The Paikin Podcast - Paik's Takes: World Disorder, Political Athletes, Policing Protesters, and Canada's Middle Power Mirage

Episode Date: March 24, 2026

In the first ever edition of “Paik’s Takes,” Steve offers a few, well, takes and answers questions from viewers. Is this the most dangerous and uncertain time Steve has experienced in his more than four decades as a journalist? Should athletes make political statements? Is Canada still a meaningful ‘middle power,’ or is that just a comforting myth we tell ourselves?  Then, in response to our first ever Redline Debate on the Freedom Convoy and the protests in Ottawa, Steve invites on a viewer who wrote in with his “take.” That viewer is Peter Sloly, former Ottawa Chief of Police.  Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] 

Hi, everybody. It's Steve Paken here, and you are about to watch the first edition of something we are going to call Pakes, takes. I suspect you've figured this out already, but the name of the show comes after a couple of things. Number one, when my dad was much younger, his nickname was Pake. That's what they called him. Pake. Larry Paken was Pake. And my nickname as a kid, believe it or not, growing up in Hamilton, Ontario, was Pake the Snake. In part because I was a lot skinnier back then, and in part because Kenny Stabler of the Oakland, Raiders was my favorite NFL player, and his nickname was Snake Stabler. So I became Pake the Snake as well. Anyway, that's why we're calling this segment Pakes takes. And one of the things we want to do here is respond to our viewers and listeners. And one of the things that they've told us is they want

some kind of new vehicle created that responds to their questions and concerns. So that's what we're going to do here. We've introduced incidentally that element into every addition of everything political with Tony Clement and Martha Hall-Finley, and we also do it in our World on Edge segment with Janice Stein and a special guest. We put your comments and questions to them. But you have also left on our various websites a lot of questions and comments as well. So we are creating this new segment, which we'll do every few weeks or so, and respond to some of the things that you're concerned about. So here we go. Here's question number one. We've gotten a lot of variations of the question or comment that says something like, you've been a journalist for more than four decades,

does the news and the world and this particular moment feel different? Does the world feel more unpredictable, more uncertain, more whatever, crazy, hectic, unpredictable, strange? And I guess my answer to that would be, you know, yes and no. You got to remember when I grew up, I grew up right in the teeth of the Cold War. And, you know, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that people who are my age went to bed every night knowing that there were something like 30 or 40,000 nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union and the United States had pointed at one another. And as a result, we did not sleep too soundly back in those days. There was always a sense that when you went to bed, you sure hoped you would wake up in the morning and somehow avoid geothermal

nuclear war for yet another day. So on the one hand, nuclear war among superpowers does not feel like as big a problem today as it did back then, but on the other hand, the unpredictability of this time. And some of the people whom I really respect, Janice Stein, for example, Bob Ray, our former UN ambassador, for example, have said things like the amount of unpredictability and the amount of sort of not following international norms that's going on today does make this a scarier world in which to live. And I definitely see that. So six one, half dozen of another, which I fear is going to be my answer to a lot of things because I tend to see things from multiple sides, which probably is why I ended up in journalism. You may know if you follow our work here that one of the things we've

done is create a Patreon page where people can go and they can get web exclusive videos. they can have an opportunity to put forward their ideas for various show topics or guest suggestions, and, of course, make comments and ask questions on the Patreon page as well. That's at patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. And to that end, that's sort of, you get to jump the cue a bit if you join Patreon, and you get your questions up higher on the list than anybody who might leave them on YouTube or other social media channels. Sorry, if that sounds bad, but that's the way we're doing it.

And so here we go. Let's do a few Q&As that people have left on our Patreon page, starting with Andrew Mugford, who says, on a personal level, how does Steve stay positive when you cover news that is so often existentially bad, especially these days? Andrew, it's a wonderful question. And again, I'm going to give you a sort of a, on the one hand, on the other hand, argument.

Yes, the news is exponentially bad. Yes, I think so many of us are preoccurations. at how really messed up the world seems today, starting with what's going on between the United States and Canada. We have war in the Middle East. There are wars all over Africa. There is, of course, Russia, Ukraine. There's so much about the world to be unhappy about these days. But I also like to count my blessings. I am 65 years old. I am thankfully still healthy enough to be playing hockey a couple of times a week. I have four kids, all of whom are healthy. and doing well. My wife's happy and doing well, I think. And as a result, you know, I remember to

count my blessings. I have a 92-year-old father who is still in great shape. And so I try to see both the things that are happening well in life as well as some of the things that are extremely disconcerting. That balance, I think, is important. Here's a question from Robin Wong. Do you believe professional athletes should speak up on political or social issues, or do you believe they should be required not to comment? While fans and analysts will make their own conclusions on nation versus nation competition, should individual pro athletes speak up or just shut up and dribble? I guess that's a reference to, who was it, the Dixie Chicks who were, no, who said, now I can't remember. Oh, I know, It was, oh, what's her name?

Laura Ingram from Fox News, who said to LBJ in the NBA just shot up and dribble. LeBron James, maybe that's the reference. In any event, again, apologies in advance here, but I kind of see things both way. I love it when athletes take firm positions on important issues that are going on in the world. Steve Kerr, who's the coach of the Golden State Warriors and the National Basketball Association, is one guy who, never shies away from offering an opinion on some, you know, pointed political issue that is taking place. I like that about him. On the other hand, you know, I've always wished that guys like Wayne Gretzky who have positions of significant influence or Sidney Crosby, these are two guys who are notorious

for sort of never giving their opinions. I guess I'd put Austin Matthews in that category as well, the captain of the Maple Leafs, who seems to sort of studiously avoid taking political positions. I think they're entitled if they want to, not to have to weigh in if they don't want to. But I must confess, as a journalist, I always prefer it when they do. I'm hearing a producer in my ear here talking to be saying, I've got a follow-up question, so let's not just go on to the next thing quite yet. Are hockey players uniquely boring athletes? And does that say more about hockey or sports. I think the answer to that is yes.

Hockey players are uniquely boring athletes who go out of their way not to say anything. And that starts with intermission interviews or post-game interviews, where if I hear the expression pucks in deep one more time, I'm going to pull my hair out. Yeah, I think in the main, a lot of that happens because hockey players who make it to the NHL come from very middle class or upper middle class families and have not had to kind of struggle socially in the way, for example, let's say a baseball player from Latin America would have to struggle to get to the top of the mountain or in the way somebody who's in the NFL or the NBA might have to struggle to get from whatever particular city they live in to get to their

professional league. I mean, it costs a lot to it costs a lot to play minor hockey. And as a result, there may not be a lot of social struggle. There certainly is athletic struggle, but there may not be a lot of social struggle to get to the top of the mountain in the NHL. And as a result, not a lot of political awareness. And I think it may be the case that NHL players uniquely

don't like to comment on political events. And as a result, we don't hear a lot of hockey players you can start with Gretzzi and go on through. We don't necessarily hear them talk a lot about politics these days. Here's Febrian Boudiman, who says Ontarians tend to identify more as Canadians than as Ontarians, and thus having less provincial pride than people from other provinces. Many Ontarians even identify more with their city or region,

for example, a certain someone's pride to be from Hamilton. Now, who could that be a reference to? than uh... the province as a whole how can ontarians have more ontario pride or is it even necessary well okay i get what you're getting at here february and you know of course when you're a kebaker sometimes it said you're a quebec or a canadian second or if you're an alberton you're sometimes an alberton first and a canadian second

i have just never felt any uh... contradiction between being a proud canadian and being happy and proud to be from the province of ontario or even as you've been a few point out from the city of Hamilton. And we also need to remember that Ontario is, I think, 40% of the country's GDP and population. And as a result, it makes up such a huge chunk of Canada that in some respects, people may think being proud Ontarians is the same as being proud Canadians because we represent so much of the country. At a time like this, where we are seeing so much pushback, I'll just put it nicely, so much pushback from the United States,

on the way we have often done business. It's really important to be a strong and proud Canadian these days, as I know many of us are, and we can be strong and proud Ontarians at the same time. Okay, here's a comment now from X. This one is from Rick Thomas, and the question is, what do you think of Travis Dan Raj's testimony

in the House of Commons last week? Oh, okay. I don't know Travis Dan Raj all that well. I know him a little bit. We both were at Queens Park, at the same time. So we've met, I can't say that he's a friend, I know him a little bit, but again, apologies for this, but I have mixed views about what he had to say. On the one hand, if it were the case that he was given a list when he was working at the CBC,

and that list said, here's a, here are a bunch of names, here are 40 plus names of people that you cannot have on your show, that would be problematic. If the reasons behind that, if the reasons behind the ban were ideological, that would be a problem. If, on the other hand, as some have now suggested and new information has emerged, that there was a prohibition on having those guests on his show because they were already spoken for on other CBC shows, and the CBC executives wanted to keep their participation on those shows special to those shows and not have them appear across multiple shows on the network, well, that's a lot less nefarious, and that's a horse of a different color.

So I would certainly like to know more about the real reasons behind why there was this list and whether, in fact, Travis's allegations about why he wasn't allowed to book them on his show are as accurate the way he has put it. So I'm not sure we've heard the last of this yet. Now, we have, I have to say, and I'm kind of thrilled about this, we have had thousands upon thousands of comments on our YouTube channel. It is very hard for us, and we try, but it's very hard for us to keep up with all the comments and respond to everything. So here's where we put artificial intelligence to work. We said to, I guess, some AI algorithm.

Here's the show, go through all these comments, and then come up with, I guess, a few questions that sort of summarize. you know, the gist of what many of these comments are alluding to. And as a result, here is what AI gave us. Question one, has Canada lost its political consensus? Immigration, foreign policy, and economics all used to have cross-party agreement. Is that being lost? I'm going to push back a bit on the premise of this question. I'm not sure we've ever had economic consensus in this country. I'm not sure we've ever had foreign policy consensus in this country. We have certainly at one time had more immigration consensus in as much as all the major parties in the House of Commons seem to agree that immigration was a good thing. And it was a good way, particularly when people are not having that many children in this country to keep the population growing.

I don't, I mean, at least the way I look at things, I think there's been significant foreign policy difference in this country. there are some people who've been very bullish on America and its position in the world and its ability to lead. There are other people who have been extremely anti-American over the years and certainly see this country more akin to having the same values as European countries, both Western European and Northern European countries. So I'm not sure that foreign policy consensus as suggested in this question is there. And, of course, economically, we've always had big debates in this country about just how much government we think, ought to be brought to bear as it relates to the country, you can you can suggest maybe given that the liberals have been in power so much more than the conservatives that there is a sort of a center left bent to economic policy. But I remind everybody, Stephen Harper, who's one of the

most conservative prime ministers of my lifetime, bought two car companies, you know, General Motors and Chrysler were going under. And it was certainly not his ideological bent to bail them out with tax dollars, and yet that's exactly what he did. And I'm sure you can find alternatives on the other side where liberals, whom we tend to think of, as being small L and big L liberals, did things that were very conservative. How about Paul Martin's budgets, which cut back on health and social transfers to provinces significantly because deficits were coming in so high? So, I don't know, I'm not sure that consensus is as much there as you think. Immigration, yes. And the immigration Consensus seemed to stay in place until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's time when he really,

what do we say it? Turned on the TAPS and increased immigration by a significant amount and the implications of that and the consequences of that too many people saw and as a result the taps got turned off more much more significantly under Mark, well initially actually under Trudeau and then under Mark Cardi. So I think we're at the moment trying to recapture that immigration consensus, which had existed for a long time. And we'll be back right after this. Now, here's another question. Is Canada still a meaningful middle power, or is that just a comforting myth we tell ourselves? My hunch is it's more of the latter than the former. And by that I mean this. I'm not sure Canada has had a prime minister who had a truly significant place.

on the world stage. Oh, I don't know. I'm going to go back 40 years. I think it's probably Brian Mulroney, who was the last Prime Minister of Canada, who was really respected at the highest levels, whose advice was sought at the highest levels, who was a player internationally.

I mean, if you want any, if you had any doubts about that, I think if you just go to YouTube and check out Margaret Thatcher's funeral or Ronald Reagan's funeral or George Bush, the father's funeral. I think Brian Mulroney gave eulogies at all those funerals, didn't he? I think he did.

Anyway, that was a time when, for example, America wanted to start a war somewhere. The president of the day would have consulted with the Canadian Prime Minister of the day before doing anything because he understood that Mr. Mulrooney gave good advice and that we had much better relations with the United States at that time. Have we been a significant, a meaningful middle power, as the question goes? a meaningful middle power since then? Well, from time to time, I well remember Stephen Harper, walking across a stage at an international gathering and saying to Vladimir Putin,

you got to get out of Ukraine. That was pretty tough stuff, and that was well said. But in the main, in the main, I'm not sure Canada, we used to have this expression, punched above its weight. I'm not sure we've punched above our weight in 40 years. So if Mark Carney can create some kind of middle, powers alliance where we are part of something that can punch above its weight and not just suffer what we must at the hands of Russia, China, and the United States, that will be something

worth watching. Now, we got a lot of feedback on something we tried a few weeks ago, which is something we're calling our red line debates. I think we call it that because when we have the two protagonists on the screen, we put a red line in the middle of the screen, and so we've decided to call them red line debates because they're not really discussions in the way that we do our other offerings. These are more, you know, X versus Y. This is a definite clash of views here in a different way. And the one we did was four years to the month after the Ottawa convoy controversy, we had Candice Malcolm, who essentially supported the convoy, and Justin Ling, who supported elements of it but was very much opposed to the way that a capital city in a G7 country was essentially

taken over by a bunch of truckers. We had them go at it, hammer and tong for an hour, and basically having it out on what was accomplished by all of that. I think most of the feedback we got was good for you guys for trying something, good for you for trying something where you tried to have civil debate and not everybody screaming at each other in a big food fight that would have been useless, but that it was not completely successful. For example, there's a guy named Victor Guerrero who weighed in saying, I didn't enjoy your red line debate at all. Having said that, he said he listens to all of our stuff because he thinks it helps him become a better person and a better citizen. Well, Victor, I love that second comment. That is why

I'm in the business I'm in. I love the fact that you might be able to consume our content and think that it helps you be a better citizen. What can I say about the red line debate? I thought it was better than you thought, but certainly it wasn't perfect, and it was our first shot out the gate, and we're going to keep trying it, because enough of you responded saying,

good for you for trying and keep going, so we'll keep doing that, and we're just having discussions right now about what our second redline debate topic will be. If you have any ideas, for those of you watching or listening to this, join the Patreon community or send us a note somewhere,

and give us your suggestion because we're going to keep doing these. There is a belief in Canada, roughly 10, maybe 15% of the country, maybe a little bit less. I believe COVID was designed in the lab as a bio weapon, something I know you believe as well. I don't believe it wasn't. You wrote a story arguing now. Actually, that was another story that you push up. Let me finish going through as we come back to this in a minute if you like Candace. I thought the debate was mostly civil.

There were a couple of moments in it where it got a little chippy. But I think in the main, it wasn't bad. but I don't disagree with anybody who says we got to do better next time, and we will aim to do that. We also got an email from someone who really had a front row seat to much of that convoy activity that took place four years ago, and that guy's name is Peter slowly. Now, Peter is the former chief of police for the city of Ottawa, and he lost his job, thanks to that convoy controversy. He resigned, saying that he felt he had kind of lost the confidence of the police services board and maybe some members of the public as well.

So when Peter sent that note in, I thought, let's get him on the line and hear more about what he has to say. So here is Peter slowly's take. Peter's good to see you again. How you doing? That's great to see you too, Steve. And thanks for having me on. Not at all.

Pleasure. I think we should just start, you know, very neutral, open-ended question. You saw the debate? What did you think? Well, first of all, kudos for you for having that debate. I think things have gone awfully quiet for a long time around a major event in modern Canadian history and one that I think still has reverberations and maybe very specific implications for what we're going through right now domestically and internationally.

So I was really intrigued by it, obviously a personal calling to it, but just to see that it's still alive and important discussion and I thought you handled it brilliantly. I love the way you started off by talking about it being a roar shark test for most Canadians around how they felt about a range of issues, not just vaccines, but just where the country was and what was happening in the economy and what our place was in the world. I found it interesting the statute gave from a survey around how Canadians felt four years ago and how they still feel that some 65 to 70 percent were not pleased with the Freedom Convoy. But I did some quick math, and that leaves anywhere between 12 to 15 million Canadians

who were somewhat pleased or supportive of it. I think from a percentage standpoint, if you're trying to elect a government, that's low odds of forming a government. But if you're looking at a very large and important segment of Canada's population who have expressed and still feel some sympathies for what took place then, I think that's all the more reason that this debate was important and still needs to go on. You and I've talked over the years. I was just going to jump in with this. You and I've talked about this over the years. And I'm not sure I've ever asked you the question about what you personally. not as a chief of police, but what you personally thought about what went down four years ago.

Do you want to share some of your thoughts about that now? Absolutely. And thank you for that. In fact, one of the first things that I thought to myself on a walk yesterday as I was preparing was, was am I going to be speaking as police chief of Ottawa, or am I going to be speaking as Peter slowly, a human being with all my imperfections, a 50-year resident of Canada, a five-year resident of Ottawa as a private citizen, which I am right now. I can't help but bring in the old police chief hat, but this is mainly Peter slowly. So yes, what I'm going to be expressing and answering and responding to is as a person who

four years after that event has some reflections and some considerations to share with you and your audience. In which case, let's start sharing. Do you think the truckers had a point? So I think that the people who were involved with the Freedom Convoy related events, which, to be clear, started well before any truck rolled into the city of Ottawa or Windsor or Coots, Alberta. In fact, there were many related demonstrations, some of which were raised on your previous debate that took place in Ottawa and across the country.

And I think some 12 to 15 million Canadians who felt some level of empathy, sympathy, if not participatory activity towards it, it's a serious event. It's a serious set of issues that still need to be addressed. Do I feel that four years on, looking back at the two years of COVID, that we got it all right and there's really nothing to revisit? Absolutely not. I feel that impact within my own personal life, within my family, within the communities that I'm involved with. And I'm still trying to, as I hope a lot of Canadians are, still trying to understand what took place there. It was a polycrisis period where the social contract that we had lived with for many decades was damaged, if not destroyed, according to where you are on the spectrum, and where we're still

learning lessons from and healing from. So in that context, I think the freedom convoy was important. Do I agree with the extreme elements in it? Absolutely not. Do I agree with the extreme elements that went against it? Absolutely not. Did we get it a lot wrong in a lot of ways? Yes. Did we ultimately get it mostly right in the most important ways? Yes, we did. in which case what would you have done differently? Well, if I'm putting back the old chief of police hat, obviously I would want to be more effective in communication, the type of collaborations that were necessary, a 3D, 4D, 5D chess game that was playing out on the national stage in real time, almost impossible, but coulda woulda shoulda, could I have been more clear in communication,

could I have been more effective in coalition and relationships, absolutely all things I wish I could do over in any part of my life, quite frankly. As a private citizen, as a Canadian, not surprisingly because I've been involved in public office for a long time, but I think that we saw COVID really stretched, strain, and in some cases break our social safety net, our institutional resilience. I think a lot of institutions that were important for Canadians and critically important for resolving that unprecedented public safety crisis. were not at the top of their game. National security, policing, our elected officials at all three levels of government,

and many other institutions just didn't bring their A-game to a time where Canadians needed their A-game to be played. We got it together after several weeks of fumbling and stumbling and infighting, and ultimately we had an amazing Canadian solution to an incredibly challenging Canadian crisis in that we resolved it without shots being fired, no one being killed, almost no one being injured. Yes, economic impacts and certainly traumatic experiences for those most directly affected in places like Coots and Windsor in Ottawa, but ultimately it came about with a very peaceful, very almost boring solution to a three-week occupation and crisis.

I do remember thinking at the time, you know, if this were happening in the United States, for sure, someone would have got killed. And when it all resolved itself, admittedly, with tremendous hardship to people who lived in Ottawa and to a certain extent with people across the country sort of living vicariously through the people of Ottawa about this, my first reaction was nobody died here, and that's something to be grateful for. But as you were in the midst of this trying to provide law enforcement leadership, let me ask you how difficult you found it to do your job when you had a police service, Board to satisfy, a city to satisfy, a provincial government to satisfy, maybe a national capital commission to satisfy, and a federal government to satisfy. Could you, under those

circumstances, really have a shot at getting this right? Steve, I was actually asked almost that exact question by then board chair deans, a city councilor in Ottawa. I think it was the second weekend of the Freedom Convoy, literally framed it almost that way. Peter slowly, you're the chief of police here in a municipal police service. Do you have the ability, the capacity, and the resources to address what's taking place here in this country, in this city? And my answer was no. We're a municipal police service with 1,200 police officers, a relatively small budget. We're dealing with a national security crisis that happens to be centered in Ottawa, but actually has its tentacles right across the country and beyond. We're a municipal police service that doesn't

have a national security remit. We don't have national intelligence capabilities. We don't have unlimited resources. In fact, at that point, we had very limited resources. There was nothing in the Police Services Act or my mandate or my professional contract with the Audible Police Services Board that required me to be prepared for or to lead a national security response. I think that's where the challenge really was. In the first week, there was a lot of fingers pointing at the Audible Police service and obviously me as their chief of police. But we actually needed to come together as a country, all three levels of government, many aspects of civil society and many important institutions, including journalism and academics and private sector. And we didn't really get

our act together until about two weeks into it. And unfortunately, in that time, a lot of people in Ottawa and across the country suffered. I think many people across the country wanted you and your officers to move in on this convoy and start busting heads. I think they wanted you to make a ton of arrests. They wanted you to get tow trucks in there and haul these vehicles out. Was that something you ever felt you could do? Never. For two reasons. We simply didn't have the resources until they started to finally flow in, I think around the 14th of February by the 16th or 17th, the resources that we needed to execute the plan, which you saw unfold in real time on the parliamentary district, those were the resources, the extra 2,300 officers that showed up from across the country

with public order specific training. At no other time did we have the resources to execute the plan that ultimately was needed. More importantly, I lived through events internationally and nationally where police officers waded into crowds of protesters, using excessive. of force and assuming that the use of force would resolve a very complex social justice issue or a very dynamic and potentially dangerous political issue from my time in peacekeeping in Kosovo where they held the first national elections in 2002 to my participation as a deputy chief in the G20 summit in Toronto in 2010, which at that point was the largest mass incarceration of Canadians involved in protest.

hundreds of people, almost a thousand arrested within a 24-hour period, and huge uses of force and abuses of force, and civil suits and lawsuits paid out where people were injured and incarcerated against the Charter of Rights. I've seen that take place in other jurisdictions where I've traveled to learn from the United States, the UK. And I consulted with the best charter lawyers before and during that event, and nobody ever said to me,

lawfully can or ethically can or practically can wade into a crowd with the dynamics that we saw over those two weeks and affect any sort of purpose where force could be used. Ultimately, we had to almost triple the size of our police service with highly trained officers and a very specific plan to peacefully, lawfully, ethically, and safely remove the occupation that was in Ottawa and essentially end the Freedom Convoy events across the country. I'd be very curious to hear from you, and I really hope you won't dodge this question as much as you might want to. But I'd love to know from you which political leaders you think stepped up and showed leadership and were helpful to your efforts to end this thing and which ones

kind of headed for the hills and hid. Somehow I knew this question would be asked, Steve. I don't want to disappoint you. Well, your audience may not know. of these people. Councillor McKinney, who was a counselor of the, essentially the downtown core, where the majority of the Freedom Convoy events and protests were taking place. She was, I can't describe her as an ally or an even advocate. She was friendly enough on a personal level, but not a particular fan of policing or of Peter slowly. But I have to say, I think that they did a brilliant job representing their local community, representing city council, and advocating for the types of resources that ultimately

we did need as a police service. And quite frankly, in defending my reputation during and after, I give Mayor Watson some credit. He, like me, was a little bit challenged in communicating and collaborating, but at the end of the day, I think he did his job as best as he could. And again, was fair with me in very unfair circumstances that were being bandied about, about me and my police service. I give some credit, obviously, to the frontline officers of the Ottawa Police Service and the residents. But after that, I have to tell you, it kind of runs a bit thin, Steve.

I was very curious and conflicted and confused about some of the responses I was seeing from the federal government, the prime minister's office and the prime minister himself in refusing to have any real dialogue. I think it was raised well and covered well in your previous debate about whether or not the Minister himself should go and speak or even ministers should go and speak with representatives of the Freedom Convoy and particularly the leadership were extreme elements within it. But we actually had regular dialogue several days into the events where we were trying to find an effective interlocutor. I recommended it to the federal government and recommended

several names, which included Bob Ray, who could potentially come in and start to open a dialogue, which could take the pressure off what we're seeing on the streets and address, if not redress many of the issues and bring to an early end the protest taking place across the country. Anybody go for that idea? Well, the deputy minister who sought my advice on it certainly did, and I believe him even to this day that he passed it up the chain of command and into the PMO's office, but nothing ever came of anywhere that I'm aware of. With the exception, I believe in the case of Windsor, I think the provincial government tried

to bring in an interlocutor there, but not in Ottawa at any point that I'm aware of. But ultimately, I don't, sorry, go ahead. Ultimately, I think the Supreme Court has come back with their ruling on the lawfulness of the Emergencies Act. And I think, based on their ruling, I have even more confusion and consternation. Disappointment may be another good word for it in terms of the architects of the Emergencies Act under Justin Trudeau. and that would obviously involve people, the ministers around that, including Bill Blair.

Ultimately, no police chief, no police commissioner was consulted on it by the federal government, despite almost daily communications the ability to do so. And ultimately, I think it was an example of an unnecessary overreach that didn't materially address any of the real concerns that were taking place. But if somebody had come to you from the prime minister, office and said, you know, the PM is open to having a conversation with somebody from the convoy. Can you guarantee their safety if we send him into that? Could you have done that? Well, if it come to me as a chief of police and a municipal police service in Ottawa, I couldn't do that.

If he came to the RCMP Commissioner and the OPP Commissioner and the six police services that operated within the greater area of Ottawa, Gatno, we probably could have given not a 100% guarantee, but a substantial guarantee that we could facilitate such a thing. It didn't necessarily have to even take place in and around the parliamentary district or the national capital region could have taken place in anywhere. And it could have done, it could have taken place as we are on a Zoom platform. So from a logistical standpoint, there was really minimal risk, potentially some reward. Reputational, politically, I can't speak to that. I'm not a politician. But could it have taken place? Absolutely.

Now, one name I want to raise with you is the name of the Premier of Ontario, because I know from personal conversations with sources that I have had about this time in our history, the Premier of Ontario's office wanted nothing to do with any of this. I wonder if you could say whether you thought Doug Ford's conduct, whether he was helpful, whether he was not, during those three plus weeks in Ottawa, suggested to you that he wanted to help you find a resolution. to all this, or was more interested in keeping his head down? Well, all I can do is give you the facts, and these were all matters of public record already, largely through the Rullo Commission, but through other commissions.

Very early in the crisis, there was a set up through the federal government. There was a three levels of government daily phone call involving the city of Ottawa, the province of Ontario and the federal government, and the various ministries that were directly affected, included the city manager of Ottawa. Unfortunately, the province of Ontario was not a regular attendee, and when they were, didn't seem to be able to bring too much to bear. There were submissions of evidence of misinformation and disinformation that came out from the province around the level of staffing and resources

that they were providing to the city of Ottawa at critical junctures. that simply didn't line up with what was actually on the ground. I want to be clear, we had tremendous support from the province, particularly from the Ontario Provincial Police and their frontline officers all the way up to their commissioner. But sometimes the amount of information that was being publicly stated by the province did not match what was actually on the ground.

And ultimately, I do believe the province declined to participate in the Rulo Commission, which could have provided better information and understanding to Canadians as to what took place and didn't take place. So those would be some facts that I would put forward. Okay. Mr. Justice Rulo, or excuse me, forgive me, it's the Supreme Court of Canada, ultimately ruled that the Emergencies Act was an overreach and that the federal government ought not to have done it.

But as you look back on it, four years later, do you think this whole controversy could have been brought to the kind of peaceful end it ultimately arrived at without the use of the Emergencies Act? So one small caveat, I was out of office on February 15th and not actually the chief of police during the actual implementation of the plan. What I can say is that I was involved with the oversight of the plan and that it's critical stages involved directly in the development of the plan. And at no point in my direct involvement, was there ever a request for by us or any of our policing partner? the Emergency Act or any of the powers that were inherent in it. To my knowledge as a private citizen after my resignation, I'm not aware of any aspect of the Act being a material role in the actual implementation of the plan and the resources around it.

Again, matter of public record through the Rulo inquiry largely that some aspects of the Emergency Act were helpful, but none of them were core or requested for in the planning and the resource requests that led up to the actual implementation. And none of us were consulted on it. So at the end of the day, it was really immaterial. You have mentioned Mr. Justice Rullo's name a few times here, and yes, he did undertake a significant public inquiry looking into the whole thing,

lessons learned, etc. My question for you is, again, four years later, is it your sense that the Canadian public and perhaps our political leaders in particular, really want to understand and learn lessons from what transpired during those three plus weeks? Or do you think we're more interested in, frankly, putting the whole damn thing behind us and just moving on? Steve, there's many reasons why I think you're one of the best journalists ever in Canada. Bang on. And I have to tell you, for four years, I've wondered just that.

I mean, the Rulo inquiry kind of a year on, okay, I'll say three years. And there was some substantive results from the Rullo inquiry. For instance, Ottawa now has a $50 million five-year budget for specifically for providing better security services and policing services in around the parliamentary district. During my tenure as chief of police, my budget per year was $100,000, which paid for exactly one police officer. So, you know, the recommendations that came out of the Rullo inquiry to some degree have been implemented. There's funding and there is greater capacity now. But to your more important question, the heart of it, I actually think most Canadians, most politicians across almost all political streams, kind of just want to forget about it and move on. But there are still important lessons, still important implications and still important developments that are at play within our Canadian society and within our role in the broader global context that we need to address.

And that's why I was really glad to see your debate. And I hope that I'm glad to be on the show today. And I hope it continues, whether it's through you or other people stepping up. We'll follow up on that if you would. If we don't want to put this behind us and we actually do want to learn something that will help us if this kind of thing ever happens again, what do we need to know now? Well, I'll go back to, again, you know, the two comments you made, the Rorschart test. I don't think we actually have examined what it means to Canadians on all stripes and in all parts of the country.

You know, 70-30 split in almost any other issue other than electoral politics would say we have a large and divided portion of our country that is not aligned with another large and divided part and there doesn't seem to be very much common ground or civil discourse going on to move us forward. I don't believe that division which existed four years, years ago and at the time of the last poll that you referenced still exists to this day

can go on and hope that we have a country that has come together with our elbows up or whatever the terminology is so that we can actually tackle huge domestic issues and increasingly huge geopolitical issues. So we can't have a significantly divided country at a time where we need to significantly come together as a country. And the divisions existed before the Freedom Convoy. They were on stark display during Freedom Convoy, and they remain in place. This wasn't an us versus them. It's an us. And until we get to a real us solution, I think we still have a significant problem.

I'm going to ask you a rather difficult question here, but here goes anyway. This convoy cost you your job, this whole controversy. You evidently decided you didn't have the support that you needed. when you were the chief of police, you resigned. Maybe you resigned before they could fire you. You were really in the eye of the hurricane around all of this. I wonder four years later how angry you still are about the fact that this controversy cost you a job that I know you really wanted. I had the job that I really wanted.

That was as a public servant for over 30 years in two great communities and serving many great people, some of them in great need. For two and a half years, I fully fulfilled my contract to bring change and modernization to an important police service in Canada's nation capital. And I made a lot of positive changes with some great help inside the organization in the community. I resigned because, unfortunately, public trust had dwindled so much in my police service and in me that the resources that we desperately needed. Those extra 2,000 officers were just being delayed for reasons. I still, to this day, can't fully understand. I have some idea, but I can't fully understand why it took so. long to get them there, why so many people had to suffer for so long. But once they got there within

really 24 hours, they were safely and effectively and professionally removing the last vestiges of the Freedom Convoy events from the city of Ottawa. I'm not mad. Disappointed in some of the ways I was treated, vindicated by the reports of Justice Rulow and others who said I was scapegoated. And I've moved on. I'm involved in many important projects, many fulfilling projects. At University of Toronto, was an adjunct professor at Massey College as a visiting fellow. I'm involved in very important opportunities to discuss important issues like this with you and others. I'm writing a book.

So life goes on. I had a wonderful career. It didn't necessarily end exactly in the way I wanted, but it ended with me doing my best to serve and protect this country, the community and the city that I was hired to do and working with some great people. And ultimately, the plan came through. It was done safely and ethically and lawfully. Nobody died. There were no riots, no burning police cars.

At the end of the day, it was a truly Canadian, boring, safe, secure ending to a very unprecedented national crisis. Would you ever want to run another police service? I'd ever say never. But I have many other things that I want to pursue. at this stage in my career, including giving time back to my family who missed me terribly for many decades. And I'm glad to be able to do that more so these days. Involvement in law enforcement in any other way, maybe not as the chief of police somewhere, but there's lots of other ways you could serve in law enforcement. Does that hold any interest?

It does. And in fact, through my private consulting business, I get phone calls from police chiefs and board chairs and solicitor generals and attorney generals and the odd politician from other countries asking me to do just that, to provide subject matter expertise and my experience. I provide on an annual basis a lecture to the Canadian Forces College about leadership and polycrisis. And that includes military leaders and civil leaders from across the country. And so I still give back in a sense to public security policing, the justice system, and the national security system.

Let's finish up on the good old-fashioned catch-all question that decent journalists are supposed to ask, and that is anything I haven't asked you that you want to put on the record here before we go. I know as usual you've done an amazing job of probing and exploring and getting people like me to give far more information than we were intending to when we came on. But I'm glad you have that skill and ability, Steve. I hope you continue. Our relationship goes back on asking tough questions and me trying to provide reasonable answers many years, and I hope it continues, regardless of whether I'm on your show or not. I just hope Canadians are well served by your efforts. Amen to that and you are too kind sir. I know there's some people

watching or listening to this right now saying, Peter, you're being too nice to this guy. Cut him down a peg or two. So I guess we'll leave that for next time. Can I simply say thank you to Peter slowly for coming on the Paken podcast here. Can I remind everybody that they can join our Patreon community at patreon.com slash the Paken podcast where you will find web exclusive videos and offer you a chance to support what we're doing here. This feature right now with Peter Slowly is one of these extra new items that we have decided to introduce here. So we're trying to come up with new stuff to respond to things that you tell us you want to hear. All of our shows are archived at stevehaken.com. And with that, I say peace and love everybody and we'll see you next time.