Declaration of Emergency Committee on Oct. 6th, 2022

[Claude Carignan]

What was your reaction when you saw that the Ambassador Bridge had been liberated, as it were, on the weekend of February 13? Did you say to yourself that the same thing could be done in Ottawa?

[Peter Sloly]

Not at all, sir. The events in Windsor and around the Ambassador Bridge were entirely different—related but entirely different in terms of scale, the challenges.... Some of them were similar, but others were very different. Like here in Ottawa, Chief Mizuno in Windsor required significant external resources to come in and a significant level of integration beyond what she would normally have to deal with as chief of police in that jurisdiction.

It took many attempts to end that situation there, but I'm glad it ended safely and successfully, as we saw here in Ottawa.

Thank you, sir.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Mr. Sloly.

Senator Carignan, your time is up.

Next is Senator Harder.

[Peter Harder, Senator, Ontario, PSG]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Mr. Sloly, thank you for being here. I would join my colleagues in thanking you for your public service over many years now.

I'd like to start with where you left off in conversation with Mr. Motz when he asked you about the declarations and you said that both the Ontario and federal government declarations were “incredibly helpful”. Could you give us a little more colour as to how the national invocation was helpful?

[Peter Sloly]

Yes, sir. I'll do my best. Please understand that I remained in office some 24 hours after the federal one was invoked, and the provincial one was just 72 hours before that.

Primarily, for me, it provided a massive lift in resources. The facilitation, particularly, of the swearing-in of special constable status across the country to allow the airlift of officers arriving from literally every province into the city was massively important. The provisions that allowed us to get greater access—predictable and sustainable access—to tow trucks and other related resources.... There are other provisions that I was less aware of at the time I was in office, but subsequently, through reading and research, I could see how it would be incredibly effective.

Never in my working life have I seen the extent of such measures, but singularly removing from the immediate theatre of the downtown core anybody in the process of protesting or travelling to the protest would have alleviated a wide range of public safety and officer safety risks while the officers focused primarily on removing the vehicles and the persons in the red zone. You never want to be caught between multiple angles of potential hostile threat actors. Again, without being in command of the Ottawa Police Service and being on the ground, watching as a private citizen.... When an officer does not have to watch over their back and can focus on the primary threats in front of them, it is an incredibly important aspect of public safety and officer safety.

[Peter Harder]

Thanks very much.

As you know, I live in Ottawa and observed this all very personally and close at hand. A number of Ottawa citizens were quite perplexed, I dare say, at the attempted agreement by Mayor Watson with Tamara Lich with respect to removing some of the convoy and putting them on Wellington Street. Were you consulted before these conversations took place between the mayor and Ms. Lich?

[Peter Sloly]

I was aware that there were negotiations going on between the mayor and third parties. I was not—and nor was any member of my police service, to my knowledge—involved in any of the direct negotiations.

[Peter Harder]

Did this make your job more difficult?

[Peter Sloly]

There were several efforts that I'm aware of at all three levels of government, in different parts of the country, to engage in interlocutor conversations or negotiations. Some were more than successful and some less so.

[Peter Harder]

Would you have supported the removal of large vehicles from the downtown area and the placement of those vehicles on Wellington?

[Peter Sloly]

I would not have supported any additional vehicles going into the red zone areas, but I would have supported vehicles leaving any portion of the downtown area and participating in the events surrounding the convoys. Yes, sir.

[Peter Harder]

I think we all would.

If I have a few seconds left, I'd like to get back to your twice-repeated description of structural deficits. Could you elaborate, beyond the policing one you've referred to, as to what you mean by those structural deficits that we must address if we are to be better protected against future events?

[Peter Sloly]

I appreciate your asking for me to go beyond the policing ones, but that is my realm of expertise.

What I will say is that they range from underinvestment to mis-investment, financially and otherwise, in the capabilities of our police services across this country. Our police services are one of the fundamental elements of our national security structure. From my experience in the private sector and my relationships with national security directors, deputy directors, senior officials and senior analysts within national security organizations, we have not fundamentally invested—not necessarily in dollars and cents—in our national security policing capabilities. This goes back to well before even my time as a police officer. Certainly we have not kept up with the times.

Those structural deficits have been exposed in other events that we've experienced over the last several decades, but they were fully exposed in the events that took place over those several weeks in January and February.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Senator. Your time is up.

We'll now move to Senator Campbell. You have five minutes.

[Larry W. Campbell]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Chief, for being here today.

As a former officer and mayor of Vancouver, I have some idea of the difficulties you encountered.

My question is on a different tack. Can you speak to your relationship with the Ottawa police services board and having to report to them?

[Peter Sloly]

I'm not sure what the question is, sir.

We had a reporting relationship, as they're our oversight body. That happened on a continual basis throughout my time in office and on a daily basis throughout the course of the events that took place here in Ottawa.

[Larry W. Campbell]

Did they have any say in the operational side of it?

[Peter Sloly]

No, nor would they have under the jurisdiction of the Police Services Act.

[Larry W. Campbell]

In fact, the police board has oversight but is not operational in any way, shape or form.

[Peter Sloly]

They cannot direct operations. They can certainly ask questions and request information that relate to operations.

[Larry W. Campbell]

Did they play any role in your decision-making during the weeks that this was ongoing?

[Peter Sloly]

Their role was as an oversight body. They would inform and influence what we were doing up to the limits allowed by the Police Services Act and not beyond that.

[Larry W. Campbell]

Could you give me an example?

[Peter Sloly]

We had daily communications and emergency board meetings. There would be questions asked in the public session and in the confidential session. There would be questions around adequate and effective policing, which it is within the jurisdiction of the police services board to ask.

On February 5, at an emergency board meeting, one specific question asked of me by then chair Deans was, “Given the totality of the circumstances that you're facing”—I'm paraphrasing—“do you have the ability to provide adequate and effective policing in the city of Ottawa?”

Those, I think, are legitimate questions in legitimate forums around which they can express their concerns and priorities but not cross the line into directing operations.