The ‘Freedom Convoy’ protests would not have spun out of control if not for a series of failures by the Ottawa Police Service, the commission examining the invocation of the Emergencies Act has found.
The report of the public inquiry into the federal government’s use of the Act, tabled Friday in Parliament, delves into a series of problems with the police response, including intelligence gathering and communications failures, inadequate planning, poor communication and a lack of coordination.
“The response to the Freedom Convoy involved a series of policing failures,” the report by Justice Paul Rouleau said. “Some of the missteps may have been small, but others were significant, and taken together, they contributed to a situation that spun out of control.”
Rouleau’s report found that overall, the federal government met the high threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act, but it was a decision that shouldn’t have had to be taken had the protests been better handled from the outset.
But a large portion of the report’s 273-page executive summary recounts the “several deficiencies” with the Ottawa police response to the protest, starting from before the protesters’ arrival.
The report makes 56 recommendations, 27 of which focus specifically on policing.
INTELLIGENCE FAILURES
Justice Rouleau’s report breaks down the inadequacies in the police response into a dozen sections, starting with shortcomings in intelligence gathering.
“Much of the disarray in Ottawa was a result of the Ottawa Police Service’s (OPS) incorrect belief regarding how long the protest would last,” the report says.
“Intelligence showed that there was a strong possibility that the Ottawa protests would extend past the first weekend, contrary to what OPS command believed.”
The report found that Ottawa police lacked a system to ensure proper dissemination of its own information within the force, and there was also a disconnect with the OPP-led intelligence-gathering effort.
There were “serious deficiencies” in the OPS’s ability to evaluate information on social media, partly due to staffing shortages, the report said.
Rouleau points to a lack of continuity at the command level due to senior officers leaving, failures of communication and a failure to integrate the force’s Police Liaison Team into decision-making as other major factors.
That disorganization led to different police units working at cross-purposes, both at the Coventry Road operation and at the intersection of Rideau and Sussex, which became a focal point of the protests.
PLAN DEVELOPED TOO LATE
The plan that existed on January 28 to deal with the protests was “largely a traffic management plan for a weekend event,” the report said.
“It was obvious by Monday, January 31 that a different plan was needed.”
However, Ottawa police did not develop an overall operation plan until February 13. And even then, there was a “high level of confusion” over what constituted the most current plan.
“The chief’s messaging on these issues was confusing and, at times, inaccurate.”
Rouleau also said the OPS was uncertain from the outset of the protest about what it could lawfully do.
“The OPS received a hastily drafted legal opinion on January 28 that was requested too late (January 27) and which, in any event, did not provide concrete evidence on the most pressing issues that would inform operations, such as the ability to exclude trucks from the downtown core.”
Rouleau does note, however, that the events in Ottawa were “unprecedented in size and complexity.”
“They would have presented significant challenges regardless of the adequacy of the police response.”
CHIEF SLOLY NOT SOLELY TO BLAME
Rouleau writes it is “all too easy” to attribute all of the deficiencies in the police response solely to Peter Sloly, Ottawa’s police chief until he resigned during the protests.
“That would be unfortunate and indeed, inconsistent with the evidence,” the report said.
The report notes Sloly came to the force as an “agent of change” to address racism, misogyny and a lack of community trust in the service, and faced “substantial resistance.”
“Some errors on Chief Sloly’s part were unduly enlarged by others to a degree that suggests scapegoating,” the report said. “He was rarely given the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions.”
Rouleau said in particular, Sloly’s statement that there may not be a policing solution to the demonstrations attracted “disproportionate scrutiny.”
On the other hand, Sloly did sometimes crossed the boundary and made operational decision, which was not his role, the report found.
“His actions, however well-intentioned, undermined the chain of command, caused confusion, and left subordinates and integrated partners such as the OPP and the RCMP confused as to the extent to which Chief Sloly had to approve decisions or sign off on plans.
The report also said that Sloly’s decision-making may have been unduly influenced by meetings with advisors from Navigator, an external crisis communications firm. Those meetings appeared to have morphed into operational discussions, the report found.
“Chief Sloly should have been far more careful to avoid even the perception of operation or tactical decisions tied to reputational concerns.”
Sloly also left some subordinates with the impression that he was consumed with how he would be perceived when the protests were over, the report said.
“It appeared to some people, with some justification, that Chief Sloly was too willing to attribute blame to others, while avoiding any blame himself.”
For more latest Politics News Click Here