Rebecca Jones
Rebecca Jones spoke 607 times across 11 days of testimony.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good afternoon, Councillor Deans and Commissioner; I’m Rebecca Jones and I am part of the counsel team for Chief Peter Sloly. I will not be able to complete my examination of you, Councillor Deans, before the lunch break, but why don’t we get started and then we can come back after the break. So I’m going to start with the hiring of Chief Sloly by the Board. Councillor Deans, after you were appointed to the Board in January 2019. Part of your important work was to hire the new chief?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly was recruited and asked to apply for the position?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he had been a Deputy Chief in the Toronto Police Service for many years?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he was known as a national police leader at the time?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And one of the areas he was particularly known for was his progressive community-based approach to policing; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that is exactly what the Police Services Board was looking for; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
At the time that Chief Sloly was hired, the Ottawa Police Service was facing a lot of challenges?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And they were facing challenges, both in their relationship with the community, and in particular racialized members of the community?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Police Services Board was also facing challenges internally within the Police Service?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And there had been audits done of these issues within the Police Service; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there was very low morale?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there was very low morale among racialized members of the Police Service in particular?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when Chief Sloly came into the City, he was given a change mandate?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And not everyone was happy about that, and you’ve talked about that; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And the Police Association wasn’t happy about that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You agree with me?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Sloly was not their preferred candidate?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And part of the reason the honeymoon was short-lived was because Chief Sloly published an op-ed after a black motorist was stopped by the Ottawa Police Service; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You won’t disagree with me that the Police Association, the head of the Police Association said it was a failure of leadership, or that he had failed the leadership test in raising this issue publicly?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So that was the circumstance faced by the Chief before the Convoy arrived; is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you’ve talked about Chief Sloly and his Deputy Chiefs briefing the Board before the Convoy arrived on January 26th; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you made a statement at that Board meeting about the importance of the right to protest; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was important to do that because Ottawa is the Capital Region; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the citizens of Ottawa are very respectful of the right to protest?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so you talked about the priorities for this protest that you had and that the police service had; right? And the priorities were shared; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And those priorities were to provide a space for protests and to protect the right to protest?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But to ensure that this protest happened without any loss of life or serious injury.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that of course is what happened; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you also gave evidence about the information that you had available to you from Chief Sloly. And we've heard a lot about Chief Sloly this morning.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Haven't we?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly wasn't operating on his own, was he?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He had a command team; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And Acting Chief Ferguson was in charge of Operations; you knew that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And Deputy Chief -- Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson, I should have said. And Deputy Chief Bell was in charge of Intelligence.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And this is a team effort, of course, but led by the Chief?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, you talked about the information that you were provided. And Commission Counsel showed you a snippet of a situational report. Do you remember that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that situational report referred to the fact that certain people were saying they weren't leaving until whatever demand was met; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And your expectation, though, for your Police Service, for Chief Sloly, for head of the Intelligence effort, Deputy Chief Bell, would be that they would take all of the intelligence into account; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you don't have access to all of the intelligence, you rely on them for that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, let me ask you about that because a lot has been made about that today. You understand, Councillor Deans, in your role as the Chair of the Board, that you are not provided with Intelligence reports.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You haven't been provided with Intelligence reports in the past either; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the reason for that is because Intelligence reports are highly confidential.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if we actually look at the Hendon reports, which we can do now or after lunch, we'll see that on each page of the Hendon reports, which came from the OPP, it specifically states that they are not to be shared. Okay; is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, it makes sense. So when we're talking about what Intelligence reports, and you didn't see the Intelligence reports, you said you relied on Chief Sloly for telling you that that was normal; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you also knew, based on your own experience, that Intelligence reports are not given to the Board; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The information he could provide.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Legally?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Operationally?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So if we can put up a document now, please. It's OPP1024. I just referred to Project Hendon reports, and this is an example of one, Councillor Deans. And if you scroll down the bottom of the page you'll see the reference to the Third Party Rule, and that's a rule that when one Intelligence agency shares information with another, that agency isn't -- they're not to share it outside of the Police Service; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And if we can go to page 4, please. Here, we see -- actually if you scroll down a little bit more. Here we go. At the last paragraph. It says: "Although the stated intent of some convoy participants is to remain at Parliament Hill until the convoy [sic] rescinds all COVID-19 restrictions and mandates, this goal is likely to prove unrealistic in the long term." Right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. "...until the government rescinds all COVID restrictions." And then, but says, you know, "even a small number remaining would be disruptive"; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And this is actually the information that you obtained from the Ottawa Police Service. That the expectation was that people would leave, but there could be some people that hung on; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, so you agree with me.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, because we've heard that Ottawa has 99 or 100 protests a year, and it's very common for there to be some people that hang on at the end of a protest; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, but sometimes they're there to continue to protest; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so this information that the goal to remain in any numbers was unrealistic, this is the kind of information that you would expect the OPS to put together with all the rest of the Intelligence information to share their assessment with the Board; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. We can take that down now. And Mr. Commissioner, I don't know the time, but if this is a convenient time for the lunchbreak.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm going to turn at now, Councillor Deans, to planning, and we heard a lot of evidence this morning about the plan. So you testified that there is always some tension between the police and the Police Services Board about the sharing of operational planning details; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And we spoke before the break about the sensitivity of Intelligence information, and I suggest to you that there are very similar sensitivities involved in sharing operational information.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The information of Police Operations is considered highly confidential for safety reasons.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including the safety of officers.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as Chief of Police, the safety of officers would be of the utmost importance; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And like in the case of Intelligence reports, it was not the practice of the Board to demand operational planning information prior to the convoy; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair. So prior to the convoy, you wanted some high level operational information, but you weren't asking for tactical plans, for example?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You agree with me on that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But here, with the convoy, everyone was under a tremendous amount of pressure.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you were under a tremendous amount of pressure.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
As was Chief Sloly?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you and the Board started wanting more information about the operational plans; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you'll agree with me that it was a highly volatile situation during the Freedom Convoy?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there were threats, as you testified this morning, to members of the Board; right? There were threats to Chief Sloly, there were threats to the Mayor; right? Yes?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you also testified this morning about leaks of sensitive information from the Board; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And that there had been leaks of information from the Board in the past; is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And Commission Counsel also showed you an email from one Board member, Mr. Swaita, asking for more information about the planning; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, I’m sorry; if you can just say, “Yes”.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I know it’s -- that’s fine. And Mr. Swaita, a few weeks later, stepped down from the Board, is that right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And he stepped down from the Board after evidence emerged that he had attended the Freedom Convoy protest on two occasions, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Were you aware of the media reports at the time that he’d attended protests and wouldn’t answer questions about whether or not he had donated food to the protesters?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. An example of the lack of operational detail that you felt you were getting was in relation to the operation and Rideau and Sussex, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And you told the Commissioner that you were told that there was going to be an operation in advance, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were told some details of that operation?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. You were given high level details of a police operation, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that is the kind of details that the Board gets about police operations, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But you didn’t get, as you put it, the full plan for the operation, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, I think this is before the Toronto report.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you’ve been following the evidence in this Commission so far?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So I take it that you’ve heard the evidence that the operation at Rideau and Sussex was seen to be a particularly sensitive operation.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There was reports that there were people involved from criminal organizations in Quebec?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, okay. And so you would agree with me that with a Board with the history of leaks, maybe a little concerning to share the full plan of operational details of going into Rideau and Sussex; is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, maybe you’ll fully accept this: ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that for Chief Sloly, he would be concerned about his officers going into an operation like that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you were asked by my friend for the Commission whether you were ever offered by Chief Sloly to be -- have a member of the Board embedded within the Police Service, like we heard about in Toronto, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you weren’t asked whether you asked whether you could be embedded, or someone could be embedded within the Police Service.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And in terms of your evidence about the plan and your concerns about the plan, just for the benefit of the public and for the Commissioner, I take it that you are not commenting on the sufficiency or the appropriateness of the plan; that would go beyond your expertise.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so what we can take from you is you were concerned solely about the level of detail you and the Board were given about the plans.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, you were assured there was a plan, and you were given details about that plan, I suggest to you, daily by Chief Sloly.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And I hear you about that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what I’m trying to establish here is that what you were not satisfied with was the information you were getting, the level of detail you getting about the operational plan; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, you understood, as Chief Sloly said repeatedly in Board meetings and Council meetings that are recorded, that the plan was well in hand and was evolving as information evolved, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So I want to talk now a bit about resources. I think you gave evidence that you first heard about the OPS requiring more resources around February 1.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And just to refresh your memory about that, and I can put the documents up if you like, you were actually signing Memorandums of Understanding for additional police officers from before the convoy arrived in Ottawa.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you knew from before the convoy arrived that Chief Sloly was making efforts to secure additional resources.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Exactly. And, actually, that’s exactly what I wanted to get to with you, which is that is how resources are, in the ordinary course, obtained, right, for big protests or big events?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. They’re obtained by Chief Sloly, drawing on his police relationships.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that’s what he was doing from before the convoy arrived; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you have no basis, I take it, to disagree with me that he was doing that on a near constant basis during the convoy; reaching out for additional resources.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it amped up.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Exactly. And what was exceptional here was not that Chief Sloly was asking for additional resources, although the extent to which he was asking was exceptional; what was exceptional here was that he was asking for so much help from the Board in getting those resources, right? We saw the February 3rd email where he wrote to you and said, “I need your help getting resources”?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And that wasn’t usual; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was unusual. And so that when you get to the February 5th meeting where you say to him, “I want to hear what you need,” he had already been asking for help from the Board.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The number.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The numbers.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you understood his comment about there not being a policing solution, or there may not be a policing solution to be a call for help, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the call for help was, “We cannot, as the local police of jurisdiction, do this on our own”?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you understood it that way, and he also explained it that way. We saw it up on the screen, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He explained, “We need the help from all levels of government.”
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And people, you say, didn’t understand that comment, right, when he first made it?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And -- but you’ve said publicly, and we all know now, that he was right.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He was just right earlier than a lot of other people.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, Chief Sloly, after getting the Board's request on February 5th for a number, more details about resources, the next day, he provided that number and you were satisfied, and they mayor has given evidence that he was satisfied with the level of detail of that request?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And my friend asked, you know, was it ever suggested to you that he asked for twice as many resources as he needed? What you weren’t asked was to confirm that he was right about that too, wasn’t he?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, I'm going to turn to Chief Sloly's resignation. You gave evidence that a week before his resignation, you called him as part of a wellness check?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And during that conversation, you expressed to him that a lot of people wanted his head?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And just to be fair to you, I'm going to suggest to you that he didn’t say, "Cut me a cheque. I'm not resigning," but rather, "I'm not resigning so if you want me out, you're going to have to buy out my contract"?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And then -- so a week later, you called him again, and we're right now in the middle of the crisis, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you ask him about resigning, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you testified that as far as you saw, he was never supported by the senior command?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And is it fair to say that that call on that evening of the 14th asking him about resigning would have felt to him like a lost support by his Board?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Very briefly, on the CBC article, the article you're referring to refers to confidential sources, including within the OPS, about tension, raised voices during the crisis, correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And is it fair that -- we've seen footage, for example, of the February 16th council meeting, that there were a lot of raised voices to go around in this period?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Everyone had difficult days during this period?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I can see from the Commissioner that I'm out of time, but you have, Mr. Commissioner, some more questions for this witness. I would ask for leave for a few more minutes to continue my cross- examination.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. If we can pull up, please, OBP1649? If we could go to page 6, please? These are the minutes, in-camera minutes of the Ottawa Police Service Board on February 15th, and this was the day of Chief Sloly's resignation, correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
If you can scroll -- oh, there we go. So in the first big paragraph, we see at the top, a point was raised regarding Mr. Sloly having struggled to be accepted within the organization, given that he was considered an outsider, and you've given evidence about that, correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then the last sentence of that paragraph reads: "In conversation with Chair Deans the week prior, Deputy Chief Bell had advised that he would not have done anything differently if he were in charge." Right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Deputy Chief Bell told you that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You've also publicly stated that in your view, Chief Sloly was the subject of racism?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that he was the subject of scapegoating?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that at the end of this, there were a lot of finger pointing and a lot of blame, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And a lot fell at the feet of the first Black police chief in Ottawa, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you'll agree with me that it would be very unfair to lay blame for the events of the Freedom Convoy on the feet of Chief Sloly alone?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A lot of blame to go around, a lot of things that we can learn about how things could have gone differently, correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But as you've confirmed, you never lost confidence in your chief of police during this entire event?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No further questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good afternoon.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson, you were ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I apologize.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, Rebecca Jones for former Chief Sloly. Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson, you were the MIC for the Freedom Convoy; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as MIC, you had overall responsibility for the OPS's planning and response to the protests?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And your testimony is that you weren't reading the Hendon reports, though you knew that they existed; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay. And your role, though you were the MIC with the overall responsibility, you were working with Deputy Chief Bell, who had overall responsibility for intelligence; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I take it you were relying on the Intelligence team to provide you with the information you needed from the Intelligence report to input into your plans?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You, yourself, weren't writing the plans?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you weren't writing the plans directly and you weren't reading the intelligence reports directly. You were at a higher strategic level?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And similarly, there would be no expectation that the Chief of Police would be pouring through the Hendon reports and trying to reconcile the different pieces of intelligence; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And the Chief of Police would be at an even higher level, relying on his team for operations and intelligence?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And one of the things that you noted was that you did not believe that the initial plan, the January 29th plan was Intelligence led. And I just want to suggest to you that Chief Sloly's expectation for his command had been from when he entered as Chief, that all operational plans were to be Intelligence led?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now for this initial January 29th plan, I take it that Chief Sloly's involvement in the process is as you would have expected?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So he did not direct the planning unduly?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Didn't interfere?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, in fact, Chief Sloly did not even see the plan or a draft of the plan until the morning of January 28th when it was provided to him for the first time; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And he said looks fine to him and the team proceeded with that plan.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he would have been looking in -- when looking at that plan, he would have been considering the intelligence and operational details that had been provided to him by his senior command team?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now if we pivot forward a few days to Sunday night, January 30th, at that point, your evidence is that it became clear to the OPS that the people were not going to leave.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that there needed to be a pivot in the plan.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Pivot in your response. Okay. Fair enough. And you as the MIC were responsible in that pivot; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that required evolution, significant evolution of the January 29th plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Because the January 29th plan had been based on, you know, a big, boisterous, traffic impeding protest, but not an occupation.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as of January 30th, I take it that you agreed with the assessment that the OPS was now facing an occupation?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now you were taken to notes from February 3rd and we can perhaps put them up. OPS14484, page 3, please. And for everyone's benefit, these are February 3rd notes of Chief Sloly. And he's referring to a meeting with you and Deputy Chief Bell; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he refers in the first line to, "I [have] advised that [we've] had 2 days since the POU meeting on Tuesday..." So that was a meeting that took place on February 1st; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly had made very clear in that meeting exactly what you said. There needed to be a pivot and the plan had to be significantly evolved to deal with the situation.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And at the point of this meeting now, two days later and four days after the determination that this was, in fact, an occupation that required a new plan, he had not seen a new -- and I shouldn't say a new plan. I'll go back to what we have spoken about, an evolution of the plan. He had not seen an evolved version of this plan; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that would be part of the evolved plan; right? There would be ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- a Public Order component of the plan, to try to figure out how we're going to resolve the situation with the people that were occupying the city.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, the word "fixated" is - --
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- a bit loaded. So he was interested in a Public Order Unit plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And met with them in person. But to be fair to your former Chief, he also expected that there would be a Traffic plan, and a PLT plan, and all of those other plans were evolving at the same time.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I take it you’re not being critical of him for not meeting with the other groups?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, because it’s a bit hard to be Chief Sloly sometimes, I think, in terms of criticized for being too involved versus criticized for not being involved enough, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So here on this day, this -- you were taken to this document but you weren’t taken to the very end of the document, if you can scroll down a little bit more -- keep going. Sorry, go up a little bit, end of this paragraph. The paragraph at the top of the page: "I directed once again Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson to ensure that Sgt. Stoll…" And he was -- S/Sgt. Stoll, I apologize -- and he was involved in the POU component of the plan; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, that he: "…got the resources he needed to make the assessments/final recommendation."
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right? Okay. So S/Sgt. Stoll, the Chief wanted to make sure he had the resources he needed to put the -- make the inputs into this plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And now if we can go, please, to document OPS7355. And we looked at these notes earlier today -- February 5th, these are notes of Chief Sloly about -- well, actually, if you scroll up a little bit -- okay, so it’s actually an email from Former Chief Sloly to you, copied to many people on the team and this is the document, if you scroll down, where Chief Sloly sets out some general priorities for planning purposes; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you felt that this was directing the plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And your suggestion is that that was somehow too directive?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So I’m going to return to that but when we look at these priorities, I’m going to suggest to you they’re pretty high level -- surge, contain, and enforce; demonstration, fully implement plan; shut down, secure enablers for unlawful and unsafe protests.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, but this isn’t -- you’re not suggesting this is some sort of tactical-level plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So, you’ve seen ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. The fuel, in particular, was an issue of a lot of public attention in Ottawa, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So -- and I’m almost out of time for lunch so I’ll just ask you to agree with me about this. If you step back and try to put yourself in Chief Sloly’s shoes, we are now on February 5th; we are now seven days after a determination had been made that the city was facing an occupation and that the plan needed to be evolved and he hadn’t seen an evolved plan; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So when we talk about how involved you would expect a chief to be or how involved you’re -- how much autonomy you’re supposed to be giving your team, this was an exception circumstance; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was an exceptional circumstance and he was trying to get his team to move forward with the evolved plan; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I could not agree with you more and we can return to that after the lunch break.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I want to turn now -- we will get to resources by the end of my cross-examination but I’m going to turn first to the PLT, which is something we’ve heard a lot about this morning. The PLT is on of many important groups that -- within the law enforcement efforts that was working to resolve the issue of the convoy; right? And there were very important groups, such as Intelligence, people that were doing enforcement at POU, all also had a role, correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And some people may favour a bigger role for the PLT and some people may favour a bigger role for enforcement, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And reasonable people could disagree about how much emphasis to put which law enforcement tool you have?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And is it fair to say that you and your partners with the OPP favoured the PLT-type approach here.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And others, you felt, such as Chief Sloly and Supt. Patterson, you felt they favoured a more enforcement based approach?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But I just want to return to one thing, which is that February 1st POU meeting. At that meeting, were you aware that Chief Sloly ensured that the PLT was there?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So making sure that the PLT was integrated with the POU when talking about planning, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s a good idea.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But this sort of tension existed between how much enforcement to do versus how much negotiation through the PLT to do?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And just as a slight aside to that, is it fair to say that the public frustration was focused, in large part, what the public perceived to be a lack of enforcement?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I’m not asking you to weigh in on whether or not you agree.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There was a lot of complex considerations that were going into all police action at the time, right, but you’ll agree with me that public confidence in police is itself a crucial public safety issue?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. This tension between the more PLT-type approach or an approach that also incorporated enforcement really came to a head on February 10th, right, and you’ve talked about that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that is the meeting where you and Supt. Patterson had a dispute?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in that dispute, Supt. Patterson suggested that you favoured -- and I’m not using the right words but the overall gist of it was that you were favouring a PLT-driven strategy, in part, because your husband was leading the PLT, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if I’m characterizing it incorrectly, please feel free to clarify. My understanding was that Supt. Patterson made a suggestion that you were somehow favouring a more PLT-driven approach in some way related to the fact that your husband was a team lead for the PLT.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I'm not -- I just want to be very fair, I'm in no way suggesting that that’s what was happening.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But just at that, there was a dispute about your husband's role in PLT and whether that had any influence on your favouring of a PLT strategy.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So please feel free to clarify what you think he was suggesting about your favouring of a PLT strategy and its relationship to your spouse.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ah, I got it. Okay. Fair enough. And you felt that this was an inappropriate suggestion?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And it was very upsetting to you, I imagine?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you spoke to Chief Sloly, who supported you, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Sloly understood why you were upset?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly removed Superintendent Patterson from his position within the incident command?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And that’s appropriate, right, to ask you what you want to do, right, and then he supported you?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And this is just a very small point, but my friend spent some time looking at the mission statement of the February 9th plan. Do you remember that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I just want to be clear for everyone. The upshot of that was that you wanted the role of the PLT or negotiation to be stated explicitly in the mission statement, and Chief Sloly said it's implicit in the mission statement?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And Chief Sloly said, "Yeah, I think that’s implicit. I don’t think it needs to go in the mission statement"?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then he said it's implied?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. One other point before we turn away from the PLT, which is, you referred to the fact that you did not feel that senior command necessarily had great facility with the National Framework for Police Preparedness, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it's fair to say that you as well became familiar with that National Framework during the Freedom Convoy?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I'm going to suggest that the language that you've used is, you became familiar with the National Framework during the convoy?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I'm going to turn now to the integrated planning group. You gave evidence that the integrated planning group support arrived on February 8th?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And your evidence was that Chief Sloly was -- I think you used the word "suspicious" of the group and he was worried about politics, right? That’s your evidence?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And were you aware on February 8th of the motion that had been passed by City council the day before on February 7th? Were you following the motions at City council at this time?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. On February 7th, a motion was brought and passed by City council to have the City ask the federal government to assume responsibility for public safety in the Parliamentary precinct.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you were aware at that point that something quite political was happening, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay. And of course, that never happened because the motion was entirely without jurisdiction, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But when, again, to be fair to Chief Sloly, when this integrated planning group arrives and you perceive him to be somehow resistant or suspicious or whatever words you're using, this is within 24 hours of a motion to have the RCMP take over policing in the Parliamentary precinct, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so it's fair to say that Chief Sloly was dealing with a lot, including at the political level at this time?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm going to ask you now about this issue between the February 9th and the February 13th versions of the plan. And I'm going to ask if we could put up email at OPP1547, please, which is an email we looked at this morning. If we scroll down to the bottom, please, okay. So you were asked about this email and this is an email where Chief Sloly asks you to send him the latest version of the operations plan that I approved on February 9th, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when you were giving your evidence this morning, when first asked about this email and this operations plan, you explained that this operations plan that had been signed off on on the 9th had then been taken by the integrated planning team and they were refining it and adding to it and making changes to it, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They were building it out, okay. And I think your evidence just got a bit confused about the suggestion that there was confusion that there were two different plans, right? There weren’t two different plans. There was the February 9th plan and it evolved into the February 13th plan; is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair. But the Commissioner shouldn't be left with the impression that there were two independent plans floating around and no one knew how to reconcile them, right? That would be fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the difficulty in this email that I'm going to put to you is that you had not been following the -- I shouldn't say you weren’t following -- I'm sure you were following -- but you had not seen the February 13th version, or at this point, yes, the February 13th version yet, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So what you sent Chief Sloly back was the one that you had?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that you had?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, because you didn’t have the February 13th?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So -- and I'm going to just take you now if I could to OPS10470, and if you scroll down, please, and this is -- sorry, if you go up just a little bit, this is an email from Superintendent Leu, I believe it is, at the RCMP?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Superintendent Leu refers to the fact that he is working on the plan, and in the second sentence: "Obviously, this plan originated with your plan, which we examined, bolstered, and strengthened." Right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that was consistent with your understanding of what was happening?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm going to turn now to the relationship between the Police Service and the Board and Council You attended several Board and Council meetings with Chief Sloly, both before and during the convoy, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when questions came up about operations, often Chief Sloly would defer to you, and you would provide an operational update?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And is it fair to say that you and Chief Sloly did that work, you updated the Board together, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were on the same page about what sort of information the Board should have as to the status of operations. I only have another minute, so I’m going to be fast. I’m going to ask you now about resources. Ultimately, it took the additional 1,800 officers that the OPS determined it needed to clear out the occupation; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. It took more than that. And this was done without any serious injury or loss of life?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in -- partly in doing this, the police used the powers given to the police by the Emergencies Act?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, okay. Fair. So it assisted you in executing the plan.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Because you used powers such as threats of seizure of vehicles, right, threats of seizures of bank accounts?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It helped you get tow trucks.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It prevented -- allowed you to prevent assembly in the red zone?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So that things, I think we can say fairly, resolved more quickly and more safely because of those additional powers.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Perfect. And before the over 1,800 additional resources arrived, you’ll agree with me that the OPS did not have sufficient resources to end the occupation.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good morning, Inspector Lucas.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
My name is Rebecca Jones, and I am Counsel to former Chief Sloly. Inspector Lucas, you are very well trained as an incident commander; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you have served as an incident commander many times for huge events and protests?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were the lead planner for the 2016 North American Leader's Summit?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the OPS's executive team, including Chief Sloly, would have every reason to have confidence in your leadership of incident command for this event; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you took the steps that you felt you needed to take as Incident Commander; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, why don't we focus on planning for the convoy to begin with.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were confident that your team of planners was working with the Intelligence Directorate to get the appropriate information to input into the plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And this is what your executive team would have expected you to do?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And the note, we saw the document -- we don't need to pull it up, but just for the record, OPS3403, which was the meeting of the Intelligence Directorate on January 27th that my friend took you to?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Recall that document? That was a meeting with the Intelligence Directorate and Assistant Deputy Chief Ferguson; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that was -- in this -- in the context of the Incident Command System, it would be on the responsibility of Assistant Deputy Chief Ferguson to pass on any sort of important information to Chief Sloly from that meeting; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now still sticking, Inspector Lucas, to the period of time up to January 28th, the strategic oversight for this period of planning was coming from assistant -- or Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And she was acting as the Major Incident Commander?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And Superintendent Rheaume was the Event Commander in between?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And it's fair to say that in that period, up until the convoy's arrival, former Chief Sloly did not take steps to assume responsibility for planning from the Incident Command System?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And Chief Sloly, not to your knowledge, Chief Sloly, to your knowledge, was not assessing intelligence on his own; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And one could not say, for example, that Chief Sloly failed to take adequate steps with respect to gathering, assessing, or disseminating intelligence in relation to planning for the convoy; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, but you understand what the ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- role of a Chief is?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But it's not his role to do the intelligence assessment; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And throughout this planning period, I understood from your evidence that you were given the level of autonomy that you felt you should be given?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And again, I'm sticking to the period of time up to the arrival of the convoy.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And my friend asked you some questions about approving the plan and it was you who approved the plan; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the other approver was Superintendent Rheaume?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And my friend pointed out to you that Chief Sloly didn't have a signature line on the plan; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in terms of your understanding that he needed to approve the plan, you testified that came from the people below you, the planning group.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And above. Okay. And that came from, I'm going to suggest to you, Superintendent Rheaume?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you had been working in Incident Command with Chief Sloly since he began -- became the Chief; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In different sections ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- but he had, I'm going to suggest to you and to your understanding, a lot of confidence in you as Incident Commander; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And he had never sought to approve your operational plans before; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you had been the Incident Commander before?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And he had never sought to approve your operational plans?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So fair enough. My question's a bit simpler though.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Up until this point of time, you had never been told or expected that Chief Sloly had to approve any of your operational plans?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I take it you didn't pick up the phone and ask Chief Sloly, "Do you really need to approve my operational plan?"
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You just took it from what you were hearing that that's what he wanted to do?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And he didn't actually ultimately approve the operational plan; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, you know because you've looked at the document and you know he never signed off on it; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. In terms of the first weekend, and the -- going into the first week, when your team realized -- and the OPS as a whole, not just your team, realized that you were facing what was an occupation, right? People were not leaving; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I suggest to you that the atmosphere at the NCRCC was chaotic.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You did not have the resources to deal with the information that was coming in?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You were understaffed, and you were struggling to maintain sufficient officers just for foot patrol?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And things were tense, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. We heard evidence from Supt. Abrams at the OPP that he was hearing, or heard, that you had been yelling while at the NCRCC.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And things were tense for everyone at that time, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And people were perhaps not always at their very best.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, I want to talk a little about the PLT. The PLT plays a very important role at -- in major events?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But the PLT may not be perfect for every situation. Is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so, for example, here, the PLT had difficulty negotiating with the participants at Rideau and Sussex?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, sure. But just to come back to my question, specifically. You state -- and I can pull it up for you -- in your interview summary, which we had up, that the: “...OPS had problems negotiating with the protester group at the Rideau- Sussex intersection.”
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you have given evidence, less today and more in your interview summary, but I’m going to deal with some of it, about your view that the Executive Team was not respecting the role of the PLT to the extent that you thought they should; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And one of the examples we keep hearing about, in terms of the PLT, is the situation at Coventry Road, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One of them. Okay, so lets just stick with that one for now. And this is the situation where there had been negotiations with protesters to remove their fuel, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
This is around February 6?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the OPS ultimately arrested those, or some protestors when they approached downtown with that fuel?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And in your view, that event, in a very real way affected the relationship between the PLT and the process, protestors.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you’re aware of the fact that that action was directed by Supt. Patterson; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And we heard evidence from current Interim Chief Bell yesterday that he was the one who approved that action.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I take it you didn’t know that before?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And this is not a decision, to your knowledge, that reached Chief Bell’s level; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Sloly, I apologize.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Bell.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So -- and I apologize, I get my names mixed up there. I will repeat the question, just to be clear for the record. This was not an issue that you have any evidence to suggest that former Chief Sloly was involved in?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you. I want to ask you some questions about changes to the incident at Command. You state in your statement that it was your understanding that Chief Sloly: “...that Superintendent Rheaume was removed because Chief Sloly wanted to take a new strategic direction...”
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you did not get that understanding from Chief Sloly?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And if we put up, please, WTS23, this is the Interview Statement of Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson, and we go to page 11, okay, and we see under, “Switches and Event Commanders”? If you take a moment to look at that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
This is, again, the Interview Summary of Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And what Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson’s evidence is, is that Supt. Rheaume needed to take some time off, and so it was for that reason that Supt. Dunlop was put into that position.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay? And you have no reason to disagree with that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So your understanding, from whatever source, that it was Chief Sloly who wanted to take a new strategic direction and replaced Supt. Rheaume, that’s incorrect?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you have no other basis to suggest that that’s the case?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And in terms of Supt. Dunlop, you’re familiar with the events at the Panda Bowl game that had occurred prior to the Freedom Convoy here?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that was a very difficult event?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And Supt. Dunlop was involved in the Command for that event?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You’re not aware of that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So I’m going to suggest to you that Supt. Dunlop was aware -- was involved in that event. And I’m going to ask you to agree with me that there’s nothing improper for Chief Sloly to have some concerns about the people who are going to be leading the Event Command for the Freedom Convoy.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sorry?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Those are my questions. Thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good evening. I’m Rebecca Jones, and I’m counsel to former Chief Sloly.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Nice to meet you, too. I’m going to start off -- my interest with my few minutes with you this evening is just to deal with a few issues particular to my client. So I want to confirm some of the evidence that we heard this morning from Superintendent Bernier and confirm your agreement with that evidence.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent Bernier testified that Chief Sloly had a role to play in managing the Freedom Convoy. And you agree with that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he has ultimate oversight over the police?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And his role with respect to the convoy would be seen as a strategic role.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And we heard from Superintendent Bernier and from Acting Chief Bell that there are not perfectly clear lines between strategic, operational and tactical decisions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And we also heard from Superintendent Bernier that these issues are dealt with through dialogue.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that he did have dialogue with Chief Sloly about these borders and they would come to an understanding.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, his evidence was when he was acting as the Event Commander, he would have these discussions, he would tell the Chief what he was thinking and that he had the operation under control and the Chief would accept that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. No reason to disagree with that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Rideau and Sussex I’m going to touch on just very briefly. My friend for the City of Ottawa did a very good job clarifying the timeline. My only interest is with respect to some evidence in your statement about approval for moving vehicles onto Wellington.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the approval you were not sure whether you had on February 8th would have been the approval of the Event Commander, Superintendent Patterson; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So -- and when you give that evidence, you never spoke to the Chief about that; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so if we wanted to have information about any discussion Superintendent Patterson had with Chief Sloly about Rideau and Sussex, we’d have to ask Superintendent Patterson.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you can’t assist us with any information about when any such discussions occurred, the details of these discussions, whether any direction was given. You can’t assist with anything.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now I’m going to touch on the Mayor’s deal. And I think it will be of most assistance if we can pull up your interview summary, which is WTS50, please. Page 6. And Superintendent Drummond, you see the first paragraph under “The City’s Deal with Protestors”. And in that paragraph, you advised Commission counsel that at the February 14th (sic) 1:15 p.m. with the City, there was no discussion about where the trucks would be moving; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And if you don’t have it in your notes, you can’t say that it occurred.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So your interpretation of -- and you’re talking about the Mayor’s letter?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Your interpretation of the Mayor’s letter is that it made it clear that the trucks were going to move onto Wellington.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you have no other information to assist the Commissioner with with respect to Chief Sloly’s understanding. Is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So let’s break that down because I’m not suggesting to you that it wasn’t clear to you in your meetings with the city officials, okay? So my questions are only relating to what was clear to Chief Sloly, okay? So if I can ask you to turn -- if we go to page 8, please. And we see the paragraph beginning, “The deal was to move the trucks to Wellington.” And we have your belief that Chief Sloly would have known this, as it was clear from the Mayor’s letter and it was discussed with, as you said, Acting Superintendent Bernier and Deputy Chief Ferguson; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So it wasn’t a discussion you had with the Chief directly.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You’re saying once the trucks were moving.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So we’re not at the trucks moving yet. And then you see the next paragraph, at 9:30 a.m. on February 14th you provided an update at this meeting and Chief Sloly was present; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you didn’t advise my friends for the Commission that you, during this meeting, specifically told the Chief that trucks were going to be moved onto Wellington; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you didn’t mention it to my friends when they were interviewing you for the Commission, but that’s your evidence today?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So your notes of that meeting do not contain any reference to that.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Again, I have no doubt that it was clear to you and my interest is only with respect to Chief Sloly. And it’s fair that your meeting -- your memory, rather, of the details of these meetings, you’re relying in large part on your notes.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And when my friend took you to things about the Emergencies Act and all of those sorts of things, you couldn’t remember them without reference to your own notes; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I’m going to ask you now to turn to page 9. And -- oh, just go a little -- that's great: "At 11:20 AM then Deputy Chief Bell called [you] to direct [you] to continue moving trucks onto Wellington..." Correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And this was after you had made a decision to stop that movement; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that decision that you made was an Operational decision?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And what Acting Chief Bell was doing was he was directing you on an Operational decision; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, he told you to continue moving trucks onto Wellington.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And is it fair to say that for Deputy Chief Bell, now Acting Chief Bell, we can assume that there was a larger context he was operating under when he gave you that Operational direction?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that in these extraordinary circumstances that you all were facing at the time, the lines between Strategic and Operational directions were blurred?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. No further questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good evening, Ms. Belton. Rebecca Jones for former Chief Sloly. Just a few questions for you this evening. You testified that you thought the group in Coutts have a lot of gumption; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I take it that's because they stayed despite police attempts to remove them from the border?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. They maintained their blockade despite attempts to remove them?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You also gave evidence that Mr. Marazzo tried to put you in a box; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, Ms. Lich and Mr. Marazzo. And by that, you mean, I take it, that they attempted to manage you somehow?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay, so can I take it, then, that you rejected or resisted those attempts to manage you and did your own thing?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so I take it that if Ms. Lich or Mr. Marazzo told you how you should be protesting you would've resisted that as well?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So if they told you it was time to leave Ottawa, and that, in your view, was incorrect, you would've resisted that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And if they told you that there were too many horns and asked for your help to stop the horns, I take it your view would've been it's up to the individual protesters to determine how they protest?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
When asked, and I suggest to you when you agreed with what you were being asked.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you disagree with me, you would have gone along with what ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And just a couple more things. We've heard some testimony about the swarming of police officers. Did you witness that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And do you have any information, I take it you didn't witness it, but do you have any information about which groups were involved in that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You also testified that Pat King was the lead on media in January; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And did Mr. King, to your knowledge, did he continue to take a lead role in the information that was being disseminated into February?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, fair enough. Mr. King took on a media lead role in January in terms of giving information to the public or other protesters about the convoys; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. And my question was only did that sort of lead role continue into February?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Final question. You referred to bans that were put on -- in place on your Facebook account, right ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- over time? And was that on the basis that Facebook said you were spreading disinformation?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, those are my questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner? Rebecca Jones for Chief Sloly. That was not the evidence of the Commissioner. The Commissioner very clearly indicated he had not lost confidence in the Chief of Police, and that is not what the note says as well. So we do object to the line of questioning involving an interpretation of a note which is not consistent with the evidence.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good evening, Deputy.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You worked with Chief Sloly at the Toronto Police Service for many years; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in fact, you reported to him for a couple years while you were the staff superintendent and he was deputy chief of field command?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you enjoyed a relationship of trust and confidence with him?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you knew him to be both a proponent and expert in community policing initiatives and also a national police leader?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when he became chief in Ottawa, you celebrated him assuming this role, saying you were glad to see his return to policing; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you’ve also testified that you were satisfied that the OPS was under able leadership?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I think you’ve testified that you watched Commissioner Carrique’s evidence before this Inquiry?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Some of it. Okay. And I just want to confirm your agreement with Commissioner Carrique on a couple of things. The Commissioner testified that the OPS did not have the resources they needed to end the events in their city on their own; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he also testified that ultimately they needed over 2,000 officers to successfully dismantle the occupation; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you’re aware that the OPS didn’t get those resources at that level until February 17th?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I agree with you on that. After the Ambassador Bridge was cleared, resources were diverted back over to Ottawa; correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And over the next few days, the resources accumulated in Ottawa?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That’s right. Okay. Now, you’ve testified that Commissioner Carrique was your main source of information about the convoys.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And just one thing. You testified that your understanding from him was that the OPS’ plan going into the first weekend involved keeping the trucks out of the city?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And were you aware of the evidence that’s now been before the Inquiry that Supt. Abrams of the OPP knew as of, at the very latest, January 27th, that the plan was going to be to stage trucks within the city?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Fair enough. And you were relying though on the evidence -- or not the evidence, but the information of Commissioner Carrique?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I take it you can’t assist with any broken telephone that took place between members of the OPP in that regard?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think it’s also fair to say that regardless, you would not have gotten involved in the operational plan for that first weekend going into Ottawa, based on ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. If we could pull up OPP4580, page 29, please? This is a text between you and Commissioner Carrique on January 29th, as of 3:00 p.m. So just to orient you, this is the Saturday of the first weekend. If we scroll down?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Twenty-nine (29). Thank you. And if we look at the green update from Commissioner Carrique, he’s referring to the fact that there’s some: “…aggressive and threatening behaviour […] No incidents of violence…” And you’ll see the second from the bottom: “Indications are that a number of demonstrators are planning to remain until [January 31st].” And that would have been the Monday; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so your understanding from Commissioner Carrique at this point would have been that there could be some people staying until Monday?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay. But you weren’t getting information at this point that this was going to be a long-term occupation?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Earlier?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And that is absolutely correct. There were indications in the intelligence reports. There were indications in social media. But of course, what an intelligence group has to do is take all of the information and come up with an overall assessment; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, you have also given evidence that after the first weekend, you recognized that what the City of Ottawa was now facing had turned into an occupation; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you spoke to Chief Sloly and Solicitor General Jones spoke to Chief Sloly on February 2nd?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And these weren’t detailed conversations about the merits of operational plans or anything like that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But by the following day, February 3rd, you started hearing from Commissioner Carrique that there were people expressing some concerns about Chief Sloly; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I got it. And one of these concerns that there started to be grumbling about around February 3rd was this perception of a lack of a plan?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you’ve given very careful evidence about what the Commissioner should understand about this issue, that this is not an issue of a lack of a plan, there was always an operational plan. This is an issue about whether the dismantling of the occupation plan was ready to go; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that is a very different plan; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So when people didn’t leave on the 31st, when you and police leaders and everyone realized that this was an occupation, the OPS had to pivot; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they now were facing an occupation involving a large number of people?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In an urban environment?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Hundreds of heavy vehicles?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Many of which housed children?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
This -- dismantling an occupation of this nature would be incredibly complicated?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you mentioned it involves multiple subplans, POU, traffic, towing, et cetera; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it’s not only complicated, dismantling an occupation of this nature is high stakes and high risk?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you don’t want an operational plan like that to be rushed?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it is a huge job to figure out how to dismantle an occupation of that nature?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So you as a senior police officer and a senior police leader yourself, would have understood what is involved in pivoting an operational plan like that; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But many members of the public and politicians would have no idea? Is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they would look out their windows and see bouncy castles, and fires, and say to the police, “Why aren’t you doing anything?”
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that becomes a very significant confidence issue for the police and for the Police Chief?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. And that perception was out there; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The pressures on Chief Sloly and the Ottawa Police Service at this time were immense; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the time pressure was immense as well; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if we compare this, I don’t know if you had any involvement in G20 in Toronto, that may have been after your time there, but if we compare -- you did have involvement? Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So one of the things we learned after G20 was that the four-and-a-half months that the Police Service in Toronto had to prepare was not enough; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what we're seeing in terms of rumblings here is three days after the Police Service had to pivot their operational plan to deal with an occupation; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So if we look at January 31st ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and we say, okay, at this point, what was expected, you know, some people might remain until Monday, and then we realize on the 31st, no, they're sticking around longer; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so at this point, you've agreed with me, the Police Service has to pivot.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Absolutely. And the Integrated Planning Team arrived February 8th, for example; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So I just want to go back to where we are in time here. We're pivoting as of January 31st, and by February 3rd, there's grumbling about the lack of an operational plan to dismantle the entire occupation; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you as a senior police leader know that that's not fair; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Now over the next few days, the Commissioner Carrique was updating you on what he was hearing on the ground, and he passed along other complaints or concerns that were being expressed about Chief Sloly; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And things like there's too many changes in the incident command?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Exactly, or to understand if that was a Chief Sloly issue.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Absolutely. But for example, you wouldn't have known that one of the changes, for example, that was made to incident command was because of a very difficult interaction between the deputy -- one of the Deputy Chiefs and the Incident Commander and that she asked that that be done.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And when these complaints were passed along to you, you understood that they were third or fourth hand; right? Commissioner Carrique wasn't there in the room?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay. And but you were -- in fulfilling your responsibilities, you were briefing Solicitor General Jones?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in fulfilling her responsibilities, she was briefing the Premier?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And we also know that the Premier was expressing his views all the way up to the Prime Minister; right? We saw that in the read out.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I don't want to go in any detail. You've given a lot of evidence about the 1500 and the statement about the 1500. That, just to be very clear, it was the statement -- I've looked at it again and you're absolutely right, it says "from the beginning." But those still aren't 1500 independent officers; right? So if I am the officer and I work for 10 days, I count as 10. Did you understand that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so -- and you've given evidence that you appreciate why that created pressure on Chief Sloly?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
When he was already under incredible pressure; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And because of that, you went to the Solicitor General and asked about making a correction.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And can you tell us why a correction wasn't made?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But just to be fair, the OPS first corrected it; correct? And then the government got questions about the correction and then they provided the further clarification; is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now there's also the issue of the doubling of resources, and you've given some evidence about that. You didn't speak to Chief Sloly about this suggestion that he made a comment about doubling resources; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay. But it did get passed on to the Solicitor General; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you said -- in your evidence you said if that was accurate, and then you said it made no difference to the province; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And when you say if that is accurate, it's a recognition of the fact that you're hearing it through multiple layers; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, you know, we've heard evidence, for example, that other members, Deputy Chief Bell who was on the call doesn't recall it, no contemporaneous notes of that. That -- were you aware of that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But is it fair to say it became part of the picture that people had about Chief Sloly's leadership?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Okay. Now Commissioner Carrique has testified that any suggestion or concern at the time that this was a random doubling of needed resources was completely incorrect; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, okay. That's fair enough. But you also accept that we needed -- the City of Ottawa needed 2,000 officers, so any suggestion that 1800 was some sort of random doubling would not be fair; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You talked about the impact of the fact that the operational plan to dismantle the occupation wasn't ready yet, and that that had an impact on the passing along of resources to Ottawa; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And but you've also testified that it made good sense from your perspective that this is the kind of plan that would take time to do properly; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I suggest that the bigger impact in terms of the availability of resources to Ottawa was the fact that those resources were needed at the Ambassador Bridge?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
If the other protests weren't happening.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But given that we know that the other protests were happening, the resources -- and regardless of whose priority it was, whether it was the government's priority or the OPP's priority, the priority was Windsor; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you've stated in your interview summary that the police could not clear Ambassador Bridge and clear the occupation in Ottawa at the same time; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And were you -- did you watch any of Supt. Earley from the Windsor Police's evidence?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Because what Supt. Earley testified was that the resources were dispatched to Windsor even before she had a formal operational plan to dismantle that blockade. Were you aware of that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But if I suggest to you that the Public Order Units were provided for dismantling the blockade even before a plan was finalized, that would be inconsistent with the position that you need that plan finalized before the Public Order Units are dispatched, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And I'm out of time, so I'll just -- I'll end it with this. It took -- from the time that Chief Sloly asked on February 6th for the 1,800 officers to sufficient officers being available in the City of Ottawa to dismantle the operation took from February 6 to February 17, okay?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That’s fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And is it fair that one of the things that the Commissioner can consider in doing his work is how resources might be deployed more quickly -- and understanding that there were a lot of competing interests here -- more quickly while the very complicated planning exercise is taking place?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you very much.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good evening. Rebecca Jones, counsel for Former Chief Sloly.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ms. Thomas, am I right that your very impressive experience does not include experience within a police department?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so that means that you don’t have specific experience figuring out resource requests for public order operations, for example?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, okay. And that’s exactly what I was going to say, is that you would rely on experts such as the RCMP or your colleagues in public safety, emergency preparedness, that sort of thing for that information?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you've testified about the incredibly complex situation occurring in Ottawa which you saw as a national security threat, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And we’ve now hear a whole parade of witnesses who, while disagreeing on a lot, have all agreed on a couple of things. First, that the protest was unlike anything they had ever seen, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And second, that the OPS did not have the resources they required to end this occupation until around February 17th.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And the Commissioner of the OPP testified that ultimately over 2000 officers were required to end the occupation, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, what I want to do with my time with you is to explore resource requests and specifically what the federal government, through you, understood about the resources that were being provided to the RCMP, by the RCMP to the OPS and Chief Sloly. So if we can pull up please OPS6093. And if we can go to page 4, please. So this is an email from Chief Sloly to the Commissioner of the RCMP and if we scroll down -- on February 2nd, I should have said. And then if we scroll down we see a request to the RCMP for 50 uniformed members, a level of leadership to provide support for teams, and three public order units. Right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if we scroll up, we’ll see that Commissioner Lucki advised Chief Sloly in the first paragraph there, that she had reviewed the request with her team but that the RCMP was experiencing a draw on their resources and were not able to provide that assistance, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And if we scroll up we’ll see that by the 3rd it was still the case -- if you go all the way up. Well, in any event, it says that by the 3rd those resources still hadn’t been provided and there had been no promise to provide them.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And were you following this?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Perfect. And so that’s what I want to know. You would have been relying on the RCMP to be dealing with these resource requests and then briefing you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Everyone would be relying on the RCMP with respect to these resource requests.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I’m not going to pull it up in the interests of time but on February 3rd in the evening Minister Mendocino tweets that: “The RCMP has approved all additional officers requested.” And we heard evidence -- have you watched the evidence of the RCMP yesterday?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And we heard from Deputy Commissioner Duheme of the RCMP that there was a mix-up, that those officers that were requested -- there was a statement made that 250 officers had been provided by the RMP but that was a mix-up? Did you hear that evidence?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And we also heard evidence from Commissioner Lucki that until after February 2nd the number of RCMP members deployed to Ottawa did not go above 50 or 60 officers.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. At the time that -- leading up to let’s say the period of the Mayor’s letter requesting the 1800 resources on February 7th -- leading up to that time is it fair to say that you were under the impression from your colleagues at the RCMP that all of the resource requests being made by the OPS were being fulfilled?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And I'm not asking you to actually comment on the deployment levels but rather the understanding of the government as we saw in Minister Mendocino’s tweet that everything that OPS was asking for from the RCMP had been fulfilled.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So why don’t we move forward then to the Mayor’s letter. We don’t need to pull it up; you're familiar with the letter requesting the 1800 officers, right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the following day you briefed Cabinet, and if we can pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.246, please. So this is the day after the resource request. And if we look at the fourth bullet, this is your briefing. You say: “The Chief continues to communicate publicly his view that OPS lacks resources to effectively manage the situation. This may be somewhat true but may also be a strategic tactic.” So I want to just break that down. “This may be somewhat true”; we can now agree that it was true, that the Chief required those resources, correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The letter about the resources ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that were from the mayor.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So when you’re commenting on the OPS lacking resources and you're saying it may be somewhat true, what I'm asking you now is you’ll acknowledge now that you know it was entirely true that the OPS lacked those resources.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Perfect. And then you say, “It may also be a strategic tactic.” And I take it that that wasn’t something that you arrived at yourself; it was something that you were being briefed on?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And who briefed you on that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So she told you that the request for resources may be a strategic tactic?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Can we agree that this kind of communication to Cabinet would lead Cabinet and Federal Government officials to question what the OPS was asking for in terms of resource requests?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. But we'll see that what they're being briefed on is that this request might be somewhat true but might be a tactic?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And we now know that was incorrect.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then, you testified a moment ago that you weren't really sure what the RCMP was saying in terms of whether they had fulfilled all resource requests. We now know that there was the request for 1,800 on February 7th, and what I'm curious about is that there are multiple times after that date where the RCMP was still indicating that it had provided all resources that the OPS had requested. Do you remember that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So why don't we quickly pull up SSM.NSC.CAN.209. So we've looked at this a couple of times today. This is the February 10th Incident Response Group Meeting?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if we go to page 5, if you look at the first big paragraph right in the middle, you see the sentence: "The RCMP has provided all resources requested by the OPS." That's what I would have been briefed.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And that's all I'm asking, is does that refresh your recollection that you were still being briefed after the Mayor's letter that the RCMP had provided all of the resources that the OPS had requested?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That's a different issue.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A different issue.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
We are agreeing. You were not doing your own assessment ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- about whether or not OPS had all the resources they asked for, you were relying on the RCMP?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the RCMP is still telling you on the 10th that they are providing all of the resources that the OPS requested?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the answer -- and I can tell you the answer to that was from both federal policing ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and provincial and municipal policing.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you, those are my questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Rebecca Jones for Former Chief Sloly. We have no questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good evening, Minister, Rebecca Jones for former Chief Sloly. If we can actually pull up the same document, SSM.CAN00006594. And, Minister, you testified -- this is the document that was just up. So as we’re pulling it up, you testified that you appreciated Mr. Goodale, based on his experience, his insights into the roles of the different orders of government, right, when you got this email?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. And I just want to ask you about a few other comments in this email that I think you’ll agree with me are insights he shared that you did not agree with. So if we can start on the very first paragraph; there’s a reference to a tweet by Mayor Tory and then there’s a reference to it being –- the situation being a municipal policing problem. And I take it that as a Minister in a government that has repeatedly referred to this as a national security crisis, you did not agree that this was a municipal policing problem in Ottawa?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. You can't speak to whether you can compare the experience in Toronto to the experience in Ottawa, for example?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Well, I mean, there are other differences, right, that we see? Even in Mr. Goodale's email, he refers to the volume of the protest in Ottawa and the amount of notice. Correct?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So Minister, I'm going to return to my question. Is it your evidence that what happened in the City of Ottawa was a municipal policing problem?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That it was not a national problem?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So let me just go back to my question. My question was I wanted to know what part of his email you disagreed with. So you disagree that what was happening in Ottawa was a municipal policing problem because you say, and we all know, that it was a national problem that was happening in Ottawa. Right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Thank you. And one more point that I hope we can agree on this one as well, which is that to the extent that Mr. Goodale said that the City of Ottawa and the OPS had proven themselves incapable of grappling with the problem, you didn't agree, I take it, with any suggestion that the City of Ottawa and the OPS had through any fault of their own proven themselves incapable, but only that the situation was not at that time being resolved. Is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. No further questions.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Rebecca Jones for Chief Sloly, and we also have no questions for the Deputy Prime Minister, and have ceded our time to the Government of Canada. Thank you.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Prime Minister, I’m Rebecca Jones. Counsel for former Chief Sloly. And you’ve testified today about the situation facing the country and the City of Ottawa in particular when the Emergencies Act was invoked; right? And this included threats of violence, trucks with weapons in Coutts, trucks with unknown contents in Ottawa, and children in Ottawa at the site of the occupation; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly described the situation in Ottawa as a tinder box. And I take it you’d agree with that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. There was always a risk of escalation?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you testified that it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to make tough calls and keep people safe; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It’s not your only responsibility. I take it that is the role of a police chief?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Prime Minister and the Police Chief don’t take steps just because people are demanding them; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you testified that as of the date of the Emergencies Act, the fact that there had not yet been any serious violence was obviously a good thing, but that you couldn’t say there was no threat of that; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I’m going to suggest that the fact that there had been no serious violence was not only a good thing, but it was a credit to municipal police forces, all police forces, Chief Sloly, and all of his policing partners?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it is to the credit of the police, among others, that there was no serious violence; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, in 2021, then Chief Sloly was invited to the Prime Minister’s listening circle to speak about policing reforms. You remember that?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, Mr. Prime Minister, you thanked him for his presentation and you thanked him for his leadership in leading police reform in Canada; right?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I take it you agree that it’s important to have voices like Peter Sloly’s at the table in Canadian policing?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And the convoy related events across Canada in late January and February of this year, I’ll take it you’ll agree with me, they were a trauma for the nation?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And this trauma landed more heavily on the shoulders of certain individuals, like Chief Sloly and his family, than on others? Is that fair?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now I want to return in the time I have left to the issue of the readiness of the operational plan as of February 13th, and you've been candid in acknowledging that you didn't read the operational plan on February 13th, which of course makes sense.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And nor would you expect to be.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you can't comment on whether or not it was a good or complete plan you testified?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So we're going to have to put aside subsequently. It was the plan that cleared the occupation in Ottawa is the evidence here, but at the time ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, we'll put that aside. We will disagree on that issue, Mr. Prime Minister, but what I believe you're saying is that, at the time, on February 13th or as of February 13th, that was your view, based on what you were being told, I take it, by the Commissioner of the RCMP?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The plan wasn't ready.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I just want to take you, please, to TRN23, page 69, please. And, Mr. Prime Minister, this is the testimony of Commissioner Lucki before this inquiry. I believe it may be page 69 in the PDF. There we are. And so if you start scrolling down, you'll see that Commission Counsel is asking about the status of the plan - - and please, of course, take your time to read it -- as of February 13th. And you will see that Commissioner Lucki confirms, "Yes, that was when it was completed." And that would be on February 13th. And then Commission Counsel says, "And we've heard some evidence about this from other police agencies, but essentially, that it was a team effort. The RCMP was there, the OPP and the OPS." (As read) Correct? And Commissioner Lucki says yes. And Commission Counsel says, "And I understand it. You in particular, Commissioner Lucki, and perhaps the rest of your team who looked at it were generally satisfied with the plan as an operational plan to deal with the situation in Ottawa." (As read) And Commissioner Lucki says, "Yes, both myself and Commissioner Carrique were briefed on the plan the Friday before that. Like, I think it was around February 11th we got the actual briefing from the planners on the plan and, yeah, yes, we were satisfied with the plan." (As read) Okay. So I put that to you, Mr. Prime Minister, to suggest that what happened here was that you were not briefed by Commissioner Lucki on the 13th as to her satisfaction and the RCMP's satisfaction on the integrated plan to clear Ottawa?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Prime Minister, it's ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- it's important that we stick with what you understood on February 13th ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- okay? So I'm ---
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I hear you on that. What I'm suggesting to you based on what you've seen was Commissioner Lucki's evidence, that there's a disconnect here. And perhaps what happened, and I'm going to suggest what happened, is that Commissioner Lucki didn't brief you and your Cabinet on the fact that there was a complete plan on the 13th?
-
Rebecca Jones, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.