period of indemnity that we just couldn’t provide.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
Okay.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
So again, I left the tow issue to our tow experts, but I would have to look at the legislation, maybe even consult a lawyer, looking at the legislation as to how far and how deep the indemnity of either the EMCPA or the EA provided.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
That’s fair. If the provisions were the same or substantially similar, though, would you agree that the Ontario legislation would have been equally helpful then in providing the assurances to tow truck operators?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
If you’re telling me that, then I would say it would be.
Mandy England, Counsel (AB)
Thank you very much. Those are my questions for you today. Thank you.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thank you. Does the OPP have any re-examination or any examination?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner, I believe before we get to the party for the witnesses, the Ottawa Coalition did have five minutes, and the party for the witness usually gets to go last.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I am sorry, I must have skipped them. I apologize. Mr. Champ, you have five minutes, and I’ll even give you six if you need it, given my error.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
I need four.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PAUL CHAMP
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Good afternoon, Chief Superintendent. Thank you for joining us. My name is Paul Champ. I’m a lawyer for the Ottawa Coalition for Residents and Businesses.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Just a few questions for you, Chief Superintendent. I’ve represented police officers for many years, for about 20 years, and it’s been my experience that there’s a lot of very strong personalities in policing. Is that fair to say?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Very fair.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Strong characters, strong leaders, and sometimes those personalities can conflict?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And similarly, when you have the strong personalities in leadership positions, it can be kind of difficult for them to give up leadership or maybe admit they’re wrong, or seek assistance. Is that fair to say?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes and no. Sometimes it’s a failure of leadership for not asking for help.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
That’s fair. Where I was going to go -- I wanted to ask you about, Chief Superintendent, is that you told us before about how a chief of police in Ontario can ask the Ontario Provincial Police to take over their service or assist their service in cases of emergency, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And Chief Sloly didn’t do that in these circumstances?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
No.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
But it’s also the case that the -- under the Police Services Act, the Board could ask the OPP to take over, correct, the Police Services Board?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Or the Ontario Civilian Police Commission?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
So if they have the relevant or proper information, they could have considered that and weighed that option?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes, they could have.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And you would agree with me that given the prevailing conditions in Ottawa at that time, the Ottawa Police simply couldn’t provide adequate and effective policing services to their community?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would say they were stretched as it related specifically to the protest. To say that they were not otherwise providing -- because Ottawa is not just the downtown core, sir.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And that’s fair. Absolutely.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Because we talk regularly with them about their ability to respond to their day-to-day business.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Right. But we’ve heard lots of evidence, and I don’t think it’s really in dispute that the Ottawa Police Services simply did not have the capacity to bring this event to an end on their own. The numbers were such, the scale was such, it was recognized generally the Ottawa Police couldn’t end this on their own, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
That’s correct.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And it took an enormous amount more of police resources from elsewhere to bring an end to this, correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
And I’m just wondering, like, I was taking a look and reviewing the National Framework on Police Preparedness for Demonstrations and Assemblies, and there’s nothing in there about what happens if the demonstration is of such a scale that the police force of jurisdiction can’t manage it and then how or in what way there could be a trigger for them to ask for another service to maybe even take over if they’re having a real problem. Would you agree with me, Chief Superintendent, that more policy or protocol around that for how police services can feel comfortable reaching out to get assistance would be helpful?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It absolutely would.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Yeah, if Chief Sloly had had some more guidance on that or he -- his strong personality, maybe he felt he was kind of getting it from all sides -- I think we’ve heard a lot of evidence from that -- felt embattled. But if there was a policy there saying, “Hey, at this point, that’s a trigger. You should actually cede responsibility to another service,” that perhaps could have helped this crisis, would you agree?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Whether or not it’s ceding responsibility to another organization, you know -- I’ll just back up and qualify this answer with another statement. The OPP policy, for example, when an incident exhausts the ability of the local detachment to respond, we would stand up an EOC, so we have a more coordinated response. So now we’re going to be needing resources from other -- so it’s kind of inbred in our nature that when an event overwhelms one jurisdiction, OPP jurisdiction, and others are needed, we stand up a broader group to support, to ensure that the response. So that the locus is -- we’re still focused, and we can bring in supports. So I don’t believe it’s about policy that you would have to cede responsibility, but certainly that when you are overwhelmed, that it’s time to ask and integrate with our organizations to seek their assistance to collectively bring an end to the unlawful activity.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
I hear you, Chief Superintendent but I guess just what I’m suggesting is that it’s a little bit ad hoc, right?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It is now.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
There's no real good guidance for a Chief about when might be the right time to press the emergency button.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would say there is probably no guidance or written guidance in that regard.
Paul Champ, Counsel (Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses)
Okay. Thank you very much, Chief Superintendent.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Thank you. Now I will call on the OPP. (SHORT PAUSE)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHRISTOPHER DIANA
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon, sir, it’s Christopher Diana, counsel to the OPP, as you know. I’d like to maybe take a step back a little bit. You’ve answered a lot of questions about, you know, the details of what happened in Ottawa. Part of the mandate of this Commission and part of what I think the Commissioner may be interested in hearing about as well is taking a look at the bigger picture. Lessons learned is part of the mandate of this Commission and you’re in a unique position, as a recent retiree, with 36 years of experience doing this kind of public order policing and incident command, to maybe give some thoughts that may be of assistance to the Commissioner. And the question I wanted to ask you in particular is about an integrated or unified command. So you believe in the value of that concept?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely. It’s absolutely critical to our success in any event where it’s beyond the scope of organization.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. And what are some of the impediments? So if we’re looking at lessons learned, what are some of the impediments going forward that the Commissioner may want to consider while contemplating the evidence that he hears?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, we’ve already heard about, you know, the personalities that exist in a lot of police leadership roles.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Yeah.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Oftentimes that can be the impediment; they simply don’t want to -- they want to do this on their own. They don’t need help, or “I need your help but I want command and control of your resources.” There’s no organization out there that I know of what would ever say, “Okay, we’ll send you 500 officers and just use them gently.” It doesn’t work that way. You know, when you stand -- when you deploy five, 600 officers to another organization, they come with a command and control. If you don’t integrate, you’re going to be working in silos. If you don’t integrate, you’re not going to be communicating about the ultimate strategic objectives and goals of what you’re trying to accomplish. So it’s absolutely critical that leaders buy -- leadership is actually absolutely key at all levels, in my humble opinion. If you don’t have the leaders, a leadership team buying in, then it’s not going to work.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And I think just to maybe kind of drill down a little bit into the why; why is a unified command a useful tool? Even if there’s an event in a larger city that has a large police service; Ottawa has a fairly large police service, Toronto -- or, rather, you know, large police services may benefit from this concept, but maybe you can explain why this is useful. Toronto Police Service, for example, may have a lot of resources, but why is a unified team useful for a large event?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Well, it’s useful because of, you know, the power of the human brain. The more people that you have, the more expertise you bring to bear on a problem, the more communication that you have, you know your solution is going to be that much more refined and appropriate. It takes -- as I mentioned earlier in my evidence, it takes the weight off one pair of shoulders who was feeling the burden of this event, and I feel for Chief Sloly, the burden that he was under for this event. But bringing in an integrated command and all that it brings to bear with the resources, the subject matter expertise can only produce a win.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Ultimately, though, it comes down to whether the police service of jurisdiction kind of buys into the concept; correct?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Thank you, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Can I just check with the Government of Canada? Are you content; there’s nothing further you’d like? No. Okay. I just have a couple of questions, Chief Pardy. About -- there have been words about what the operation, and it’s been referred to, as I understand it, as ending the occupation but also some people have said ending the protest. Is there a difference, in your mind, between the approach of saying the plan is to end the protest, or end the occupation?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I certainly have used them synonymous today, as one and the same. It was absolutely, in my view, an occupation, but it’s often referred to as a protest. A protest can be an occupation. So they’re one and the same from my view.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. And in that, I just want to ask you if you could have a look at your Mission Statement, and we’ve had it referred to and I think it’s OPP1851. And I think we might be at page 8, I think, if I’m correct for the -- go down a bit or -- yeah, it’s up a bit. It’s the Mission Statement I’m looking for. No, that’s not the right document, then.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
It would be in that document, sir.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Then where would it be?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Maybe it’s down.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
It may be further down. I think it was ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
I believe it’s page 8, Commissioner.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Page 8?
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
If we had just gone down a little bit from where we were.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
There it is. Okay. And I’m wondering here you’ve put in: “...with the utmost respect to the individuals Charter of Rights and Freedoms...” And I was wondering; was there any thought about there are protesters there that may wish to protest appropriately, if I can call it, without breaking law; i.e. continue a protest legally in some manner, in some place?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Was that taken into account?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Absolutely was taken into consideration in our message and through PLT that, you know, you want to protest, where you are now is deemed illegal, you need to leave. If you want to protest there’s some other venues. And this is why we put in this mission about the Charter of Rights, because there is -- there are lawful protests that you can do and ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I guess that’s why I was wondering about your answer as saying ending the protest and ending the occupation you took as being the same.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The same, but I guess I should qualify within that red zone that’s now deemed to be an illegal occupation, if you’re in there, you’re breaking the law. If you’re in there, you need to leave because it has been deemed illegal, what you’re doing, an illegal occupation. So that meant -- because we had a lot of people that our PLT interacted with that continually pleaded that, “Well, we’re all doing everything lawful.” A lot of them felt they had that plausible deniability until they -- so PLT had to educate them, okay? It’s a lawful protest to a point. Now you’ve reached a point there’s injunctions, there’s criminal mischief going on. There’s all these things that are happening. This protest, this demonstration, this occupation is now deemed unlawful, and you need to leave. If they chose -- and we gave people an exit strategy. If they chose, “Well, we’d like a protest location where our voice can be heard,” that would have been facilitated by PLT.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So the PLT was seeking to reduce -- shrink the footprint, but are you saying they also would facilitate a continuing legal protest in some location or in some manner?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
If someone said to them, “Well, we have a right to protest,” they would have said, “Not here. There’s other ways that you can protest but now you’re in an illegal zone to protest.” And they would -- I don’t want to say facilitate. I mean, they’re not going to, you know, stop what they’re doing so we can -- and they’ll set up a place for you to protest. But they would certainly -- and we have done that. I’ll use the example of G8; we set up the protests with the stages, everything. You want to protest? Here, you go here and protest. PLT, they’ll help facilitate this, because you’re not getting to there.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Was there any part of the plan that provided for this aspect that you’ve just described that you could continue your protest legally, just not here?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I think by that time we had exhausted all negotiation. And without reading the final plan, I would say no, because our negotiations with the protestors had reached the point that they were proving to be futile. So now enforcement action was next ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Now ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- in that measured approach.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- are you aware of people after, or members of the public, in media or otherwise, criticizing, after the fact, the operations, saying they simply wished to peacefully protest?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I don’t doubt -- I don’t independently recall those -- I didn’t actually -- I avoided the media and the news ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Fair enough.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
--- so I could focus. But I don’t particularly recall it, but I don’t doubt it. We have to look at that with -- you know, very, very carefully. I’m certain there was a lot of people in that protest zone, they realized, like, “Oh, they’re actually telling us the truth. This is an illegal occupation. We have to move.” They skedaddled out of there. As I mentioned earlier about the profile of the protest, it was unlike anything we’d ever seen. There was a lot of good people in there that simply wanted their voice to be heard. We knew that. But they were mixed with a lot of dangers while inside, in terms of the potential and threats of violence that existed in there. So we gave the opportunities. That was all part of negotiations. They even looked at having alternate locations for the trucks to go so that they could stage there, and we’ll bus you to the protest. And that did not work out.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And so just to close that loop, so are you -- do you feel the plan was adequate in terms of allowing continued protests for those who may wish it at -- in retrospect?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
At the stage where we executed this plan and went kinetic, i.e., we went hands on with the operation, that was the option that was left available to us, with all other aspects of the plan exhausted. I do believe that we acted appropriately, professionally, and accomplished not only our mission, but all of our goals and objectives in terms of, A, assisting in restoring the confidence and faith in the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Police, returning Ottawa to a relative state of normalcy for business to be able to open, and doing so without injuring people and having to arrest too many people. We know our -- you know, a lot of people put a lot of stock in arrest, arrest, arrest. We also know our justice system just doesn’t have the ability for us to arrest and charge 3,000 people. We all know what would happen there. So I believe that we accomplished those goals, and did so and returned -- because very shortly thereafter, there were protests again in the City of Ottawa that were permitted and were peaceful.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
One other thing I just want to explore briefly. You spoke about PLTs. And I don’t know how to put it. It was not necessarily embraced as it maybe should have been by OPS in this operation. Is that fair?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
In their initial.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
The leading up.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I meant the initial.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
You know, within a day of our arrival there, we engaged with Marcel Beaudin, who I believe you’re going to be hearing from. And we got things back on -- we -- they -- collectively, when I say “we”, got it back on track with a PLT focus.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Now, a lot of the work of PLT involves, as you’ve talked about, negotiating, de- escalating.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
And for those who wish to bring a quick end to a protest, PLTs maybe are not viewed in the same way? Or they’re viewed as delaying what they wish as a result?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I -- my personal opinion is if we took an enforcement action directly every time just to end it, we’d be sitting for another Commission of Inquiry about a lack of a measured approach. So in my humble opinion, I would use PLT in every circumstance. They may last 10 minutes and be rendered ineffective, but we tried. We’ve given -- we’ve tried a negotiation route. We’ve tried the de-escalation route. It did not work. Before we go kinetic.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You may be going the wrong direction -- you’re thinking I’m going the wrong direction. I’m not disagreeing with that.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Okay.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
What I’m trying to get at is the public often is not aware of the role and importance of PLTs because they want results. Would that be fair? In some cases.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
I would say that’s a fair statement, sir.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. And I guess all I’m asking is, do you think an important component in a protest such as this is educating the public on the need for the process to be worked through, negotiation, et cetera? In other words, because we heard a lot about public pressure to close ---
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- this down. And I’m just asking whether there is a role for public education?
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
There’s a significant role. In fact, when you look -- I’m sure you’ll get this from Insp. Beaudin. A lot of what PLT does, because it’s not just with the protestors that they deal with. A lot of what they do is education as well. You know, they -- our PLTs are active not just in the middle of a crisis. They’re active all -- so education is absolutely critical. The public needs to know. When we engage PLT in these events, we have PLT members who are dealing with the Business Association. We have PLT members dealing with the residents so that we know, collectively, all of the issues that we’re facing. So they’re not just negotiating with the protestors necessarily. They’re looking at everybody that is impacted by. Education. I would love for every member of the public to become a PLT. One of our goals in our communication strategy was to make every uniformed officer, with their messaging, from the constable on the street up to the Prime Minister of Canada, if we could get everybody saying the same message, we’re educating the public, we will succeed. That was the stated goal right within our mission.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you for your testimony. Very -- we appreciate, even though you’re in retirement. Yes, I’m sorry?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
My apologies. I have just a few questions -- this is, for the record, Brendan Miller, Counsel for Freedom Corp -- arising from your questions. I had none until some answers came out. There is just probably about two minutes of questions I would like to ask, if I may, sir, with respect to the evidence from the witness regarding there being no more ability to negotiate, et cetera, given that I understand that that wasn’t the case, sir.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I’m -- there is no provision for re-examination. We’re not going to reopen it. There will be plenty of witnesses you can question about the process as they come through. But I’m not going to reopen, because you wouldn’t be the only one.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Very well, sir. Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So with that, thank you for your testimony, and especially since you’re retired. Appreciate it. We’re going to rise until Monday morning at 9:30. Thank you.
Carson Pardy, C/Supt (ON-OPP)
Thank you.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is adjourned. La Commission ajournée.
Upon adjourning at 5:11 p.m. Ottawa, Ontario