:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good evening. I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to assist you in your important work reviewing the declaration of the Emergencies Act.
The commission of inquiry chaired by Justice Rouleau will begin public hearings next week, and I will be a party to the commission. I have supported, and will continue to support, government-related inquiries and initiatives to improve policing and public safety in Canada. At the federal government level, I have previously appeared before the PROC standing committee regarding expanding the federal jurisdiction for the security of the parliamentary precinct, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security regarding systemic racism in policing, and the 's listening circle regarding policing reform. I was also the co-chair for Public Safety Canada's national expert committee on countering radicalization to violence. My participation in these federal government consultations, committees and inquiries is part of my ongoing effort to help build a more safe, just and inclusive society.
In addition to my former role as the chief of the Ottawa Police Service, I bring to this committee over three decades of private and public sector experience in the areas of security, policing and justice. My experience includes two tours of duty in the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. I've played lead roles in planning, implementing and managing a variety of multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional police and security operations.
The police leaders, national security leaders and senior public officials who have appeared before this and other standing committees studying the “freedom convoy” events have stated that this was an unprecedented and unforeseen national security crisis. It was a crisis fuelled by social media disinformation and societal polarization; a crisis that introduced new threats and risk factors; a crisis in which actions by police could face stiff and determined resistance, potentially leading to greater unrest and instability; a crisis that exceeded the capacity of the local police in places like Coutts, Windsor and Ottawa; and a crisis that exposed long-standing structural deficits in our public institutions, including police agencies and national security organizations.
That said, these events also galvanized the country and demonstrated the ability of our national security organizations, police agencies, public institutions, elected officials, civic leaders and just plain regular Canadians to resolve a highly volatile national security crisis without any loss of life or serious bodily harm.
The events around the “freedom convoy” represented a paradigm shift in terms of scale, planning, logistics, finances, counter-intelligence, civil disobedience, etc. What started as an anti-vaccine demonstration rapidly evolved and was co-opted by different ideologically radicalized individuals and insurgency movements. The intended demonstrations in the nation's capital turned into occupations, fortifications and/or economic disruptions across Canada, the greatest impacts of which affected the city of Ottawa.
To be clear, the Ottawa Police Service did its best to deal with this perfect storm that broke first and most on our city. From the onset, we actively sought intelligence, continuously updated operational plans and constantly tried to secure the needed resources to end the crisis safely and successfully. We deployed all available OPS resources to try to manage the fluid and metastasizing situation while also trying to provide adequate and effective police services to the rest of the one million residents in Canada's largest geographical municipality. We served, suffered and struggled 24 hours a day for weeks alongside our local residents, business owners, city workers and public safety partners. We enforced bylaws, provincial statutes and criminal offences where we could do so safely and without further escalating an already highly volatile situation. We assisted other police agencies, national security organizations and public officials to better understand and respond to the rapidly evolving and expanding national security crisis.
That is why on January 30 I worked with OPP commissioner Tom Carrique to convene meetings with police leaders from across the country to share updated threat intelligence information and operational lessons learned.
That is why on February 2 I stated that there may not be a policing solution to this. I made this statement not to abdicate local policing responsibilities but to alert government officials and civil society leaders that an end to the national security crisis may require resources, legislation and operational capabilities greater than those available to the OPS and other police services of jurisdiction across Canada.
That is why on February 7 I formally requested that 1,800 additional officers from across Canada come to Ottawa.
That is why on February 9 I led the efforts to significantly update our plan, including the expansion of the integrated command structure under the leadership of the OPS.
That is why the new integrated capabilities, combined with the efforts of our OPP and RCMP partners, resulted in the cross-Canada recruitment of almost 2,000 officers who were utilized to implement the OPS plan, a plan that leveraged the additional powers of the various emergency declarations and injunctions.
This whole-of-country effort ultimately collapsed the local events in Ottawa while accelerating the safe, successful end to the national security crisis.
That said, the societal issues and structural deficits that underpin this unprecedented national security crisis are still largely unresolved, so the threat of another such occurrence happening again remains, and there is an urgent need to learn all we can from these events.
I have been doing and will continue to do everything within my power to share information with the various committees and inquiries, as well as to make recommendations on how to better prevent, mitigate, respond to and recover from such crises in the future.
I conclude by recognizing everyone who was negatively impacted by this national security crisis, especially Ottawa residents, businesses and city workers.
I thank the members of the Ottawa Police Service, as well as those of our policing and national security partners, who were professional, ethical, brave and compassionate in their efforts to help safely and successfully resolve the crisis.
Madam Chair, I welcome questions from the committee, and I thank you for inviting me here today.
:
I appreciate the conversations you had. Obviously, I wasn't there to verify them, but I'll take your explanation at face value.
There were clearly orders sent through for us to enforce the laws that we could. There was also a very clear understanding, which is borne out in multiple intelligence reports from multiple levels of security operations, including ITAC reports, that enforcement activity in any theatre across the country could have escalating impacts. In fact, I quoted earlier from that in my presentation.
The reality on the ground was that officers had maximum discretion about whether and how they would engage in enforcement activities, whether it was bylaw enforcement or enforcing provincial statutes or the Criminal Code.
We made enforcement efforts on every single day, and statutes were enforced at all three levels, but the officers had the discretion—if they felt it wasn't safe, if they didn't have a proper resource or if it could escalate the situation—to make that decision. That's fundamental to democratic policing in any state of affairs, whether an emergency or not.
We have started to receive memos, some of which are not redacted. The much discussed group or committee composed of the and certain members of Cabinet was receiving reports on the events. I am going to quote what the said at a meeting with the Prime Minister on February 12.
[English]
In Ottawa, the commissioner of the RCMP reported having a meeting with the OPS chief and OPP commissioner. There were approximately 350 protesters on Parliament Hill and 400 on Wellington Street.
The has been quoted as indicating, “There appears to be a lack of a plan in Ottawa, with the Chief of Ottawa Police Service having yet to approve the plan developed with the RCMP and OPP.” During the discussion, “confirmation was obtained that the OPS chief of police accepted the plan”, and the commissioner of the RCMP agreed to be able to provide additional details of the plan in the next call.
[Translation]
That suggests that you did not have a plan and that the plan you ultimately accepted was the one presented by the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police. That surprised me.
That committee meeting, where the Prime Minister was present, took place on February 12. On that date, you had already announced on the OPS website that you had a plan to clear the area. Was this your plan, the RCMP's plan, or a combination of the two?
:
You and your service, as well as the City of Ottawa, had weeks to prepare and discuss a strategy with the organizers of the protest as to where the staging would take place.
Quite frankly, I appreciate your frankness in answering that affirmatively when the question was posed to you by my colleague, Mr. Motz, unlike interim chief Bell, who had some difficulty getting to the truth of that when he testified on May 17, 2022.
Leaving that aside, during the protest I was able to go on the OPS website and found a seven-page document that indicated, in very bright letters, “Ottawa police, Ottawa truck convoy”. It listed details of protesters travelling eastbound on Highway 417 and Highway 416, and westbound on Highway 417. There were descriptions of tractors with no trailers, tractors with open and empty trailers, trucks with box trailers. There was conversation and detail about staging areas. A very brightly worded document, it set out very clearly where these protesters were to set up shop and where their supplies ultimately would be. In fact, there was a very detailed description as to how many tractor trailers could actually park on Wellington Street.
Would you agree with me that this document does exist?
I'll repeat what everyone has said about your public service. Thank you for it. Thank you for appearing today.
I'm going to go a bit fast.
In response to, I think, Senator Harder, you said that removing the ability of people to come downtown to protest helped because it helped with the removal, eventually, of the trucks. Police officers effectively weren't looking over their shoulders. There was only the task at hand, and there weren't more people coming in.
The Emergencies Act declaration specifically said that it was prohibited to come for a public assembly “that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace” other than “lawful advocacy, protest or dissent”.
Do you agree with the terms of the declaration?
In my first round of questions, I perhaps danced around what I wanted to get to the heart of. Looking at this event and how it took place, looking across the country, you seem to be the only person in senior leadership who took accountability for what happened.
I'm going to put some very direct questions to you.
I'm going to reference a letter from the police union president, Matt Skof, on September 10, 2020, who stated that you “lost the room” and that you “inflamed the workplace”.
Did you at any time during the lead-up to the occupation have a challenge in the morale of your officers to rise to the size, scale and scope of the crisis due to some of the interpersonal HR issues you might have been facing with the police?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we have to really bring it down to taking advantage of an opportunity we have before us.
Mr. Sloly, you are an individual who has served for many years with the Toronto police force. You came to Ottawa. You ran the Ottawa Police Service. That tells me you have a great deal of experience.
When it comes to situations like the one that came up not that long ago, we like to think we tap the minds of individuals who have the expertise. I would find it very difficult to find someone who is better suited, knowing Ottawa as well as you do, knowing the force as well you do and given the background you have.
You're telling this committee today that your primary goal, from what I understand, was to assess the risk and to ensure public safety and the safety of your law enforcement officers. Is that a fair assessment, what I was just mentioning?
:
Privy Council Office sent us some documents containing a situation report concerning the number of demonstrators present. This is what it says.
On February 10, it reports: "There is a light number of people all along Wellington and surrounding streets" and "Vehicles are parked in the streets all around the precinct."
On February 11, at 8:00 a.m., it reports: "Approximately 0 to 5 individuals are gathered on Parliament Hill," There is a light number of people all along Wellington and surrounding streets," "Vehicles are parked in the streets all around the precinct," and "There are 4 tents and 1 campfire in front of 90 Wellington St."
On February 11, at 8:00 p.m., it reports: "Approximately 0 to 5 individuals are gathered on Parliament Hill" and there is "a light number of people all along Wellington and surrounding streets."
On February 12, at 8:00 a.m., it reports that "approximately 0 to 5 individuals are gathered on Parliament Hill" and "There is a light number of people all along Wellington and surrounding streets."
What happened? You had 500 police officers ready to do the work needed to clear the street. There were eight people, then 12 people, four tents, and a campfire, but nothing was done?
As well, protesters have told us that on February 10 and 11, they were never asked to leave.
How do you explain that?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think the co-clerk, Ms. Burke, distributed to committee members this afternoon the text of the motion I had sent. Everyone should have received it. If someone does not have it, it can be provided.
I have concerns regarding the use of the documents.
First, I think we have to take into account the fact that the well-known Rouleau commission will begin its work on October 13, if memory serves. In theory, Justice Rouleau is to submit his report in February. The order in council says February 6, while the website says February 20; in any event, Justice Rouleau will be submitting his report in February.
Our work should perhaps adopt a somewhat faster pace. We have to follow what is happening at the Rouleau commission. We will certainly be able to use the information that will be disclosed to the commission, and the commission will certainly be able to use the information disclosed here. That will allow us to progress faster and more efficiently.
Also out of a desire to expedite our work, I have a comment to make regarding the documents we have received. I don't know whether I am the only one who thinks this, but I find it somewhat difficult to find things in them. The documents in the digital binder are often entitled simply "document", and we have to open the documents to know what is in them. Obviously, we are all capable of doing that, it is not something impossible, but it seems to me to be a somewhat laborious exercise. It will slow our work down when we want to refer to these documents.
That is what prompted me to make my motion. Of course, I am open to suggestions. I do not know exactly who is responsible for putting the documents in the digital binder or who looks after assigning them titles. Is it the clerks, the analysts, or someone else? I don't know, but I think it is important that these documents be given correct titles.
What my motion suggests is that it indicate what organization or individual produced the document, the date the document was received, and the date the document was created. As well, the type of document should be specified, whether it is a letter, an analysis, minutes, a report, or whatever else. Last, it should state the number of pages. That way, a document might be entitled, for example, "letter from the Minister of Justice to the Minister of Public Safety, February 15, 2022." That would be perfect, because we would know immediately what it was. We would also know the date the document was produced. That seems to me to be very useful. That is the first component of my motion.
My motion has a second component. In fact, I think the same reasoning should be applied to the organizations that send us documents. After the motion was adopted, on May 31, our committee received certain documents over the course of the summer. In fact, it received over 1,000 pages, unnumbered. I do want to thank the co-clerks for making the effort, after our discussion in July, to paginate a large portion. I think the organizations should have that job. We should ask them to enter the same information for the documents they send us.
That said, there is also the problem of multiple documents.
At our meeting on September 22, which I chaired, right when we began our work, the co-clerk, Ms. Burke, received a flash drive. She told me not to worry about the redacted documents, because the answer might be on the flash drive. But we can't work with a flash drive. It's rather difficult.
I think a department or organization that wants to add documents could make the effort to consolidate the documents. If it sends us documents in June and sends us more in October, it should consolidate and paginate them. That way it would be clear and we would all have the same references. If we could say to a witness that such and such a statement can be found on such and such a page of such and such a document, everyone would be able to find it more easily and there would be no doubt. That would help us a lot to expedite our work and be more efficient when we come to right the report.
Last, these documents should be made public. In fact, that is what journalists are requesting. Each of us has probably had to answer journalists who wanted to get these documents and were asking where they could find them.
Again this week, I spoke with Ms. Burke and she told me that it was complicated, given the various computer issues. I have no computer skills, and I am not in a position to discuss what needs to be done for these documents to be put on the committee's website. Regardless of the reason, if that cannot be done, I think we should be gracious and put them on flash drives and give them to anyone who asks, whether they be a journalist or a member of the public. We have a duty to make our work public. We have documents that are public in nature. There is nothing in the documents that have been submitted that was stated to be confidential.
So that is the third component of my motion. We have to take the necessary steps to make these documents public, and I do not see why we would not do that.
Those are the three things my motion asks for.
Next, my motion does not talk about this, but we are also going to have to address the question of redacted documents.
Today, I was trying to read the documents we received from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but there are hundreds of redacted pages. What are we to make of that? I don't know what information is being hidden or why it is being hidden, but this seems unacceptable to me. We have to ask the people who produced these documents to come and explain it to us. There may be good reasons why it has been redacted. I am not saying that it is malicious, but I think we are entitled to ask the people to explain to us why it was redacted. If we consider the reason to be a good one, there will be no problem and we will continue. If we conclude that it was not justified, we will ask for an unredacted document and, if the organization in question refuses to provide it, we will continue the process, we will go to the House authorities, and we will take the steps that are necessary in the circumstances.
We have been discussing this since the spring and it is now October. As I said when I began speaking, the Rouleau commission will be starting its work next week and will release its report in February. At the rate we are going, in February not only will we still not know what was redacted, but we will also not know why. That makes no sense.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to say a few words about the motion my colleague Mr. Fortin has just made. I agree entirely with the motion as it is worded.
In fact, I would like to address the other subject we are dealing with today: redacting.
Some of them have already been shown, but I can show some pages, too, that have not been redacted. Hundreds and hundreds of pages have been disclosed. I think we do have to address this subject, but because it is not in the motion, we could deal with it at another meeting.
To begin with, I don't see how we will make any faster progress if we have someone come who will tell us that the documents were redacted for reasons of national security or to abide by solicitor-client privilege. I don't see how we would get more information or answers that way. The person called to testify will not be able to tell us, essentially, what the redactions are blacking out.
If we keep wanting to know whether there are good reasons for these redactions, we will be here until 2026. I would like our committee's work to move forward.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think Ms. Bendayan's motion is very laudable. We do have to speed up our work. That is what I said at the beginning.
However, and I say this with all due respect, I am not certain it would be efficient. We see that it takes an hour to do one round of questions with a witness. If we have an hour and a half, does that mean we will do one and a half rounds?
As well, I am wondering about the three minutes we are allowed in the second round. I was discussing this with some people earlier. I think we should maybe go back to periods of five minutes. Some of us were frustrated about not managing to get through their questions in three minutes.
The motion says that we would have 1.5 hours not for a single witness, but for a panel of witnesses. If we adopt the motion as it is put forward, we will be entitled to five minutes each to begin. Then, how will the remaining half-hour be divided? Will each person be allowed two minutes? If we can't get it done in three minutes, how will we do it in two minutes?
The idea is interesting, but I am not sure that it would make us more efficient. Personally, I like the formula where we had two hours on Monday and two hours on Thursday. I think in two hours we would be able to cover a subject with a panel of witnesses. I am afraid that an hour and a half would be too tight.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To pick up on what Senator Harder just said, I don't believe there is anything in my motion that would preclude us from having a pointed discussion on a witness to say that the committee—in its wisdom of votes in favour of changing our usual course of business—have somebody for a full three hours or other amount of time. I think it allows for the flexibility that we need while also ensuring that we get the work done and that we instruct the clerks accordingly, because as Senator Harder just mentioned, the clerks need to call witnesses and schedule them. I think it is also easier to schedule a witness for 1.5 hours than for three hours.
[Translation]
I would now like to address my colleague Mr. Fortin more directly.
I want to point out that for a round, we are talking here about five minutes for the witness's presentation and 40 minutes for questions. That is a total of 45 minutes for the first round, which is entirely feasible in an hour and a half. It would be followed by a second round, as we did in the spring. It worked well in the spring, so I don't see why anyone is scandalized by the proposal today.
Obviously, you are the person managing the meeting, Madam Chair, but I suggest that the motion be put to a vote, and this would allow us to respond to the request made by Mr. Brock, who would like to leave us.