Tom Curry
Tom Curry spoke 1754 times across 27 days of testimony.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. My name is Tom Curry and together with my colleagues, Rebecca Jones and Nikolas De Stefano, we will be here representing, as counsel, the former Chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Peter Sloly. Chief Sloly also looks forward to assisting the important work of the Commission. In granting Chief Sloly standing, Mr. Commissioner, you found his firsthand knowledge of how the events unfolded here in Ottawa, and his role in framing the response, meant that he was uniquely positioned to make a contribution to your factfinding and policy process. As you have described this morning, under the terms of reference of the Commission, you’re required to examine the circumstances that led to the declaration of public order emergency, and the efforts of police -- among other things, the efforts of police prior to and after the declaration, and lessons learned to make recommendations about the matters under examination. Now, Chief Sloly will assist you in understanding the circumstances that led to the declaration of an emergency, from his perspective as a national police leader with over 30 years’ experience in Canada and abroad dealing with public order operations. He will explain, from that perspective, how this -- the events in Ottawa represented an unprecedented threat to national security posed as they were by the illegal occupation. The City of Ottawa was ground zero for the protests that occurred in February 2022, and Chief Sloly will assist you in understanding the challenges faced by the Ottawa Police Service in addressing the evolving illegal occupation. As he will explain, the events represent a paradigm shift in public protest. In particular, he will explain to you the limited resources available to the Ottawa Police service to deal with a massive occupation; the limited nature of the intelligence available to OPS about what was coming Ottawa's way; the importance of the right of lawful protest in our democracy and the limits of the authority of the Ottawa Police Service to deal with protestors; the requests made to all levels of government for additional resources to address the occupation, here in the number of 1,800, approximately, additional police personnel; the successful integration of policing partners in a joint operation between Ottawa, OPP, RCMP, and other police services; and the important contribution of the declarations of emergency by all three levels of government to the safe and successful end of the occupation. He will also tell you, Mr. Commissioner, why he signalled on February 7th that there may not be a policing solution alone to the occupation. Chief Sloly was Ottawa's first Black police chief, and he was brought to Ottawa from the outside of the OPS in October 2019 to lead a change in the way policing services were delivered, to restore it and build trust in the community. He will tell you of the pride in his work as the chief, and how proud he is of the hard work performed by the Ottawa Police Service that ended in the -- in a successful conclusion of this national security crisis without the loss of life or serious injury to the public, protestors or police. Chief Sloly knows that effective policing is only possible when a community has trust and confidence in the police service, and when the resources needed to end the occupation were present the conditions were present and plans in place to allow police to end the occupation safely, he will explain why he elected to step aside to ensure that any lack of confidence in the Ottawa Police Service held by the community that had developed over the period of the occupation did not compromise public safety. Finally, Chief Sloly looks forward to assisting you in the part of your mandate that is forward-looking, as you indicated, and seeks to learn from the unprecedented events in Ottawa that led to the declaration of an emergency. Chief Sloly has eleven specific recommendations for your consideration that he will explain, identify ways for government, police, and civil society to prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from these public order emergencies in the future. I'm grateful. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I ask you to start with -- both of you, separately, would you agree that the event that you described, this protest was, in your experience, unprecedented?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
As to its scale?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
As to the demeanour of the protestors?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And equally, as to the police response? There was a larger police response to this protest or occupation than you had seen ever before?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Over a longer duration obviously?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You would agree, Ms. Carrier?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Now, in respect of the things -- and my colleague in the Police Service just asked you this, but I just want to understand it, and for the Commissioner’s purposes, neither of you is suggesting that you have better insight into the community of security intelligence or police intelligence than have police agencies; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you would -- I want to come to the meetings, if I can, that you had with police. And you’ve had police liaison officers in the community with whom you’ve spoken, both of you; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in that respect, you had the same, or perhaps better access to police than you have had in other protests? Would that be true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Daily -- just stopping there, you had daily contact with police?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And which if they were, you would understood why?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ms. Carrier, you agree with that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Mr. McHale, a couple of things. You had -- you told us, I think, that you had met with Chief Sloly, or he attended these calls, on one or you thought two occasions; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you thought perhaps two? Probably two?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ms. Carrier?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you both gave statements to the -- of your anticipated evidence. You were interviewed by our friends for the Commission; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you read those statements before you came here today?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m coming to that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I understand the issue. Did you read them before you came here today?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. At the time you gave the information to the Commission, you did your best to provide information that was accurate and complete; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you knew it was important?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You knew, for example, that it was going to be disclosed to, among other people, the lawyers and parties who are here today; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Commissioner, there’s one issue I wish to raise that concerns the rule about the use of these statements. And it specifically concerns the suggestion that Chief Sloly made a statement that one of the witnesses Ms. Carrier referred to. May I simply ask the witness to confirm that the statement that she provided to you was not found anywhere in her statement?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That's fine.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That's fair.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you very much. Ms. Carrier, prior to your saying that Chief Sloly told you on a call that he was scared, am I correct that you didn't say that before to anyone?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, do you accept from me that the statement of your anticipated evidence doesn't refer anywhere to the ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. All right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Thank you. So then may I, Mr. Commissioner, because it's important, I'll simply say this, Ms. Carrier. Isn't it true that what Chief Sloly said on the call was that he understood why people in the community get -- including, presumably, from the BIA, were frightened in respect of what they were observing and experiencing, but at no time did Chief Sloly say that he was scared or frightened personally? Would that be fair to him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But that was not something that you have said previously?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- can you tell me, please, Ms. Carrier, on what date did that meeting take place?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you don't recall?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. You would assume. Can you tell us what else the Chief described? Any specifics that he described?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Can I just leave it on this basis? Because, of course, you can imagine that your statement that he said that ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- he was personally scared, he's going to -- I just have to tell you, he's going to say ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- he didn't say that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But instead, he was expressing why he understood people were frightened.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What I said.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The expression of empathy.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, and thank you to the witnesses.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Oh, Chief Sloly didn’t where he was going.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Former Chief Sloly’s counsel. I looked up to nod hello and I nearly knocked out a monitor. I’m Tom Curry. A couple of things, if I can, in the time that I have with you, you spoke earlier about the meeting of council on the 16th of February, I recall, a long and difficult meeting, you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at that meeting, a vote was tabled, as you’ve described, to replace Councillor Deans as Chair of the Police Services Board, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Councillor McKenney, you voted in opposition to that motion. Councillor Fleury, you divided on that question and though Councillor Deans should resign.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if I recall the meeting, you thought she should resign on a principled basis, that what had occurred in the Police Services Board meeting earlier that day was a suggestion that another outside police chief be brought into the organization to help solve this problem?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And your -- you thought, for reasons that you’ve explained to the Commissioner, that that was not -- it was not the time to go searching for a new police chief, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Elsewise, if I understand the record, you are a person who has, over time, been very supportive of Councillor Deans and her work on the Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Neutral, all right. Councillor McKenney, you have been very strongly supportive of Councillor Deans in her role as Police Service Board Chair of the City?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
At the time the debate about the resignation -- or the replacement, rather, by council, Councillor Deans described the circumstances in which Chief Sloly had operated as the Chief. Do you recall that, both of you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And she was a very passionate defender of Chief Sloly’s work, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, and in fact, on that question, both of you have been as well, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, in fact, Councillor McKenney, you used the language ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. So I can say up to the -- up -- I don’t know whether you have a date in mind but, up to the period of the occupation, you were a strong supporter of Chief Peter Sloly.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, Councillor McKenney, for your part, you described to your councillors -- your fellow councillors and to the public a regret about losing Chief Sloly and felt that he had been scapegoated as a consequence of the events of the occupation leading to his resignation; true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you felt so, as you described it then, on the basis that he was the City’s first black police chief?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that he was being, well, to use your language, “scapegoated” over the issues of the occupation; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, then, there -- were -- I know neither of you have been -- you have been multiple-term councillors, I think Councillor McKenney two times ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Councillor Fleury three times, yeah? Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, so you’ve been around the City a long time. Both of you have described earlier to my friends that you understood that City Council stays out of police operations and Police Services Board has that legal mandate; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were resolute defenders of your ward members and residents in trying to draw on every occasion the attention of the police and the City, of everything that you could to assist your warn residents; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In a focused way. And understood, each of you, that in the case of the Chief, in the case of the City management, in the case of other, the mayor, presumably, that their mandates were wider than your own; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, start with the obvious, the Chief of Police is the Chief of the entire city and not just a single ward?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, and has issues to address within his mandate that go beyond each of your wards, must take into account those wards, but others?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
During the time that you observed him, I appreciate, Councillor Fleury, that you lost confidence in Chief Sloly at some point during the occupation. But what you observed from Chief Sloly was the good faith execution of his duties, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, I mean, you tell me. Put it this way. You may disagree with the -- you may have a disagreement about the way things were done or not done ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- but Chief Peter Sloly, you observed, was doing his best, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So you've combined a few thoughts. Those occurred on different dates as this evolved, first of all, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. And did you ask City Legal for a legal opinion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And di you receive one?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And did they give you an explanation that the reason they weren’t going to give you the opinion as to why the weren’t giving you an opinion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, City Legal.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I’m going to -- I’ll just leave that. I'm going to move along. Other witnesses will have to help us with that. But did you go get your own legal opinion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did he give you an opinion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The aspects that you needed an opinion about, that you just described to the Commission. What is the legal right of a protestor? When did a legal protest become an illegal occupation? And one that you asked the Commissioner. Did you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You described to one of my friends earlier, those events occurred afterwards. Everyone on earth learned what happened in Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, I’ll give you an opinion afterwards about that. But Councillor McKenney, can I just have it from you, please, that your observation of Chief Sloly from the beginning to the end was that he exercised his duties to the best of his ability in good faith.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Every protest that you have ever been involved in in the City of Ottawa was different than this one, correct? This was unprecedented?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Councillor Fleury?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, you know what I mean by that. I’ll be clearer. No, forgive me, I’ll be clearer if you didn’t know.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Every protest that has occurred in the City of Ottawa from the time that you were a councillor - --
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
An earlier witness said people come, they protest, they leave.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That’s your experience?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you have not had one like this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The scale, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The scale was larger. The volatility was higher.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The demeanour of the crowd was angrier?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it became, as you've pointed out, an occupation, yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, the vehicles came to the downtown. Other vehicles have come to your downtown and then left.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m sure the Commissioner will take that into account from other witnesses also. I take -- I think we all understand that actually. So then a couple of other quick things. Am I right that both of you supported requesting the federal government to exercise its powers to declare an emergency?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Councillor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And you also -- I think you told one of my friends that you endorsed the Chief Sloly’s request for an additional 1800 officers.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And understood that the OPS had no adequate resources to deal with what had happened?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I have no other questions for you. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Kanellakos, I’m Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly. Good morning to you. You have a long experience, not just here as the City’s most senior public official, but also previously in police services, as I understand it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Taking the entirety of your experience, this event that the Commissioner is here to understand is completely without precedent? Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I don’t reckon you’ve got a number for us, but you have seen, in your capacity, either as a senior official in the former Ottawa Carleton Police Service and others, or as City Manager, it’s no exaggeration to say you have been through many hundreds of events and protests in the Nation’s capital?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’d be right? Many hundreds?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there is a significant difference between protests, in your experience, between protest and event? One of my colleagues asked you, I think, about a parade. A big difference; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And so what was -- when we -- when the Commissioner considers your experience in dealing with the kinds of things you have seen in Ottawa here, or the kinds of things that you observe your colleagues in the Ottawa Police Service dealing with, what was coming to Ottawa through the Freedom Convoy was something that no one expected? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it’s one thing to -- one of the documents that you just reviewed with one of my friends made the point about the challenge of trying to understand what the convoy organizers had in their own minds as to their intentions, and you were never able to get that information? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. This wasn’t the Santa Clause Parade, ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- where someone would ask for a permit, you would understand and make plans and organize crowds? Now, you were also -- and I think you told Commission Counsel, the City has learned to become very -- through its experience, very respectful of the right to protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You are here in the City of our Parliament and Parliament has -- of course in Canada, we respect the right to protest, and you do here in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And these were -- I think your colleague, Mr. Ayotte, described in an email that appeared briefly, I won’t go back to it, that he felt that police were doing a very good job in balancing, on the one hand, the right to protest, and on the other, the risk of riot?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And when I -- I want to - - I just want to ask you about that, if I could, but before I pull up a document, could I just ask you about your relationship with Chief Sloly? You had a good working relationship with him; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you part of his recruitment?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you meet him in that process?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And you learned through that discussion, I assume, about his long experience as a national police leader?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And including significant experience in managing public order disruptions and protests?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Fair enough. And during the time that you worked with him in your capacity as City Manager and his leading the police service, you agree with me that he acted in good faith and tried to the best of his ability to solve this problem?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, a couple of things, if I can. Can I please ask for a document to be shown to the witness? Is OPS00005187. It should be, if I’ve got the number right, Mr. Kanellakos, -- and everyone on earth calls you, expect us today, calls you Steve K?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I won’t today. But this is a document dated January 31st, 2022. And it is notes of a meeting that concern a number of officials, one of whom present was you. Do you recall this meeting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could we please just scroll down for a moment? There was an update -- just maybe just to there. This is an update from Chief Sloly. I won’t read it all, but there was a thorough update from the Chief to the group including you and the Mayor; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then one of the things that - - just look about maybe two thirds of the way down. Do you see the bullet point that begins with: “100% of resources tied up with demo[nstration] downtown…”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“…members are stretched and tired before and are more now, same with [the] citizens and businesses and with demonstrators. Patience is low and everyone is looking for confrontation.” That was your not just -- you heard the Chief make that report, but that was also your own observation? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in the -- from the beginning, you -- once you understood, and everyone understood, that this was not a protest of the kind you had seen before, but rather, an occupation, I think you told us that there were never enough resources in the Ottawa Police Service to bring this occupation to a successful completion? Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And indeed, you have said previously, I believe, that you needed support, always needed support from other police agencies and police services; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, and just one of the questions that I know came up -- I’ll just deal with this very quickly, Bylaw Services. Bylaw Services comes under Kim Ayotte, not the Ottawa Police Service, you told us. Am I correct that there was never going to be any effective solution through Bylaw Services once you saw what you were dealing with here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they don’t get paid, do they, to engage in fist fights with people with whom they’re trying to enforce bylaws, or rolling around in physical confrontations; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Every Bylaw officer who was going to go into this area of high conflict was going to have to go in with police escorts; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Because there were too few resources, it was not a viable option to rely on Bylaw Services, in your opinion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now a couple of other things, if I can. There was -- just talking about resources. Am I right that there was some confusion at the level of the province of Ontario as to how many OPP officers had been made available to the Ottawa Police Service? Do you recall that occurring?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you recall, though, Minister Jones, ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Sylvia Jones, making a statement that there were, I believe, 1,500 OPP officers deployed here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was inaccurate and indeed there were -- it was a small fraction of 1,500 at that time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. But at that time, the time the Minister made the comment, forget who made the calculation error, it was never accurate; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you recall though that it did create some challenges for the OPS because while that information was in circulation, people felt that, “Well, you’ve got these resources. What are you doing?”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you agree that that was -- there were never those resources at that time available to the Ottawa Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. One or two quick things, if I may, please, Mr. Kanellakos. You, -- the Commissioner is concerned, among other things, to consider recommendations, how to avoid events of this kind in the future, if that is a view that anyone takes. You had an experience with something -- well let me go back one square. Chief Sloly has described this event as a paradigm shift, a change in the way public protest had previously been understood here. You agree with that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you referred yourself to one previous episode here in Ottawa that had occurred that involved something I believe called a snake march or snake marches?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as a consequence of the appearance of that, and I won't take the time to have you explain what that is, but when that occurred, you and the -- as a city manager, learned from that experience and took some steps to address that; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Did you ever -- can you assist the Commissioner, how many trucks were actually embedded in the geographic areas that you have described?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now one or two then final things if I may, please. Chief Sloly made a statement I believe February 2nd that there was no policing solution alone to this problem. And by that, did you understand, or do you now understand that to mean that the Ottawa Police Service was never going to be able to provide the solutions on its own, whether with By-law or otherwise?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Fine. And then in terms of the negotiation that did take place that you explained to the Commissioner, the -- I'll just leave it on this basis. Am I right that you and Chief Sloly didn't have any detailed operational discussions as to where the trucks were going to be moved from the residential areas, where they would end up?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And in any event, Superintendent -- Acting Superintendent I think it was Drummond had the operational ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- responsibility on the ground?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I show you one last document if I may, and just to have your identification of it for the Commissioner's assistance later perhaps? OPP00001521, please. And just -- I'll just need you, Mr. Kanellakos, to help us with a thing I -- do you -- did you participate in a call between representatives of the City of Ottawa, the federal government, and the provincial government on 6th of February?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I don't know whether you've had a chance to look at these notes, but there -- lots of people were taking notes. These ones appear to have been taken by the provincial representative.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You see the -- that bullet point describing some comments attributed to you, a concern that local councillors -- that would be City of Ottawa councillors, I presume, "...pointing the finger at the province and federal government to provide assistance [...] Mayor [...] Watson [...] to declare [a state of local --] a local emergency in the City of Ottawa [...] expressed intent of this declaration is to put pressure on the Premier to exercise powers to resolve this." You've described this. And it goes on and I won't have time to take you through it, but you were present at that meeting, and you knew that people were recording whatever everyone was saying was the situation at the time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Understood. And that was ultimately the mayor's intention in addressing this matter through the declaration of an emergency was to get the resources that Chief Sloly and others had said were required and that you agree were required.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. I don't have any other questions for you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. I am Tom Curry. Mr. Arpin, what were you -- you've been the Chief of Staff of this mayor since 2010 when he was first elected; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Prior to that, he was a minister of the provincial government; am I right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you with him then?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What were you doing before 2010? Did you have a background in -- well, just tell us, please.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. So long time resident of the City of Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, a couple of things, if I can. It was obvious to you and mayor, I presume, by -- you tell me the date -- but by the first weekend of this protest that you were dealing with something very different than what you had anticipated, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And was it also obvious to you that the resources that would be required to deal with the protest as it became an occupation far exceeded the resources available to the Ottawa Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No one should ever imagine the opposite, and I presume no one ever did imagine the opposite?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Mayor -- am I correct that the Mayor always understood that what Chief Sloly had identified as the need in terms of resources -- and you’ll recall that he identified the number as, I think, 1,800 personnel, additional personnel -- am I correct that the Mayor, in his conversations with you, endorsed that idea?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Did he review it with any other members of the Ottawa Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And in the end, am I right that the number of personnel, additional personnel required to deal with the occupation, the ongoing occupation, was approximately 1,800 or maybe even higher, closer to 2,000?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You do not?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. A Couple of things, if I can, just about the numbers of resources that were coming to Ottawa. We reviewed some of the messages that you were exchanging with your political counterparties provincially and federally, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you -- I won’t go back through it, but there was clearly an ongoing issue about whether the resources that were -- had been represented as having been deployed here for the City of Ottawa’s benefit had actually been deployed, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the numbers, so far as you are able to assist the Commissioner, the numbers that you knew were correct were the numbers that were on the, if I can put it this way, the Ottawa side of that discussion, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, but more than that -- I appreciate that. You were told some information and you took that information at face value, but of course you were also told the opposite by the political staff, the Minister of this or the Minister of that, right? You had other sources of information available to you, as I understood it, which corroborated -- I thought you said corroborated the idea that the resources that were actually here to be deployed were not the numbers of resources that had been represented. Isn’t that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Let me give it to you again, or did you have it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, but maybe put it this way, your conclusion was that what OPS was telling you was actually correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And that remained true, did it not, until the weekend, the last weekend, if I can put it that way, prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act; isn’t that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Not a large step up, a small step up?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. You were never going to -- you were never -- no one in the Ottawa Police Service was going to mobilize a significant public order operation with an additional 250 on top of OPS, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And so by the time you get to negotiating -- assisting in the negotiation of a solution to remove vehicles from residential areas, there were no adequate resources, to your knowledge and to your observation, in this city to lead a public order operation, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And so you approached that issue, and just one quick thing about that, if I can. There was obviously -- and I think you may have used the word “fluid” or maybe my friend used the word “fluid” -- there was a certain degree of uncertainty about that operation of necessity, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You didn’t know where the trucks were going at the time you negotiated the agreement? You knew they were leaving the residential area. Their final destination or final resting place was not documented initially, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, but ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Well, I understand that, but you also mentioned, didn’t you, that they were going to something you called SJAM, which is the Sir John A. Macdonald Highway?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. That’s all I’m saying.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you had -- there’s some -- and I don’t have the time to take you to the document -- you were talking about renting farmland, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so when Chief Sloly says that he didn’t -- no one told him the final resting place of all of the trucks was in the red zone, you, from your own observation or dialogue with him directly have no reason to disagree with that, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That was what the PLT team had wished?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were present in the meeting where that was discussed, or is that the Mayor and Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Now, a couple of other things, if I can, please. Chief Sloly, when he was hired, you would not have been involved in that hiring, am I right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You met him after he was hired?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you found him -- I think you told the Commissioner you found him -- all of your dealings with him to be professional, and he was good Chief?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. One of the things Chief Sloly was brought here to Ottawa to undertake was a change in the way policing was done in Ottawa, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that had to do with the circumstances of tension between racialized communities and police service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Racialized communities?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
For example. Other terms have been used, equity-seeking communities, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the force had been the subject, I understand, of a gender bias human rights finding. Were you here at the time when that was made?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The Mayor had spoken at the funeral of a black man who had been -- who died in police custody and charges had resulted; do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Abdirahman Abdi?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you familiar with that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. A very challenging time for the OPS and presumably for the Mayor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you aware that the OPS had in 2017 been the subject of a survey conducted by the Canadian Centre for Diversity and inclusion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the results of that were considered to raise a number of serious issues for the OPS?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All if which led to the hope that in the case of Chief Sloly, a positive change could be implemented?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, a couple of other things if I can, please; are you -- were you present when Chair Deans -- Chair Deans obviously, Police Services Board Chair Deans, described that she had asked Deputy, then Deputy Chief Steve Bell, whether he would do anything differently than Chief Sloly was doing in the period up to the invocation of the Emergencies Act? Are you aware of that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, good. So you know what I’m talking about?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you’re aware then, you can tell the Commissioner, that what Chief -- Deputy Chief Bell told the Chair, was that he would not do anything differently than what Chief Sloly was doing up until the time of the invocation of the Emergencies Act; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Who do you have that understanding from?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, it’s a little different than that, isn’t it Mr. Arpin, isn’t it simply this, that she asked Deputy Chief Bell whether he would have pursued a different strategy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, there’s a lot of that around here, but that’s fine. The point is -- the point is that you were interested; how did it come to your attention; how do you even know about it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the reason she did, isn’t it because any suggestion from anyone that all of this should be laid at the feet of Chief Sloly, she regarded as unfair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you agree with me though, that it would be unfair to suggest that what occurred here should be laid at the feet of Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Counsellor, McKenney -- you know Councillor McKenney?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A very active member of your Council?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I understand a candidate for Mayor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And she told the Commissioner and told your Council, and you were probably present, that she felt Chief Sloly was being scapegoated; were you there for that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it would be unfair, as you’ve suggested, for anyone to form the conclusion in your opinion that one person’s command led to any of these outcomes; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Council at one time along the way, and I’m not going to get the date, but you might remember it, considered a motion to request the Federal Government to invoke the Emergencies Act; do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, you’re thinking -- maybe I can help your recollection. Do you recall there was a motion brought; it did not advance because it was 7-7. Does this ring a bell?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I won’t pull it up, but -- when the Emergencies Act was invoked, did you understand what additional powers were available to OPS members, OPP members, RCMP; did you know what that meant?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you part of the briefing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you understand that the powers that were granted under the Emergencies Act made a significant change in the ability of this integrated police force?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And that until the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the arrival on that last weekend before that date, of sufficient resources, your own forecast was that this occupation could have taken until the end of February?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And on matters such as that, does the Chief of Staff, you in this case, give advice to the Mayor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, tell me then, did you give advice to the Mayor that he should support the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Your issue about -- with -- I think we reviewed some of the -- you had a long series of text messages or “Whatsapp” messages exchanged with the Former Chair, Chair Deans, of the Police Services Board. Until the issue arose of her seeking another outside police chief without what was concerned to be the right authority, until that time did Chair Deans enjoy the support of the Mayor as Chair of the Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, I’m not -- I’ll take moral authority, if you want to make it moral authority. Is that the issue over which the Mayor lost confidence in Chair Deans?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Up until that time should the Commissioner understand that the Mayor was confident in the composition of the Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if I’ve understood some of the text messages that you were exchanging with Chair Deans, some of Council members had it in their minds that they should try to depose either the Chair of the Police Services Board or the Chief of Police?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you tried to dampen their enthusiasm for that because it was a matter that they should stay out of; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Particularly without the resources needed?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I don’t have any other questions for you. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good afternoon, Mayor Watson.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, may I just before I begin note or ask you what your preference is about the lunch break? Should we -- I have I believe 25 minutes. Could we rise at one o'clock? Would that be ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ten (10) minutes ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Very good. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you very much. Mayor Watson, a couple of things if I can, please, this afternoon. You told the Commissioner that throughout this experience, Chief Sloly had your confidence?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that was right up until the time he resigned?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Sloly, to your observation, you obviously were speaking with him during this time on a daily basis?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Almost daily. During the time that you worked with him and observed him, do you agree that he performed his duties in good faith?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And I was going to say, you obviously were not with him during all of the entirety of these operations, but in your observation of him with your colleagues, whether they be political -- members of Council, or political staff, or City staff, he was always professional?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Thank you. And finally, like you and like probably every other person involved in this on the City side, just confining ourselves to that for the moment, he worked around the clock?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Now just a couple of things then. You observed and -- that what occurred here in Ottawa last January and February was unprecedented, first of all.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And also, something that had probably not been witnessed for two generations.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including, as you've described to the Commissioner, your effort to try to engage the other levels of government, the province, the federal government was the source of some frustration for you on the basis that they did not come to the aid of the City and its residents on a -- in a - - in what you would have thought was a timely fashion.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Very difficult -- I think this is -- tell me if you agree, very difficult to finalize a plan, an operational plan until you know what resources you have; do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. What -- perhaps more precisely, what I was getting at is that if the RCMP or the OPP in the aggregate had told the City through the proper channels - --
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that instead of 1800 or 1900 additional personnel, the only personnel available was 1,000 in the aggregate?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What -- I understand you were -- in listening to your OPS colleagues and Mr. -- and Steve K and others, was it that the finalisation of a plan would require some knowledge of what that number is?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
If you're sending a thousand people, the plan is different than if you're sending 1,900; do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, Commissioner, may I suggest, then, I think I've just about one o'clock. Would -- can we rise here and ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Mayor.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All set.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Merci.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mayor Watson, a couple of things, please, if I can about the -- cast your mind back to it, to the period before the convoy protest came to Ottawa in January. I think you touched on this. The City of Ottawa has a long experience with public protests?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Besides quite apart from all of the events that are held by the City, and there are many of them, as the home to the nation's capital and Parliament, the City has a long tradition of respecting the democratic right to protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And including protests against mandates and restrictions that were imposed by provincial or federal government as a consequence of the pandemic?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in terms of the use of vehicles, or in the bringing to Ottawa, if I can put it that way, of vehicles by protesters, the City also has a long experience of allowing, facilitating vehicles to come to the city?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in this case, as you pointed out to the Commissioner, the expectation was that the protesters would arrive in vehicles, make their point, demonstrate, and pack up and leave?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There was no indication, of which you were made aware of, that the protest was either expected to last as long as it did or to be conducted in the fashion that it was; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. and am I also right that from your perspective as the Mayor of the City of Ottawa there was no indication from your policing partners at the OPP or the RCMP that you should consider this protest to be any different than protests of a similar kind in the past?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And had there been a plan to, or had there been information that suggested that the trucks should be intercepted and not permitted into the city, then obviously your City Manager and the staff below him would have had to engage in a traffic plan and some operations to put the trucks somewhere other than residential neighbourhoods around Parliament Hill?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Two other quick things about this, please. Did you understand that Chief Sloly had engaged his Command team and that Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson was responsible for the Operations plan ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and the Deputy Chief, Bell, was responsible for Intelligence?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you also know that before the weekend protesters arrived Chief Sloly or his delegates had already secured additional police resources from other municipal police forces under Memorandums of Understanding that exist?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Can I just show you a memorandum? I hope I have the number correctly; it was a memo that I think you sent. It’s -- can I have some assistance, just please, in dialing up OTT -- I think four zeros; it might be five, 746. And I have “.001” afterwards, if that helps. Just bear with me, Mayor Watson, see if you recognize this document. Yeah, just maybe start there. You see it says, “Draft response to demonstration emails (McKenny comments); it’s dated Thursday, the 27th of January. Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you introduced the name to us earlier, I think, Robyn Guest; that’s a member of your staff?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then there are a couple of other people to whom that email is addressed at the top, including a witness who appeared yesterday, your Chief of Staff, Mr. Arpin.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could we just scroll down, please, for the Mayor? Just stop there, if we could, please? Do you recognize this as memorandum that was prepared either at your direction or the direction of your staff for the purposes of communicating with your colleagues on Council?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, sure. Could we please? Just -- I think ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- the other direction, probably. (SHORT PAUSE)
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And I won’t go through all of it, but you described a reference to past practice, to the right to protest in our democracy, and the plans that were in place for a safe weekend.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, understood. Okay, that’s fine. Thanks very much. Along the way a little later, you had -- and again, when I say “You had” the City has a solicitor, I think David White.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Mr. White was requested to prepare a set of options that I think were legal options; I don’t know if this came as a consequence of a direction that you gave or perhaps someone under your direction. But could I please show the Mayor OTT0029767? I just want to, while that’s coming up, Mayor Watson, just to orient you; I believe that Mr. White prepared a set of options -- a list of options rather, that could be considered by Council in respect to the ongoing demonstration. Do you see that? It’s dated February the 7th. Does this refresh your recollection that Council or you directed Mr. White to prepare that list?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And among the options that were addressed in this memorandum of course we see that three of the Federal Emergencies Act, and there are a number of others, including the final one concerning injunctive relief. Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you engaged in any of the discussions that were ongoing about whether an injunction was available and advisable?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And so that’s fine, thanks for the memorandum. We can take that down. As to the Emergencies Act, you’ve explained to the Commissioner your perspective about that. From your observation, the Emergencies Act played an important role in the peaceful resolution of these demonstrations.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the police services that were on the ground were -- provided additional powers, not just to deal with those who were occupying those spaces, but also to deal with anyone who might wish to come and participate in the future.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Can I just ask you now, please, about resources. You explained that Chief Sloly was requested to provide a detailed list of the resources -- particularized resources that the OPS required. You recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I right that he was asked to do that on February 5th at the -- by Chair Deans and the Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then provided it the next day, February 6th.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And prior to February 5th, do I have it that Chief Sloly had already engaged in the process of trying to get more resources for the OPS from not just through the weekend but right up -- well, through the whole piece?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the detailed resources plan that the Chief provided and his team provided on the 6th of February, as you told the Commissioner, set out not just a raw number of 1,800, but it was broken down by uniformed police officers, non-uniform personnel, public order units, and various other specialties.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And you and Chair Deans and certainly Chief Sloly were under -- I’ll say pressure but small “p” pressure from your Council members to answer questions about not just these resources, but to identify that specific number that Chief Sloly had given and that you had conveyed, in public; is that correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And just you got to the question I was going to ask; and just to confirm, it wasn’t Chief Sloly’s idea to publish that number; it was -- as you pointed out, it was inevitable that it was going to come out once there was this caught-in-the-middle status and political requirements.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, can I just ask you quickly, then, a couple of other things about the news conference where Chief Sloly made the reference, I think it was February the 2nd, that, among other things, there may not be a policing solution to this problem. Did you understand, or do you now understand that what he was getting at was the very issue about resources; that the Ottawa Police Service on its own did not have the resources to deal with this as a matter of its own police service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Subsequently, of course, he was asked about it and did provide additional clarification.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, and as to that issue -- I think you’ve explained this to the Commissioner but just so that I have it -- there was never going to be a solution to this problem unless there were a lot more police service members than Ottawa Police Service members?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you share the view that there wouldn’t have been any different outcome no matter who was the Chief of Police if the matter was the resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then, just to then final, two quick things, then, if I may, Mayor Watson. The resignation, I appreciate that you’ve told the Commissioner that you learned of it when it was announced. Did you have a chance to speak to Chief Sloly in the aftermath of the resignation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you’ve previously that you regarded his resignation as a true act of leadership?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There was -- with your indulgence, Mr. Commissioner, I have one -- Mayor Watson, I’m on borrowed so that means you’re on borrowed time. Could I just ask you one quick thing, please, about negotiation to remove trucks from the residential area? I won’t show you the letter that was already described that you wrote to Ms. Lich, and her response, and so on, but do I -- can I have it from you that, in respect of Chief Sloly -- that Chief Sloly was unaware of the final destination of the trucks that were moving out the residential area and the letter that you wrote to Ms. Lich doesn’t describe the final destination of those trucks. There were some references that we’ve seen in other documents to renting farmland -- to leasing farmland, rather, or to parking on the Sir John A. MacDonald Highway. There was some flexibility or uncertainty about those matters; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you very much. And your term as mayor is coming up, so thank you for your public service.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner, we have no questions for Mr. Ayotte.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I do have a concern in my submission, privilege, if there was privilege, privilege was waived, there is considerable documentation. There are memos from Mr. White; there is a witness statement from Mr. White and it may be, although this witness may not go further, it may well be a subject on which there will be cross-examination because once you open that door, you can’t close the door again and say, “Well, I’m only going to give you this, but I won’t answer that question.”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent, I’m Tom Curry. I want to start at the end, recommendations. The Commissioner has the task of considering whether there are recommendations that he can make concerning the issues we’re here about, the Emergencies Act, demonstrations, and the kind. One of the things that Chief Sloly I anticipate will say to the Commissioner is that there, in his experience, is -- are what he would describe as “structural deficits” in gathering intelligence between agencies -- you’ve mentioned them -- CSIS, RCMP, OPP, other law enforcement and security agencies. Just stopping there, do you agree that the Commissioner should consider a recommendation that will enhance a national security framework for intelligence now?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right, thank you. One of the things, as well, that I expect you’ll also be able to help the Commissioner with is this. Am I correct that HENDON and the work that your intelligence bureau does arose in order to fill a gap that you saw in the way that you described? And I don’t have time to go back through that history. Am I correct; that’s how it arose ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- to fill a gap?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in that respect, I haven’t met someone from an agency that doesn’t want more funding but am I correct that a recommendation from the Commissioner to consider the funding question to support those initiatives as the issues have arisen that you have identified would be helpful?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, I’m sorry. I’m going to stop you -- not Ottawa ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Ontario Provincial Police.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The coalescing -- back to these events now, please, the coalescing of these disparate groups that you described and the financing that you described that you had seen for the first time, you described those as unprecedented in your experience, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair. And in that respect, just focusing on the funding alone, do you accept that that represents a paradigm shift in protests and descent of the kind that you’re experienced in?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. McKenzie Meadows, if I understand that protest or occupation, was a single development parcel; that’s a First Nations or Indigenous land dispute; is that correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Complex. And this, the coalescing of a national -- on a national scale ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- people coming from across the country to one destination, that’s a first?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the -- my colleague for the Ottawa Police Services already reviewed some details of the HANDON Reports. I don’t have the time to go back through them but, suffice it to say, it was not your purpose in describing the HANDON Reports to provide operational planning; is it an input into operational planning; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So for example, we won't see in a Hendon Report or any of those other documents to which you've referred any advice to the Ottawa Police Service in the days ahead of the convoy that it should close specific roads; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That it should divert traffic in a particular fashion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the OPP itself, so far as you know, Intelligence Bureau didn't direct OPP Operations in any part of the province to intercept convoy protesters at the border of Manitoba or Quebec; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Nor its own -- nor your own team. Why was the convoy not intercepted at the Manitoba Border? Many people have asked that question in hindsight, of course. Why not?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And that remained as that -- as a convoy protester individually or collectively came into the border of the City of Ottawa; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Most of the -- most -- my colleague has already dealt with this, but many of the Hendon reports, the 25th, my friends for the Commission took you to one document on the 25th and showed you a line or two. But in that report, it refers to what is likely to be a three-day event. There are a number of references that pointed that way; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I don't have time to take you to it, but later look at the 25th.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I show the witness, please, OPP00004348. You see this now, 27th of January. Do you recognise this Situational Report?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It's an OPP -- yeah. Well, it's an OPP document, and maybe ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I don't know, we can scroll up to see something different.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But do you recognise this as a Situational Report from your Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There you go. Just stop there.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It looks like it's ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, you got. Can you scroll back up now, please? Thank you. I want to draw your attention, please, to the -- it's got to be about the eighth bullet point, begins, "Ottawa Police Service" ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"...has developed a robust plan that would allow for capacity to accommodate up to 3000 commercial vehicles." There are a number of other things there. But colleagues of yours in the OPP, different -- a different group no doubt ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- had access clearly to the plans that the Ottawa Police Service had described; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. So to put it this way, if OPP had an issue with the plan that the Ottawa Police Service was pursuing to allow the protesters to protest, then it would've spoken up you would expect?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. He's a good experienced -- -
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Could I show the witness, please, OPP00001007. Just while this is coming up, you have an -- you have a Deputy Commissioner Cox, C-O-X?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you work with him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Is your bureau report up through his command?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Look at this, please. Scroll down, if you would, Madam Registrar or Clerk. Twenty-eighth. Do you see 28 January?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So here we are on the, is that the Friday? To you from him. "Pat", Convoy Protest is the subject: "There has been great collaboration amongst our intelligence bureaus [and] units as well as with our policing partners along the route to Ottawa. The established integration and cooperation..." All those police services ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- including Ottawa: "...along with the planning undertaken by the OPS have positioned us well to maintain safety and security throughout the weekend. NA Please extend my gratitude..." Et cetera. And you responded to that. Please just scroll up to show the witness. I won't read it all, but you express your gratitude and you share the thanks with your team; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Clearly, the Deputy Commissioner thought this was going to be a weekend event, didn't he?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No. Great, I accepted that. The Hendon reports provided very important intelligence, and Chief Sloly will confirm that. But in terms of what -- your -- put it this way: At that time, Superintendent, you didn't say to him, "It -- the plan's great for the weekend, but after that we're in a lot of trouble."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You can scroll down if you wish.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Him to you; you to him.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, no. Sorry, can you go to ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Just the last thing, then, if I can. You had -- you received a request from Chief Sloly for Hendon information. You told the Commissioner about that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at the same time, or just ahead of that, actually, you received another communication, this time from someone who reports to Chief Sloly, named Patterson, you've described him already, Mark Patterson. I think he's an inspector.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he told you, "You are about to get a response, or you're about to get a request from Chief Sloly or a bunch of questions from Chief Sloly. Don't respond to them." Do you recall that? I can you your notes if ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- it helps you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. So it's -- no, thank you for that. You were asked by Chief Sloly to come and brief the Police Services Board on the 15th; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And of course you resigned before that presentation, and it was adjourned?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Prior to -- thank you for orienting me to that. What was unusual, you agree with me, was that a superintendent of the Ottawa Police Service told you that you were about to be invited to that Police Services Board meeting to give a briefing with the Chief and that you should not attend; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So and did you -- I take it you didn't decline the invitation to go to the Police Services Board when Chief Sloly asked you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
To attend?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, so as unusual as that might have been, you agreed to attend?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then you get a call from Superintendent Patterson saying Chief Sloly is -- I'm reading you from your notes. I'll show you them if you need to be refreshed, I'm just -- in the interest of time. "Chief Sloly is possibly trying to pin this on the OPP and a lack of intelligence." (As read) That's what Superintendent Patterson told you; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you report that to -- I know you reported that to your own command. Do you know whether that information was ever shared with anybody at the Ottawa Police Service about what Superintendent Patterson was suggesting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I mean, you -- a significant undermining of a command officer to have a superintendent speak about that; isn't it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Inappropriate? Can I have that at least? What Superintendent Patterson did was inappropriate.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'll leave it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, may I just ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- raise one issue? I appreciate that Commission Counsel has control of the presentation of the evidence of the hearing, and also, that given the number of parties, each of us has a limited time with each of the witnesses called. May I ask through you that the witnesses -- and this is a good example -- be taken to the parts of the record that might balance the premise of some of the questions that we have heard so far. And I raise that because with this witness, we have 25 minutes. I know my friends have - - some of them have less, maybe some have more. It's not possible for us in the limited time that we have to put each of the pieces of information that might, for example, put into context the questions my friend Mr. Au has raised so far about the premise of his question, a strong possibility that it was going to be longer. Well, there's evidence that it was going to be a weekend, and we can draw it out, but I would be grateful if I could raise through you that the Commission's time with the witnesses be perhaps more balanced in presenting the information that in this case Deputy Chief Ferguson had at the time rather than counting on her to remember all of it. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, just before I begin, I believe I -- I think many of my friends -- some of my friends have gone a little bit over. I would be grateful if I could have a bit of an indulgence? If I need to use some of the time that I have been allocated for the witness this afternoon, I will cash that time in.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It’s a PLT -- it’s a PLT ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent, you first got engaged in this, you’ve told us, when you received an email assigning you to this event on the 24th of January; yeah?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Three days out from the first convoy truck rolling into the city?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, sorry, three days out from when they arrive. You came on ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- on the 24th; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were -- right. So am I right that you were given, by your commander, and I think you got it on the afternoon of the 24th, so you get it at 4:00 o’clock or some such thing on the 24th, and you’ve now got three days to develop your plan and your strategic command; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And what you did was you looked at the information that was available to you, Project Hendon; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you spoke to your colleague, Supt. Morris?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, just stop. After you got the assignment, forgetting that you get the Hendon Reports, I get that you received them all?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. But after the 24th, before you deployed, you spoke to him and got a briefing from him; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Pardon me?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, sure.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I’ve got -- let’s help you with the notes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
OPP00000774, please. You’ve looked at these before you came today, I assume?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you look at your notes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, I know. But before you came here, did you look at these?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Good. So it’s -- I don’t want to test your memory, but let’s look. This is Monday. You’re working from home at that time. Do you see?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And 0948, email to INTERSECT. You told us about that: “…discuss the convoy issues […] impacts in all of our areas.” “1305 Tovell.” I think that’s one of your colleagues: “…doing [a] traffic plan for [the] Convoy arrival. [Speaking to] OPS Traffic…” “1554 Intersect email.” That’s you sending them. “convoy - 28-29 Jan[uary].” Everybody thought this was a two-day protest; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well let’s carry on. They were going to get through Arnprior on the 28th. Three convoys above that. 29th of January, into Ottawa. We’ll -- this is OPP’s plan: “[We] will slow traffic but not block. The intention is to hold a peaceful demo[nstration] [with] no hostility. forward to Chief Thomas, Insp Tovell [and] Semple.” That’s your team; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you for that. And what you were going to do, to get to this -- the traffic plan was to effectively escort the convoy to Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you had cruisers. Did the cruisers have their overhead roof lights on or not?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So sometimes if protestors sympathetic were on the side of the highway supporting the convoys that went by, you might have had -- a cruiser might have had to use their emergency lights in that situation, for example?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you had cruisers in and around the convoy as -- from the time it crossed the Manitoba border until you handed them off to Ottawa; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
How many cruisers?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Be more than -- I mean, what -- from your experience, we’ve got a train down many kilometres. Do you imagine that it’s 10 unites?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Twenty (20) units?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then just to carry on: “1622 Chief Thomas Email!” That’s your Chief Superintendent?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“MCIC [something] possibly”?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“to come over possibly. aviation consulted.” That’s your aviation team; yeah?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then it says -- POIB is, of course, the Intelligence Bureau. “Pat”. You spoke with him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And then finally, at 1622, you note that in that conversation, or rather email, with your superintendent -- your chief superintendent, you were asked to be the strategic superintendent for the event and you went into action. Therefore, effectively, the next day, the -- really into action the next day, the 25th; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Two days -- effectively two days before the -- what we understand to be the arrival of some of the first vehicles in Ottawa. Can I show you -- or can I ask you to confirm that what you then did was you got your colleagues, your team reporting to you to do a traffic plan? An operations plan for this event; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that operational plan -- we have it. But that operational plan effectively had OPP monitoring the convoy through Ontario until there was a hand off into Ottawa; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right east region. And the -- you had a -- you then set up some of your own people in your operations centre in Ottawa; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And where were you located during that time? The weekend of the convoy, were you in Smiths Falls?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, good. And you had a couple of people, you've described, on the ground here in different places, and did you have in Smiths Falls any other people with you as part of your team managing the event?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In Smiths Falls?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. Smiths Falls to Ottawa, help us with the geography.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And then you had -- am I correct you did not have resources, logistical resources, any other kind of resources for an event that was going to be longer than a weekend protest; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the reason that you didn't is because your review of the intelligence available and the information available to you at OPP pointed to a two-day protest? They come, they protest, they leave; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, so the one thing we don't do, or do we, is defer to another police service when we make our own plans at the OPP. That's an input, but you did not -- you're not telling the Commissioner that you didn't plan for an extended protracted three-week event in Ottawa because the Ottawa Police Service didn't; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, and the OPP plan, we can look at it if you need it, the OPP plan describes in language the handoff. You were going to hand off after they were finished travelling over the provincial highways into the City of Ottawa; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Your expectation was that as many as 3,000 vehicles were going to be in the City of Ottawa and you were quite content with what you saw from OPS was their plan to allow the convoy operators to protest; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, and you knew it wasn't 3,000 once they got there, but you knew that ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And so you were content to hand off to Ottawa in the expectation that the team that you had put together as the Strategic Operations lead here would allow you to manage that convoy as they left Ottawa as well; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But in addressing that uncertainty, you were content that the team that you had in place was appropriate; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so therefore -- right, and therefore, you did not plan -- you didn't bring any additional resources for anything longer than the weekend protest that you thought was going to be on; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
29th of January, I believe, maybe a little later, is the first time that you began to assemble resources for a different event; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Ottawa Police Service was in the very same position that you were in; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they made a shift in their planning and operations just like you did; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you -- what you did in advance was send a Public Order Unit to Ottawa in advance, this was part of your planning, but you sent them to the PPS, Parliamentary Protective Service; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, don't -- I don't -- yeah, I mean, if you need to make an explanation, go ahead, but I just need the facts.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I'm ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. Thank you for that clarification. OPP sent a Public Order Unit, but they didn't send them to the OPS. They sent them to the PPS; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then you set out the calls for resources. You need to make a new plan and you began to get resources in the form of additional personnel; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
How many additional personnel?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was obvious to you as a person with experience in this area that the Ottawa Police Service would not be able with its existing resources to manage this event, correct, once it changed its complexion; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So the -- we'll talk about plans, but just talking about personnel, you knew from your experience with Intersect, the size of the Ottawa Police Service did not allow it to manage the event that this had become; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, but you do -- but did you need to be told that? If so, that's fine, or did you know it from your own experience that they were overwhelmed ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- in numbers?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Good.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that's fair. So then you needed to be told that by them and they told you that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what they asked for was help; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They asked you for help as early as what; do you say, the 31st?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And when they said they wanted help, they told you they needed help in particular areas; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Very specific areas; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I correct that you were unable at that time to give them all the help that they wanted?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It was not adequate; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Am I right though that you were not able to give them the resources they needed when they needed them; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So what did you do to get resources? Were you confined to moving resources within the East Region, or did you put in a call to your superiors or the other parts of your command to get additional resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
When did you first -- when did you first put in a call to the Emergency Resource Centre:
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I correct that you came to the conclusion that 60 a day was not enough?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were told 60 a day was not enough; they needed many more; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And on the -- you told us about the -- first, let me go back. You had never been through anything like this before; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You’ve never seen an urban occupation -- a protest that had become an occupation; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right, got it. So therefore in your history. You told us that you’d been to some other -- been through some other blockade situations, but they have not involved the urban environment like this, and obviously the sheer scale of this one was beyond anything you had experienced, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so when we talk about resources, you had participated in a call you told us, on the 6th of February when Chief Sloly requested his team to make an estimate of the resources they needed, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And you told us that you thought that it was unusual that he told his team to double the number; if they thought they needed 100, to double it to 200. You made that comment; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. It didn’t seem odd enough to you, though, to record in your notes, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You made a lot of notes, Superintendent, about Ottawa Police. You’ve made notes about rumours and innuendo and what people told you some other guy said all kinds of times, haven’t you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you didn’t -- so can I put it this way: That whatever Chief Sloly said that you didn’t record in your notes, you didn’t think it was important enough to imagine that the number that they came back with, 1,800, when they came back 24 hours later with a number, that there was some lack of validity or integrity to that number, did you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You didn’t -- yeah. And did you tell Chief Sloly or anyone that you weren’t going to take action in respect of their request for resources because you had heard him make a comment to his team, that you didn’t record in your notes, but that you were going to use to deny them resources that they wanted?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So what did you think that was going to do, Superintendent? Did you think that was going to get them the help they needed, or did you think that was going to cause people to believe that there was no actual number that they needed that had any validity? What did you think you were doing with that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what were you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What were you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m sorry. Go ahead, Superintendent; how were you protecting the members of the OPP?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Would you agree with me that it had the effect of causing your people, and everybody else, to think that what Chief Sloly was asking for to help the citizens of this city and to help the Government of Canada and to help his own Police Service, did you think you were helping him, or them?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. And so of course we now know, don’t we, that the 1,800 estimate that his team put together was exactly right; maybe it was a little under, actually. You know that, don’t you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. So it wasn’t a rabbit pulled from a hat, and it wasn’t a bunch of numbers that were just randomly doubled, was it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you accept now that it wasn’t a number pulled from a hat; that his team worked very hard to actually get the number that they needed? Do you accept that now?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s, of course ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m sorry.---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Of course. Superintendent, go ahead.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you look at it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No. Did you look at the numbers that were on the table that his team put together?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So before you even looked at it, you made the statement that it was an overestimate, and it was not a valid number; you didn’t even look at it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You cast doubt on it, didn’t you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fine. And then you passed that on to the Minister.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You passed on -- you passed on an incorrect number to the Minister, didn’t you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The Minister, the Solicitor- General?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you see the Minister’s statement?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Let’s move to the second one, then, if you want to think it is a second event. Did you pass on the number to the Minister ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I had moved on to the statement that the Minister made.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m happy to go back if you want.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Minister on that basis issued a statement to the public, and in the House, in the Legislature; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. And it was erroneous?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, there weren't 1,500 OPP officers here, were there?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And that impacted, you now know this, it impacted what the RCMP considered the Ottawa Police Service needed, it impacted the way the public in Ottawa thought that the OPS was handling the matter, it impacted the Council and all of the other things, didn't it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, and did you tell -- what steps did you take to tell the Solicitor General that the information upon which she was relying was -- had been misunderstood, misinterpreted? Any steps?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you tell your Commanding Officer ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that that had happened?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Two quick things: The bridge. Have you seen Chief Sloly's news conference of February the 4th that you told the Commission about yesterday?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So you're relying on your memory from February 4th?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, I don't have the time to play it for you, but he never said that he was going to close bridges. What he said in his news conference was that consideration was being given to that, and that bridges or accesses -- access would be closed if needed or as needed. He didn't say he was closing bridges; did he?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm sorry to interrupt you. And you were told by Deputy Bell that you had misheard it, that there were no bridges being closed; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Same thing, though. Deputy Bell said ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He gave you the same answer. "You have misunderstood it. No one's closing a bridge, no one's closing an offramp. Relax."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Quick thing about the PLT. This PLT team, unfortunately, never had any success in negotiating the departure of convoy participants or protesters; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So prior to the -- I should have been clearer, thank you. Prior to the public order operation going into effect to clear these streets, PLT had not succeeded in negotiating an end to this protest, had they?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And so the Coventry Road issue, what PLT had negotiated, am I correct, was that protesters could take their fuel from Coventry Road and place it in a different depo?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as my friend, Mr. van Niejenhuis had asked, the fuel on Coventry Road, whether it's on Coventry Road or it's somewhere else, was a significant public safety risk; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if PLT negotiated that they're going to move the fuel from Coventry Road to a different depo, you could appreciate why Ottawa Police Service would be very concerned; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So you would not -- you're not telling the Commissioner that you're second-guessing the operational decision to seize fuel if that was a public safety risk; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you. And then, Windsor. The information that was available to OPP did not -- was not sufficient to allow it to avoid the blockade at Windsor.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And resources have to be allocated among the OPP detachments across the province so that when we saw the note from your colleague in Windsor about whether Windsor was a priority over Ottawa, that's a decision that has to be made at the level of the -- of OPP resource allocation; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- as to the Emergencies Act, the OPP, PLT notes to protesters included and relied upon terms under the Emergencies Act; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m Tom Curry. Nice to meet you. Chief Pardy, the events that you became involved in in the first week of February, I think the 8th?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Unprecedented, in your experience?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And unforeseen by anyone in your command in the northeast region at the time that the convoy protestors who came through the northeast travelled through there? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And in your command at that time, did the OPP have an opportunity for you to share your conclusions or what was going on in the northeast as the convoy came along?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the -- if I follow that, you were in the Sioux, your team is running the convoy, observing the convoy, presumably you had squad cars, marked vehicles, unmarked vehicles ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- in the presence of the convoy as they came into and exited your region?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And passed along whatever intelligence could be gathered about the scale of the protest and those PLT interactions?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. So does Orillia -- well, two things -- thank you for that. Two things. Northeast Region would never have, on that basis, been in contact with anybody at OPS at that stage.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What Northeast Region does, is feeds that intelligence into Orillia, a Central Command. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then would it be -- in your experience, would it be expected that if there was something to be gained from that intelligence, that should be shared with a partner police service, here Ottawa ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that it would be passed along to say “Something troublesome your way is coming”.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And is the -- are the briefings that you had, would we understand the same information that you had if we read the Hendon reports?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It made the -- in your view, the PLT effort to engage protestors with that agenda -- well, first of all, it was unsuccessful, wasn’t it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, the PLT didn’t negotiate the departure of protestors until the moments before the public order plan, your plan ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. And the -- at the time that they came through the Northeast Region, your team would have been in touch, presumably, with the next region over, which I guess is this region, the East Region.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And you, yourself, personally, had no contact with anyone in the Ottawa Police Service until the moment that you got a call from your Deputy Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, OPS for a minute, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that they would not have had, on their own, with their own resources, a policing solution. They needed help.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they have -- you’ve told us that you’ve been part of providing help to the OPS over the years, as has the RCMP.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as have other municipal police services.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you’ve worked with that group, you told us, on other occasions. And that would be the universe of resource -- pools of resources. Would that be right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Assuming that we’re not going to go another step into military -- aid to civil power through the military, just sticking with police services, it’s OPP, RCMP, municipal police services and I suppose I should add the Parliamentary Protective Service.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the resources that they needed were the subject of estimates provided by the OPS through communications from Chief Sloly to Commissioner Carrique and to Commissioner Lucki, among others. Did you ever see the spreadsheet of the resource requests that had been made to Commissioner Carrique, for example?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the objective when a police - - and I appreciate it’s unprecedented, so you have not seen previously a municipal police force that has been overwhelmed by protestors as this one was.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the main -- the main objective from the perspective now of an Ottawa Police Service would be to get the help it needs to restore order in the community.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you learned probably from your briefings and you observed firsthand that the situation was quite grave here in Ottawa during the time of the -- of that protest.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There -- obviously, residents were in distress and the city was quite -- in its core, quite paralyzed.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And as to the police service, when we speak about a service that is overwhelmed, the best they could do with their own resources was -- I think I saw in one of your notes was that they could maintain control of the perimeter.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they were not possessed of the -- of sufficient resources to mobilize any kind of operation.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, when the circumstances are those circumstances, would you agree with me that the top priority for that police service is to get help?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And to try to reach out to policing partners, OPP, RCMP, the ones that we talked about; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that -- and to define -- try the best you can to define the resources that you need.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you are in the -- understandably, from the perspective of the Ottawa Police Service, they need to know what resources are available from other municipal services, OPP or RCMP; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the resource demand at -- here in Ottawa was matched by demands in other communities we know, including Windsor.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I don’t know -- it probably doesn’t matter, but the Windsor blockade of the Ambassador Bridge took -- arose following the convoy protest here in Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Was the -- to your knowledge, was the OPP able to prevent that blockade? Did it try to prevent that blockade?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, that’s fine. But it -- but once the blockade in Windsor was established, OPP resources were required there.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at an overlapping period here with respect to Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, a couple of things, if I can. The -- just as to resources and operations, you told us about a plan that was reviewed -- it didn’t go ahead, but a plan that was reviewed here in Ottawa by the OPS to go block by block through the protest and you favoured a one-time, one operation start to finish; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Am I right that the -- that as it was defined at the time it was defined that the OPS team had devised a block-by-block strategy because that reflected the resources that they had at that time? Does that make sense?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And resource demands -- resource requests, I think you told us that you took action when you -- against -- you made a resource request against what you said, I think, was a concept of plan or a concept of strategy.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Concept of operations. That’s a little less than a plan. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. They had a concept of plan.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You had a more detailed one.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They had a plan; the Integrated Team brought a more detailed one.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, a couple of quick things, if I can, then, just about -- in terms of the plan for a second. Could I please show you a document? It’s, Madam Registrar, OPS three zeros 10470, please? I think you’ve seen this, Chief Pardy. This is -- I don’t know if I’ve got it. Could you scroll down, please, there it is. So you were copied on this. So you see the first email, it’s from ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Phil Lue. And I’m afraid I don’t know his rank.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Supt. Lue. Thank you. He writes to you and mainly to Deputy Chief (Acting) Ferguson, and do you see this? He says: “...find attached a PowerPoint deck that outlines the plan we have been working on. Obviously this plan originated with your plan, which we examined, bolstered and strengthened.” Fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that was your approach?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Thank you. And I just want to show you one other document, just to see if... Please could I, Madam Registrar, switch out to OPS -- I think this one has four zeros, 9639. Yeah. So this is 10th of February to the long list there. Mostly it’s -- this is your own service, and it looks like other services, other municipal services. Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the re line -- if we could just scroll down, please: “As a follow up to our earlier...call, many police agencies have expressed an ability to support Ottawa Police Service...with front line boots on the ground. Our Integrated Planning Cell composed of...are mobilizing resources in support....Could I please ask that any agency which has officers you can deploy to support the Plan to please respond to [that OPP email address] with the number of officers you have available, when...available and for how long.” You sent that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were able to send out that call for help for resource assistance on the end of that call for help, for resource assistance on the 10th of February, prior to the finalization of your plan after you had your concept ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Indeed. And that -- when you looked back at what -- or looked at what you were dealing with when you got to Ottawa, am I right that that’s the kind of thing Chief Sloly had been trying to do up until that time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Could I show the witness, please, OPP, I think four zeros 1389? Just get your help, if I could, Chief Pardy, with a couple of other things. This is a situation report. Maybe -- can I see page 8? I’m not certain; I might have the wrong number. If that’s the case, I’ll take this down. But could I see page 8, please?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, I’ve got the wrong one. All right. I’m going to back to it, unless I’m whisked off the stage. Can I speak for a minute about what you told us about Chief Sloly? No doubt is there, Chief Pardy, that Chief Sloly had the hardest job in the country during the time he was the Chief during this time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The city was under siege and the Service was under siege.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know anything at all when you got there about the circumstances of Chief Sloly’s tenure as the Chief of Police?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And any difficulties that he faced here in Ottawa, either with issues that arose because of his race or issues that arose because of his inability to lead the change that he had been asked to lead?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Clearly he had, at the time that you observed it, a very difficult relationship with his command team.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And others ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- below the senior command. He -- you agree that you observed during the time that you were here, or maybe even before you got here, there were political issues that were raised about Ottawa Police Services handling of this crisis.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Both at the Ministry of the Solicitor-General, with some controversies about what resources were here or not, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at the level of the federal government, with political leaders making statements about what was going on in their city.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All of which added to the complexity and challenge here for him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you also -- I take it towards the end of your time here you became aware that the Police Services Board and the Municipal Council had expectations of Chief Sloly and the Service; that they would tell them that there was a plan and indeed be briefed upon it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s how you were -- you were asked to go, and you checked in with your Commissioner to see if you should?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you know, the Board has certain roles and responsibilities, and he felt it would be appropriate for me to make a presentation to the Board in light of those key responsibilities the Board has, which I understood. And that -- but, again, that can only be done with Chief Sloly’s approval.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And it’s unusual, in your experience, to brief political actors on operations plans.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so a couple of other quick things, if I can? Were you aware that a member of Chief Sloly’s service, the OPS, contacted Supt. Morris about his attendance at the briefing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Without telling Chief Sloly that he was going to do that; you didn’t know anything about that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you aware as to how the senior command had divided its responsibilities here for this event, and particularly did you know that Chief -- Deputy Chief, rather, Ferguson was responsible for the plan?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that Deputy Chief Bell was responsible for the intelligence lead.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. I think I’ve now -- with help from my colleague, Commissioner, I’ve got the number I was trying to show the witness. I think it’s three zeros, Madam Registrar, 1839, please. Bear with me, Chief Pardy. If this is not it, I -- I’ll -- okay, here we go. February 10th. Just to orient you, this is a -- these are minutes of an Integrated Planning Cell meeting. You talked about it, I think, earlier. Just the attendees, am I correct -- just stopping there -- all of the attendees are from OPP, RCMP or other non-OPS police services?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was -- just scroll down, if we could, to page 2. And a little bit further if we could. Okay. Stop there for a second. One of the things you were asked by my friend, Mr. Au, is whether thought had been given to taking over the meeting this -- and taking over the -- from the police of jurisdiction?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you indicated that, no, that was not the plan?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. There was some suggestion within the group on the 10th. You’ll see from the RCMP to support the -- just up -- you’ll read -- just stop there. Thank you. Slowly go back. There was suggestion from the RCMP that maybe you should take over. And you’ll see it says, and I’ve forgotten his rank, Tetreault is ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. “OPS saves face on this - the OPS, in its own words, is on its knees. We remove OPS from this slowly, over the course of 4 [to] 6 or 8 shift cycles. They’re exhausted. They go back to work and police the rest of the City. We’re going to build a police detachment - incident policed by another police service within your city. Same as a terrorist plane crash…” And so on. Just then scroll down. You said: “[The] OPS is listening to their tactical advisors […]. This is brainstorm.” RCMP, I’ll use instead of the word Tetreault, but: “…presents a viable plan. Is that the only plan? No. Is it an option that should be given consideration? Absolutely.” I won’t go through the rest of it, but at this meeting, consideration was given to thinking about replacing OPS?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One of the -- is it fair to say that one of the things that may have eroded trust between the Integrated Cell Team and Chief Sloly, and maybe others, was the idea that maybe there was a plan to replace OPS?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Page 8 of this document, please. This is just -- just shifting gears for one second. Chief Pardy, help us, if you could, with the issue of Windsor. There’s some references here to the demands on -- just scroll down I think, please. There we go. “RCMP POU will get to Windsor tomorrow. OPP has to pivot - if Windsor is a priority, they have to pivot.” Translation -- or the point being made that Windsor is going to take resources away from, of course, from Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Scroll down a little bit. Last bullet point on this, words attributed to you. There’s -- last point: “RCMP advises 60 hotel rooms [are] available in Vanier…” And that’s on account of the fact that 60 POU members had to go to Windsor -- you had the rooms, but you didn’t have the personnel because, of course, for the reasons you’ve given, Windsor required them?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One thing I forgot to ask you when I talked for a moment about Chief Sloly and his circumstances, I think you told us that he was unable to attend one of the meetings, he had a different commitment. Am I right that that commitment was a risk threat assessment against him personally?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And that was a death threat?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There were other death threats that came to your attention?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Municipal politicians, presumably?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Many others. Then could I just ask then, finally, PLT. PLT, in your experience with PLT, they have had success and they have been unable, sometimes, to bring protests to an end on their own without further police action?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Excuse me, Mr. Commissioner, I believe before we get to the party for the witnesses, the Ottawa Coalition did have five minutes, and the party for the witness usually gets to go last.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Chief Bell, I'm Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Just a couple -- if I can get your help for the Commissioner on a few things today? Just going back, if I could, to the pre-convoy period, so prior to the convoy issues, and just a couple of questions about the Ottawa Police Service, we have had some other evidence about the circumstances of the Service and the strain on resources prior to the convoy's arrival. Did you also experience that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In addition to that, and perhaps it’s subsumed in what you described, but we understood that you had lost some experienced personnel to retirement?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Was there also, prior to the convoy, an incident in the City of Ottawa, or in and around the City of Ottawa, that concerned a large industrial area and an explosion or fire called Merivale?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, I raise that because there were -- during the time that you -- that -- the senior command in the service during the time of the convoy was Chief Sloly, as you described, Acting Deputy Ferguson, and yourself. You had worked successfully on other incidents and under incident management systems, including at Merivale? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And the -- there were as I understand it, no issues prior to the episode that we’ll come to talk about in terms of the convoy, no issues in the way the police service was functioning at the senior command level in relation to incident command? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as between -- in terms of you and Chief Sloly, you had a good productive working relationship with him and with Acting Deputy Ferguson?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You told the Commissioner that there were command meetings amongst that group that you just described every morning, including during the convoy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And during the time of the convoy, it’s no exaggeration to say that at the Ottawa Police Service, that it was truly all hands on deck?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Leaves and time off were cancelled?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Shifts were extended?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s what I -- I should have been clearer. That’s what I meant. Beyond the command team, leaves, as I understand it, whether they be holidays, or for any other reason, perhaps other than illness, were cancelled for your members across the entire service? Everyone was required to stay on duty?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when we speak about shifts being extended, with the Ottawa Police Association, the service reached an accommodation to provide the resources that it needed to get through this protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. As you have told the Commissioner, I anticipate that your colleague Chief Sloly will say that this protest represented a paradigm shift in the way protest is understood, in the sense that you’ve described, the use of -- you’ve described the leverage -- leveraging the community for the protestors.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And therefore, in your opinion, a national security threat?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In terms of intelligence, you told my friend Mr. Au that there were -- within the intelligence directorate, there were members of your team who did receive the Hendon Reports. You were not on that list at that time, but your colleagues were including them among the other pieces of intelligence that they used?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was -- it came in through your directorate and the idea was to make certain that -- try to make certain, to the extent that it could be -- to the best extent it could be done, to send into Acting Deputy Ferguson’s planning efforts?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could I please just have your help looking at that plan that was dated, I believe, January 29th? So this is, for the Registrar, OPS000003531. Other witnesses have seen this and you’ve -- I think you told us, while it’s coming up, that you saw it, but at the time, it was presented? Thank you. Now could we look, please -- just scroll down, if we could. I want to get your help. First of all, the plan approvals are there, but just go through to the threat assessment. I think you’ve told us that there were -- to the best of your team’s knowledge, this was expected to be a weekend event with the possibility, as you’ve told us, that some people may hold on afterwards. But the number of those people was not considered to represent a material threat that required that something be done differently with this protest? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there is a -- there was an egress plan, I think, or an egress section. I think that’s my bound one there. Maybe my colleague could just pass that along and I’ll get you the exact page. But meanwhile, Ms. Registrar, we can scroll down. It’s -- you’ll see the heading. Sorry about that. There it is. What I want to show you -- thanks so much. What I want to show you is section 3.2, please. It’s under the heading “Event Stages”. You’ll see -- do you see that? And just -- I’ll let you just a have a look at it, but I want to -- You'll see it's three stages ingress demonstrations. The purpose of the event for participants to express their lawful opinions and so on?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then three, Egress: "It is expected participants will leave the city at different times depending on their personal intents. The egress period could continue for an extended period and this stage will continually be assessed and reassessed to determine the appropriate supports that are required to manage." Does that refresh your recollection that it was thought that it's a large group of people, they are not all going to go at the same time, they'll go over a period of time, and we will assess that as it unfolds?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then finally, just if I could ask you to look with us at 3.6.5. Do you see contingency staffing for a prolonged event: "Due to the unknow[n] nature of this event. Staff[ing] will be revised..." This may be a typo there, but: "...mid. Should the operational period be extended. Staffing plans would include resources in the following order;..." And they are set out there. So there was, again, some thought given to the possibility that this event may be prolonged and additional staffing needs could arise. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now so far as you knew from your contact with Superintendent Abrams, and you told us about the role that he played and that you played, so far as you knew from him, that you were not -- you should not be doing anything differently than you were doing. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, he raised no concern about the plan.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- in terms of the role that Superintendent Abrams had, he was the Strategic Operations lead, OPP, and he asked you to be in effect a conduit of information to Acting Deputy Ferguson.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. At the time that the convoy participants began to enter the City of Ottawa, you believed, and fair to say that OPS Command believed that they were dealing with people who intended to protest lawfully?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that the resources that OPS had available to it would be adequate to meet the needs of the community to protect the community, and of course, to allow the protesters to protest safely. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the -- beyond the OPP and Superintendent Abrams, would I be right that there was no intelligence brought to your attention from any source that alerted you to the scope or the scale or the duration or the degree of disobedience and criminal behaviour that you experienced?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now of course, the -- had any intelligence come to your attention in the days, even the few days prior to the convoy commencing, I think you told my friend, Mr. Au, you would have faced a significant challenge with the resources that the OPS had available?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. The number of commercial vehicles, trucks in particular, that came to the city would have presented a significant challenge in terms of logistics as to where they could be diverted without cooperation from the operators. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That's what I wondered. And you could provide the Commissioner with assistance in this respect. Put another way, had the protesters adopted the perspective and defiance, I'll use that word, that they demonstrated in refusing to leave when requested to do so in the -- towards the end of January, then the 1,800 plus, I suppose it was maybe closer to 1,900, service personnel would have been required to manage them prior to their arrival in the downtown core of Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And indeed, would you go further to say that some of the extraordinary powers that were used as - - available to be used as a tool would also have been required in the event that they resisted cooperating with direction or lawful orders?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair to say that there was no time to have drawn the plans that you're talking about or to have made the resource requests of the OPP, RCMP, and other municipal police forces in the short time that you had available prior to the protest arrival in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And one of the things the Commissioner has heard is that there is a -- perhaps a fair question about whether resource requests should proceed ahead of plans or plans should be in place before resource requests. In this case, do you agree that once the protesters arrived and you saw what you were dealing with, as you've described it, that the most urgent thing that this city required was resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so in the case of Chief Sloly, you support the idea that he was making requests of his policing -- your and his policing partners for the, in this case 1,800 personnel, that were reasonably expected to be required to deal with the protesters?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in terms of that, I appreciate you were present with others at a meeting where Chief Sloly requested the team to assemble the information that would allow that number to be known. Turned out to be 1,800. Do you accept that your team and the Ottawa Police Service made a good-faith effort to define the resources that were needed actually?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the numbers and specific roles actually map on reasonably closely, don’t they?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. Can I get your help on this? So far as you know from the meeting -- and I’ve seen your notes. There isn’t a note of this, just to orient you to that. You didn’t make any notes that Chief Sloly said give me a -- fix a number a then double it. That’s not the method that he chose to follow, is it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Now, so far as -- a couple of other things, if I can just again for the -- make sure I get this right. I understand the Ottawa Police Service or perhaps the City has an arrangement with the Government of Canada to provide policing services in and around the Parliamentary precinct that are beyond the Parliamentary Police Services and that there is an MOU or another arrangement that -- by which the Government of Canada pays the Ottawa Police Service the sum of $3 million for that -- for those policing services?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Understood. Is that under review after the -- after this event?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of things about Incident Management Systems, IMS or ICS, Incident Command Systems, you mentioned that that was a process that is well understood and had been used in the City of Ottawa by the Ottawa Police Service.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you described to the Commissioner that the border zone between strategic decisions, operational decisions and tactical decisions is not -- these are not bright lines.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In this case, prior to this convoy protest, I understand that you, Chief Sloly, Acting Deputy Ferguson had functioned, I think you told us earlier, in the Incident Command System effectively; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There was no -- you didn’t have an experience in which someone was introducing or thought to be intruding on operations or tactics from the level of strategy prior to this.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And those -- his involvement in those matters was not -- was not considered to be problematic. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- for example, I understand one of those might have been the Black Lives Matter protests that occurred in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd in custody.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- to the extent that when we came to this unprecedented protest here brought about as in the -- in the convoy that Chief Sloly and probably others were facing unprecedented circumstances that strained the ICS system as well.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And in -- is it fair to say that from your long career in policing that this is unlikely to have -- the circumstances here facing the Ottawa Police Service and the City of Ottawa would not have been handled any differently in -- by any other municipal police service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Okay. PLT. At the time of the convoy protest, am I right that there were 14 members in the Ottawa Police Service PLT? And I appreciate they’re part-time members that included two Sergeants?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
National Framework on Demonstrations was a -- is a framework that, prior to the convoy protests, am I right, you were not familiar with yourself?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the PLT -- the work of the PLT in this case included a couple of aspects that you -- I believe you did become involved and you’ve told us about a couple of them. Can I just get your help with them? The issue of the fuel stored at Coventry, you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Am I right that what the PLT team had negotiated was the removal of fuel that was stored at Coventry and the -- they wished to allow it to go downtown to the protestors who were using that fuel to operate their vehicles?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That’s fine. Can I get this from you, that you spoke with S/Sgt. Ferguson, who was then running PLT or on the ground in respect of PLT, concerning an issue that had arisen about enforcement, that Supt. Patterson took enforcement steps to intercept those -- the conveyance of the fuel; do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, sure. So this -- this easiest place for us to find this, I think, in the time that I have is to look at S/Sgt. Ferguson’s summary in his interview, if I could show you that. It’s your notes also but let me just see if I can find the reference to S/Sgt. Ferguson’s statement if I have -- and which I don’t have. I don’t know what I did with it. Hang on one second. I do have. Mr. Registrar, forgive me for the delay -- WTS0000027, and could we go to page 7, please? “Coventry Road”, do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Scroll down.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, yeah, by all means. The stuff that I’m interested is a little later so I could probably spare you this part, but ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- there’s a reference to your conversations. If we could just scroll down, please. There it is. Just try 4:40. Do you see February 6th ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- "Superintendent Patterson advised Staff Sergeant Ferguson…would be seizing fuel…" And there was a conversation between Supt. Patterson and S/Sgt. Ferguson?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Staff -- next paragraph: "… attempted unsuccessfully to convince others in OPS not to proceed with the public order Operation…"
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Insp. Marin told him that the fuel was not to leave. And there, at 5:10, that’s what I’m interested in: " Staff Sergeant Ferguson contacted Deputy Chief Bell and advised him that the enforcement operation would undermine PLT’s negotiations, which had been proceeding for at least two hours. Staff Sergeant Ferguson informed Deputy Chief Bell that protestors were compliant." At 5:18: " Deputy Chief Bell contacted Staff Sergeant Ferguson and informed him that he agreed with Superintendent Patterson’s decision. Later that evening, Staff Sergeant Ferguson learned that Deputy Chief Bell supported Superintendent Patterson’s decision because three convoy vehicles had left the Coventry Road site and were transporting fuel to supply protestors downtown." Does that assist your recollection? These -- the footnotes, I think, might go to your notes or his notes but there are some notes of yours I could take you to. But does that assist your recollection that ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And this is an example, isn’t it, of PLT negotiating something that did not fit with your strategic direction that fuel was not to go from Coventry Road fuel depots downtown where it would presumably present and even grater public safety risk; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Although wouldn’t it be an example of PLT not -- if they didn’t know where it was going, that’s its own problem.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think -- and there’s some other information I think the Commissioner might hear that they did know where it was going. So if they -- if they -- when we speak about or when the Commissioner hear about “PLT autonomy”, do you agree that the PLT could never operate completely autonomously because, for example, they might come to a conclusion that lies in the opposite direction of strategic direction from those who have more information like, for example, you, in this case; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No disagreement. I think Chief Sloly will say the same thing. It just -- when we come -- when it comes to specific examples, just like with the strategic, operational, and tactical, there are not bright lines; there has to be good communication between PLT and operations; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. There were other examples I’ve seen in the record. I’ll give you one. Do you recall a circumstance in which PLT negotiators wanted to bring Porta- potties, portable toilets, into the red zone or into the protestors with no quid pro quo, just a sign of -- I suppose a sign of good faith, and that was a decision that was not shared by -- or a goal or objective that was not shared by strategic command? Does that ring a bell with you, that that negotiation took place?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And running the other way was incredible community anger. You were dealing with angry residents.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. I’ll take the description that you gave; they were suffering.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you and Chief Sloly, Deputy Chief Ferguson, and everyone in the service was trying to do their best, in good faith, to help resolve this problem?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the -- one small thing, did you ever go to a BIA meeting with Chief Sloly as part of the community outreach during the protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Your -- you told us that, in a public statement at least -- just dealing with the public statements -- Chief Sloly did not promise or declare to the public that he was going to close bridges, only that that was something that would be considered; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. In the same way, can I ask you about the statement that Chief Sloly made that there may not be a policing solution alone to this protest. That statement, I expect the Commission will hear, was made at a briefing of Council and Police Services Board at which you were also in attendance. It lasted many hours. Do you recall that meeting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It is a multiple hours long ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- briefing. February 2.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And indeed, you and Deputy Ferguson were allowed to leave to get back to work after I think about the three-and-a-half-hour mark. Chief Sloly was asked to remain to answer questions. But does it refresh your recollection to know that at that meeting you and Deputy Ferguson spoke about the steps -- and Chief Sloly, spoke about the steps that were being taken to initiate enforcement activity, to protect the community and stabilize the circumstances that residents were experiencing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I won't -- I'll take -- I'll leave it there. Suffice it to say that it's a fair conclusion that the policing solution that was required to be implemented to deal with the convoy protest involved more resources than the Ottawa Police Service had.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And additional statutory or government action in the form of the emergency measures that you told my friend about.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now then a couple of things, if I can quickly, and last -- maybe the last thing based on my time being up, the Superintendent Abrams told us that he brought to your attention a number of issues from time to time. Is it fair to say that you exercised your judgment as to whether you would take those issues to Chief Sloly or not? They didn't all go to Chief Sloly, for example?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I have no other questions for you. Thank you, Chief, sir.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner, Superintendent.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm Tom Curry for Chief Sloly. Could I just pick up something you said to us at the end about the nature of the event that you have been describing in 2022 here in Ottawa? I think you said it was unbelievable, what you experienced ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- what you witnessed.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you say it was the largest public order operation in our country's history?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- Chief Sloly has -- and probably others involved in this have described it as a -- "representing a paradigm shift in public protest", a significant change in the way that public protests have been expressed up until that time; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. You have been involved, as you've told us, in attempting to resolve public protests in many other circumstances. Can you give the Commissioner a sense, from your experience, of the -- of what made this different? First of all, is it the scale of the protest that you observed?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- would you say that the scope of it, in terms of its affecting an urban area outside of paralyzing the city in the fashion that it did, would that represent a reason why this was an unprecedented occurrence?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, then I'd want to come to the -- my friend, Mr. Brosseau, has already taken you to the App for Action memorandum that you sent, I think, February 25th in which you flagged for your command some issues that they should be thinking about -- we should all be thinking about -- as directly relating to this new experience that you had.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- in addition to that -- just go back to the -- to your experience and this protest. Would you say that the demeanour or attitude of the protestors was different than you had experienced, having regard to the scale and the scope?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. It is, and maybe I can get your help with this. We have learned from other witnesses that this protest featured a lot of people protesting about different things. That’s new for you too?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it. So then in your experience, this one featured -- although I take your point or we all take your point about the idea that people might come to a protest with different things in mind as grievances -- this one amplified and magnified that phenomenon?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, the -- in advance of the protest, the Commissioner has heard that the OPP and other police services were monitoring the convoys as they crossed their various geographic regions, and your PLT team was involved in that in some fashion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I think you call it "pre- planning"?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And were you personally involved in any of that pre-planning or was it your team?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Is it fair to say that when you were looking at the briefings that you were seeing from the folks out in the field, that you did not anticipate that this would be -- what was coming would be the country's largest public order event in its history?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- and we've learned from others -- the Commissioner has learned from others that it was fluid, people have used the word "volatile". There are a number of ways to describe it. But it was very hard to get a bead on this event; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. The uncomfortable bed, in this -- sticking with that metaphor, ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you would not welcome them to the community; you would try to make certain that they were -- well, you used the language of “Hardening the target”?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You would make it less pleasant, rather than more pleasant; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And one of the things that was -- getting back to your team, and the best information you had, nobody predicted or could have predicted that the protesters would get that balance so badly out of whack; that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Shared by OPP PLT or up through ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Got it, okay. Now, when you got to Ottawa, I think you told us it was the 3rd of February.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you participated in the events that you’ve described to us. You had a chance virtually, I think, to meet Chief Sloly and other people in the command?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you present at meetings with Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I see.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So from your -- from the information that you have directly, your own direct knowledge, you would tell the Commissioner that Chief Sloly didn’t interfere with any of the OPP PLT operations; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. You wouldn’t -- were you told at any time by your team, or I suppose it would be the OPS PLT team, that Chief Sloly had included them in those meetings that you’re talking about having attended when you got there, for example, starting February 1?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And in terms of the -- what you learned from Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson -- can I just show you, get your help with one document? And this would be, please, Mr. Registrar, OPP171. So I think that comes to five zeros. Just get your help with one thing. I think you -- you were asked, just while this is coming up, Superintendent, I think you were asked by -- that’s the 12th. If we could just stop there for a sec. Just go down a little bit, sorry, please. And one more scroll down, just to set the context. You’ve reviewed some of this with us earlier -- or that the bottom? Then please -- there we go. So there you are, February 12th, you see that 11:47 to the Commissioner of the OPP among others, Deputy Commissioner, “...please check the list of leaders.” This is the chain, of course, from Minister Stewart that you talked about: “Commissioner, for the sake of time I am going straight to you for the below confirmation that you are approving of the following with [Deputy Minister] Stewart through conversation? I will call...[for] your approval. Note the quick turnaround. Respectfully,...” And now please just go up. That’s the 12th in the morning. Commissioner Carrique says: “Thanks...good advice to me. It does not bind the police to anything. Is the [Deputy Minister] aware that it is subject to Ottawa Police supporting the overall strategy.” And then please just a little further up, and you write back to him. “Yes he has been told...” -- that would be Mr. Stewart has been told that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you described you were: “...in continual contact with [Deputy] Chief Ferguson who has sent...an email I will forward to this group for awareness.” And then you did that. Please, could I show the witness OPP163, with all of the preceding zeros? I just want to get your confirmation, Superintendent, that what you did was you showed -- you see that in the middle, right -- just there. Thank you. At 12:06, just after that conversation electronically that you had with the Commissioner, you said, “From OPS” and you forwarded Deputy Chief Ferguson’s email of February 11th at 2:44. Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s what you were saying to the Commissioner, “Yes, I’ve been in touch with OPS”; ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- “it’s covered.”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Scroll down, if you don’t mind, please, just to confirm one thing. What you learned from Deputy Chief Ferguson was that to the extent that there had been any doubt about anything as to PLT, Chief Sloly had confirmed that, in the second paragraph, Chief Ferguson writes: “I was directed by the Chief to ensure our PLT team is fully integrated to a level of my satisfaction. In order for that to happen, I needed an understanding, from you - the Subject Matter Expert, on how that could be done.” And then -- and you had continuous dialogue with her. So the issues about the federal government’s possible negotiation with protesters was run through OPS through Deputy Chief Ferguson; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I expect Chief Sloly’s going to say he had nothing -- didn’t know about it until now, but didn’t need to know about it because that authority had been given to Deputy Chief Ferguson. You didn’t engage with Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And these events in Ottawa about which you’ve been speaking, affected other parts of the country, is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Not only in our province within your authority, of course we had Windsor going on, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You were speaking to your command team or involved, at least, in PLT issues in Windsor at the same time, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you get down to Windsor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you also get involved in considering how this protest in Ottawa impacted other infrastructure in Ontario?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I was going to say; we had issues -- the OPP was managing issues outside of Ottawa in Ontario.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Bridges, highways, other installations; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Worried for one thing, that perhaps if this convoy were to leave Ottawa, it might just settle into -- in on another bridge, or it might settle on a highway. You’ve got a thousand trucks, or however many you had to try to manage across the entire geographic area of the province; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So that they agree that when they leave they’re not going to cause another obstruction.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you made aware -- the Commissioner heard evidence from C/Supt. Pardy that there were -- I believe it was C/Supt. Pardy, that there were protesters within the group who wished to leave but could not leave because convoy captains, or however they were organized, were not -- were requiring that they hold the line. Did you become aware of that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A significant problem.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- beyond Ontario, you were -- I think you just told the Commissioner you became involved in assisting or at least in discussing with RCMP officials how this Ottawa protest was impacting British Columbia and other areas within our country that are ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- patrolled by RCMP. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Significant drain on resources.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in terms of this -- back to this one, it was obvious to you when you got here into Ottawa that the Ottawa Police Service had no possibility of managing this event with its own resources. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the -- a couple of things. You told us that you were involved -- you came back up here to -- or across to Ottawa and you were involved in the Public Order operation at the level of the PLT to give protestors the messages that this is coming and you should leave.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And part of the messaging that you gave was that the Emergencies Act had been declared. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You didn’t take part in the drawing of the -- the drafting of the message that was being handed to protestors or ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And one of the consequences that you told the Commissioner, you explained to protestors about the consequences of not leaving would have been all of the consequences that he’s learned about concerning the Emergencies Act.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That was a terrible question. You told the protestors -- and the worst part of that is it counts against my time.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You told the protestors that the consequences of the Emergencies Act would be applied to those who did not leave voluntarily.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Got it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, no, no. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. Last question. Your interview summary refers to OPP Superintendent Dan -- I’m hoping I’m pronouncing it correctly -- Alakas ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- who advised you on the 8th of February that -- words to the effect, you said, that the OPP would be taking over operations in Ottawa. Do you recall him telling you that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And now, you -- did you know anything about how that was meant to happen or anything more about it than that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And you were part of those -- you did appear at some of the Integrated Planning Cell meetings. I think there are minutes that show ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Superintendent, thanks very much.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Superintendent, I’m Tom Curry.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of things if I can get your help, please, for the Commissioner. Your -- prior to these events, you told us that you were an Inspector, first of all. You have -- you had a promotion between then and now. Is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So we’ll have our fingers crossed for you. You were an Inspector in the Communications Branch within the Information Directorate.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Reporting through what we learned were the three Is. You’re one of the Is to Deputy Chief Bell at the time.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And just assist us, if you can, with the chain of command in your regular work, not Incident Command, now -- in your day job, was there -- were there personnel between you and the Deputy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And who lay between you and the Deputy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And anyone -- is there a Chief Superintendent in the structure at the time or is it just Superintendent Drummond to the Deputy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And then within the Information Directorate -- and you told us that’s 911, dispatch and the like; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And within that Directorate, can you give the Commissioner an idea about the number of personnel?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Just your branch, please.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And does that include civilians?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And then if I follow, the way that Incident Command works, Event Command works, in the case of an event or an incident, then a person with your training can be deployed to assume the role of event commander or incident commander, as you have described? Is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then in that -- and just for the -- this is an extraordinary event that occurred here; isn’t it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Unprecedented and not only in the -- not only, I understand, in the history of the Ottawa Police Service, but as we’ve learned from witnesses from the Ontario Provincial Police, in their history as well in terms of the size of this deployment.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you told us -- you gave us an example of another kind of event, a shooting here in Ottawa on Parliament Hill, that was an event that you ran? Is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Reporting to an incident commander who reported to an event commander?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Who reported to?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. So in every case of an event, there is an executive level or superior officer ending with the Chief? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And so when we speak about -- come to speak about incident command and incident command models, and you’ve explained the various forms of those, all roads lead to the Chief, or in the case of the Ontario Provincial Police or the RCMP to a Commission? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Because the -- and when we speak about -- when you’ve told the Commissioner about autonomy and the wisdom of autonomy, autonomy should be understood to fit into a framework that has ultimate authority in the chief; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. In other words, do I have it that within the execution of the role, you wanted the autonomy that is bestowed under those models to an event commander?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That does not mean, and we should not understand it to mean, that you are completely autonomous?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Because the Chief of Police, or the Commissioner of the police service, if it’s organized in that fashion, remains responsible to provide adequate and effective policing in the jurisdiction?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so the -- when we come to look at and listen to the questions that my friend, Mr. Au, asked you about your interactions with Chief Sloly, you would tell the Commissioner that Chief Sloly had a role to play in respect of this event; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that the issues that we -- you spoke to us about concerning Chief Sloly’s role, and I’ll come to the specifics during the different time frame, but it is not wrong for a Chief of Police to interact with an event commander, first of all; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But we’re not talking -- but we should not understand that the limit of the authority of the Chief of Police, whether in this police service or when Commission Carrique shows up tomorrow, is limited to saying, “Hi, how’s it going? How are you?” We’re not talking about that; are we? It is not -- go back to my question, please, if you don’t mind. It is not wrong for a Chief of Police or a Commissioner of a police service to interact with an event commander; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And not only that, they have a responsibility to set strategic direction; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so it’s -- it -- when we look at the specific things that you have spoken about, we being with the idea that the role of the Chief of the police service, under the event or incident command model includes the responsibility to set strategic direction and to give lawful orders? True?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Incident commanders have operational autonomy within the framework, and we’ll come to speak about this specifically, but the operational framework to carry out those strategic objectives; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And equally, right down the chain, you were on Parliament Hill as a tactical commander. You had autonomy to do certain things and to instruct and direct the team that you had, but there were limits on what -- I presume there were limits on whatever you could do. You sometimes had to go up to the incident commander or event commander; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And these categories, strategic, operational, tactical, are not water tight; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
There is a kind of border zone between each of them, and what you rely on is the kind of dialogue that you spoke to the Commissioner about so that each person playing their role can understand what those -- what is going to happen in trying to fulfil the operation and the mission?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I know that one of the things that you’ve spoken about is how -- tell me the lessons learned, how that structure should be implemented in the future in the case that another event of this scale and magnitude occurs. There are lessons to be learned about the way this worked; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair. Now, go back, if you don’t mind then, just to a couple of things about Chief Sloly. Chief Sloly -- had you been an event commander prior to your being tasked or deployed in this case, February 10th, 2022, had you been an event commander or incident commander under Chief Sloly? I.e., when Chief Sloly was the Chief from October -- just to orient you, that’s October 2019 until ’22.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if I understand your relationship with him in those previous -- on those previous occasions when you served in that role -- and I appreciate they are not like this, this is something completely different, but in those previous experiences you had with him, you and he had a good productive functional working relationship? Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You are probably aware from your dealings with him directly that he was a -- an Inspector Bernier, now Superintendent Bernier fan. He thought you did good work. You knew that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, did you know that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, that's fine. You had a -- you had the kind of relationship in which you could speak frankly and directly to Chief Sloly, and he similarly to you; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, there were -- I don't know. I don't know -- you're smiling, so I don't know where that goes. But you're -- put it this way, you had no issues with Chief Sloly previously.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You agree with me?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And you knew him to be -- in the short time that you interacted with him, you knew him to be a police leader with a national reputation; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And who had come to Ottawa to deliver on a -- on the vision that the Police Services Board had set to embrace certain kinds of changes in the way policing was -- policing services were delivered here in Ottawa; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, when the -- I'm going to come to the period of time when you came back to Ottawa, I think you said January 31, and you began to -- you came back to your regular duties and you spoke with Superintendent Drummond about whether and how you could help; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there -- you had no assignments other than your regular duties until February 3rd?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right? And the -- on February 3rd, you get deployed to the Service Command Centre?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And between the 3rd and the 10th of February, am I right that you did not have any direct dealings with Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. You -- thanks for reminding me of that. Between the 3rd and the 8th, would I be right, you did not have any dealings with Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And during that period of time, the Event Commanders initially were, I believe Inspector or Superintendent Rheaume.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And then that -- a change was made, and you knew -- you understood that change was made by Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson, you understood, was responsible for Operational Planning. True?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Thank you, a better word. Accountable for, just like Deputy Chief Bell was accountable for Intelligence, Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson is accountable for Operational Planning.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So that the Event Commander would report, as we previously discussed, would report, eventually to the Chief, but through the Acting Deputy Chief?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- and you understood the -- when we speak about that responsibility that Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson had, and she has appeared here. Did you see her evidence?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So she explained that that was her -- her mandate included the plans that you saw, I suppose before you, or before the convoy arrived. But her requirement would be to continue to be accountable for the delivery of Operational plans right the way through; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And she makes the change from Superintendent Rheaume, and by the time you came on, on the 10th, and that was at the direction of Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you had -- you knew that she had made the decision to replace Inspector Patterson; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. Well, did you know that it arose, that change arose as a consequence of interaction between Inspector Patterson and Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. And ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, fair enough. And that Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson had placed Inspector Patterson into the role in place of Inspector Dunlop. You knew that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you for the correction. And during that time, each of those Event Commanders would have responsibility within the structure of Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson for Operational Planning; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as you did, when you came on to the scene and drew a plan, so too was it their responsibility for planning?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And although you were not involved directly between the 3rd and the 10th, other than in the way that you describe, just thinking about your direct involvement now for a moment, you were not requested to be involved by those Event Commanders in drawing or writing plans, Operational plans; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And would it be right to say that if Operational Planning was not being done effectively by those Event Commanders that Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson, and ultimately Chief Sloly, would have a responsibility to ensure that some attention was paid to Operational Planning; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you told us that Chief Sloly took the step of requesting plan writers write an Operational Plan. I think you said it maybe on the 8th; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in the absence of an Operational Plan to the 8th of February, you agree with me that it would be the responsibility of the Chief to ensure, or Acting Deputy Chief, to ensure that that was being done?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, when you looked at the -- when you came on, you received a plan, I think you told us the - - it's the plan of the 9th, 3.0 I think it's called. Am I right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And the plan -- the 3.0 plan, the February 9th plan, you were asked by my friend, Mr. Au, what did you -- how could we understand the February 9th plan in relation to the February 13th plan, and then the evolution of the plan, as you talked about to us this morning. Do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you thought they were different plans.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The elements of them, that they contained common elements. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And that's what I was going to get to. You might not have seen that Inspector Lue -- I think I got that rank right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent. I'm going to call everybody Superintendent so I can't go under.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent Lue, the Commissioner has seen a communication from him to Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson in which he referred to their work, his work, at least, the Integrated Teams work as building on the OPS plan of the 9th. And you would accept that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you told us that writing a plan for a mission of this kind would normally take a month. Yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you did not have that luxury here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It nonetheless evolved. By the time you came on to your role, on the 10th, you had a final plan. It was probably still evolving right up until game time, but you had a -- you took from the 10th to about the 17th or 18th; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And the plan of the 9th had its own history that preceded your work; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. The plan of February 9th, the 3.0 plan ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you were -- you did -- you were not involved in writing that plan?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I right, correct that it would have had its own -- it would have taken its own length of time, or an amount of time would have been required to write and develop that plan, obviously?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were not involved in it, but you knew that people -- you now know that people were involved in writing that plan; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, got it. Now the issue of the plan approval for a moment, if I could speak about that, you clarified for my friend Mr. Au that sometimes the word approval appears in your notes, but it means -- we should understand it to mean review or briefing; right? The legal approval wasn't an approval, for example.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you took the step, and sounds like it's a practice that you had followed previously, to ensure that the operational plans that you're developing, particularly in a case of this complexity, did not pose some legal risk to the OPS or protesters?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the Ms. Huneault or the OPS legal was never required to approve the plan, but you did want them to have an eye on the plan and to review it; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in the same way, am I right that in regards to what Chief Sloly had requested in terms of briefings from you to the executive team or otherwise, that what he was requesting was the same kind of review. He wanted to be informed about what the plan was, so that he was in the know, but was not seeking to formally approve it in the fashion that you described; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, can we put it this way? That Chief Sloly did not ever impede the approval of the plan that you developed with your Integrated Planning Cell colleagues?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And -- yes, and you did.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he didn't hold you up; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And can I show you -- tell me whether you've seen this. I'm just going to show you real quick. I think you're on this email chain. Mr. Registrar, if you could help me, OPP I think it's probably 4 0s, but 1547. So could you go to the bottom, please, for me? Is this the last one on the chain? Thank you. So -- thank you. So do you see this? This is from Chief Sloly Feb. 13 to Deputy Ferguson, you and others?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. "Please send me the latest version of the Operations Plan [...] I approved on Wednesday..." Scroll down, please. "...please advise if the plan has received all official approvals/signatures/[et cetera] as there seems to be some concern[...] about this from the RCMP."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It's too fast.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sorry. Sorry to the translators and everyone. "...please advise if the plan has received all official approvals/signatures/[et cetera]..." Okay. And just scroll up. And then, "In checking with Rob Bernier, he finally had a chance to review the plan from the Integrated Planning team and has sent it back with his comments. He would prefer [...] it be completed and signed off and will then share the plan, as he is the final approver of it." And then scroll to the top of that, please? And then just -- thank you. "I appreciate and support the need for [Acting Superintendent] Bernier to make adjustments to the plan that he inherited. That said, please ensure [...] the plan is [finally] signed off at the earliest possible opportunity as this is a priority need expressed by our integrated partners." And that -- you received these emails?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, got it. Okay. And what Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson conveyed to you was that you were a go all the way through; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now the -- no, that's fine with that document. Thanks so much. Now the issues that you spoke about in terms of your interactions with Chief Sloly, if I understand them, across the board, his request for information or his request that you attend briefings of the senior command to inform the senior command of what was happening in terms of the integration, that those did not constitute, in your opinion, interference with what you were doing; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you expressed that view to him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he accepted it; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you expressed to my friend, Mr. Au, that what you observed was an adjustment as between the two of you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- because, and I can't recall exactly how you described it, maybe as a reset, but you were trying to assure Chief Sloly that you had this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I'm correct, am I not, that he accepted that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the discussions that you had were around that concept of that border zone, strategy, operations, tactics. You said when he was -- when you felt that he was raising an issue that was within your authority you told him so and he moved back to his authority. True?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you agree with me also that throughout this -- your experience with him, your direct experience, I'm not talking about what you heard from some guy in the parade room, I'm talking about what you had directly with him, that during the time you worked with Chief Sloly, he worked in good faith and to the best of his abilities on behalf of this Police Service and the community?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that when you were listening to his wish to express his view about what you should consider or should not consider, that what you were observing was a person who was passionately trying to do the right thing for this community and the Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as the Chief of Police, you understood also from your observation that he was dealing with the unprecedented crisis that you described, first of all; right? Yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So that when my friend, Mr. Au, says to you that you gave a comment that you hadn't seen a chief do this or hadn't seen a chief do that, you'd never seen a chief in this situation before; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you had never been in that situation before, of course.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so he had to manage the turmoil and chaos in -- that the community was experiencing; right? That was his responsibility?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
City Council?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief to Commissioner, Chief to Commissioner ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Chief to Chief? You were down resources in a magnitude that is very hard to even comprehend. The entirety of this Police Service could not have managed if it were all deployed. Every single person, could not have managed this protest without help. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so it was imperative that you get -- in the end, how many personnel did you roll out on that operation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, a couple of other things if I can, very briefly. You talked to us about what you observed when you saw the Operational Plan and you got introduced to Hendon, which I understand you didn't know anything about previously.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, I have looked, and I may be wrong, so I have not seen a note that you made during that period of time, 26th, say, to the time that you returned from your weekend away, in which you expressed any of your concerns in writing to anyone, or made a note of them. Would I be right about that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Verbal? And so could I -- could the Commissioner understand that whatever your concern was about what was coming, and the -- you used strong language. You said it was a bizarre disconnect between what you read on the Operational Plans that the OPS had prepared, your colleagues had prepared, and what you thought was coming.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. But either which way, you didn't -- you would now say to the Commissioner that you thought that the plans were inadequate, that that was the disconnect.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, got it. So then, maybe I misunderstood your evidence then. You're not critical -- are you -- do I have it then that you're not critical of your colleagues, Deputy Bell and his team, who were looking at the intelligence, the same intelligence that you had, and assessed that this was on balance a protest that did not require a different response than the one that they made?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So -- not -- I'm sure it's my poor question. I'm -- what I'm trying to understand is, is whether you thought that the Ottawa Police Service had missed the mark. Before you went away, did you think that they were going down the wrong path in terms of their response to this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And therefore, can I put it this way, you would not have gone away on the weekend on a short ski break if you thought that they had missed the mark. You deferred to their superior position in assessing the Intelligence in the aggregate. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
No, but slightly different point. I -- you didn't record anything in writing that said that you thought that the Intelligence or the Operational Plan was inadequate, and you went away for the weekend. I can only assume that you did both of those things because you were content to, under the leadership of Deputy Chief Bell, to defer to their judgement about the planning for this weekend event.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sorry, the Intelligence.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The Intelligence assessment.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. One last thing I had a note about. Let me see. The statement February 2nd. February 2nd, Chief Sloly made a statement in a presentation to City Council and the Police Services Board that there may not be a policing solution alone to this problem. To the extent that he was describing the need for additional resources, you would agree with him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Not a policing solution that the Ottawa Police Service alone could provide; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In addition to that, and you told my friend this, of course you’ve spoken about the Emergencies Act and two other levels of government declaring emergencies, those are not policing? Police use those tools, but those are not policing solutions; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you made aware of the approach that the Commissioner learned about from the Government of Canada to the OPP to possibly engage in a dialogue with protestors and arrange a meeting on certain terms?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That’s not a policing solution?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Superintendent.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner Carrique, I’m Tom Curry.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Nice to meet you. And thank you for your help with this -- the work of the Commission.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chief Sloly. You have known him for a long time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if I understand, you’ve known him in the capacity of a police leader; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in that capacity, as I understand it, you had interactions, professional interactions dealing with matters of mutual interest? Sometimes you came to his jurisdiction to help the Toronto Police Service and sometimes he was in York Region to help your police service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you know him to be a professional of the highest integrity?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And a person who has devoted his professional life as you have, to public service and the pursuit of improvements in policing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Among other things, as I understand it, you know him to have worked on improving the provision of policing in racialized communities?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And working to advocate for an improved diversity and inclusion within policing and the broader community?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
As well as, for the Commissioner’s purposes, you also have had experience with him working in major police investigation and incidents, and the hardcore work of policing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you talked a little bit about the role of a chief or a commissioner and the obligation to provide or ensure that there is adequate and effective policing in the community.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And in yours, the Ministry of the Solicitor General provides that oversight?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you’ve reviewed them with my friend, Mr. Brousseau, I think, for us. When we speak about providing adequate and effective policing, or the roll of a chief or commissioner, it is to provide all of the elements for the police service: resources, training, and to ensure all of those -- equipment -- all the policies are in place? Is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And of course, as you’ve explained today and gone through some of it with us, the police chief, or the commissioner, in your case, is also the face of the Service to not just the community, but also to government?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In your case, to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, as we’ve described, providing situational updates and the like?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I was going to say, and you’ve played both roles in your work previous to your appointment as Commissioner when you were a deputy in York Region. You would have had much more contact with your Police Services Board than you do, perhaps, as a Commissioner in respect of the Solicitor General?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that -- as we have understood it, that doesn’t mean that you take political -- or take direction from the political sphere, but nonetheless, in the case of a municipal police chief, that chief is employed by the Police Services Board; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you have attended Police Services Board meetings and you’ve probably observed, as these convoy events -- the protests were ongoing, the public statements and other issues raised by the Ottawa Police Services Board as they struggled with this problem?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the Police Services Board, in trying to exercise its authority to ensure adequate and effective policing in the community, was applying tremendous pressure to the Police Service and to Chief Sloly; do you agree? From your observation -- and I mean I’ve seen that one, too. That one ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you also observed, probably, as this was unfolding -- because it had some relevance to the -- to your role in respect of this resource request, you probably also observed the attendance by Chief Sloly at meetings of the Ottawa City Council. Or did you become aware of those?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair. And similarly, you wouldn’t be surprised to that, at the level of City Council, there was tremendous pressure on Chief Sloly in respect of the protest that was ongoing in this community?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you know, from what you saw at the Police Services Board, the Board was demanding action, effectively, “When are you going to end this illegal occupation,” and the like; you observed that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So back to the command structure, if I can, for a minute. Chiefs, you’ve described, have -- back to a municipal police service, Chief of Police would have deputies usually responsible for certain functions organized as, in this case we’ve learned, operations and intelligence separated between two deputies?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And then, below that, the executive command, the chief and deputies, the chain of command that you’ve described branches into the organization all the way down to constables with specialized services and the like; that’s usually the organization?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, as a police leader, you rely, and Chief Sloly would rely, on those deputies in the chain of command, including subject-matter experts, to provide and deliver police services?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And they would, for example, for the development, in a situation like this, of plans, operational plans, in order to provide the kind of operation that we saw played out here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the only time -- I think you mentioned this in your examination earlier this morning, that assuming that the police service has personnel with the experience and expertise to execute those directions, then a chief would rely on those people to deal with the matter. If those people lacked experience or required additional direction, then it would be appropriate for the chief to provide it; would that be fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And if the level of expertise is not demonstrated in one or another role, the chief, or a deputy chief, could substitute personnel, for example, an incident commander or an event commander, as appropriate?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, a couple of things, if I can, first of all, just to go back to the time that these events unfolded. And you’ve talked to us, and others have, about the Hendon Reports, and the Hendon Reports have really provided -- really -- and quoting something that Chief Sloly has said, “They’ve really filled a void in intelligence,” and the OPP has, through the Intelligence Bureau, taken on the responsibility to provide intelligence that was not being provided otherwise to police in communities; do you agree with that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think Supt. Morris described -- I’m not going to get the right words, probably, but he had told the Commissioner this isn’t a silver bullet. The Hendon Report provides intelligence but it is for others to receive it and interpret it and take action as appropriate; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in respect of the Hendon Reports that were produced in advance of the Freedom Convoy, as you know from your experience with your own service and observing what happened elsewhere across the province, different people took different things from the Hendon Reports; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. In the case of Ottawa, were you aware that some members of your service had seen and understood what the Ottawa Police Service had planned for the demonstration starting on the weekend of -- beginning, I suppose, January 27th?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And knew more than you would be expected to know, obviously, about that matter; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He’s the OPP’s -- as an East- Region Commander, he was deployed here to Ottawa in order monitor that situation, provide whatever support was required; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And he was responsible for picking up the convoys that travelled through the East Region and ensuring that they were -- and he described it that OPP assets were around the convoy to make sure that their truck passages were safe; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And no consideration came to you from anyone in the -- in Ontario within your service that the convoy should somehow be stopped outside of the -- either at the Manitoba border, or the Quebec border, or outside of the City of Ottawa; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. So -- and in respect of what might have been described in the Hendon Report at the absence of an exit strategy or that kind of language. That would not have provided a basis for the OPP to deny the protesters the right to access the municipality; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And the same was true, obviously, in Windsor. Based on what was known, the OPP did not ever come to the conclusion that it should block access to the Ambassador Bridge, for example, prior to that blockade taking place?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Even after the Ottawa protest was underway and had started by that time I suppose to become labelled as an occupation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of quick things. I'm not going to pull up the document, but are you aware that a situation report dated January 27th from the OPP described the Ottawa Police Service as having developed a robust plan that would allow for the capacity to accommodate 3,000 commercial vehicles?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know that Superintendent Abrams knew that they were going to be allowed to go downtown?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- once the -- one quick thing, if I could, just in terms of the timing. Is it fair to say that some folks in the OPP felt that this would likely be over by the end of the weekend?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. I was just trying to take a shortcut but let me help you with it. And, Mr. Registrar, do you mind showing us, please, OPP4582, and when you get there, it's page 13. These are just ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- some messages, this one from I think Deputy Commissioner Harkins. Should be the 27th of January and, yeah, there -- it's the middle blue one. Yeah, just stop there. So and I'm not -- leaving aside the time of day, 27th, do you see it says "just FYI, I was to be off on a [vacation]..." It says vday, must be "vacation day tomorrow..."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"...but with this protest I can't, to [sic] much on the go. So I switched it to Monday." And he was taking -- he was subbing out a day off on Friday for a day off on Monday.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you see that? In the expectation, do you agree that whilst there would be business to do on Friday, it would probably not be interfering with his vacation on Monday?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And but who knows whether he got his vacation day Monday. He might not have.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, got it. Okay. Because very quickly, the Ottawa Police Service was overwhelmed with this protest; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they were never going to have had the resources themselves to manage the numbers of people, the numbers of trucks and the nature of the protest as it turned out to be; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the resource issue was identified very early on as something that was going to be required; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in so far as you learned, they knew -- they needed, by the time it was said and done, I think you told us they needed around the 1800 that Chief Sloly had identified.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when the -- when Chief Sloly first raised the need for resources, and I think you told us you had early contact with him and consistent contact with him through the piece; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when he asked for those resources, the resources were -- was it flagged with the service that those resources would have to be organized to come along to Ottawa to help out?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the resources that were required, that were set out and my friends asked you about the table that set out specific roles and responsibilities and so on, would have allowed your -- I assume that that got to the right people in the sense of the resource centre ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- so that they could know that those resources will be required at some point soon; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And at the same time that a plan is being made, resources can be mobilized; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there were -- you had Chief Superintendent Pardy on the scene by I think the 8th of February?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly had -- you reviewed with us an email I think that Chief Sloly sent to you in the first few days. I can't recall -- I won't pull it up in the time that we have, but recall that he had identified some frontline officers required, and he had identified I think, as well, some command structure that he required; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Now, in the case of Windsor, I understand from the -- and I won't take the time to pull the document up, but just for your reference, Commissioner, the -- and for my friends, the witness statement of Superintendent Earley, which is WTS22, identifies that she had - - well, maybe I better show you, just so that we can ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- we have it. Please, WTS22. And when you get there, if you could go to page 6, please. This goes to the question of when Superintendent Earley got resources in relation to when her plan was finalised?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Essentially two tracks there; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. Let's go to ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- go to the second... Well, resources are being mobilised while the plan is being drawn.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when we speak about a plan, we're talking really about a Public Order Plan?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Is it the piece that requires the most resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Okay, just look, please, at the February... Sorry, that is page 6? And -- there it is. See the paragraph, second paragraph: "At the February 10 planning meeting, Superintendent Earley selected a February 12 end-of-day deadline... she would have received and approved Inspector Younan's public order plan and all...required resources would have arrived." So at the 10th planning meeting, very different operation in Windsor, much easier than Ottawa; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'll take "complexity".
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A much less complex. Thank you. So at the planning meeting on the 10th, and I think that may have been when Superintendent Earley arrived, she had already by then initiated the resource requests. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Some of those resources came from Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. It was RCMP assets that moved from Ottawa to Windsor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah, mine too. Could we go to page 9, please. Second paragraph. This is just to... Just a little bit up, please. Thank you. Do you see it says: "Superintendent Earley discussed the relationship between requesting resources and planning...when she took command February 9..." I was wrong. It's the 9th not the 10th: "...[Windsor Police Service] did not know the specific numbers and types of officers it required and that the on-the-ground situation on February 9 dictated bringing in additional frontline and traffic officers to ensure public and officer safety. OPP accordingly sent as many officers as possible."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. In those -- I'm going to move -- I've only got a few more minutes. I'm going to just ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- move real quick if I can to the plan, the Operational Plan ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and this question about whether Chief Sloly had impeded the finalisation of the plan. You had some dealings with him throughout you've told us?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And with Commissioner Lucki. If I could show you, please, OPP4580. And Mr. Registrar, when we get there, could you go to page 109, please? Just while that's coming up, Commissioner, there were -- as you were receiving -- you were receiving information from a lot of different people; right? Some of it turned out not to be reliable. Would that be fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Well, I could say in general, but take your example. There were a lot of rumours circulating around that turned out not to be true about Chief Sloly's attitude towards this issue or that issue or what he was doing or not doing, and you went sometimes straight to him to get things corrected. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. One of the problems that you observed, you agree with about this, that in a number of areas, owing probably to the unique nature of this event, Chief Sloly's ability to deliver a solution here was impeded by rumours and unreliable information? Can I give you an example?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. The 1,500 -- the miscommunication about 1,500 OPP officers on the ground caused, I think you told us, it caused an unfortunate -- it caused issues for Chief Sloly because he then had to answer to people as to why he wasn't making effective use of 1,500 OPP officers.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that turned out to be an unfortunate situation.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Equally, the idea that on the 5th of February, the Government of Canada, in whatever that means, because the note isn't so obvious, I suppose, had lost confidence in Chief Sloly by February the 5th, was -- made it more challenging for him to succeed. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he had a lot of... One of the things that you've talked to us about was Superintendent Abrams's comment that Chief Sloly's estimate of the number of resources that he needed had been the result of simply a random doubling of the actual number he needed. That turned out not to be correct.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I won't trouble you with what the record is about that, but ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- suffice it to say it might've operated in the minds of others, I appreciate it didn't operate in your mind, you disregarded it, but others might have imagined that there was something unreliable about the number. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it would be unfortunate if they had?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Real quick. You see this 12 -- this is February the 12th. This is a text message from you to the Deputy just updating him. And if we take Mr. van Niejenhuis's calculation, we back that up, that's about 4:58 on the 12th. Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"Chief Sloly has accepted the plan. Hope to have it signed tonight."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you had that directly, I suppose from Chief Sloly; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So at least from the afternoon, late afternoon of the 12th, so far as the OPP was concerned, the plan was approved by Chief Sloly, or at least, there wasn’t any further requirement for him to do anything about it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, can I ask you please to look at OPS14454, just to get your help with a couple of other things?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. I'm going to wrap this up. So I have taken us to the wrong document, Mr. -- oh, no, I have not. I guess it's 160 -- page 164. Page 164, scroll down, please. And I'm going to leave it. I'm going to - - oh, there it is. Thank you. Just scroll down if you don’t mind. Just up a little bit, please? Chief is Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
These are scribe notes from a meeting that you had with Carson Pardy and Chief Sloly, Commissioner Luckie, I think, and a number of other people.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
It started -- 12th -- in the afternoon.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But I think essentially it is the plan approval discussion, so I'm going to leave it there. I'm out of time. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner? Commissioner? Thank you. My friend Mr. Migicovsky has more than one occasion this morning, not stated the witness’s evidence correctly, and I would be grateful if my friend could listen more closely and not suggest that the evidence is something other than it is.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, Commissioner, may I interject again? Forgive me please. My -- I'm not -- I'm trying to follow my friend's questions. If the suggestion that my friend is making to the witness is that the evidence before you is that Inspector Rheaume left on the 4th, then my friend should recall that Commission Counsel led the evidence on Friday of Inspector Rheaume's note that showed that he was replaced as the, I think, Event Commander on the evening of February 1st, 1930 hours. Commission Counsel led that note from Inspector Rheaume.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, if I may just -- may I just add one comment?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm -- well, I'm -- I'll be very brief. It's a matter of some significance. My friend cannot say on behalf of the entity, the OPS, that he can pick and choose through which notebook he likes. Commission Counsel led that notebook, my friend just take account of it. That's all my point. He's not being fair to the witness. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, excuse me again. I understand that this document was loaded into the party database only last evening. I may be wrong. My friend will know. But it’s a document, obviously, that we have first learned about minutes ago when our friends emailed to say they were going to put this document. It’s, in my respectful submission, not appropriate to put to the witness in the first time in cross-examination. I haven’t even myself had a chance to look at it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, I am counsel to former Chief Sloly.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I just have a few questions that I'm going to ask you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Tom Curry. Sorry. I left that part out. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Chief Sloly, a few things for you, please. Chair Deans of the Police Services Board, has told the Commissioner that when you became Chief of this Police Service she described as the honeymoon period was very short. Do you agree with her?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And counsel for the OPS has raised a number of issues about trust and confidence among the members Command staff, including some issues raised in notes that he took you to, including a conversation that you had I believe recorded with a meeting with Chair Deans, February 14th. I wonder if I could just ask you to look at that to refresh your recollection, please. For the registrar, it's OPS14566, and it should be found on I think page 3, or it's 1314 hours. So if that's page 3 it's a -- could you try page 5. I think -- it's 1314 hours we should see in the margin. There it is. Thank you. Thank you for that. Do you recall this conversation, February 14th, with the Chair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you can see... If we just scroll down just a little bit, thank you. ...that the discussion between you and the Chair concerned the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the implications for, among other things, enforcement through tow trucks that are described there. You were asked questions about the -- in the middle of that bullet, about orders that might have been disobeyed during the demonstration, and you described, I won't repeat it, it's in the note. You -- what is recorded is that you say that: "The best and the worst of us have been strained. This is why there has been tense meetings and why some have not demonstrated their best levels. Like everyone, I have been at my best and I have not been at my best." You were asked some questions about this previously. But just explain to the Commissioner in -- from your perspective, as the Chief at the time, we can probably understand the things that you did that were your best. What were the things that you did that were not your best?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did the fact that you came from outside the Ottawa Police Service with the mandate that you told the Commissioner have implications for the points that you made in this conversation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Chair Deans told us that of course you were the first Black police chief in this community.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And how many -- at the time that you assumed that command in 2019, how many police services in our country had Black police chiefs?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
She also discussed that, and has discussed publicly and also in her evidence, in her view you had faced issues of racism during your time as Chief of the OPS.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did that impact your ability to lead the Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I want to ask you some questions, please, about staffing. My friend from the Ottawa Police Service asked you about the event commander and in particular Superintendent Rheaume who was event commander, and when you learned that that change had been made. Do you recall those questions?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m not going to turn it up but for the record, OPS14537, Commissioner, at page 5 are the notes that Superintendent Rheaume made indicating that he had been removed from that role by Acting Deputy Chief Ferguson on February 1st. Did you know about that at the time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And within the Incident Command structure who had the responsibility for making those decisions?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Who is?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In relation to the Incident Command structure, the Commissioner has heard some evidence from Commissioner Carrique about this. But what role is played by the Chief of the Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. In answer to questions from my friends at Commission counsel you spoke about the numbers of vehicles that were in the city to support the protest over the first weekend and that left on the first, I believe, Sunday. So if you're with me, the end of the first weekend where there was an expectation some vehicles were leaving. Could I ask you please to look with us at OPS-IR. So his would be the Institutional Report, Mr. Registrar at page 13. I just want to have your assistance with something, please. This is an institutional Report prepared by -- on behalf of the Ottawa Police Service, I believe, by our friends who are counsel to the OPS. So if you -- just look at the paragraph and the text, please, Chief Sloly. “[And] in actuality, thousands of vehicles descended on Ottawa for the first three days […]. The following sets out an estimation of individual protesters and vehicles present in the downtown core…” The date is imprecise and it refers to the fluid nature of the circumstances. Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
If you look at the column on the date, 29 January, 30, 31, and then into February, you see the numbers there according to the different geographic areas -- Parliament, Wellington/ Elgin/ Rideau/ Sussex, Other, and then the vehicles. You see that on February 1st, looking at the final column, 676 is the estimate of vehicles on Feb. 1, and thousands is the estimate on the three days previously. DO you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Does that accord with your recollection and the information you had that vehicles left at the end of the third -- a significant number of vehicles left at the end of the weekend.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I believe those are protest numbers, protester numbers.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And there is another -- Commissioner, we can deal with it later but there is another document. I won’t ask it be turned up but the RCMP has an estimate of the number of trucks at PBNSCCAN1369. I don’t need that document, Mr. Registrar. Thank you, but just for the record. I want to ask you some questions if I can about the plans and mission statement.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And of course the numbers -- it continued to increase on the weekends as you have already described.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I wanted to ask you then some questions, please. About the plans and mission statements. You were asked by my friends for the Commission about a February 5th plan. Could I please ask you, Mr. Registrar for your help -- OPS6941. Do you recall those -- while that document is coming up, do you recall those questions?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m interested in two things in this document, the mission statement first of all. Thank you. It’s just within the first few pages. Keep going and I think -- if you go to page -- there it is. Thank you very much. You’ll see that the mission statement in this plan was for: “…the Ottawa Police Service in a collaborative approach with other police agencies, et cetera, provide a safe and secure environment in the city during the Freedom Convoy event. The primary goal is to end the protest peacefully, may be achieved through proactive engagement by all officers including police liaison teams, facilitating communication, de- escalation and negotiation.” Do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And was the idea of negotiation important to you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, could I -- that’s fine with that document, thank you, Mr. Registrar. Can I ask you some questions please next about resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I want to first start with your own resources, the management of the OPS resources. Can you tell the Commissioner what steps were taken by your service in cooperation with the Ottawa Police Association, to use the resources it had available to maximum effect, to maintain the safety and security of the city?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. My friend from the Ottawa Police Service also asked you some questions about OPP Superintendent Abrams, including questions, I believe, about the memorandum or email that he sent to his chain of command. Just tell the Commissioner, did Superintendent Abrams raise any concerns with you about the nature of the estimate for resources that had been provided?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Or did anyone on your team raise any concern or question about that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now resource requests you've told us were made both to your policing partners, both before and during the convoy protest. Did you have direct contact with Ministers and Deputy Ministers and police leaders throughout the entire period of occupation concerning your need for resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now a couple of just questions to fill in for the Commissioner. Who is the Deputy Minister of the Solicitor General Mr. Di Tommaso?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do -- did you know -- we saw the Deputy Minister Solicitor General Ontario is Mr. Di Tommaso?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you familiar with him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And how do you know him?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Just a sec, I'm going to stop you. You said Ottawa Police.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were also asked questions about Deputy Minister Rob Stewart, we've seen communications. What about Mr. Stewart? Did you know him prior to the events of the convoy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now I want to ask you some questions about an exchange that you were asked about again concerning -- between the two Commissioners, Commissioner Lucki and Commissioner Carrique. OPP4583, please, page 3 and 4. Just -- thank you, if we could just stop there. This -- you've seen this exchange, and correcting for the hour of the day, Commissioner of the RCMP writes, "Between you and I only, the [Government of Canada] losing/lost confidence in OPS..." Now that's written on February 5th. Did you know about this at the time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know what lay behind the loss of confidence, if indeed that was accurate, that is expressed here by the Commissioner of the RCMP to the Commissioner of the OPP?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could you scroll down, Mr. Registrar, please? Exchange continues with Commissioner Carrique describing that he has -- looked like he had reached out to you. We're going to assume that you're the Peter there. For a call, are you free for a call. And then the Commissioner of the RCMP writes, "No, still on the call with Ministers." And then please scroll down. Trying to -- stop there, thank you. "Trying to calm them down, but not easy when they see cranes, structures, horses, bouncing castles in downtown Ottawa." Just stopping there. To the extent that the concern from the Government of Canada it's expressed at the level of Ministers observing the circumstances on Wellington Street, would that concern have been shared by you and every other person affected in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now sticking with -- thank you for that one. Sticking then please just with Commissioner Carrique now for a moment, I want to show you OPP4586, and, Mr. Registrar, it's page 5. I believe you spoke to counsel about this. You exchanged messages with Commissioner Carrique by text and email and other forms of communication, calls and so on. I want to ask you about this one, February 6th; do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
This is to you from Commissioner Carrique, "[Good morning, Peter, or] GM Peter, [good morning] - a beyond difficult day yesterday. Here for you, if you personally or OPS need anything this morning before the 11 am meeting or in general." And then just scroll down. You describe back to him you're, "Getting a 10 am briefing then will [let if -- let] know if any new resource needs" And you say thank you to him. And then he writes back to you, and I believe -- I'm not going to take you to it, but I believe the briefing to which this is a reference the Commissioner will learn, it's a -- there's a briefing of the larger group federal and provincial representatives including the two Commissioners and so on. Commissioner Carrique writes to you, "Outstanding briefing this morning Peter. Thanks for representing us all so well. You've got this - and you continue to have our unwavering support." Did you receive that message from the Commissioner?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In his discussions with you, did Commissioner Carrique continue to support your command through to the end of your term?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in your discussions with Commissioner Lucki, did she convey the same thing, that she -- you had her support?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I think you touched on this in the -- in your evidence and my friends from the Commission about knowing what we -- what you now know, the embedded convoy protesters, the challenges that it posed to the Ottawa Police Service and the policing partners, just in terms of the issue of resources, can you tell the Commissioner whether knowing what you now know you would have approached the resource request differently in order to accomplish your objectives?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm going to ask you --just, you raised an issue about planned events. Were you a member of the Toronto Police Service at the time in 2010 of the G20 summit?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I understand from Justice Morden's report that the Toronto Police Service had four months to plan for the G20, approximately.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Call it five. Did you play a role in the G20 -- or in the response to G20 by the Toronto Police Service and other police services, either before or after?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did that -- did your experience, G20, Toronto Police Service, inform any part of your response to the events that unfolded here in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, then a couple of other things then please. Navigator, you were asked by my friend again from the OPS about Navigator. And I understand Navigator is a best in class advisory firm dealing with communications advice in crisis management?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Have you been involved in a -- in other complex crises other than the protest that we're dealing with here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And have you made use of or other police services, to your knowledge, made use of experts in communications?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, why in this case did the OPS and the Board, the OPS Board, want the advice of communication specialists of the calibre of a firm like Navigator?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
My friend again from the Ottawa Police Service asked you -- showed you an invoice that actually was delivered after you had left office, but had you remained as chief of the Police Service, once this convoy event was over, would you also have ended the mandate that was the procurement for assisting in that respect?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And just as to that -- I'm not going to pull the document up -- but am I right that you shared the fact that OPS and the OPS Board were using Navigator to assist in communications with your federal agent -- federal policing partner and other policing partners?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Just for the record, OPS -- I don’t need it, Mr. Registrar -- but OPS14454 at page 39 is one such communication. I think you told the Commissioner that Navigator was in -- was working with your communications team at the OPS?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, I want to ask you then please some questions about your February 2nd comment that there may not be a policing solution to this protest. You've explained that this was an aspect of the event that you wish you'd done differently. I won't go back to that part of it, but after the meeting of February 2nd, 2022, you did clarify your comments in a number communications. I want to just get you to identify them, please. Mr. Registrar, OPB424, please? This should be an email February 3rd, between you, Chief Sloly, and Chair Deans. Just scroll down if we can. There. If you see in the first paragraph: "I encourage you as Board Chair and other City officials to use your influence to secure additional resources for a safe, lawful end to the demonstration. I once again accept your full support to secure more resources. This aligns with my statement that there may not be a police solution to this demonstration despite the fact that we are doing everything reasonable to resolve the situation safely and lawfully." And it carries on. Did you send that to the Chair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I please ask you to look at OPB981. And Mr. Registrar, this time on page 2 of the document, please. Now, of course I... Ah, there it is. You see the Radio-Canada reporter? "Earlier" -- the question is to you -- these are notes of a press briefing: "Earlier, you said there might not be a policing solution...do you still have that same opinion, regardless of what is being said at the federal level?" "We continue to do our..." You wrote or said: "We continue to do our very best and as you know, this has gone far beyond Ottawa. ...I will continue..." And you gave another answer. This continued to be a discussion and you continued to try to clarify and answer press questions and other questions?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And it carries on, but I'm not -- I'm going to leave it at that, please. You were asked questions today about documents, rather, that showed the possibility of a interlocutor to assist in negotiating a solution to this issue. Is that a policing solution?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I'm going to ask you some questions about the PLT and your support for PLT. Could I please ask you look at OPS14454. And Mr. Registrar, this is page 49 of the document, please, February the 4th. These are notes of your -- and I believe your general counsel. And just scroll down, if you would, to page 3 of the meeting notes, or it's page 3 of this meeting. One, two, three, there we go. Just at the top then, thank you, Mr. Registrar. You see "PS", that's you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"Want a full...
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
...negotiation strategy", thank you: "It won't be perfect but build a PLT part into it."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"We won't take this down at once, we are working on a larger [negotiation] strategy."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you make that comment?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did it express your intention and attitude towards PLT and negotiation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could I ask you, please, to look at OPS7999. And just for the record, that was February the 4th. Could I go to February 7th, OPS7999, please, Mr. Registrar? Just -- this is an email message that you sent, you see, to a number of people. I'm not going to get the ranks right, but you can see that it's the Senior Command. It's Superintendent, or perhaps at that time, Inspector Bernier ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you wrote: "Thank you for this... You, and the PLT members, are invaluable. We are still learning how best to work with you/integrate you/leverage you/support you - please be patient and continue your great work. Be safe and be well." You sent that to the team?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Same question. Did it express your view and attitude towards PLT and its work?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. A couple of other questions, then, please, finally. Texts -- text messages, mobile devices. You were asked questions by counsel for the OPS about your mobile device. I understand that you surrendered your service-issued mobile phone to the OPS when you left your command. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when did you receive it back?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know in the period of time when the Service had it back, prior to it being returned to you, what was extracted from the device or what could've been recovered by the Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Or what might be available to them as the service -- from the service provider that provided mobile phone services to the Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And final question them, please, final topic, your resignation. Chair Deans told the Commissioner that in the midst of these events, the convoy events, she spoke with you and performed a form of wellness check during -- had a conversation with you. Do you recall first of all having that encounter with her?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
She told us that she told you that there were people who, I think she used this language, "wanted your head".
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can you tell us what was your reaction to that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
She told us that she telephoned you on the evening of the 14th of February, and that she raised the issue of your possible resignation. You told us about that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And please tell the Commissioner, what was your answer to Chair Deans when she asked you whether you wished to resign?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What did she ask you to do in response when you told her that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did she ask you to think about it overnight?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, you've explained that the -- to the Commissioner your resignation was motivated by your wish to enhance public safety and removing yourself from the equation could allow the resources to be obtained. Was it also important to you, or how was it -- how important was it to you to show the community and the Service and your family, who had come to -- followed you to -- here to Ottawa, that you were not quitting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. I have no further questions.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good morning.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I’m Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly. I just have a few questions about some facts, if you could help us. The trucks, first of all. I appreciate you don’t have a good, accurate count of how many vehicles were in the aggregate of the convoy, or even, I suppose, the western convoy; would that be right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can you tell the Commissioner, though, whether the trucks that came with you in the part of the convoy that you had initiated; were those independent operators?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And that probably relates, doesn’t it, to your inability to have all of them follow a particular, single set of instructions. Independent operator is more likely to be an independent thinker and ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And were those independent operators who came from the West operating tractors that had sleeping compartments?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And a day cab operator is not -- by definition, that’s a person who’s not operating a vehicle a long -- on a long haul, unless they’ve got accommodation someplace else, which they wouldn’t normally have?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so that for the drivers and operators who were in tractors with sleeper units, did they remain in their sleeper units during the period of the convoy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they’d need fuel to keep running for the reasons that you’ve given; keep the unit warm?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so the fuel, did you recognize it as that, at -- I appreciate what you told my friends that you weren’t 100 percent sure how long this thing was going to last when you came?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And fuel became a challenge for you as a convoy organizer, and police and the residents in the community because of the safety; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And was that one of the things that you tried to work with police to minimize that risk?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. You hadn’t brought slip tanks yourselves?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So there was -- in terms of the organization, the fuel and how you were going to provide fuel for trucks running past, say, the first weekend was not a part of the plan that you had; ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then a couple of things, you told us that -- told the Commissioner that you succeeded in moving the load -- I think it was a load safe truck that was on an angle at Rideau and Sussex?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Police had been unable to get that operator to cooperate; and even then, when you turned to the rest of the Rideau and Sussex operators, no luck at all?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of other things, and finally, if I could, Mr. Barber, told us, and I don't know want to know what the legal advice was, but early on in this effort, is it right that you turned your minds to what protests, what lawful protests looked like and what unlawful protests looked like?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Weren't able, necessarily, or maybe at all, to convey -- to put that legal advice into action across the whole spectrum of the convoys though?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And final thing, then. I think on the 7th of February, you became aware that police were intending to mobilise additional personnel in the number of 1,800. Am I right that that signalled to you as a convoy operator that there was going to be a police response coming?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you knew as to that, the negotiation, that speaking to police, you've heard about the police, you probably saw them, the police.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Liaison.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They weren't able to -- they were never going to be able to make a -- to negotiate with you for the kinds of things that you wanted to speak to government about?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
With the Federal Government?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you for your time.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good afternoon, Mr. Wilson.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
For the record, Tom Curry for Chief Sloly. You were present uninterrupted here in Ottawa, if I have it, February 2 to the 21st?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you've described for the Commissioner your observations of the scene on the ground. Did you observe the enforcement action that was taken?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Had you given advice about the implications of the Emergencies Act -- the invocation of the Emergencies Act and what it meant for the protesters who were in the areas that had been uber affected by that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Understood. Did you see the flyers, the pamphlets, the information distributed by police to protesters?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Through the Police Liaison Teams?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now you had -- you told us you had involvement with the PLT, Police Liaison Team members. Were they Ottawa Police Service and OPP?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Any other police officials that you dealt with face-to-face or was it exclusively PLT?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you. And, of course, your role evolved as you tried to provide the convoy organizers with a legal strategy or input into their strategy from a legal perspective and advice to achieve their objectives; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Your contact with protesters, I think you told the Commissioner, just to clarify, these are independent operators; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Indeed. You told us that they came here, and I'm not going to say every single one, but would it be right for the Commissioner to understand that those protesters who you encountered came here to Ottawa as part of the convoy intending to protest for the weekend but were inspire to stay as a consequence of their -- of the response that they observed from Canadians as they came here and once they arrived.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The independent operator protestors though, you agree with me that because they are -- if they’re not on the road they’re going backwards financially, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so would it be right -- I understood your evidence to mean that the protesters, the independent operators, leaving aside the organizers and their message -- that the protestors were invested in a shorter protest than they were inspired to commit to once they got here. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The independent operators who came here weren’t intending when they -- let me start over again. The inspiration that you’ve spoken about -- that acted on them to stay here and protest longer than they would have originally.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you told us that there were some challenging members even among the top group of the leadership group. You’ve called Mr. King, I think, in your statement a rabble rouser who was at least, if not encouraging violence, tolerant of violence.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Dichter was undermining the leadership?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
At least in part?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And then Mr. Wilson, you described the MOU was not helpful to the main strategy you were -- the organizers were pursuing, fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, that meant all of it in the aggregate, in addition to the independent minds of the independent operators that controlling this entire group was very challenging.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And one of the things -- can I show you please, just to see if this quote is accurate, in HRF, please, Mr. Registrar, 1379. Just while that’s coming up, Mr. Wilson, I think you gave an interview to Mr. Lawton who has published or was publishing a book about the events of the convoy. Do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I just ask you please to look at this and just maybe to the top just to orient the witness. Just a little higher; there’s an email, I think. There we go. Do you recall seeing this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could you please go then to, I think it’s page 5. There is a quote attributed to you. I just want to make sure that it’s -- there it is. And for context, Mr. Marazzo had also spoken about some of the events and the last line of that part -- see it at the top. “No one could force the truckers to do anything they didn’t want to do.” And you seemed to have agreed in that to say: “We don’t control them. We don’t even know who they are. No one signed up. It’s not a curling bonspiel. It’s not a golf tournament.” And you made the comment that you can’t simply tell them what to do. Fair comment?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Ottawa Police Services interaction with them expected and reasonably expected that a peaceful protest, a lawful protest would be held in their community, fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the unlawful -- you raised the issue with my friend, Mr. Leon, about the -- when did it become an unlawful protest. And you've answered this question to others so I won’t dwell on it. But certainly you would accept that the blocking of municipal roads, the violation of noise by-laws and other forms of what might loosely be described as harassment as part of that demonstration, would be a challenge for police in confining the protest to a lawful protest; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And just a couple of quick things then Mr. Commissioner. On top of that, you also faced the challenge of some -- I think in your statement you maybe described them as strange people who had descended into the protest, often in the evening, often on the weekends, some sovereign citizens, and others who were -- I think you may have labelled them troublemakers. That was a challenge for the convoy organizers to deal with, of course?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And challenging obviously for police and residents?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You closely watched the signals coming from all levels of government including the Police Services Board here in Ottawa and the chief, Chief Sloly, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including through your efforts with Mr. French to avoid what I think in one of your text messages to him was a blood bath.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, I believe my friends from the Ottawa Police Service have more time than have I and probably make sense for them to go ahead, if they're prepared to, if it's your ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Marazzo, Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly. Just on the point that my friend Ms. Barrow was asking you about, can you just help us. I thought I saw in the statement -- and we don’t have to go back to it -- but just tell me if I’ve got this right. That you encouraged the protestors towards the end as this enforcement action rolled out, you encouraged protestors to leave the protest site rather than be arrested?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
On the 19th, maybe I had that date wrong then.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So beginning on the 19th ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- did you then change your approach and encourage protestors to leave rather than be arrested?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And for the Commissioner’s purposes then, do you know how many of the protestors took the advice that you gave and left voluntarily?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The truckers who -- those who remained?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So just a couple of things then; you told the Commissioner that you were watching the interaction between the Police Services Board Chair ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and Chief Sloly?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you form the conclusion that Chief Sloly’s support from the Police Services Board was -- had been badly effected, diminished?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you were attempting also, as I understand it, to take pressure off the -- from the residents.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You arrive -- you were there from the 30th on. Do I have it right that you understood, particularly having regard to your background in our armed forces, that the Ottawa Police Service, as a police service of local jurisdiction, did not have sufficient resources to manage and disperse the protesters on 30th, February 1st, whatever day you choose; is that -- was that a fair conclusion that you drew?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. One last thing, and please, can I ask to show the witness HRF1379. This is a short little statement that I think that you gave, I just want to make sure that I have you confirm it. This goes, I think, to your ability to manage some of the protesters. Other witnesses have told us about their -- the nature of the independent thinking, independent operator; you’ve experienced that too.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Page 5, please. Just a little higher, perhaps it starts on 4. A little higher, please. You’re just a -- I’m sorry; a little lower. There it is. “During the meeting...” -- do you see that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“During the meeting Marazzo and Wilson said they would try to move trucks from residential areas downtown and clear the Rideau and Sussex intersection; police agreed to move their concrete barriers temporarily so the trucks could get onto Wellington St. The caveat, however, which Wilson and Marazzo knew all too well, was that no one could force the truckers to do anything they didn’t want to do.”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That remained true throughout?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you. I don’t have any other questions for you. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
We don't have any questions. Thanks.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Tom Curry for the former Chief. And we have no questions for Mr. Bauder. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, Commissioner, if it’s of assistance, I’m not certain exactly who helps facilitate the way in which we approached the matter with Chief Sloly, but I believe the application in the rule is that the witness’ evidence given to date is not the subject of discussion. But that would -- I think my friend would be able to speak about the questions that he intends to ask without going back over what the witness has given.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I believe that’s how we reached agreement with our friends from the Ottawa Police Service who had raised the issue and -- with some of your Commission.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Good morning, Ms. Lich. Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I just have a few questions.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I just show you the -- one thing that my friend for the Ottawa Police Service was speaking to you about, just so that you have the full picture.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could I ask, please, Mr. Registrar, for the witness to be shown HRF00001520? I think this is the attachment that was referred to. Just in case this helps your recollection, what is being projected now is a document with the title, “The Right to Protest.” Have you seen it? I appreciate you’re going to take a second to look at it, but just let us know, please, if you have seen that memorandum before.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And it -- I gather from the record, that it is the attachment to which Ms. Chipiuk’s email, or that was along with Ms. Chipiuk’s email, and refers to the limits of the right to protest that were expressed in that cover. But that doesn’t -- that’s not something that you saw or heard?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Just a couple of things, then, if I could. The Commissioner -- one of the things that the Commissioner has to consider is recommendations about dealing with the Emergencies Act, and presumably perhaps even the right to protest and some of the limits that we’ve heard about. Could I just have a couple of additional facts from you? You and Mr. Barber met, I think you told us, on the 24th of January to begin the trip ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- here.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you left from Redcliff.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And arriving in Arnprior the 29th.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Twenty-eighth (28th); Ottawa the 29th.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what I’m interested in knowing is -- of course, first of all the numbers of protesters exceeded your expectations; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Wildly exceeded?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you -- I think you told us that you imagined that you might be able to raise $20,000 for this convoy.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And of course the financial commitments that you garnered were far in excess of that. But the -- in terms of the numbers of protesters who you considered, and I presume Mr. Barber considered in his conversations with you, were not in the numbers that filled up the streets of Ottawa in the way that you found them on the 29th; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. Your expectation -- when you got to Ottawa, you saw far more people than you believed would be in attendance.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I right that you were not the person primarily, or even at all, communicating with police about how many people were going to attend?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And insofar as you know, the road captains would have had some information about the numbers of members of their individual convoys that they had but they would not have had a picture of the entirety of it because people were coming from far and wide; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So much so that when you got here, as much as you tried to understand how many would be there, you missed the mark.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, then, just a couple of other things. In terms of the company, the not-for-profit, it was incorporated January 30th, I understand?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then I think in the record, the bylaws organized it, were prepared by February 3rd. So that, the company and the governance model that you had imposed was evolving only once you got here.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Then, finally, in terms of the description, you called -- you and Mr. Wilson have both called the scene, “Chaotic”. Can you tell the Commissioner; when did you first appreciate the sense of chaos that you have described? Was it when you arrived on the 29th?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so by the time you got here and saw the situation in Ottawa, was it chaotic at that time as well?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Just one last thing. I think one of the questions that you were asked about, what would have happened as you approached Ottawa, if the City had been -- I think the language was blocked or barricaded. Having regard to the numbers of people coming far and wide, and your inability to control them, is the likelihood that those convoy protesters would have just made their protest where the blockades were?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, fair enough. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you so much.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. We have no questions. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, also no questions for the witness. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Retired Cpl. Bulford, Tom Curry for Former Chief Sloly, a couple -- just a couple of things. Many of these questions have -- the other questions I had have been asked by asked by my friends. Could I just ask you to look at the statement that you prepared with us, please. It’s HRF1553, Mr. Registrar. Just when this comes up, I just to go, please, if we could, to paragraph 19. When we get there, I hope we find -- there it is. Maybe 18, if you don’t mind, just a little higher, thank you. I think you told us that you emailed an introduction to those representatives of the OPS, RCMP, and PPS early in your tenure with this -- with the convoy and identified who you were and what you were going to do; is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then just scroll down, if you don’t mind, just -- you see the sentence: "Please rest assured all organizers of the convoy group are operating under strict instructions that every single person involved must be respectful and lawful at all times." And that that was your mandate from those with whom you had been dealing.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One of the challenges is, as you’ve described, that this was a very difficult organization, that is the convoy in its largest sense, to have any command or control over.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And try as you might, and others have testified to this -- try as you might to have imposed a requirement for respect and -- for conduct that is respectful and lawful, you weren’t always able to achieve that goal; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But you weren’t always able to control the conduct in the way that you might have liked; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The reason I ask is because as you watched this, especially with your experience -- as you watched the convoy -- the events of the convoy unfold ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- from the earliest days when you arrived until the end when you yourself were arrested, you must have had a sense that the end was coming through this public order exercise unless there was some other breakthrough; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Because in the absence of some effort by the convoy -- successful effort by the convoy organizers to be able to eliminate the consequences for the residents and the City of Ottawa, the business and the like, you understood that it was going to come to an end vis a police enforcement action?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Which would require police services, not just Ottawa but OPP, RCMP, PPS, all of the other services who had come to help to disclaim their duty to uphold the law. You were asking quite a lot.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I ask you a couple of other things then just in the time remaining? You told the Commissioner that you -- upon arrival and getting this underway, you imposed a form of ICS model or Incident Command structure to the best that you could.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And to whom then did you bring -- were you at the -- were you the designated incident commander?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Who was?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And then Mr. Garrah, would he have taken direction strategic direction from the Board of the convoy corporation once it was incorporated? Or were you aware?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Was part of your effort within that group, the Incident Command group, to keep track of the number of police personnel who were on the scene?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And just finally, a couple of things, if I may. If I could -- Mr. Registrar, I'm sorry to drag that document back up -- 1553; thanks so much. And if you could go to paragraph 99. I just want to get your help with one thing, please. These go to the events of February the 15th. And you had a visit at the Swiss Hotel described here in which OPP and OPS liaison officers attended to meet with volunteer coordinators and Ms. Lich. You were one of the volunteer coordinators?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And who were the other volunteer coordinators, if you recall, with whom that meeting -- or who attended that meeting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, got it. So the three of you and three police personnel?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was at that meeting that they -- you've written that they attended to discuss the recent document provided by police to convoy participants, and that’s the document that laid out, the Emergencies Act having been declared, it was now required that people vacate the protest; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And what you engaged with -- I won’t read all of it, but you spoke to those officers to express your concern that the growing -- that the use of force by police against the peaceful protests without negotiation was wrong and they ought not to do that, fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then scroll down if you don’t mind, please, just to paragraph 102. And now that we’re on the 17th. You had an encounter with another officer or Detective Benson who replied to your query about being -- whether you were on -- people were on the lookout for you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, thank you. And you had an exchange with him. I'm just interested in the second last sentence. “He responded by saying that the occupation was beyond a protest and the trucks had to go.” And you replied to him that it was not an occupation.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Was it -- do you now accept, thinking back about it, that from the perspective of the residents of the City of Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Service, that the protest embedded as it was, was the equivalent of an occupation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, a final thing. My friends asked you about whether you had information from active serving officers or service personnel in the Ottawa Police Service or any other police service. Tell the Commissioner if you know, in respect of the information that Mr. Wilson had ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- am I right that so far as you know, the information Mr. Wilson had was the same as the information that you had, that is, only from retired, that is non-active, police personnel?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Thank you. I don’t have any other questions.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mayor Dilkens.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I am Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly of the Ottawa Police Service, and I just have a few questions for you, if I can have you assist the Commissioner. First things first, unprecedented in your experience both in politics and as a resident of Windsor.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you told the Commissioner it was unlike anything you have ever seen in the roles that you’ve played, including as the Chair of the Police Services Board.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All the way down to the death threats against you and presumably other members of your Council or the administration of the city. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s a first -- an unpleasant first for you as well.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In -- Chief Sloly has told the Commissioner that this -- that the events in Ottawa represented a paradigm in protest as we have understood it in Canada. Do you share that view?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I believe it’s also true that this is the first time that the Ambassador Bridge or other critical infrastructure in Canada, I suppose, has been used to - - by protestors -- the first time it’s ever been closed by a protest, first of all. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, got it. First time, I suppose, also as Chair of the Police Services Board that you have seen the Windsor Police Service unable to mount a police response with their own resources.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that led you to -- as you have told us, that led you to engage with your provincial and federal and municipal partners along with Chief Mizuno to get the resources that you needed; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think you also told the Commissioner that there were no impediments raised by the provincial or federal -- your provincial or federal counterparts at the political level to the -- to the obtaining of those resources. You put your hand up and said, “We need help” and they came to your aid. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
At the time of the protest in Windsor or the blockage on the 7th of February, of course, Ottawa was -- had by then been -- choose the word, but I’ll use the occupy language. It had been occupied by protestors for several days by that time. You knew that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And were you told or do you recall being told by the Minister -- I’m now referring to the Solicitor-General -- or the federal Minister that Windsor was the provincial and federal priority for the OPP and RCMP?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. You did not know that Windsor by the 7th or soon after the 7th was identified by those partners as -- as their priority?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And you’ve -- you told us -- I think you told the Commissioner that these events in Windsor affected tens of thousands of Canadians. It would be -- it would not be an exaggeration to say it affected many more than that given the economics that you described. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You -- as the Chair of the Police Services Board, just a couple of questions about that, you -- whether as the Chair of the Police Services Board or as Mayor, am I right that you made public statements to provide information to the residents in Windsor and to the wider audience about the need for resources that you had requested?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I saw -- tell me if my memory is right, but I thought I saw that on one -- in one of no doubt many interviews that you were giving at the time, I think it was to a CTV reporter, that you did identify the number that had been requested at the earliest date, I think being 100. Is it possible that you mentioned that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Understood. And as well, am I right from the record that you held your police -- you decided as the Chair of the Police Services Board to maintain those meetings that you had with Chief Mizuno and her staff in camera?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, can I just ask you, please, to look with us at one of those Police Services Board meetings that you showed my colleagues, and that is, for the registrar, Windsor, WIN2173. These are minutes, I think, Mayor, of the Police Services Board meeting. Just while that’s coming up, can I just ask you also, it seemed both listening to you and looking at the record that you made a conscious effort to have your Council and the Police Services Board speaking with one voice.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I right -- and again, for the Commissioner’s purposes as he considers recommendations, you faced enormous public pressure, didn’t you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- to act and the Police Service experienced enormous public pressure to act.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you agree with me it was important and it would be important in the future for municipal leaders like you and Police Service Board Chairs like you to be disciplined about speaking with one voice and to have matters dealt with in camera?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And am I right that the other thing that you did was you became the voice of the Unified Council Police Services Board and the City’s response; you were the spokesperson?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Did -- in that role, did you take -- did you take some of the pressure away from the police service having to deal with those matters themselves or the chief herself?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And while we’re on recommendations, you mentioned to the Commissioner that you had penned a letter to the -- to your federal and provincial counterparts concerning the expenses that Windsor has borne as a consequence of the blockade and, so far, no reply. But would you say that for -- in terms of recommendations, from what you have gone through, that what would be worth considering is a coordinated effort by all three levels of government to deal with these kinds of events in the future were they to arise again, including down to cost sharing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And then may I just get your help with this? What is on the screen now, 2173 -- that you, Mr. Registrar -- is the in-camera meeting of the Police Services Board, February 11th, so this is just shortly before the operation began on the next day, the 12th; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Mizuno is there; you’re there. Just scroll down if you don’t mind. I just wanted to have you help us with -- you asked if there was anything required. Chief Mizuno said, “No, resources are flowing. What are the outcomes?” and so on. Just scroll down. It’s just to page 2 that I wanted to -- stop there, please. Chief Mizuno, when asked about specifics, said: "The situation is still fluid. We are working on our operational plans and continue to review as new information such as this becomes available. The goal is to reinstate traffic on the bridge." Councillor asked a question about the injunction being enforced, and she said: "We are actively working on our plan." I won’t take you through the rest of it but do I have it that Chief Mizuno did not ever provide the Police Services Board with details of the operational plan which was, as of the 11th, still being actively worked on?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And is it true, also, that the absence of that finalized plan to be presented to the Police Services Board, or to anyone, did not impair or delay the delivery of resources from your policing partners at the provincial and federal level?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And just two more things very quickly to have your help with, please. Could I please show the mayor WPS, lots of zeros, 522, Mr. Registrar, please? This is a Situational Update, Mayor Dilkens, and I just want to get your help for the Commissioner. In terms of the status of these -- the circumstances in which you found yourself as of the 8th -- this is at 14:30 hours -- you knew that these situational reports were being prepared and you would be briefed by the chief or her deputies?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I just want to -- tell me whether you learned this information at any briefings, that there were 50 to 60 vehicles at that time. So this is the afternoon on the 8th and they’re described there, and this last sentence of that first paragraph: "One group is willing to work with police and open some lanes while the other is very oppositional and refuses to give up any ground. Propensity for violence is possible. Windsor police attempted to tow a vehicle. Drivers exited their vehicles with tire irons and threatened to assault the tow truck drivers. Officers blocked off traffic points leading to the demonstration." And then just scrolling down, there was -- you see: " The concern of the police is if they start to allow traffic into the area…" -- the one they’ve described -- " …there is a potential for many any additional supporters to join the demonstration." NA Does that -- is that the tenor of the tenor of the briefings that you were getting in and around that time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including the risk -- the actual risk that there was a violent act threatened against tow truck operators with protesters using tire irons?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I think you told the Commissioner, “No negotiations were successful in any material way to resolve this protest.”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Were you made aware that the solicitor general herself wrote a letter to the protesters or proposed to negotiate with them and they refused that invitation as well?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay, fair enough. I won’t take you to it but, Commissioner, just for your reference, that’s WPS1454, a letter from the solicitor general. Mayor Dilkens, thank you. I don’t have any additional questions. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Deputy Chief, Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A few minutes and just a few questions.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Just to get your help as a person who's been in policing as long as you have been and holding the roles that you -- or holding the positions and ranks that you have held. You mentioned the limitations on the Service's ability to act on information as opposed to intelligence. Do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Maybe I'll -- maybe I can ask you about this. Your colleague who's in the role now of Chief, Chief Bellaire ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- he gave a statement to Commission Counsel. I'm not going to turn it up, but can I just read you this? He isn't going to testify, so I'm just going to get you to see whether he has captured the idea that you have -- that I understood you were expressing. And this is in relation to the February 6th information about the slow roll and the possibility that protesters had threatened to block the Ambassador Bridge. Do you recall that on the 6th learning that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What Chief Bellaire said, and this is just for reference on page 2 of his statement, he said, "However, he stated that he was reluctant to interfere with the flow of traffic to and from the bridge in the absence of compelling intelligence because of the importance of the bridge to international trade." (As read)
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Is that a sentiment that you agree with?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. In other words, not -- you weren't going to be -- on the basis of what you had heard of a threat, you weren't going to go closing roads all ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- over town ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and disrupt things.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I don't know how -- when you say earlier that you were following the events in Ottawa, you understood that that was a much larger, much more significant and complex protest than the one that you were dealing with?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The number of vehicles that actually blocked this critical infrastructure strikes me as a very small number. Do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
150? And as -- and the low end, for the Commissioner's purposes, sometimes I saw numbers that were below 50 even as they came and went?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, that's -- don't -- we'll leave ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Very had to get actual information about it. Tell the Commissioner if you would, please, where were these plates -- where were these vehicles coming from? What do you got on the plates?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And were there any from outside of Ontario?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And therefore, we wouldn't know -- you wouldn't have any good intelligence as to whether any of them had originated at the protest in Ottawa and then come down to Windsor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of then just very quick things, resources. If I understand what you were telling us, you -- when resources were required and it was obvious that, first of all, that the Windsor Police Service was overwhelmed by this ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- couldn't handle it itself ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that the main goal is to get the resources in town, and you can formalize the requests afterwards. I think you talked about Inspector to Inspector and then having a more formal request go from the Chief to the Chief as needed; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- you were asked by my friends from the Commission about whether you knew about the fact that the Chief, that is your Chief, had sent a letter to the Minister, to Minister Jones to -- or Solicitor General Jones and Minister Mendocino on February 9th, and you indicated you did not know that at the time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, and it reflects, doesn't it, what might be euphemistically referred to as the fog of war. There was a lot going on.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the environment was very complex and complicated.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You couldn't be expected to know every single thing that was going on in the Service; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Probably very little of the ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- of the sleep.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then finally, can I just ask you a question about Critical Incident Command?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
First of all, you remained the police of jurisdiction. You've told us that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent Earley's -- and she's coming here, but Superintendent Earley described in her statement, and I anticipate she will say, that there was a delay in the -- in undertaking the operation, as a consequence of the letter that -- or that you've heard about and that you saw.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you aware of that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know that the decision to delay the operation was reviewed by Commissioner Carrique and a Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner Harkins, who I'm going to use the language overruled or at least expressed the view that Commissioner -- or that Superintendent Earley should not pause the enforcement out of concern about the potential impact of that letter from the Solicitor General. Were you aware of any of that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know that what Superintendent Earley was concerned with was that if a letter was going to go to Windsor protesters from the Solicitor General, that it might have an impact up in Ottawa, and that maybe we better -- maybe she thought we better get that letter up to Ottawa, which she did.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you aware of any of that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then finally, am I right that you became aware that in terms of the chain of command and who needs to approve what, that before an OPP Public Order Unit operation is rolled out, that it is not just up to the Critical Incident Commander, but rather a Deputy Commissioner has to authorize that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That's fine.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Right. Understood.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, we can ask Superintendent Earley. Thank you for your help.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Superintendent Earley, Tom Curry for the former chief in Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of things, just if I could sort one thing out. The issue that my friend, Ms. King, was just asking you about concerning the media here in, or not here in Windsor, when you were in Windsor about resources. Do you recall that issue?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And my friend, Mr. Au, asked you about this. Do you recall that by the time you were in Windsor as the Critical Incident Commander that a statement had been made in a media interview by the Mayor that named the number of officers that the City had requested the City of Windsor, or Windsor Police Service I suppose, had requested, being 100?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So Commissioner, I have the -- there's a -- I raised this with the witness yesterday, the Mayor yesterday, and he recalled something about that. My friend, Ms. King, and I have discussed this. Rather than show the media pieces and so on, I think it's accepted that on the 8th of February, the Mayor, in an interview, was -- I think it was CTV News, named that number. So I just wanted -- and my friend, Ms. King, can just confirm that's so.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Now, Superintendent Earley, the -- these issues that you dealt with in Windsor, this incident, was the largest, presumably, the largest critical incident you have managed in your career. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, is it the largest, though?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. Because it's -- you mobilised, if I understand from your Institutional Report or the Service's Institutional Report, there were in the end 410 members in your Police Service who were deployed in Windsor. True?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And it would've peaked at a certain number and then dissipated as the demobilisation went on.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But in the max, 410; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Largest number that you have been in command of?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And among the largest in the province's history in terms of deployment of OPP service officers; true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And yet, it was probably -- well, did you know how many were deployed in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Your relationship with the events in Ottawa, can I speak about that for a moment, you had no direct involvement in the Ottawa incident. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You had some points of contact, as you've discussed with Mr. Au, about the letter, for example, but otherwise, those two incidents were managed separately by Incident Commanders in both locations. True?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And ultimately, the Strategic Command is shared, it's common; true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ottawa and Windsor ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Critical Incident Commanders share a common Command structure, reporting eventually ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- to Deputy Commissioners and Commissioners; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so it is for the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner, ultimately, to set the strategic objectives and priorities for the Service.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In both Windsor and Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so when my friend -- well, all of the lawyers have probably asked you about this, but when you came to this -- first of all, in your role as a Superintendent in the region, you learned that there were convoys in the area heading to, eventually, to Essex County and to Windsor; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And so you were -- your Service was engaged in providing safe passage, and just managing whatever comes from a slow roll, as it’s been described, through your region, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And on the 6th of February, we know that the Hendon report alerted police services to the possibility that now on the 7th there would a blockade of the Ambassador Bridge; recall?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Someone in your command, or below you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- in the chain of command responsible for intelligence would have that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And was there -- did the -- did the OPP under your region take any steps to intercept those convoys on their way to the Ambassador Bridge?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. So whatever intelligence came to you in your region through the Hendon reports was not sufficiently clear to be able to take steps, for example, to intercept the convoy, for the reasons you’ve just given.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, eventually, after the Ambassador Bridge was blocked and then cleared, I think one of my colleagues asked you about the interception of a convoy that was heading to try and engage in another blockade, and the OPP did stop that convoy; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you would have done that because by then, of course you’d had the experience of the Ambassador Bridge blockade, you had the experience of the Ottawa blockade, or occupation as it’s been described. And now you had actionable intelligence to say, including, I suppose, the Emergencies Act, to stop convoy protesters from engaging in further blockades; true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, a couple of things if I could, about your -- then your engagement as the Critical Incident Commander that you told us about today. The -- first things first; the issue about the importance of this -- of clearing this particular protest on the Ambassador Bridge; you’ve spoken about that. Just for your -- just to get your help on this; from your statement that you have read to us, or has been filed, there is a reference on page 2, and I have the name of this, or I have the number and I’m going to leave that for a second. I will offer a reward to anyone who can tell me the name of -- or the number of that statement. WTS -- yes? Twenty-two (22)? Thank you. Twenty-two (22). Thank you, Ms. Registrar. Page 2 when we get there, paragraph 3. You’ve seen this before. “Upon”; thank you. So this is a simple thing, but during a February 10th, 8:30 a.m. call, middle of the paragraph; do you see it? “Deputy Commissioner[s] Harkins -- Commissioners Harkins and DiMarco again advised Superintendent Earley that Windsor was the priority and that it was urgent to resolve the blockade.” That’s true, isn’t it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was obvious to the -- in terms of setting the strategic direction, that is the role for, not just Commissioner Carrique, but also the Deputy Commissioners to say what are the priorities, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in respect of the priorities, the rank order of these priorities, when we speak -- when they spoke to you about it being “The priority,” it was understood that it was the priority for the Ontario Provincial Police Service; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, of course it became your priority because you were the Critical Incident Commander, but when they say it is “The priority,” you understood it was the priority for the Service; true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, that came -- that followed, and that’s important. But it was -- when they spoke to you at 8:30 in the morning on the 10th and said it was “The priority” it’s the priority for the Service.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Well, we won’t get a chance to do that, but you understood that whatever else it was, it was going to be -- that task was being handed to you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And when they said at the top of that statement -- and we have your notes, of course, but I’m just in the interests of time: “Upon Superintendent Earley’s appointment..., Deputy Commissioner...Harkins and Deputy Commissioner...DiMarco communicated to her that Windsor was a priority and that she would receive whatever resources she needed.”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You needed.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You understood that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so prior to your ever picking up a pen and writing in your notes the Mission Statement, ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you knew that whatever resources you needed, you had.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, in fact, they had already begun to role out, prior to your drafting the Mission Statement.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, of course, the resources of which we’re speaking were a number of different things, but in the main, this -- you understood this was going to require POU resources, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they had -- they came from municipal services and as well from the hub that drew on OPP’s resources; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I just show you, please, OPP4543? This is from your -- this should be from your notebook as described. And if we could go, please, to -- it should be the first page, initially. So this should be 2200 hours on February the 9th, right? “[Telephone] conference w Hamilton [Police Service] & [Windsor Police Service], Waterloo [Regional Police Service] to discuss POU support.” And it’s set out. And those are the calls that you placed in order to generate these resources, is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then at 7:15 a.m., if we could just scroll down; this should be page 7. So we’re now 7:15 on, I suppose the 10th. Yeah. “Jamie Sheridan called to advise [that] he & his waterloo POU team would be [heading] -- leaving [rather] for Windsor at [approximately] 1100 [hours].”
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They were rolling.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then at 8:30 on page 8, please. Just at the bottom, there it is: “[Telephone] conference with Deputy Harkins” [just scroll down, please, a little bit] & Demarco. Deputies advised whatever is needed for plan will be available. Province focus is Windsor.” And that’s -- again, that goes to the point that I was making earlier; the provincial focus is Windsor for obvious reasons: The Ambassador Bridge is vitally important, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
When you write down, or the scribe, rather, writes down, “province focus is Windsor” those are the words spoken by one or both of the Commissioners and Deputies.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. “Harkins speaking w RCMP today & will forward POU command. RCMP can send POU team of 150 people. Advised Deputies...” Amy Ferguson, perhaps?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Angela, thank you. Short form for Angela: “...will be POU Commander for OPP. [Waterloo Regional Police Service]...will arrive [approximately] 1300...this afternoon. Harkins advised there is an urgency to get this resolved” Did he need to explain to you why that was urgent, or did you understand the importance of the Ambassador Bridge?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Of course by then it was in the popular press as well, that this blockade was causing enormous disruption.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Now -- and then you wrote out your Mission Statement at 0900. Can I see that at page 9, please? Now, these Mission Statements -- just -- oh, there it is. Is that your handwriting or the scribe’s?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So you dictated this on -- maybe in the car, I don’t know.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“The OPP & our policing partners...” And it carries on; I won’t read it all. The Mission Statement in Windsor is very similar to the Mission Statement that was used in Ottawa. Have you ever seen that one?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Are the mission statements -- I mean, they -- I don't want to diminish the importance of mission statements. I like mission statements too. They're very important, but these are very generic general statements that are used in a number of different OPP operations; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The elements are very simple.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So say flow of traffic, for example, is the thing that makes this Windsor specific.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
This one looks awfully much like the OPP mission statement for Caledonia; doesn't it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you go to ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Were you involved in Caledonia?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you recall the mission statement?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you agree with me that it would -- I don't want to pull it up, but do you agree with me that the mission statement for a protest like Caledonia would have similar elements?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The only thing that's missing is free-flowing traffic where -- because Caledonia didn't -- it involved an occupation of a different kind; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you agree that that one was a very difficult demonstration to try to resolve and was not really ever resolved by a policing solution?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you agree it wasn't resolved by a policing solution?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What was your -- you were a Strategic Commander there?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Put it this way, those protesters were never removed by a POU action; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Eventually, I think the province reached a financial settlement and it acquired the land over which the protest was being held?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And then a couple of other things if I can. Ottawa and Windsor, very different situations; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Ottawa larger, more complex, more challenging?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
More complex?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, but, of course ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- I'm asking if you can rank them. If you can't, just tell me, but aren't -- isn't it obvious that Ottawa's a more complex problem even than the one in Windsor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can we -- can I get from you that the different challenges of which you're speaking are many more challenges?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. Now the Incident Command system and autonomy. Today you made a change to the statement that you -- that was filed. And, Commissioner, I'm going to borrow -- not borrow -- well, it is a loan, I suppose. I gather that my colleagues from Ottawa are not going to use their time or perhaps all of their time, so if I could just have a couple of their minutes? Thank you. I'll be quick as I can be.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. So, Superintendent, I'll be -- I'll just be brief with a few other things. Today you made a change to the statement; do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did my friend, Mr. Au raise that with you this morning before you came here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. When did you review it, just today?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Had you reviewed it before when it was sent to you -- or was it -- did they send it to you after they took it in September?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you read it but didn't ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- notice that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. The reason I ask is because yesterday I asked Deputy Crowley about whether he knew about that aspect, and I wondered if that's what prompted this. Did you see that yesterday?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Good. Is that what prompted you to catch this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And the line that you wanted to take out or did take out was she informed them, Commissioners -- or the team rather, that the change in direction came from Commissioner Carrique and Deputy Commissioner Harkins. And you would say instead of that line, more accurately, you made the change after your conversation with Commissioner Harkins -- Deputy Harkins, rather, and Commissioner Carrique?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now they have -- the two senior commands, Deputy Chief -- or Deputy Commissioner Harkins and Superintendent -- or and Commissioner Carrique have strategic -- overall strategic command; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so they set the strategic direction that the Critical Incident Commander implements?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So there's nothing wrong -- am I right, there's nothing wrong with Commissioner Carrique and Deputy Commissioner Harkins telling you that you should not delay your operation while a letter goes to the protesters in Ottawa, but to get on with the operation in Windsor. That would not be overstepping their authority; would it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. But of course, you -- so what happened in the sequence, and this is important because my friends I predict are going to say that what you did in Windsor informs what should have happened in Ottawa. So this is important for reasons that you may not appreciate, but let me just ask you. The -- if I understand it, what happened in Windsor is that a protester, Mr. Neufeld ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- came to a PLT officer and said, "We'll all leave if you give us a letter from the government."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so you mobilized the government to write a letter and the Solicitor General writes a letter to say, "We'll meet with you if you denounce your unlawful actions and everybody goes home."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that letter gets to Mr. Neufeld?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, of course, what does he do with it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do we know anything about Mr. Neufeld?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you at the time, or did you leave it to PLT?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Fair enough. I couldn't find it, but I'll admit there are a lot of records. So and at the same time, you said, "Well, we can't give Mr. Neufeld a letter from the provincial government, from a Minister of the Crown without provoking, possibly, a reaction from the Ottawa protesters who aren't getting a letter from the Solicitor General."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And you said, "Stop the presses. Let's not take action until we give a letter to Ottawa -- to the Ottawa protesters."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then the Commissioner -- or, well, first of all, the Deputy Commissioner rang you; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And expressed a view that that was not the strategy he wished to follow.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. In other words, they're -- they've got strategic command ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and they -- and may I just please go back to that statement? 22, yeah. WTS22, please, page 13. I'll just be a second with this. Thank you. "During a 6:47 p.m. call..." And we have the scribe notes, but I'll do it this way. "...[on the] same date, Deputy Commissioner Harkins told Superintendent Earley not to pause enforcement out of concern about the potential impact on the Ottawa protestors." That's true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. And so he called you at that time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, so if we just scroll up a little bit, I think he called you because -- stop. "Superintendent Earley advised her command table at 6:17 [...] on [the] 11[th] [...] she had decided to pause the enforcement action."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Scroll down. "During a 6:47 [...] call [...], Deputy [...] Harkins told [you] not to pause enforcement..." So do you now recall that word got to him and he had a different view?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, if you called him, it was to check in with him; was it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And when you did, it was that you were pausing.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Commissioner ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Deputy Commissioner Harkins said don't pause.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And then ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and at the bottom, you pointed out the risk.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You advised, "...of the risk that police enforcement [...] could have impacts on Ottawa and lead to an increase in aggression and violence by protestors [in Ottawa]..." Correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But what does that have to do with -- I'm not following that. Isn't it Ottawa that you were concerned with? Because look at the last sentence. You, "...advised Deputy Commissioner Harkins of the risk that police enforcement action could have impacts on Ottawa and lead to an increase in aggression and and violence by protestors”, mustn’t those protestors be the ones in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. But it includes Ottawa at least.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Deputy Commissioner Harkins confirms that he’s aware and then, a few minutes later, you have a call now with Commissioner Carrique and the Deputy.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am I right that the Deputy got Commissioner Carrique on because he wanted to emphasize the message to you that he was giving, which is you should go ahead and clear the Ambassador Bridge?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, when you say -- you see, Superintendent, they -- what they supported was a different decision than the one you had taken to the command table. You wanted to pause.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they said, “Don’t pause”.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I mean, it -- I know that we’re - - this is -- can sound like it’s semantics, but it’s not really semantics because it’s not information they provided to you. It’s direction they provided you, isn’t it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They simply took a different view than you about the importance of not giving a letter to the Ottawa protestors; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, okay. Then pausing while you -- but you wanted to give the letter to Ottawa and then let it go and do its work; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so they said, “Here’s our judgment as strategic commanders. You’re a go, clear the Ambassador Bridge”, and you did.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. Now, then, finally, the PLT. We’ve spoke about this briefly, but the PLT was not able to get -- make yards on this protest. It was a failure of the ability to negotiate with this group of disparate protestors; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And the -- well, there are only two ways down this mountain. Either those protestors were going to leave because you asked them to leave and negotiated their withdrawal, including by giving a letter from the Solicitor-General of the province ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- or you were going to have to muscle them out with a POU operation; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Last question, then, please, just on the issue of strategic command. Could I show you, please, WTS39? This is the witness statement from the Commissioner, and I just need your help again because it’s -- it may be important to sorting out the roles and responsibilities of strategic commanders and incident commanders. Page 8, please. Under the heading “Incident Command System”, the Commissioner said this. And I don’t know whether you’ve seen this. Fourth line down, “While some Incident Commanders” -- do you see it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
“...may feel as though they have complete autonomy, this is not the case. The Chief or Commissioner remains responsible to provide adequate and effective police services, is accountable to the Board under the Police Services Act in the case of a municipal police service, and is entitled to set strategic direction or give lawful orders. However, Incident Commanders should have operational autonomy to carry out strategic objectives set by senior command.” And that’s accurate.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And so what occurred between you and Deputy Commissioner Harkins and Commissioner Carrique was simply that. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly, and we also have no questions.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
That was his testimony but that was after Chief Sloly was ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
The objection was, that is not the timeline. That statement was made to Deputy Chief Bell on the eve of Chief Sloly’s departure.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. I'm Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly. Thank you. I just have a few questions. My colleagues have covered some of the things I was going to ask you about, so the -- Mr. Stewart, you said just a minute ago in response to one of my friends that you don’t go by the book in a situation like this. Do you recall saying that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And does that capture the idea that what you were dealing with during the time that we are speaking about with protests in different locations across the country was completely without precedent, and there is therefore no playbook that you can follow?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
One of the things that you have spoken to us about in your statement and today was the role of various of the federal government entities that concern national security. You recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did this -- did the events, in your opinion, reach -- become a national security threat?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
But was that your own view?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Rochon?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Same opinion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And as a consequence of -- and of course, as you've described to, I think, one of my friends, it was not thought to be a national security threat at the time that the convoys began to organize and come to Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm going to ask you, if I can, about the -- one more thing, and I think you've probably covered this, but former Chief Sloly has described these events as representing a paradigm shift in protests in Canada, probably for the reasons that you've given, Mr. Stewart, concerning the use of heavy vehicles. You share that view?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Rochon?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the -- you've spoken to my friends about Chief Sloly's consistent requests for the need for additional resources. Do you agree that those came in two forms? First, there was a request for resources to maintain the safety of the citizens, the protesters, and police service members who were policing the areas on Ottawa that were the subject of the protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And second, of course, that a greater need for resources in the event that a dismantling of the occupation was required?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Two very separate ways of thinking of resources; do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you also agree that the second, that is the -- an effort to bring public order and to dismantle an occupation requires the greater number of resources that you were eventually speaking about?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And everyone understood, didn’t they, that the OPS itself did not have the resources needed to do the second thing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it's true also, of course, they didn’t even have the resources to do the first thing because their own members were stretched so thin, I think you said?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, this was, of course, the same thing that occurred, in a sense, in both Windsor and Coutts and probably other places in terms of the under-resourcing of police services trying to manage those situations. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. I suppose that it wasn’t -- we know, don’t we, that the protest in Coutts, the blockade in Coutts, was not prevented or able to be prevented by RCMP officers on the ground there.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then once it did, once they were -- the protesters were there, the vehicles were on the road, and stopped, then enforcement became very challenging, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I think in fact one of the lessons that was learned in Coutts by your team, I assume, and others was that an effort, an early effort to enforce failed because protesters resisted and police were required to fall back. Do you recall that happening, February 1st?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that’s an indication, isn’t it, of the challenge of enforcement. You need significant resources to enforce that kind of a police operation.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, in terms, quickly, about Windsor, do you understand that the Windsor -- that resources that were requested by the Windsor Police Service and by the OPP were pledged by the RCMP prior to the completion of a plan by the Windsor Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In the absence of a plan?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And of course, for the reasons that you've given to one of my friends, the circumstances of the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge was a significant escalation in the national security threat, wasn’t it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, of the protests across the country, do you agree that Ottawa was the most complex and the most challenging?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. In terms of the, as you say the physical sense, or if one thought about it as a security issue, it was the more volatile. It had the most vehicles and the most protesters across a larger area; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, the -- I think you indicated that there was a time at least when there was a debate between or perhaps even a disagreement between federal and provincial officials in Ontario, that is, about which police service was the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service to call on; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Understood. Now, a couple of other things. You were also aware -- and I think you've told the Commissioner, that enforcement was not the preferred strategy here in any of these protest locations -- negotiation, de-escalation was the preferred strategy.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And yet the ministers -- the federal government ministers with whom you were interacting were demanding some kind of action. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the same was true, to your observation, of municipal officials here in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And of course, the community, the residents?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A high level of impatience and a high -- it was a highly challenging situation for the police service and for Chief Sloly.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You observed, and I'm sure you felt that the two of you were in the middle of this too. Can you tell the Commissioner, did you yourselves feel enormous pressure to try to do something to solve this problem?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Rochon?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you observed it across the spectrum of police services and other government agencies; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Do you agree that Chief Sloly, during the time that you were dealing with him, was a passionate defender of the city’s residents and of the Police Service in trying to find a solution?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And acted in good faith in the performance of his duties?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, one last area, if I may. Chief Sloly has described options that were other than enforcement and do you agree that Commissioner Lucki also expressed a preference for even the effort of an interlocutor to try to negotiate something with protesters? Do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
May I just show you, please, a document then and see if you can assist us because I think you received it. You're a member of the -- one of the acronyms -- the Deputy Minister’s Committee on Operational Coordination?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
True? DMOC? Could I please show the witness the interview summary from -- oh now, I won’t need to go to that. Let me show you the document, PBCAN00000750. See if this assists your recollection if you would, please, Mr. Stewart. There’s a suffix on that, REL.001. I don’t know if that’s important, Registrar. There we go. Thank you. Do you recognize this document, “Truckers Convoy and protective services key messages for DMOC,” February 3rd, at 2:30 p.m.?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Can you conform for the Commissioner, for this Commissioner, that you were at this meeting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Could you please just scroll down if you would, please, Mr. Registrar, to an expression that begins, “I will be honest…” the second page. There it is. Just read that, if you would, Mr. Stewart. For the record: “I’ll be honest. This may not be something that can be negotiated out of or resolved only with enforcement. There may need to be some other solutions, maybe the engagement of an interlocutor.” Does that refresh your recollection that on the 3rd of February in the afternoon Commissioner Lucki raised this concern that there may not be a solution through -- only through enforcement and there may be other solutions including an interlocutor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that she said that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. I’m out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, may I just ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- if I can be of any assistance to my friend. It may be that the interpretation is the opposite. That these are Commissioner Lucki's statements to the meeting that recorded by that scribe. I'm not certain that those are Chief Sloly's words to her ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- or a question to her.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. That, Commissioner Lucki, Deputy Commissioner, that is this Commissioner's warning that I'm not getting that back. So I'm Tom Curry. Let's see if we can -- what we can do in the 15 minutes that we have together. This was a difficult problem?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
More difficult problem than either of you have faced in your policing careers, at least of this kind? You agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. This one is, well, we -- you've touched on it when you speak of the Emergencies Act or the -- its predecessor, the first time in your careers either of you where the Government of Canada has had resort to legislation of this kind, right, obviously?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, I want to speak for a moment about the circumstances that faced the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Police Service because you were both involved in among other jurisdictions in dealing with the problems that were here. The -- you had -- you knew Chief Sloly before this -- before he took this command; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know -- Deputy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know, either of you, did you know of his work in the City of Toronto in the Toronto Police Service or internationally?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And like the two of you, he's -- he came to this role with a very long experience in policing. You knew that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he came also, you knew, presumably, just in watching the police services, he came with a change mandate.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You knew that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Commissioner, you knew that; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And a change mandate that was fixed at least in part on issues that were challenges for the Ottawa Police Service in terms of racialized communities, community policing, and the kinds of things about which he was very experienced?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And because you've probably had enough of these kinds of challenges in your own command, that makes leading a police service an extra special challenge; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in the circumstances in which Chief Sloly found himself, I think you've both touched on this, there was enormous pressure brought to bear upon him leading this service at the time of the convoy protest; correct? You observed that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes? And obviously, Deputy ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you saw that too?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Because he had the worst possible position if you think about. Every person in the country had an opinion about what he should be doing, first of all, some of those elected office holders. You reviewed with my friend, Mr. Miller, some of the notes that came to you through the federal cabinet. Cabinet ministers were themselves frustrated about what they thought was inaction by the Ottawa Police Service in the first few days; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the provincial government felt similarly to your observation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And obviously, here in Ottawa, the elected officials, the Ottawa City Council, the Police Services Board, the residents similarly felt enormous frustration that their city had become the site of this particular protest against the federal government's mandates; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was also obvious, wasn't it, to -- at least to you as experts in policing that there were no solutions that could be had, at least within the resources of the Ottawa Police Service; right? It was overmatched?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner? Obviously?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. I mean, well they -- you can do the count. It took essentially a doubling of the -- more than doubling of the police -- or the entire police service to make this work, and it would have been obvious if the protesters, particularly because as you've described, it ebbed and flowed, and the protest grew and gathered momentum, the Ottawa Police Service did not -- simply did not have the human power to deal with a Public Order operation to move the protesters. Is that obviously true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. That's fine. Deputy, you knew that they didn't have the numbers?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly identified that issue early on and put up his hand to ask for help; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he requested them from the province, of course, and he requested them from the federal government through the -- to the RCMP obviously; yes?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there was, you agree, a period of time where the province and the federal government were seemingly at odds about who should be the first port of call for resources; right? You knew that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And so they -- the resources that -- am I right though that the view that you had, or maybe it was the Minister had, was that the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service should be the Ontario Provincial Police?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So when the Chief identified and had the support of the community leaders to identify that there were approximately 1800 additional human resources required, then when that request was made, were steps taken immediately by RCMP to coordinate with the Ontario Provincial Police as to how that number of human resources could be mobilized to assist here in Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And did you seek that clarity from the OPP?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I understand it wouldn't have been your job as the Commissioner to look at a plan. You never saw the plans that the OPS had; right? You, yourself?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
13th.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, Deputy, you were also not -- it's not your role to paw through plans of the OPS; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So were you aware -- were you made aware by your own people that the Ontario -- that the Ottawa Police Service rather, had plans from the beginning to the end, including plans that Superintendent Lue of the RCMP used as part of the integrated planning process? Did you know that Superintendent Lue had built on the Ottawa Police Service plan or no?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Commissioner, didn't know ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that? Okay. So the idea that the OPS had plans, I'm not going to show you them in the time I have, would have been left to others in -- within your command who had that responsibility?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now the -- of course, others have heard -- the Commissioner has heard evidence about what happened in Windsor, and obviously, the Windsor Ambassador Bridge blockade was a significant national security threat. Do you agree?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. National security event?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And when that occurred, am I right that both the province and the federal government joined hands and mobilized resources immediately to Windsor to help relieve the Windsor Police Service problem. You knew that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, the federal government and the province agreed to mobilize resources to Windsor immediately to relieve that blockade?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Can I just show you -- I'll just show you one thing, if I could, Mr. Registrar. SSM.CAN.6068, and then the suffix is REL_0001 and it should be page 2, just for your benefit, panel ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Others have had their opinions about that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I just wondered where you were -- that's fine. So page 2, and just to orient you, this is a summary, a transcript of the -- of a call between the Prime Minister and the Premier concerning resources. And the Prime Minister makes a comment about the -- just scroll down. Maybe - - hold on just one second there, please.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Yeah, there it is. Here it is. RCMP. Do you see it, second last paragraph, "RCMP told me..."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"...they don't have jurisdiction and said they need to get asked and they need [something] in there."
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"I told them to be prepared to respond to ask and if they need more resources we need to be there at whatever cost." Premier says, "I agree. I'll check with the solicitor general, [...] I understand they passed a regulation to have the RCMP act as local police. They did it for Ottawa, [...] I'll check to see if it applies to the whole province." I'm not sure what that last part is, but did you understand from the Prime Minister, or indirectly from the Government of Canada that the RCMP should do whatever is required to respond to the blockade in Windsor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And yet, the -- those resources were mobilized by -- RCMP resources were mobilized even though no plan had been developed by the Windsor Police Service or the OPP at the time you were asked and ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. But that's the point. You were told they were working on a plan. Nobody at the RCMP saw a plan. But you mobilized. And the suggestion is, surely you could have done so in Ottawa.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And I'm sure we all understand, I'm sure Canadians will understand why it takes more time to get resources from one coast to the other into Ottawa, but don't we also understand that they were needed here?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Very quickly, can I just go to the issue of Chief Sloly and the plan that was the integrated plan. There has been a suggestion in this hearing from time to time that he delayed somehow the approval of the plan. Am I right that you understood that he had approved -- first things first. He didn't have to approve it, but suffice it to say that there was no question but that the plan had all the approvals that were required by the 12th of February in the afternoon?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. That's what I was just going to clarify. So whatever -- who told you that, by the time you reached the Chief directly, there was no issue about that. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Can I just show you PB -- one of the things that my friend showed you from Commission Counsel, PB.NSC.CAN.8040, and it should be page 15. This was a document that you saw earlier. I just want to clarify because I think at that time you had confirmed you had the approval. Just scroll down I think. Just stop there. Yeah, perfect. So do you see at -- and I don't know if whether this is the actual time, I think it's minus five hours: "Integrated Planning Cell met with Chief Sloly and some of his team for a briefing on the Plan. He approved the plan however they are still working on blending their new Mission Statement and other aspects of the Ops Plan with a goal of [setting] it back..." Just scroll down, please. The modification, do you see Mark Flynn: "[T]he modification is simply at the high political element of the plan. Mission Statement." Other witnesses have told the Commissioner that was not -- that had nothing whatever to do with ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Chief Sloly. And then, Commissioner, I just have one last question.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I will be finished, then. Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Minister, I'm Tom Curry, for your former colleague Chief Sloly. And I start by asking you a couple of questions about your relationship with the former Chief. He was your Deputy Chief for the period 2009 to 2015, I understand?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And prior to that, I think you told the Commissioner that you had worked with him in the aggregate for 25 years, close to?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And during the time that you worked with him, he had succeeded under your command in achieving promotions and taking on increasing responsibilities?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you knew him them and now to be an experienced and effective police leader; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that included in, as I understand it, in matters that concerned public demonstrations. You mentioned the Tamal demonstrations. I understand that Chief Sloly, or at that time not Chief Sloly, but at that time as a member of the Toronto Police Service that he was the Major Incident Commander in that respect?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you have seen firsthand his ability to manage successfully large-scale public demonstrations?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including the role that he played?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Now the -- and in that -- during the time that you were Chief of the Toronto Police Service and Deputy Chief Sloly or Chief Superintendent, or he held a number of different ranks, during your tenure, he had your confidence and respect?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now then you ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And during that time, you were asked a number of questions by my friend from the Ottawa -- for the Ottawa Police Service about the role of a Chief and various other aspects of things during the time that you worked with Chief Sloly, he had your, just to confirm, he had your confidence and respect and you saw him in command and he was a good commander. True?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, when he came here to the City of Ottawa to become the Chief, you understood also that it was to implement a change mandate on behalf of the Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including in respect of the Board's effort to try to improve the relationship between the Ottawa Police Service and racialized communities and ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- and marginalised communities?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And those strategies are challenging strategies as an agent of change; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I was going to say that you, yourself, made improving community policing one of your objectives as Chief of the Toronto Police Service.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And of course, Deputy Chief Sloly, at that time, was an important member of your Command Team on that score?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, when he came to Ottawa, you learned, am I right, that he faced some opposition from within the rank and file?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Now, the -- turning for just one second to the events of the convoy protests, you've already said in your statement and to my friends that these were unprecedented events. In your nearly 40 years of policing you'd never seen anything like this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in terms of the questions that you were just asked by my friend on behalf of the OPP about what could have been known or foreseen, I won't take you to the documents because there are a number of them and I won't have the -- I won't take the time, but were you aware that representatives of the RCMP, the OPP, the Sûreté du Québec and Parliamentary Protective Service all reviewed the Ottawa Police Service Plan for the convoy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Or that the -- you wouldn't be aware that the OPP, one member of the OPP described the OPS plan for managing the convoy in advance as a robust plan?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair enough. And it's, as I understand it, you haven't -- you, yourself haven't -- you aren't second-guessing the Ottawa Police Service's plan or the plan that was reviewed by those other Police Services in advance of the convoy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then once it was here, and it's -- and it became a different -- it became a very different protest, leading eventually to an occupation, you understood that the Ottawa Police Service on its own lacked the resources to manage it successfully?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you accepted that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, that -- let me just take you to one document that one of my friends had projected for a second just while I have it. SSM, please, Mr. Registrar, SSM.NSC.CAN2983. Minister, this was shown to you a moment ago. I'm just going to ask you to look at a different line than the one that was shown. Thank you. Just scroll down if you don't mind, please. Keep going, and keep going a little bit. There. Thank you. Stop. "I doubt" -- you wrote this: "I doubt Peter is getting a lot of support in his own organization. They are likely sitting back and waiting for him to flounder." And then the line that was read to you earlier about lack of a strong support network within other police leadership. Just focussing on the first part of that sentence. It was your concern that members of his own Police Service, the Ottawa Police Service, were not supporting this Chief. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the expression to -- here in this text message was a very real concern for you. Is that fair? That you were concerned that his own Command Team or at least members of his own organisation would sit back and wait for him to flounder, not support him in the expectation that perhaps he would fail and pay a price, not unlike the one that you were invited to comment about by his own Police Service in their questions to you?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And of course, one cannot lead an organisation that does not wish to be led very easily; right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Now, a couple of things if I may, please. The -- I want to ask you, if I could, about RFA, requests for assistance. Can I just ask you, please, to confirm that Solicitor General Ontario asked for the use of the Cartier Drill Hall. You recall this?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And am my right that the Solicitor General Ontario asked for that use of the Cartier Drill Hall parking lot for two days, being the weekend of the protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And you've -- exactly. You made that available. Just for the record, Commissioner, SS -- I don't want to see it, but SSM.CAN4564. Minister, you spoke about, just in terms of the role of the Chief, can you help this Commissioner, please, with this question. During the Operations in respect to that Tamil protest, in your witness statement, I won't take you to it, but you described how, or I think today you described how you directed Operations when you needed to as the Chief in terms of keeping the protesters safe on the off ramps.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And in the same way, I think in your witness statement, and I don't want to turn it up, see if this recall -- if you recall this, it's paragraph 5 for the record, you reviewed and approved plans as the Chief concerning the G20 protests?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Got it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And I think the language that you used in your statement was that you would review those, approve them, and then present them to the Board.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Now, Commissioner, I'm -- my -- if -- I'm going to go a little overtime with your consent, only because my friends for the Commission introduced a few new things through the Minister about Police Services Board.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I am going to see what I can do as quickly as I can do it, but thank you for that. The -- resources. You mentioned to the Commissioner that you received a request for resources from Windsor for the Ambassador Bridge blockade. Can you confirm that you received those via a letter directly from the Chief of Police to you, and one similarly went to Minister Jones?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Understood. But in that respect, in -- regarding Windsor, the request for resources came to you as the Minister, to Minister Jones for her counterpart, there was an urgent need for resources and you did what you could to send them, urgently; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So I think -- I won’t take you to it, but just for the record, Commissioner, WIN1648 and 1649 are letters, not directed under the Police Services Act, rather directly to you and the Minister?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You passed them on, and the resources came from the RCMP and the OPP, but nobody followed the Police Services Act protocol in Windsor?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the Police Services Act protocol to which you referred isn’t mandatory in respect of sequencing; it’s -- it is there, but Police Services, including at the time that you were the Chief in Toronto, gain resources through Memorandum of Agreement and other requests through Police Services; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And what you observed from Chief Sloly was that he was trying his best to get the support he needed for the community, to keep the protest safe and his own service safe; correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And your observation was that he acted in good faith in the performance of his duties?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that he -- did you -- were you made aware -- I assume that you weren’t; you did not know of the plans that the OPS had, their evolution and the approvals that Chief Sloly -- Chief Sloly’s team gave to those plans?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the information that you received as a Minister and in Cabinet came, in respect of police services and resources, through Commissioner Lucki; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And are you aware that certain of the information that you received turned out not to be accurate, in terms of the resources? I’ll give you a couple of examples. That you were aware of the -- what has been described, I think, as a -- by Deputy Commissioner Duheme to the Commissioner, as a mix-up about the 250 RCMP officers?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
What about Minister Jones 1,500 OPP officers on the ground in Ottawa; were you aware she made that statement?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Or that, therefore, that it was inaccurate; you wouldn’t have known that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couple of last things, then, if I may? You’re -- you, I think in your evidence in your statement have described that you had requested or spoken with Chief Sloly about the possibility of tagging vehicles and towing vehicles.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
He explained to you why that was not possible, as a matter of safe enforcement, and you accepted his conclusion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know that RCMP and OPP officials were urging OPS, through Chief Sloly and others, to not take enforcement steps because in Ottawa they lacked resources to do so safely?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
If they did, you would, again, defer to them as -- them and the OPS as to the people with the best line of sight into that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Last thing, then, please, if I could. Because, of course, you know Minister, from the nature of the questions that you’ve been asked, that there’s a great deal of scrutiny about what Chief Peter Sloly here in Ottawa, and you agree that, in hindsight, that more could have been done, and sooner, to assist Chief Sloly and the OPS to secure the assistance of resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in hindsight, nothing more Chief Sloly could have done, individually, to make a difference; fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Minister.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Minister, Tom Curry for the former chief. Good afternoon. Just on the point that was last raised, did you - - were you briefed on the outcome of the effort to try to engage protestors in Windsor by Minister Jones or by the OPP and the letter from Minister Jones?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. The issue about whether a negotiated resolution was possible, was that taken eventually to Cabinet and discussed?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And similarly, did you become aware that the Mayor of Ottawa had negotiated successfully for the relocation of some of the vehicles away from residential neighbourhoods and that that was thought to represent a possible breakthrough?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A couples of things, if I could, just about the resources. The information that you received about resources came principally from Commissioner Lucki. Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you become aware that the information that you were receiving from the Commissioner did not accord with the provision of resources to the OPS?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Understood. And you relied in making -- you made very -- I won't take you to them in the time I have, but you made various public statements in response to questions from the media about what you were doing - - what the Federal Government was doing to help the Ottawa Police Service and in reliance from the information you had from Commissioner Lucki you made those statements, including naming the numbers of officers, I think at one time 250 or 275, something like that.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the idea that -- all you can do in your position, I presume, is rely on those, in this case the Commissioner, to provide you with information to the best of her ability and then you can rely on that and convey it. As it turns out in this case, you learned that the information that you had and conveyed was not accurate.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Just -- and just for the -- I'm not going to take it up, but in one of the statements that you made, it's captured at OPS8365 at page 5. That's just for the record. I don't need it, Mr. Registrar. You described, again based on information that you had from the Commissioner, that the RCMP had added 275 Mounties in the Ottawa deployment. And as you pointed out, and we learned later, and the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, I think, described it as essentially about the mix up of the numbers. That the -- it wasn't actually that many Mounties, it was a way of accounting for them that added up shifts and the like. Did you subsequently become aware that that's how the numbers became, as they said, mixed up?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Yeah. In the end, it was a massive deployment, which gets to the point you've already touched on. Chief Sloly has described this as unprecedented and representing a paradigm shift in the way we think about policing public protests. Do you agree with that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- in terms of the circumstances in which everyone of you found yourselves in, all of the participants, and I include the convoy organisers, who seemed not also to have appreciated how many people were going to attend and maybe the nature of their sense of protest, this resulted in great frustration at all levels, as you've expressed. You were frustrated about the pace at which this was being resolved. Fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in your communications and the communications of some of your ministerial colleagues, do you agree that in hindsight some of the language that was used, even internally, was unhelpful to the cause because it added concerns and doubt about the effectiveness of, for example, the Ottawa Police Service or the Chief in being able to deal with a problem that had overwhelmed their service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And although you were expressing, and Minister Blair expressed I think yesterday, and no doubt this has appeared in media because it was found in some of the documents, that he expressed his embarrassment about his former profession of law enforcement because of these circumstances, we should not take any of those comments as reflecting on the hard work that was done by the OPS or Chief Sloly at the time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Can I just ask, then, one last thing to get your help with this, please, Minister? The issue that you've been asked about in terms of the difference between setting priorities in your role as the Minister of Public Safety and interfering with Operations, do you agree with me that describing for the Commissioner the importance of, for example, the circumstances that the country found itself in with the border blockades, having that discussion with the Commissioner doesn't interfere with operational autonomy?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
At the level both of the federal and provincial ministry because both have -- the Commissioner has seen expressions of priorities by the Provincial and Federal Government as to, for example, the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge. Appropriate in your judgement?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including the Commissioner might think about recommendations for how those priorities can be set, so that, for instance, if this occurs again, the -- an entity or a police service like the Ottawa Police Service isn't caught between the federal and provincial government deciding which is the first port of call, for example?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Final thing, in your dealings with Chief Sloly, do you agree that, to your observation, he performed his duties in good faith to the best of his abilities?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Tom Curry for the former chief. Pleased to meet you. Towards the end of your evidence to my friend Mr. Cameron's -- in response to my friend Mr. Cameron's question, you describe the circumstances of Cabinet towards the period of time when it was deliberating, I suppose, about the Emergencies Act invocation, I think you've said it was rapidly -- a rapidly- evolving situation?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You had imperfect information?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You described the circumstances as unprecedented?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that you were, as a Cabinet, I think you said, trying to do your best to get information upon which you could make decisions and take action?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A complex issue?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you accept that it was a complicated and complex unprecedented issue for the Ottawa Police Service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And for Chief Sloly, of course?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that that very same things that you experienced as a Cabinet at the -- you know, in and around the last meetings that you had prior to the invocation were the very same circumstances in which the Ottawa Police Service and Chief Sloly found themselves at the beginning?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Now, you've not -- if -- I don’t know enough about your background to be 100 percent sure, but I'm pretty confident you never served in a police service?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in your role as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, you have no interaction with police services?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sorry, of course. Apart from your personal security detail, you don’t have interactions in your role as the Minister of Justice or Attorney General in police -- with police services, right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Different thing. You've not -- you're talking about why a police service member of the Ottawa Police Service stood idly by while a jerry can was by.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood. You're not criticizing them for decisions that they may have made about whether to intercept a particular protester, for example, owing to whether they had the resources to do it?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. The reason I ask, of course, is because you did, in the messages that my friend Mr. Cameron showed you, describe him as incompetent.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood, and I think all of us understand the heat of the heat of the moment, the text message, and so on. But in this particular case, accepting as you have that it was an expression to a -- really, to a friend, happens to be a Cabinet colleague -- but this was to a friend -- -
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you did not imagine that -- and no one should take your words as expressing a view of the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of Canada?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Because you can understand how when such a thing is made public that not only Canadians but the eyes and ears of Canadians through the media take the words to be the weight of your office.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And they oughtn't take those words to be the weight of your office?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Equally, am I right that in the other expressions that you made as a Cabinet colleague, the same thing is true, that those words were expressed as a -- as no doubt, as a human experiencing these traumatic events as you've described them, but not expressions of the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, some of the other -- I won't go through them; I don’t have the time -- but some of the other text messages that expressed what might have been -- I think you may have described or Mr. Cameron described as "bad humour" or -- about Chief Sloly's surname. "Sloly in relation to quick, quick, quick." That was an attempt at a humorous remark, not spoken as Attorney General or ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. But as from the chief's perspective, you can appreciate at the time, if your Cabinet colleagues form the view that they should have less confidence in him, that that was neither your intention, nor would it be fair? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And of course, the issue becomes trying to separate a remark made ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. Although of course, you're not entitled to review an operational plan as the Minister of Justice or as the Attorney General.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. And as to that, just in the time I have remaining, I take it that you didn’t know what -- no one was providing you with information about what the OPS had as a plan or didn’t have as a plan at the Cabinet table, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you now appreciate that some of the information that you received from the Commissioner up through the Commissioner of the RCMP was not accurate?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Suffice it to say that you were relying on what was told to you about what resources were available and whether there were plans at certain dates, but you can't vouch for any of that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Last thing, please, if I may, just as to resources. You sent a note to the attorney general, your opposite number now, Attorney General Downey, in Ontario, to urge him to speak to the solicitor general about priorities, Windsor and Ottawa?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I share your -- for what it's worth, I share your view that that is the role of government, to set priorities and for police to make decisions afterwards. But just as to that, did you have an appreciation in Cabinet that there was a kind of unfortunate "After you, Alphonse" moment between the Federal Government and the Ontario Government as to who was the first -- which government was the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service to receive resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Did you appreciate that Ontario took the opposite view?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. I'm out of time. Thank you, Minister.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, Tom Curry, we have no questions for Minister Anand.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Panel, Tom Curry for the former Chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Chief Sloly. Just a few questions, if I can, please. These events have been described by probably everyone who has appeared here as unprecedented, and certainly in your collective tenure in the Prime Minister's Office, that would be true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the circumstances were also - - Chief Sloly described the volatile nature of the events here in Ottawa, and you share that view?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I think he may have described, or others have described a tinderbox, risk of violence present always it seemed and growing?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And although it may not have been clear at the outset of the demonstration and the protest that -- but as it evolved, did you come to understand that there were significant limitations on the ability of the Ottawa Police Service to manage it with its own resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And were the briefings that you received always through RCMP officials? Briefings on police operations or updates, did they come from Commissioner Lucki?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. So just a couple of things if I can get -- and I think they're Mr. Clow's notes, so could we please just get your help with a couple of things? This is for our Registrar, SSM.NSC.CAN 2941, please. If that -- yeah, thank you. Just on the -- just a little larger. Thank you. So this is -- just to situate you, do you see February 3rd 11:15?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And you've looked at some of these notes previously. It says ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- "...looks like OPS won't move. Weeks not days. Weekend reinforcements problem. - Behind [the] scenes, too differential: Need..." I think you -- I want to just confirm this as, "Need bad cop: you've got to use [the] tools you have - whether to change public [message] is different" Those are references -- do you know what those are references to? Is that in reference to the idea that, at that time at least, someone was expressing the view that police were taking a standoff-ish position with the demonstrators?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then just in the second one, it looks -- the second set of comments, I just -- just as to this, RCMP -- does it say through OPS under bus at caucus?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"How do we get right people on [the] path to driving somewhere - any way to get..." Well, and you talked about that earlier. Is that -- to the extent that you can recall this, does -- is that an indication that the RCMP was pointing to OPS as the police of jurisdiction responsible for doing this and that they weren't taking sufficient action at that time, or can you help us?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Did you learn at that time from anyone in that briefing from RCMP, that some RCMP officials had seen and reviewed and approved the OPS plan in advance of the protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Could I ask you just to look, please, at page 7 of this record, Mr. Registrar, just for a couple of other things. Now of course I've got to pick it out where it was. About the middle of the page, do you see there's a reference to -- this is obviously a Cabinet -- it looks like it might be a Cabinet Committee briefing, but it says -- about the middle, "250 RCMP assisting. Some holding back for surge." And there's reference to the Ambassador Bridge up above. Did you come to realize as this evolved that there was some misunderstanding about how many RCMP officers were made available to OPS at any given time, a matter of shift counting and the like, did you learn that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. I think the Mayor of the City of Ottawa had said that what was represented as the number that had been deployed to Ottawa was smaller than the number that had been represented to the public and so on; you believe that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then just a couple of other lines, if I may, "OPS trying to reduce violence, are taking some steps." And then there's a likening to Ottawa's strategy to D- Day. Is that a reference to the idea that there was a plan in place to try to dismantle the occupation but that it was going to require significant additional resources?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And then, Mr. Commissioner, your indulgence for one more question with Mr. Clow's benefit, page 12, if you don't mind. And, of course you were following this as it -- as this page is coming up, you were following this across the country, these -- as you’ve described, Ambassador Bridge and the like. If you look at -- if you scroll down a little bit, Mr. Registrar -- there we go. I just want your help with this. Brenda, of course, you’ve described as Commissioner Lucki; certain references to RCMP; Ottawa team headed to Windsor, York, Waterloo, OPP, plan is to remove by morning because autoworkers ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- counterprotest. And we’ve heard some evidence about that. "Mayor wanted to remove chief, so then chief sent letters." (As read). Is that a reference to letters that were received by, I think, either the Prime Minister or Minister Blair requesting resources from RCMP; do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. And then the last, very last thing, on February 5th, Chief Sloly noted a Police Services Board meeting that: "Something has changed in our democratic fabric and we do not have the legislation or the resources to manage such situations. We do not have the justice system framework or the needed coordination between all levels of government to predictably manage these demonstrations going forward." (As read). And he described a threat to national security. Do you share those views?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. No other questions for you, thank you.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Mr. Weatherill, Tom Curry for Chief Sloly. I understand you were interviewed by Commission counsel on November 17th.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And can you just tell the Commissioner, how long were you with the Commission counsel for that interview?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you have access to the information -- to any information during the interview or was it -- well, I’ll just stop there. Did you have access to information during the interview?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Including the films or recordings at least of the Police Services Board and council meetings concerning the Ottawa Police Services Board?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now, just in terms of the chain of command at the Solicitor General’s ministry, I understand that you are the -- of course you're the Inspector General of Policing and you have a direct report to the Deputy Solicitor General. Is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then reporting to you is the manager of police services liaison, or the Police Services Liaison Unit, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And then below that office are the Police Services advisors of whom you have spoken to my friend; is that right?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the idea is that the Police Services advisors attend some or all Police Services Board meetings?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
In this case the Ottawa Police Services Board is in -- was in the hands of Ms. Gray, Lindsay Gray for the time up until February 14th; have I got that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I shouldn't -- I meant that only in the sense that she was the advisor for the Ottawa Police Services Board. And when did you first learn that the Ottawa Police Services Board was dealing with the convoy protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. Now you yourself though did not -- if I understand it, you did not observe a Police Services Board meeting of the Ottawa Police Services Board in real time, at that initial phase at least; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And at no time during any of the meetings that you observed or that Ms. Gray observed did any -- was any comment made either to the Police Services Board or to the Chief; is that correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, sorry, by you or Ms. Gray I should have said.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
They wouldn't have even known you were on the line; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the -- Ms. Gray who they would have been aware was present, also, to your observation and from reports that she gave you, did not speak up at any of the meetings to either the Board or any of the Police Services members who were making presentations?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And even -- whether inside or outside of the meeting, to the extent that there was some question about what information was being provided to the Board by members of the Police Service, or alternatively, what questions were being asked by the Board, neither Ms. Gray nor you made any -- provided any guidance to the Board or the Service; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Fair enough. And that -- and do I understand it that Ms. Gray and you in your role were content with the guidance that she provided at that time?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And that -- can I just have you confirm just, please, Mr. Registrar, ONT1115. Just confirm for the Commissioner if you would, Mr. Weatherill, now I hope you can see this, if I -- are you able to see a document if it's projected on your screen?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Thank you. Do you recognize ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you very much. Do you recognize that as a briefing note provided by Ms. Gray that summarizes the information that she recorded as having occurred during the February 5th meeting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And can I just ask you to just scroll down, Mr. Registrar -- there, thank you. Just stop there. Second bullet point, do you see, "Chair Deans stated [...] the meeting was called to ask the chief one question – in accordance with the mandate for the delivery of adequate and effective policing, she asked the chief if he believes he is still able to provide, given the fluid nature of the occupation, adequate and effective policing to the city..." And then asked, "If not, [...] what resources from the board or [...] assistance [...] can [be] provide[d]..." Do you recall that that was the single stated purpose of that meeting?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And during that -- now I'm not going to have the time to -- that was a very lengthy meeting; do you recall?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And do you recall that during that meeting, Chief Sloly and I believe his senior command staff gave extensive information to the Board about the status of the protest in the City of Ottawa and described plans and enforcement activities; do you recall that?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, it -- I mean, you can keep going. It's a five-page document. I don't have the time, unfortunately, but there is a great deal of discussion between this Chief and his senior command and the Board about the fact that there are inadequate resources within the Ottawa Police Service to dismantle the protest; isn't that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. But am I correct that -- certainly you as a member of the -- especially with your experience in Police Services, this is not a mystery. On February 5th, you knew, and everyone knew that the Ottawa Police Service was overwhelmed by the protesters and had no adequate resources themselves to dismantle the protest; isn't that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you ask for them?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So -- okay. Well, so what I just need to understand then, Mr. Weatherill, is this, you didn't ask for them but you've never seen them. You're not criticizing anybody for failing to provide them then. You're just telling the Commissioner you didn't see them.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And maybe we're saying the same thing, but you understood at that time and Board understood at that time that the Ottawa Police Service had a maintenance plan and various details about operations, but the dismantling would require the influx of significant resources. Didn’t you know that, and the Board ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Did you attend the in- camera portion?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. So then I'll leave that for a moment. A couple of quick things. Just confirm for the Commissioner please that this chief and this command team briefed the Board January 26th in advance of the protest, and you watched that briefing after the fact; is that true?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I can't in the time I have. So to your recollection, did you not ever see the briefing that was given to the Board on the 26th of January in advance of the convoy protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you -- thank you, did you see the briefings of February 1st in addition to February -- you've told us about the 5th -- did you watch the February 1st, 7th, 11th, and 15th briefings?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. Fair enough. So you don’t know whether you attended those other ones; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Sure. And understanding -- you told the Commissioner this -- this was a critical incident and briefings during critical incidents are the exception to a Board, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, you -- just real quick on the Morden Report, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has never endorsed the Morden Report; is that correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Well, yes, fair. But it hasn’t - - the ministry hasn’t endorsed nor the precise language that you've used is "or taken a position" on the Morden Report.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Last thing, please, last area. Confidentiality is a significant value in police services boards, correct?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
A chief would not be wrong to keep in mind in briefing a board issues about leaks of information and be guided by not sharing every detail of operational plans if the board is a leaky institution? Is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know that one member of the board had attended this convoy protest and had made donations?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right. So you were unaware that there was one board member thought to be supportive of the convoy protest?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. You agree that if that were true, a board chair and a chief would be well advised to be careful about information they share about operations; is that fair?
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Mr. Weatherall, I don’t have any other questions for you this evening.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I think the difference Commissioner, between -- Tom Curry speaking. The difference between us is that I believe there's a briefing on February 1st, but we can perhaps sort that out later. I think that's the date I gave, and I believe I'm correct.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, may I just raise one very brief comment? My friend's ---
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I'm sorry for this, but it -- I think you are going to agree it's important. The Ministry of the Solicitor General knew about the leaking information from the Board, it's in a statement that is from Mr. Weatherill's subordinate. I just don't want you to be left without the other -- the third leg of that stool because the Ministry knew it as well. I don't know if my friend wants to develop that. I don't know why if we're going it we don't develop it.
-
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you, Commissioner. Tom Curry for former Chief Sloly. As you emphasized in your comments opening these proceedings, these hearings concern accountability of the Federal Government, examined why the emergency was declared, how the power was used, and whether the Government’s actions were appropriate. The ancillary matters under review, including the efforts of police, are examined, as you indicated, only to the extent relevant to that mandate. This is important because it requires the Commission to focus on the Acts and decisions of the Federal Government. Although it provides relevant context, this is not an inquiry into the operation of the Ottawa Police Service, City of Ottawa, or the performance of Chief Sloly. As you also noted at the outset, this public inquiry is unique, since the time available for you to complete your mandate is very short. To accomplish that tax, procedural rules were adopted that imposed limits on the ability of the parties withstanding to elicit evidence or challenge evidence introduced by Commission Counsel. Those procedural limitations were designed to protect the Commission’s ability to complete its mandate, and you’ve shown they’ve worked. But no party or participant should be the subject of an adverse misconduct finding in the context of a Commission that has had to complete its mandate by imposing procedural rules to address the limited time frame in which you’ve had to operate. Chief Sloly is recognized by all as a national police leader who brought nearly 30 years of experience to Ottawa as its first black police chief. He has a long record of success at the City of Toronto Police Service and internationally in virtually every role played in policing. His actions, and his decisions, and his recommendations for the future carry the weight of that accumulated experience and wisdom. The convoy protest that arrived in Ottawa on January 2022 represented an unprecedented and unpredictable paradigm shift in public protest. Even with the benefit of hindsight, it is not possible to find that police services and intelligence agencies should have known this would become an extended occupation. Recall, indeed, that most protestors left after the first weekend. But as the protest settled in to become an occupation, the Ottawa Police Services plans that always contemplated some protestors would stay past the first weekend, required to evolve to address the new situation. There’s also agreement that the OPS lacked the resources to resolve the occupation itself. Chief Sloly raised a lack of resources in a responsible way throughout these events and his statement that there may not be a policing solution from the Ottawa Police Service alone was correct. He was also right to consider the role of negotiation and dialogue, and whether an interlocuter could assist. Of course the declarations of emergency by three levels of government were also not a policing solution, and he was right to call attention to the role of government to address this challenge. Agreement across the parties is also made that the events created a crucible of enormous pressure for everyone involved. All described the pressure they experienced during the protest. This point is important to your work because as you assess the facts and the roles played by individuals in these events, you should exercise restraint in judging those people, including Chief Sloly, who were operating under extremely challenging circumstances. The parties agree also that the police response in Ottawa, Windsor, Coutts, and elsewhere, was a success, as has been noted by others, in the sense that the protests were brought to a conclusion without a loss of life or serious injury. The City of Ottawa, the OPS, and Chief Sloly occupied a prominent position in these proceedings. Commission Counsel’s presentation of the evidence focused more on that part of the events than other parts. More members of the OPS testified and for longer than members of the other police services. Chief Sloly himself was in the witness box twice as long as any other witness in the proceeding. This intense scrutiny of Chief Sloly’s role during the three weeks under review establishes though that he performed his duties in good faith, to the best of his abilities, and that he dedicated himself to the passionate defence of the City of Ottawa, its residents, the membership of the OPS, the right of lawful protest, and the safe and responsible end of the illegal occupation. He exercised his authority under extremely difficult circumstances. His police service was operating without a full permanent senior command, was struggling to recover from the challenges of the global pandemic, and of course adjusting to a new chief from outside its service, implementing a change mandate. The unprecedented events of the convoy protest meant that the OPS, Police Services Board, City Council, City officials and agencies were required to work together in imperfect conditions. Chief Sloly did everything in his authority to get the help he needed to help this community and the service he swore to protect. Unfortunately, he and the OPS were unable to get the help they needed when they needed it. You’ve heard about the reasons for those delays, from debates about who should be the first port of call, to delays caused by inaccurate public statements about how many police service members were available to the OPS. Those circumstances created confusion and doubt and an unjustified lack of confidence in Chief Sloly and the OPS. Chief Sloly and the OPS were in an impossible position. To dismantle an unprecedented occupation, but not with the resources they needed to do so. He had the weight of the city and the nation on his shoulders. Criticism of the absence of a plan must be seen in the context of the reality that there were always plans for maintaining the safety of the community, but plans for the dismantling of the occupation obviously required resources, and a plan most assuredly was complete, as you’ve heard, February 12th, and February 13th, and services were delivered against that plan from the RCMP and the OPP. Chief Sloly served to the best of his ability under trying circumstances inside and outside the OPS, but it was not enough. Confidence in the OPS and its Chief was harmed by the weight of the rumours and resourcing delays and the scale of the problem, and so he did the last thing he could do to ensure public safety was not compromised. On February 15th, he resigned from his position to remove himself from the equation. I say that's an act of a selfless leader who put the community and its service before himself and his family. His public service continues in this hearing. He has participated fully in these proceedings, including by offering his account of the circumstances and his recommendations to you for future reform to address structural deficits and improve the sharing of intelligence and responses to events of this kind in the future, and Commissioner, he looks forward to assisting you in the policy phase. On Chief Sloly's behalf and on behalf of my colleagues, thank you for your work in this Commission.