EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security NUMBER 031 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, July 25, 2022 Le lundi 25 juillet 2022 Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE July 25, 2022 Committee NUMBER 031 NUMBER 031 NUMÉRO 031 31 25 07 2022 2022/07/25 11:00:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security SECU Chair The Honourable Jim Carr 1 44

(1100) [ English ]

The Chair (Hon. Jim Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)) :

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I am in Treaty 1 territory and also the homeland of the Métis people. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee is commencing its study of allegations of political interference in the 2020 Nova Scotia mass murder investigation.

With us today on the first panel is the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of Emergency Preparedness, and Mr. Rob Stewart, deputy minister of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions. Welcome to all. I now invite Minister Blair to make an opening statement of up to five minutes. Minister, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of Emergency Preparedness) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'd also like to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. On April 18 and 19 of 2020, an unthinkable tragedy unfolded in Nova Scotia. All Canadians were shaken by these horrific deaths and mourned alongside the affected communities. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for and condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in these violent attacks and our commitment to ensure that they get the answers they need.

We know that Canadians deserve a full accounting of what happened over those 13 hours on April 18 and 19 in 2020. That is why we established an independent inquiry, the Mass Casualty Commission, which is mandated to look into some of the most pressing questions that were raised into how this occurred and how future tragedies can be prevented. We are all looking forward to the inquiry's fact-based findings, which I understand are due to be released later this year. As the commission conducts its work, I remain committed to the fundamental principle of operational independence for law enforcement in this country.

I want to make it very clear: At no point did I direct the RCMP in any operational matter, including on public communications. I did not ask them to release any specific information, nor did I receive a promise for them to do so. As you will find in all of my public statements from that time, I confirmed that identifying the weapons used was a decision wholly within the purview of the RCMP.

What I would like to emphasize for you all today, however, is that during the years I've had the honour to serve as Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, one of my top priorities has been addressing gun violence in Canada. This was a key item in my mandate letter, which directed me to keep our communities safe by implementing new gun control measures, including a ban on assault-style firearms. Work on this issue had been under way for quite some time.

We first made a commitment to get assault-style weapons off our streets in the very first Speech from the Throne in 2015. We repeated that commitment in both our platform and our throne speech in 2019. As part of that work, while I was Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, I supported Minister Goodale in public consultations on reducing violent crime that involved both handguns and assault-style weapons. Just within these few years, we have seen far too many examples of the kinds of harms these firearms can cause, such as at the shooting at the Quebec City mosque.

Another gunman killed two police officers and two civilians in Fredericton. Within our neighbour to the south, the AR-15 alone has been used in mass shootings at the Pulse nightclub; in Sutherland Springs; at Stoneman Douglas High School; and, perhaps most tragically, at Sandy Hook Elementary School. From the outset, we understood the importance of preventing assault-style firearms from getting into the hands of people who do Canadians harm. The tragedy that occurred in Nova Scotia only deepened our resolve to move forward with this critically important work.

That is why on May 1, 2020, we announced an OIC prohibiting over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms and their variants. Firearms affected by this order in council cannot be legally used, sold or imported into Canada. We created a time-limited amnesty order to give law-abiding gun owners time to come into compliance. The OIC on May 1 was the result of many years of hard work on the part of government, including public servants, and was developed based on public consultations that were open to all Canadians.

Let me be very clear: These are weapons designed for the battlefield, intended to kill the maximum number of people in the least amount of time. They have no place in Canada. The measure is, and continues to be, an incredibly important part of our overall approach to combatting gun violence, but it is not the only step we have taken. We have introduced expanded background checks and enhanced screening for those seeking a firearms licence, and we've made significant investments in helping provinces and territories tackle gang violence.

Earlier this year, my colleague Minister Mendicino tabled further relevant legislation that I believe will be coming before this committee in short order. Combatting gun violence is a complex and continual process, an issue that requires a multi-faceted approach, and we will continue to keep Canadians safe by implementing stronger gun controls. Mr. Chair, I would conclude, if I may, by reiterating that at no time have I ever interfered operationally or given operational direction to the RCMP in my role as the Minister of Public Safety. I thank you all. I look forward to the questions that you may have.

(1105) The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. You won't have to wait long for those questions, because they're going to start right now. Opening up this first round, I would now call on Ms. Dancho. You have six minutes, Ms. Dancho. The floor is yours whenever you're ready to take it.

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being with us today. You or someone from your office was in daily contact with Commissioner Lucki in the immediate days following the Nova Scotia attacks on April 18 and 19. Correct?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I was not in contact with her on a daily basis, but frequently in the days afterward I was briefed by Commissioner Lucki.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

As well, your chief of staff and your deputy minister were in relatively daily contact with Commissioner Lucki in some capacity...?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Yes, I assume so.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Would you be comfortable tabling for the committee your calendar, your deputy minister's calendar and your chief of staff's calendar and phone logs that are relevant to your communication with Commissioner Lucki prior to our next committee meeting, specifically from the dates of April 18 to April 28 and including April 28? That would be for the reason of full transparency of your communications and your office's communications with her.

Hon. Bill Blair :

I actually have a timeline with me, and I'm quite comfortable sharing that and when I personally had conversations. There are a number of different things in that timeline—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Minister, does that include the communication from your deputy minister and from your chief of staff with Commissioner Lucki as well?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Again, I'm more than happy to provide you with a timeline of all my communications on this matter, with Commissioner Lucki and with others.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Does that include the deputy minister's communications and the chief of staff Zita Astravas's communications?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I don't know if the deputy minister has that information available, so I don't want to make a commitment to it, but that's a question certainly you can pose to him.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Certainly there would be phone logs of all of the calls they made. Can you commit to tabling those with the committee before our next meeting: yours, the deputy minister's and the chief of staff Zita Astravas's?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Again, I don't have direct access to those logs, but if they exist, I think it's very important—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

If they exist, do you commit to it?

Hon. Bill Blair :

If I may, I think it's very important that this committee have all the information that it requires to make an accurate assessment of what transpired.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Great. Thank you very much. Moving on, in a June 28, 2020, Globe and Mail article, you were quoted confirming that you spoke to the RCMP about the upcoming OIC ban. When was Commissioner Lucki informed of the May 1 announcement date?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Commissioner Lucki had been working with us. Commissioner Lucki, as the commissioner of the RCMP, is responsible for the Canadian firearms program. The Canadian firearms program was integral in the work that we had—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Blair, when was she informed of the May 1 date of that announcement?

Hon. Bill Blair :

That's a question that would have to be posed to—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

When was the May 1 date determined for that announcement? Was it before or after the Nova Scotia attacks?

Hon. Bill Blair :

The date of release was determined after the Nova Scotia shooting.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you. You're aware of the email sent by Commissioner Lucki on April 23, four days after the attacks, to your chief of staff Zita Astravas, containing information that your government had requested concerning weapons used in the attacks, correct?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Yes, I'm aware of it.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You're also aware that the commissioner's email contained a strong warning that the information must not be shared beyond you and the Prime Minister because it could jeopardize the active investigation, correct?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I'm not only aware of it, but I respected that throughout.

(1110) Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You are aware of the meeting that the commissioner called for her and her Nova Scotia officials immediately following the Nova Scotia press conference on April 28.

Hon. Bill Blair :

I was not aware of that. I've subsequently become aware of it through media reports.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You're aware that during that meeting the commissioner reprimanded her Nova Scotia deputies for not sharing the information she warned you not to share, correct?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I'm not aware of that. I was not a party to that conversation, and I've only read media reports. I've not discussed that in any way with the commissioner.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Your office obtained assurances from Commissioner Lucki that the type of weapons used in the shooting would be released to the public at the April 28 press conference, correct?

Hon. Bill Blair :

No, that's incorrect.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So it was not assured. You had no idea that was Commissioner Lucki's expectation at that press conference.

Hon. Bill Blair :

Let me be very clear. At no time did I ask Commissioner Lucki to reveal that information. At no time did I direct her in any way on communications. She did not make any promise to me.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Minister, you're miscommunicating a bit. I'm not asking if you had asked her, but I'm asking if you were aware of the commissioner's expectation that on that April 28 press conference that information would be released. Were you aware that was Commissioner Lucki's expectation?

Hon. Bill Blair :

No, I was not.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You were not aware. Following the meeting and the press conference, in a late-night email from Commissioner Lucki to your chief of staff and your deputy minister on April 28, she said, without any context whatsoever, that the press conference was, to quote Commissioner Lucki, “not the execution I was expecting”. Again, she said in her email, without further context, that the press conference was “not the execution I was expecting.” That's in reference to the media questions on the types of weapons used. The lack of context provided in Commissioner Lucki's—

Hon. Bill Blair :

I can't comment on the context of that. I wasn't aware of it, and I have no knowledge of what the commissioner was referring to.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

It seems that your deputy minister and your chief of staff were fully aware of the expectation of Commissioner Lucki of that press conference. To the deputy minister, were you aware of the context of this email, because it was not listed in the email and it was written that you would have been aware?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I have no idea—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That question is to the deputy minister, please. Thank you. Were you aware of the context of the email?

Mr. Rob Stewart (Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) :

Not in the sense that you are posing the question. I was aware that the commissioner expected there to be full disclosure of what the RCMP knew for the sake of the public.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That's what I'm asking. So you were aware of the context of the email—the context of the email being that the commissioner's expectation of the April 28 press conference was that that information on the weapons would be released. Thank you for confirming that you were aware of the context.

Hon. Bill Blair :

Ms. Dancho, if I may, that's simply not correct. I don't believe there's anything in that email that makes reference to any information about firearms.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I would just read it again. There is no context in this email, but Commissioner Lucki said, in reference to the press conference, that it was not the execution she was expecting. She then went on to provide comment from media and from Darren Campbell, when he was asked about the weapons used. I appreciate that you were aware of the context of that email—even though it was not listed—which would mean that you were aware a bit earlier in the day.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I'd like to just make sure you're clear on my point here.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Please go ahead.

The Chair :

You have 10 seconds to be clear.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

To the best of my recollection, the commissioner had provided some assurance that the RCMP would provide the public with a full story of what had happened and what they knew. That was what I understood.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Of the weapons used—

The Chair :

Thank you. The time is up. Now I will move to Mr. Noormohamed. Sir, you have the next slot for six minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister and Deputy, for joining us today. Minister, perhaps you could take a minute and describe the nature of the relationship between the Minister of Public Safety and the commissioner of the RCMP and how that relationship actually works operationally, how it is supposed to work and how it worked in this particular situation.

Hon. Bill Blair :

Thanks very much. I think it's an important question and I appreciate it. As Minister of Public Safety, I am responsible for a number of different agencies and departments that report to Public Safety and to the Minister of Public Safety. In that reporting relationship, I think there's a very clear and important line of delineation. Under no circumstances can the minister offer or direct operational activities of the RCMP in any way. The minister cannot tell them, for example, who to investigate, what to investigate, what charges should be laid or any aspect of their operational duties.

It's a line that I'm quite familiar with. I spent many years as a police chief and I understand the difference between governance and the management and operation of a police service. It's a line I have always respected and continued to respect throughout my entire tenure as the Minister of Public Safety. The RCMP have a responsibility to be accountable to the people of Canada through the Government of Canada.

As the Minister of Public Safety, I am regularly and routinely briefed by the RCMP commissioner on matters of significant national concern, but at no time am I able—nor would I ever—give her any operational direction on any investigative matter. That includes information that would be communicated with the public. Those are decisions are quite appropriately made independently by the police of jurisdiction—in this case, the RCMP—and they are not something that I would ever interfere with.

(1115) Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Just to further clarify, in this situation, during this awful tragedy, was there a time when the commissioner of the RCMP sought your direction or was she also very clear about that line? How would you have handled this had she even asked you for direction?

Hon. Bill Blair :

No. The commissioner did not seek, and has never in my experience in the over two years I've worked with her as the public safety minister sought, my direction on any operational matter. In the aftermath of this tragic event, the commissioner was providing the Government of Canada, through me, very comprehensive briefings on what had transpired. She was providing us with information about the sequence of events, the number of casualties and some of the challenges they were facing. At the same time, she was very clear on what information was classified and not to be released. I respected that at all times.

I think you'll see that I spoke publicly a number of times and was asked very explicit questions about the investigation and certain aspects of the communication. I was clear in every one of those communications that this was an operational matter for the RCMP and that I would not, in any way, interfere. I think the commissioner is well aware of her responsibilities and her job. It's an awareness that I also possess.

I think the two of us had, and continue to have, a very respectful relationship in how we have worked together, understanding where that very bright line is between the role of government and the role of our operational manager—the commissioner of the RCMP.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Speaking very briefly about the briefings you received, was anything out of the ordinary or abnormal—of course, the entire tragedy and horrific incident was abnormal—about the briefings you received, or were these the types of briefings that, in an incident like this, would be part of the normal course of the commissioner's briefings to the minister?

Hon. Bill Blair :

This was an extraordinary event, to be very clear. It was without precedent in the number of casualties and the horrific impact it had on that community. A number of concerns were being expressed from within the victims' families, by my counterparts in the province of Nova Scotia, by the media and by the community about the lack of information people were receiving about what had transpired. A number of very important questions were arising.

I know that this was one of the challenges the commissioner had, on the one hand ensuring and protecting the integrity of their ongoing criminal investigation, and on the other hand ensuring that peoples' questions were answered. I heard from many of my colleagues on both sides of the House expressing real concern, and understandable concern, about the lack of information and how desperately the families needed that information.

So almost from the outset, and this is somewhat unique, there was a discussion taking place within my department, between myself and the deputy minister, as well as my counterpart in the province of Nova Scotia, to review the shootings and to propose terms of reference on a number of matters for a broad review of the mass shooting that had taken place, including the response of the police and steps taken to inform and support affected citizens. I have that information with me today. I'm happy to share the proposed terms of reference that were developed on April 27.

In the very earliest days and hours of this event, we recognized the importance of more fulsome and effective communications with the people impacted by this tragedy.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Minister, with 30 seconds left, I have one very brief question for you. A lot has been made about timeline and the speed with which an OIC was issued to ban particular weapons after this tragedy. Can you tell this committee very quickly when the work actually started on this and whether or not this tragedy was actually the catalyst or whether this work had been done long before to put those rules into place?

The Chair: You have 10 seconds, Minister.

Hon. Bill Blair :

Very quickly, the list that we produced in the OIC, which contained over 1,500 military-style assault weapons, was a list that took several months to compile. We worked very closely and consulted with the Canadian firearms program to compile that list.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. I will now turn to Madame Michaud for a six-minute slot. Madame Michaud, it's good to see you, as always. The floor is yours.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. To the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, thank you for being with us today. I want to extend my condolences to the loved ones and families of the victims. Although the mass shooting took place in 2020, I think that hearing about it again, given the Mass Casualty Commission and everything that is published daily in the media, reopens wounds that weren't quite closed.

So I think a lot about these people, and out of respect for them, I think it's important to be transparent, to give them as much information as possible and to answer their questions to the greatest extent possible. The fact that there are allegations of political interference is quite serious. These people therefore deserve to have their questions answered. I'll get right to the point. Minister, you said some interesting things earlier in response to questions from my Conservative colleagues.

According to the report on the mass shooting and to the account by Superintendent Darren Campbell, at a meeting on April 28, 2020, RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki allegedly said she promised you and the Prime Minister that she would release information about the weapons used in the mass shooting, even if it could compromise the investigation. As Mr. Campbell stated, she knew that you would issue a regulation two days later and revealing the weapons used would help your government. Did you actually have these conversations with Ms.

Lucki, during which you would have asked her to publicly disclose the type of weapons used?

(1120) [ English ]

Hon. Bill Blair :

Thank you for the question. No, I did not. I did not ask her to release that information. It wasn't required. The list of weapons that were being prohibited by the order in council that we brought forward on May 1 had taken months to prepare. I did not ask the commissioner to release that information, and nor did she promise me that she would.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

You already gave us this answer in the House. We've also read it in the media. One thing is troubling me, though. According to the other version, the RCMP version, and based on what we can understand from Ms. Lucki's emails and Mr. Campbell's testimony, this is not the case. How do you explain the different versions? Essentially, who is telling the truth? What were the discussions about the regulations enacted a few days later?

[ English ]

Hon. Bill Blair :

There's only one set of facts. I did not ask the commissioner to reveal that information. She did not promise me that she would. You're also referring to a conversation that the commissioner had with her subordinates in Nova Scotia, and there's some information that's come forward with that. I was not a party to that discussion and have no knowledge of that discussion. Those questions about that discussion are better put to the participants.

However, I can say unequivocally and with absolute certainty that I did not direct the RCMP commissioner to reveal that information, nor did she promise me that she would do so. In fact, every time I was asked in every media event.... There are many recorded media interviews with me when questions were put to me, including the day we announced the order in council. I was very explicit that day that we were not going to release that information. The decision on when it should be released is entirely up to the RCMP.

Subsequently, in the House—and if you go through Hansard you'll see it—many times members of the Conservative Party asked me about information related to that. I said the RCMP is conducting their investigation, and when they're concluded they'll release the information as they see fit. As I was doing then, I continue to strongly defend the operational independence of the RCMP in making operational decisions regarding their investigations.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Earlier, in response to a question from my colleague, you said that the release date for the regulations, May 1, 2020, was chosen after the Portapique mass shooting. Did that influence the decisions you made, including what ended up in the regulations? Quite honestly, I get the impression they were drafted on the back of a napkin. They do include the very weapons used in mass murders, but similar models are still on the market and aren't on this list. After the Portapique mass shooting, what discussions followed about the regulations, which were enacted on May 1, 2020, and about their content? Did they influence your decisions and policy action on gun control?

[ English ]

Hon. Bill Blair :

I think it's important to remind us all that this is a commitment we made. Frankly, the banning and prohibition of assault-style weapons is something I have worked on for many years. We actually campaigned on it in the 2019 election, as you may recall. It was in the throne speech when we became the government. It was also in my mandate letter that we would ban these assault-style weapons. We went right to work. In fact, the work had actually begun in 2019, when I did cross-country consultations and we did surveys and other things to talk about what weapons should be prohibited.

As to the compiling of the list, that's a very interesting characterization. You suggest it was done on the back of a napkin—but it took several months of very hard work to compile that list of over 1,500 weapons. Very clear criteria were established for which weapons would make that list, and that list was compiled over many months. Let me also be clear, Ms. Michaud, that the terrible tragedy that took place in Nova Scotia, the worst mass casualty shooting event in our country's history, was for me very impactful.

All of the work that we had been doing for months and years leading up to that moment certainly had the effect of deepening my resolve to move forward as quickly as possible to keep the promise that we had made to Canadians. We made that to Canadians some time before. I remind myself that we're not alone in this. For example—

(1125) The Chair :

You have 10 seconds.

Hon. Bill Blair :

—the leader of the NDP, on April 20, urged us to take some action in response to this terrible tragedy. That action was well entrained and we're working very hard on it going forward. Certainly, the terrible events of that event were highly motivating for me to get the job done and to keep—

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I would now like to invite Mr. MacGregor to begin his six-minute slot. Mr. MacGregor, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the committee, Minister Blair. I'd also like to echo my colleague Madame Michaud's comment that our thoughts are with the families in Nova Scotia. I truly want our committee's work today to be respectful of the commission's process and to not really interfere with the important work the commission is doing. Minister Blair, my first question for you is, do you believe that handwritten notes, especially as they're written during the course of a certain action, are something you can put a lot of stock in? Do you use them personally?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Actually, in confidential briefings I don't personally take notes, but I have previously as a police officer maintained a memo book, for example, which is an aide-mémoire . If it's done contemporaneously with events, it can provide good evidence.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Good, because I guess the reason we're here today is from what has come to light from the handwritten notes of Superintendent Darren Campbell, which make specific reference to the commissioner having said that she had made a promise and that this was tied to impending gun control legislation. Now you have very clearly stated on the record that no such promise was made and no direction was given. Why, then, do you think, in your opinion, Superintendent Campbell would have written that specifically in his notes, written during or shortly after a conference call with the commissioner?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I think that's a question better put to the participants in that conversation. I was not a party to it. I had no knowledge of that conversation. I can tell you, and I'll repeat very clearly, I hope for all of you, that at no time did I give that operational direction to the RCMP commissioner to release that information, nor did she promise me that she would. But, with respect to the conversation she had with her team in Nova Scotia, that's a question that.... I was not a party to those conversations. It's a question best put to those who were a party to it.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Okay, we'll leave it at that. In response to previous questions on this topic, the Prime Minister publicly stated that his government did not put any undue influence or pressure on the RCMP. But that was kind of an evasive answer to the question because, while he makes specific reference to undue influence or pressure, it may leave it open to other types of influence and pressure. How would you interpret the Prime Minister's answer to those specific questions?

Hon. Bill Blair :

With respect, I'm not really feeling that it's appropriate for me to start interpreting that, but let me explain the conversations that were taking place in the immediate aftermath of this terrible tragedy. We were hearing from people right across the country. Most importantly, we were hearing from the families of the victims that there was a great deal of questions and concerns about what had taken place.

I do have notes from the proposed terms of reference for what became the Mass Casualty Commission, where we talked about the need to deal with the absence of red flags prior to the event; the police actions, taking into account the COVID environment; communications with the public during and after the event; policies with respect to the disposal of RCMP kit and vehicles; training and RCMP preparedness for active shooter complaints and, very importantly, support for the families and the victims.

(1130) Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you, Minister. I'm sorry, but my time is running out shortly and I do want to change tack here. I don't want to repeat many of the questions that were asked. Mr. Noormohamed asked you to carefully explain the relationship between the Minister of Public Safety and the RCMP. You gave a very clear answer. The problem is, Minister, that other governments—previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal—have had ministers who have given operational direction to the RCMP. We saw it with the Chrétien government back in the 1990s with the APEC summit.

Direction was also given back in the 1950s by the Diefenbaker government with an incident in Newfoundland. I think the problem, Minister, lies with the

interpretation of the RCMP Act, specifically subsection 5(1), which provides basically for the appointment of the commissioner, “who, under the direction of the Minister, has control and management of the Force”. I'm paraphrasing that, but it basically leaves it quite vague. Would you agree that's quite a vague statement in the act that governs the RCMP?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I'll explain that I think it's crystal clear. The Minister of Public Safety has the ability—

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

You say that despite the fact that other governments have overstepped their bounds.

Hon. Bill Blair :

I can just tell you that for me, when I was Minister of Public Safety, it was a very bright line. The Minister of Public Safety has the ability to issue ministerial directives with respect to certain policy matters for the RCMP, but the line between having government or a politician direct the investigation or any of the operational activities of the RCMP, for me, is a bright line and one I have never crossed.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

I don't doubt that you find it crystal clear, but I'm trying to find ways so that we don't again get into this kind of situation in the future. So, Minister, my question for you is how can we possibly amend this

section of the act to make it crystal clear for successors in other governments so that we don't have meetings in the future where we're questioning a minister of public safety for alleged interference in ongoing RCMP investigations? Are there amendments that you think could be used to strengthen this act so it is crystal clear for everyone who holds that office?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Mr. MacGregor, I would just point out to you that, in my experience as the public safety minister, there were a number of instances where some of my colleagues in the House were insisting that the police be directed in their activities in response to blockades, investigations and other matters.

The Chair :

You have 10 seconds, Minister.

Hon. Bill Blair :

At all times I have maintained the principle that we will never interfere with the operations of the RCMP.

The Chair :

Thank you. We now move to a second round of questions, beginning with Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ellis, welcome to the committee. I'm glad you're here this morning. You have five minutes for this round. The floor is yours.

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a great pleasure to be here representing the great people of Cumberland—Colchester, of course, where this unfortunate incident took place for the most part. Thank you, Minister, for being here. I'll start with a quote: “Nova Scotians told us they needed this process to be independent, thorough and transparent, and we agree.” Minister Blair, do you know who said that, sir?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I suspect it was me.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

It was you. That's very correct, sir.

Hon. Bill Blair :

By the way, I believe that.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Great. Oddly enough, though, sir, from the very beginning you did not want an inquiry. Is that true?

Hon. Bill Blair :

No, let me be very clear. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that concern—

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

I don't really need any clarification, sir. I just need a simple yes or no.

Hon. Bill Blair :

In fact, in the immediate days following the shooting, I reached out to the Province of Nova Scotia. I had proposed terms of reference to conduct a broad review of the mass shooting in Nova Scotia, and—

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Yes, sir. We understand that. Thank you. I know that we're tight on time, so let's get to the matter. You wanted a review, not an inquiry. Then when the inquiry came around, you took the opportunity, sir, to actually appoint some very interesting commissioners—oddly enough, Mr. MacDonald, first cousin to one of the individuals who was shot, and a well-known Liberal, who stayed charges against Gerry Regan; Ms. Fitch, whose father was a Mountie, a five-year chief of police who was on a board of the RCMP; and Ms.

Stanton, who actually wrote a book in 2021, released before the commission's start, to change the way public inquiries are held. Is that not political interference from the very beginning, sir?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Absolutely not, sir. In fact, I spoke to the attorney general in Nova Scotia, and he recommended former Chief Justice MacDonald as the commission chair. Chief Fitch had been the chief in Fredericton—

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Yes—

Hon. Bill Blair :

—when two of her officers and two citizens were killed in another mass shooting in that location—

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Thank you, sir. Those facts are well known. I really appreciate that.

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.) :

On a point of order, Chair, can we allow the minister to answer the question asked of him?

The Chair :

Yes. I think we have to have a little smoother flow here. Minister, you have the floor.

(1135) Hon. Bill Blair :

Thank you. We worked very carefully to ensure that when we established initially what was to be a review, but we heard very clearly from the families that they were very concerned about the ability of the commission of inquiry to subpoena witnesses, in response to that we did declare a public inquiry to give them those tools. But from the very beginning, in the immediate days following, it was very clear to us....

I'll happily provide the committee with the proposed terms of reference that were developed on April 27, 2020, only a week after this terrible tragic event, recognizing that the people of Nova Scotia, the people of your community, needed answers. We wanted to make sure they got those answers as quickly as possible.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Thank you, sir. It's obvious that we see the choices made politically somewhat differently. I would suggest to you, sir, that the members of the families who are affected, the grieving families of people like Lisa McCully and Greg and Jamie Blair and Kristen Beaton and Heather O'Brien, see this very, very differently from what you do, sir. One of the other things that I think is important is that quite clearly, with the back-and-forth we've had now with our NDP member, our Bloc member and our team here as well, sir, someone is not telling the truth here. That's the unusual thing.

There's a conflicting level of evidence that my Bloc colleague clearly pointed out. There's a contrary nature to what was said through the notes of Mr. Campbell, who you said is also an exemplary officer. That being said, sir, who from the PMO was your staff communicating with in the days following the attacks?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Sorry. Who...?

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Who from the PMO was your staff, or you, communicating with during the days after the attack?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I don't know. I can tell you that there were regular briefings taking place between the RCMP, and I was also briefing my cabinet colleagues on the events—

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Did you speak directly to the Prime Minister , sir?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Again, I was briefing the entire cabinet on the events—

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Did you speak directly to the Prime Minister , sir? I think it's a pretty simple question.

Hon. Bill Blair :

And I've just said that I was speaking to the entire cabinet on that matter.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Did you speak directly to the Prime Minister , sir? Please answer a simple yes or no.

Hon. Bill Blair :

The Prime Minister is president in the cabinet. He's the head of our government.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Did you have a direct conversation with him, sir?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Not a separate conversation on these events; it was in the context of a cabinet discussion.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Very good, sir. Mr. Stewart, do you remember any meetings with the Prime Minister that you, the chief of staff or the minister may have had?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I did not attend any meetings with the Prime Minister , and I'm not sure.... I'd have to check my schedule. As Ms. Dancho has asked, we will give you the schedules.

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Sir, obviously you were present at multiple briefings during all of this. Someone's not telling the truth again, sir. Do you have an opinion on that?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

You're asking me?

Mr. Stephen Ellis :

Yes, sir.

The Chair :

You have 10 seconds, please.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I don't believe that to be the case. I'm sorry, I think this answer will take more than 10 seconds. There was a great deal of desire to have the RCMP tell the public what happened, because in the days following the tragic event the story was very unclear. There was a great deal of desire for that to be the case, and that—in the commissioner's mind, I believe—included the guns.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. I would now call upon Mr. Hardie to take his five-minute slot. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Hardie, the floor is yours.

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's almost impossible to get your mind around what happened in Nova Scotia and the impact on the families and on the force. I spent a short time as the director of communication for the Vancouver police department, and I know full well that the police quite often have seconds—milliseconds—to make a decision, and everybody else has the rest of time to second-guess what they decided to do. In your case, Minister Blair, you had a mandate letter from December 13, 2019, directing you to implement the government's firearms policy. First on the list was to deal with military-style assault weapons.

Does this item in your mandate reflect the will of Canadians, do you think, as expressed in the 2019 election?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I believe there is overwhelming support for the prohibition of assault-style weapons. I also understand...because I've heard very clearly from those representing the gun industry, for example, who have been strongly opposed to it.

Mr. Ken Hardie :

Would releasing the specific details of the weapons used in the Nova Scotia shootings have been necessary to justify the ban to Canadians?

(1140) Hon. Bill Blair :

I don't think it's in any way relevant, to be frank. There are many documented instances where this style of weapons has been used in mass shootings in Canada and around the world. I personally believe that there is no place in a civil and safe society for such weapons. They were designed for military use and not for recreational use, and there have just been far too many tragedies where they have been used. I still do not have all the particulars on what weapons were used, and in what circumstances, in the Nova Scotia shooting, but I also believe that a mass shooting was symptomatic of a greater problem.

Mr. Ken Hardie :

Basically, the release of the information, as was alleged that somebody asked for, really wasn't necessary in the context of the OIC's coming up. Five days after the shooting, Superintendent Campbell disclosed at a news conference that the gunman had two semi-automatic handguns and two semi-automatic rifles—although the government had received a briefing document dated that same day that provided many more details. In your opinion, for purposes of informing the public, was Superintendent Campbell's disclosure sufficient to give the media and Canadians the essential information about the weapons used?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Yes. In fact, it was more than sufficient, and I certainly didn't require or seek to have more released. By that time, and when we brought forward the order in council, I was aware of what weapons were used, but the RCMP had been very clear, as had Superintendent Campbell. I'd also comment that I watched the press conference by Superintendent Campbell on April 24, and, quite frankly, I thought that his delivery and the information shared in that press conference was outstanding. I was particularly respectful of the fact that he stood and answered every question that was put to him.

I also heard later that morning from the attorney general in Nova Scotia who was equally relieved by the information that the superintendent shared on April 24.

Mr. Ken Hardie :

I will be asking the commissioner about preparation for these briefings that Superintendent Campbell conducted, but were you privy to any details or preparation for the superintendent's April 24 or April 28 media briefings?

Hon. Bill Blair :

No, I was not. I was receiving information from the RCMP commissioner on what had transpired, but I was not involved in any of the briefings with the Nova Scotia officers or detachment on their response, and I had no information on what was being told to them or what they were going to say. The information that I was receiving was also relevant to briefings that were being provided. As I alluded to earlier, there was a Prime Minister's briefing on the Nova Scotia tragedy that took place on Thursday, April 23, and it was based on information that the commissioner had shared with us.

Mr. Ken Hardie :

After the shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand, the Prime Minister of New Zealand acted very quickly to institute a ban. It's very clear from your earlier testimony that the work to do so in Canada had been under way, given what had been promised in the 2015 election, the 2019 election, your mandate letter, etc. The tracks were already laid toward a ban. You mentioned earlier today that the incident in Nova Scotia accelerated the release of the OIC and the ban. What response did you get from the Canadian public when that announcement was made on May 1?

Hon. Bill Blair :

It was overwhelmingly positive.

The Chair :

Mr. Hardie, you're out of time, but I want to give the minister 15 seconds to answer that question.

Hon. Bill Blair :

There was a very strong response from the medical community, police chief associations across the country and the Canadian Police Association, which is the police union. There was strong support for the OIC that was brought forward prohibiting those assault weapons.

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. Madame Michaud, I now turn to you. You have two and a half minutes in this round, whenever you're ready.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, the director of strategic communications in Halifax, Lia Scanlan, said that government officials, including you, when you were the Minister of Public Safety, and Prime Minister Trudeau, were evaluating what they could and could not say. Now, this is a mass shooting, a tragedy where—I think you'll agree with me—the police are in the best position to determine what to say. One of the things you talked about was transparency and independence of the national police force, and as Mr.

Hardie was saying earlier, police officers often only have a few minutes, a few seconds, before they make a decision. Obviously, they are in the best position to explain the decisions they made. Hearing that the government wanted to control the message gives the impression that, instead of thinking about the victims, they were thinking about their political agenda. I wonder if you are aware of the public's perception.

(1145) [ English ]

Hon. Bill Blair :

First of all, I have never ever met or had a conversation with that individual. At no time have I ever given her, nor did my government give her, any direction on what she could or could not say. I have no understanding of that and no facts upon which to make a determination as to why that would be said, because it's simply not true. As well, I think it's important to understand the context that the deputy minister referred to.

There was, in the immediate days following this shooting, a tremendous amount of public concern about what had taken place and a great need, among the families, the community, Nova Scotians and people right across Canada, to understand what had happened and why it had happened. It was very important for information that could be shared to be shared with the public. I had a number of conversations with my counterpart in Nova Scotia, and we were hearing from the families. I was hearing from a number of my counterparts too. In fact, the member for West Nova rose in the House, and another member, Mr.

Barrett , rose in the House, expressing very real concern that the RCMP was not being forthcoming with information and urging us to make information public. In response to those questions in the House, I answered that it is the decision of the RCMP and that only the RCMP could determine what information would be released. I understood, as I understand now, their very sincere concern that more information needed to be shared.

The Chair :

Thank you. We're out of time.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I now move to Mr. MacGregor. Sir, you have a two-and-a-half-minute slot. Whenever you're ready, the clock will go.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Minister Blair, I want to return to the subject of what I view as the vagueness of the RCMP Act, specifically subsection 5(1). Now, in my previous exchange with you, I cited two examples: the Diefenbaker government with the situation in Newfoundland, and the Chrétien government in the 1990s with the APEC summit. While I appreciate that for you this subsection is crystal clear, those are two very clear and demonstrated cases where the government of the day did give operational directives to the RCMP.

I think what's being alleged here, if we look at Superintendent Campbell's notes, is not so much operational directives but more a communication directive. You've been very clear in saying that the line for what a minister can say to the RCMP when it comes to operational matters is very clear. I think there's a bit of wiggle room here, a bit of a different

interpretation. My interest going forward is how we prevent this from happening again. Law professor Kent Roach has suggested in the media that there should be a legislative requirement for ministerial directives to be made public and openly available so that any kind of directive given by the minister to the RCMP is there, it's open and people can read into it what they will. It would help satisfy the public's need to know whenever a minister is giving a directive under subsection 5(1). Minister, would you support such a requirement, and if not, can you explain why?

Hon. Bill Blair :

In my experience, I use the ministerial directives fairly sparingly, but I do recall—and I just confirmed the with the deputy minister—that I issued a ministerial directive to the RCMP to improve their compliance with ATI requests. I believe that was made public.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Would you support a legislative requirement to do so?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Again, in my experience, I believe in transparency and I did do my very best to try to be as open and transparent as possible, recognizing that in the course of their investigations, if the police—the RCMP in this case—believe that the disclosure of certain information could be detrimental to their investigation, it's entirely up to them to make the determination of when and if that information should be released. Under no circumstances—

The Chair :

You have 10 seconds, Minister.

Hon. Bill Blair :

I consider those types of communications to be operational in their nature as well and therefore it's something I would not interfere with.

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. I now move to Mr. Lloyd. Sir, you have five minutes in this round. The floor is yours.

(1150) Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here, Minister. My questions are going to be for the deputy minister. In response to earlier questions by my colleague regarding the April 28 email from Commissioner Lucki to you and the chief of staff and the public safety minister, you said that in response to her line that this was “not the execution that I was expecting”, you understood that to mean that she was expecting the nature of the firearms to be disclosed at the press conference earlier that day. Is that correct?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

No.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Can you please clarify what you said earlier to my colleague?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I said that my understanding and recollection is that the commissioner, following the event and including the press conferences of April 24 and April 28, was making a promise in the general sense to the minister that information—the full amount of information that she thought appropriate—would be disclosed.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You believe that she believed she was making a promise to the minister to disclose this information?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I think she had a conversation—not with me in the room, but I talk to her periodically. I think she was making a commitment that, as the investigation proceeded they would—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

This was a meeting with the commissioner and the minister, but you were not in the room?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

Correct.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Was the minister in the room?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

To be honest, I don't know when the commissioner and the minister talk.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You were aware of a meeting that took place and the minister would have been in that meeting.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I believe there were a number of conversations, as the minister has said.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You were not involved in these conversations.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

In the aftermath of that event there was.... I don't recall. The schedules will obviously tell you the truth here—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I just find it very interesting that as the deputy minister in a case like this, you were not involved in all conversations taking place between the commissioner and the minister on this matter.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

The heads of these organizations, including Brenda Lucki and the heads of CSIS and CBSA, are independently accountable to the minister. I'm not in every conversation.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I understand. You had said earlier in the meeting that when she sent that email, you were aware that it was regarding information about the guns. Was that the execution she was talking about?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

No, I don't—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You had no idea what the email was about.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

I think the commitment was that the situation and what was happening with the investigation would be fulsome and forthcoming.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

When you got an email like that and you didn't really understand exactly what she's talking about, did you send a follow-up to ask, “What are you talking about, Commissioner? What execution are you referencing?”

Mr. Rob Stewart :

No.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You didn't send any follow-up email?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

No.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Are you aware of any meetings with the minister's chief of staff and the commissioner of the RCMP prior to the press conference to discuss whether or not information about the firearms would be disclosed?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

No, I'm not aware.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You weren't in any of those meetings.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

No.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay. The RCMP commissioner—and you would agree—had an expectation, as you had said earlier, that the firearms would be disclosed at the press conference.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

You keep saying it that way and that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there was an expectation on her part that there would be a full disclosure, and in her mind the guns would be included. That's what that email reveals. I don't believe it's a result. And I agree with the minister: I was never witness to any commitment or promise made that information would be provided about the guns.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

But you said earlier that you believed that the commissioner believed that she was making a promise.

Mr. Rob Stewart :

It was to be fulsome about the investigation. What that meant is a question you will have to ask her.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Yes. That's something that we'll definitely be asking. Were you aware of the April 23 email from the commissioner to the minister's chief of staff saying that the information about the firearms used should not be disseminated beyond the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

Yes, I was.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Were you aware of any reason that directive would have changed in the five days following? Was there any discussion about why the minister believed that that should be the case and why that might have changed?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

The commissioner appears to have made a complete 180 turn from what she said on April 23, that the information should not be disseminated, as five days later, based on the witness testimonies of Lia Scanlan and Superintendent Campbell, she was quite upset that the information was not revealed, and you're not aware of any conversations that took place in those five days with either you or the minister's office regarding why the decision would have been made to reverse that decision?

Mr. Rob Stewart :

That's correct.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Mr. Chair, I'll cede the rest of my time.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We'll move to Mr. Anandasangaree, who will take us through to the end of this round of questioning. The floor is yours, sir. You have five minutes starting now.

(1155) Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Scarborough—Rouge Park, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister. It's good to see you, and my deepest condolences to the families impacted by this tragedy. Minister, I want to just get on the record a couple of very important facts. Would you be the first Minister of Public Safety who has had a very long and distinguished career in policing?

Hon. Bill Blair :

I believe so.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree :

Could you give us a sense of what you did prior to becoming Minister of Public Safety?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Yes, sir. I was a police officer for 39 years in Toronto, and from 2005 to 2015, I was the chief of police in the city of Toronto. I also served as the president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and a vice-president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. I also served on the board of the Police Executive Research Forum and on the executive board of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree :

In that context, have you come across the issue of operational independence; and if so, could you give us a sense of how important that is to you as a principle of policing, especially in the context of the democratic space in which we operate in Canada?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Yes, thank you very much. I think it's a very important principle of policing. As a police chief, I was governed by a police services board, and I think that's a very important relationship in governance. I think police services and police chiefs must be accountable to a governance authority and, in my case, as a police chief, it was my police services board, but there was always a very clear understanding between the police chief and those who governed us as to where that bright line was.

They dealt with issues of policy and issues of directives with respect to certain matters but not with operational matters, and it is a line that I think is a critically important one in Canadian society in how the police operate independently, but in their independence, they are not without accountability. They are accountable, and the RCMP is accountable to the people of Canada through the Government of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree :

Minister, I want to quote you from back in 2012, and this is with respect to the shooting on Danzig in my community 10 years ago last week, as you're aware. You were quoted as saying the following:

I've been a cop for 35 years, and this is the worst incident of gun violence, in my memory, anywhere in North America. It's very shocking. A lot of innocent people were injured tonight.

In this context, would it be safe to say that the issue of gun violence and guns on our streets was something that you've thought about for many years?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Prior to becoming the chief of police, I was the head of the detective branch involved in very many gun and gang investigations. I had also been responsible for uniform policing in the city for a number of years. When I became the chief, it was what they called the “summer of the gun”. Dealing with gun violence was a very important part of my mandate, and I did everything in my power to reduce gun violence and to keep the people of my city safe, and, frankly, I brought much of that experience and motivation.

If I may, December 2012 was also the Sandy Hook shooting in which 26 people died, 20 of them ages six and seven, and, for me, that was perhaps a moment that forever steeled my resolve to do everything possible to keep our communities safe and ban weapons that were the weapon of choice for people who would commit such terrible atrocities.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree :

Would it be inaccurate for me to say that, when you sought the nomination in 2014, ran in 2015, again in 2019 and again in 2021, the issue of gun violence was one of the top priorities for you and, given the opportunity, that you would ensure that many guns would be off our streets?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Personally and politically, it is something that motivated me to continue in public service beyond my career in policing and to come to Ottawa. Strengthening gun control and keeping people safe I think is the highest of callings.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree :

Minister, in conclusion, what do you have to say to this committee when this allegation of political interference is before you?

Hon. Bill Blair :

Again, I'll reiterate that at no time did I cross that line. I did not direct the commissioner of the RCMP, and I did not have any private conversation with her in which that was done. The commissioner did not promise me that she would do this. I think the commissioner understood her job, and her job was to serve the people of Canada and the people of Nova Scotia, to give them information that they desperately needed and wanted with respect to the terrible tragedy that had taken place there.

I believe the commissioner was highly motivated to do so and was working with her people in order to make sure that information was provided to the people who had been impacted by this terrible tragedy. For me, I want to be very clear. I did not direct the RCMP. I did not direct them in their operations or in their communications and throughout. There were a number of questions—

(1200) The Chair :

Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Bill Blair :

—put to me in the House and in the media in which I was asked...and in every single case, I reiterated my commitment that the responsibility for disclosure of that information lies solely with the RCMP, and—

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Bill Blair :

—at no time did I interfere with that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree :

Thank you.

The Chair :

I'm sorry, but we're out of time. That's always the big challenge and the curse of these meetings: We always run out of time. We've run out of time for this

section and for this panel. Deputy and Minister, thank you very much for the generosity of your time. Members, thank you for keeping within your time limits. We will now suspend for a change of technology. It should take about five minutes and no more, so we'll see you all in five.

(1200) (1205) The Chair :

Thank you, colleagues. We're ready to call the meeting back to order. Our second panel witnesses are from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Commissioner Brenda Lucki; and deputy commissioner Brian Brennan, contract and indigenous policing. They have requested that they split their time. Commissioner Lucki, you will have seven and a half minutes, and then deputy commissioner, you will have two and a half minutes. Welcome to all of you. I now invite you, Commissioner Lucki, to begin your opening statement. The floor is yours.

Commissioner Brenda Lucki (Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) :

Good afternoon. I can't imagine what Nova Scotians went through during that 12-hour rampage and I recognize that there is a lot of healing required to move forward. Each and every day, my employees do the best they can with the circumstances they are faced with, but, of course, we can always do better. That's why the Mass Casualty Commission was created: “to provide meaningful recommendations to keep communities safe in the future.” Thanks for the opportunity to speak on some of these important issues that were raised by this incident.

Let me begin and let me be clear: I did not interfere in the investigation around this tragedy; nor did I experience political interference. Specifically, I was not directed to publicly release information about weapons used by the perpetrator to help advance pending gun control legislation. Was there pressure for information from the federal government about this incident? Yes. This wasn't surprising, as we were dealing with the biggest mass shooting incident in our country. It was my responsibility to keep relevant officials apprised of the evolving situation while maintaining the integrity of the operation.

Were the requests for information and updates political interference? No. In my dealings with Minister Blair , he was very conscious of this and has never sought to interfere in the investigation. I understand that some RCMP employees may have different perspectives based on the meeting of April 28. However, I was the only RCMP official dealing with the minister , other senior government officials and occasionally with the Prime Minister . I am the only one who can speak to the nature of these requests, exchanges of information and my intentions during that meeting.

The integrity of a police investigation is critical. As someone with over 35 years in policing, that's something I would never seek to influence or jeopardize, nor would I allow RCMP investigations to be dictated or influenced by government officials. I am accountable to the minister from an administrative perspective, but the RCMP is operationally independent. The basis for this principle is to prevent direct and specific political control of police operational activity, with the sole responsibility for operational decision-making resting in the hands of police officers.

Keeping the government informed through timely and accurate information sharing is not interference. It's standard procedure, and these situational updates are provided without compromising the operational integrity of an investigation. I did provide information on April 23 about the types of weapons found in the perpetrator's possession—information that was to be shared with the minister and the Prime Minister —noting that it wasn't to be disseminated any further as there was an active investigation.

Additional information was shared as well, but government officials were advised that any information received couldn't be shared with the media until first released by RCMP. This included such information as the number and names of the deceased, replica police uniforms and vehicle information, the incident at the fire hall, the background of the perpetrator and the weapons used and seized. In the lead-up to the Nova Scotia press conference scheduled for April 28, I provided information to the government on what would be released. At that time, I was asked if the information about the weapons would be included.

When my communications team told me that it would be, I relayed this information back to Minister Blair's chief of staff and the deputy minister of public safety. Regarding my use of the word “promise” during the meeting I had with my team following that press conference, at that time and in that context, I was trying to convey that I had confirmed to the minister that the information about the weapons would be released during the press conference—a confirmation that was made based on information that I had been provided.

Due to a miscommunication, this was not the case, and I felt I had misinformed the minister and, by extension, the Prime Minister . These were difficult, dynamic and demanding circumstances, and everybody was doing their best to provide as much information to the government, the public and the media about this appalling event. This all took place just over a month after COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. The pandemic fundamentally changed how we managed this incident.

(1210) The unfortunate reality is that the information flow from Nova Scotia colleagues into my office in the hours and days following the shooting wasn't what it should have been. It was for this reason that I called the meeting to express my disappointment and frustration and to outline expectations. Once I was informed during that meeting of the miscommunication and that releasing the information would jeopardize the ongoing investigation, I considered the matter closed and did not pursue it further. This was clearly articulated back to the minister.

In fact, to support my assertion on non-interference, this information was not released until several months later. On the matter of the April 28 meeting itself, it needed to happen. It was essential that I had more timely and accurate information, and it was important that my team understood my expectations going forward. It wasn't helped by the fact that it was a teleconference. I had no visual cues for how my words affected those on the call. In the early days of the pandemic, we didn't have access to the on-screen platforms we do now.

The timing of the meeting itself was not ideal, and I should have been more sensitive to those in attendance—people who had been operating in a high-stress and very emotionally charged environment and had just completed a significant press conference. Given this context, I regret the timing and how I framed the conversation, but the discussion was still necessary. It wasn't brought to my attention until a year later that there were concerns of political interference stemming from that meeting and that my approach and interactions with my team were in question.

Had I known my words and approach had such an effect, I would have definitely made things right sooner. This is who I am. Let me be clear. I did not interfere in the investigation, I did not receive direction and I was not influenced by government officials regarding the public release of information and, more importantly, on the direction of the investigation. I ensured that operational independence was maintained in all my interactions with government, as I do today. In closing, I will note that the RCMP is committed to supporting the important work of the Mass Casualty Commission.

Any time we have a mechanism to review and improve how we operate is critical. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Commissioner. Now I turn to the deputy commissioner, Mr. Brennan, who has two and a half minutes to complete his opening remarks. The floor is yours, sir.

Deputy Commissioner Brian Brennan (Deputy Commissioner, Contract and Indigenous Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. As stated, my name is Brian Brennan and I am the deputy commissioner of contract and indigenous policing. In this capacity, I am responsible for the RCMP's contract and indigenous policing program, which includes overseeing delivery of local policing services in Canada's three territories and in all provinces except for Ontario and Quebec. I am posted here in Ottawa. For context, prior to starting this position as deputy commissioner, I was the commanding officer in Nova Scotia, which we refer to as H Division.

As deputy commissioner, it is my responsibility to keep abreast of, and when appropriate provide guidance related to, serious or significant situations occurring on the ground across our divisions to ensure a uniform level of service and consistent responses to operational issues that arise as a result of our frontline policing responsibilities. Across the RCMP, six divisional commanding officers are direct reports to me, including the four commanding officers in the Atlantic provinces.

In the context of the mass casualty event in 2020, this meant I was supporting H Division by working with national headquarters business lines to ensure that operational requests in support of the division were actioned, and by providing briefing updates to the senior executive committee and other commanding officers. I was in regular contact with the commissioner, the commanding officer of Nova Scotia and her team to gather information and to support their response, including efforts to provide support and resources to the division from other parts of the RCMP across the country.

My focus was on policing operations rather than public communications. Understandably, there were many questions about what was happening on the ground and what information was available to share from the division. The commissioner required timely and regular updates on the evolving situation to support her work and exercise her responsibilities as commissioner. This was appropriate and expected. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have on this matter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1215) The Chair :

Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. The time for questions has arrived. We will start this round with Ms. Dancho. Ms. Dancho, you have six minutes. Take the floor.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the commissioner and deputy commissioner for being here today. Commissioner Lucki, in an April 28 email from you, you said that you provided to government information that would be released to the public. Correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

On what date?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

On April 28 there were several emails from you. I'm thinking of two in particular.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes, there were several versions of speaking notes that were being used by the people on the ground in Nova Scotia. That was one of many versions.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. In one of the emails from you on April 28, you confirmed that the information about the weapons would be released in a press conference. Correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That would have been the early morning of April 28.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I believe so.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Thank you. Deputy Minister Stewart, who appeared just before you, informed the committee earlier of a conversation in which this promise that you mentioned in your opening remarks happened. It was during a discussion with the minister. The deputy minister was not there, but he was aware of this discussion. You mentioned this in your opening remarks. Correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

It wasn't a promise; it was a confirmation, because I was asked if that information would be included in the media release. I verified through my comms people, who verified with the people on the ground, and at that point they advised that it was, in fact, going to be part of that big media event on April 28.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Just to be clear, the minister asked you if the weapons used in the attack would be mentioned in the press conference.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

He was speaking of the weapons in the incident. That would mostly include the weapons seized, because the weapons used were still under forensics. So it was more involved with the weapons seized.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Just to confirm, the Minister of Public Safety at the time, Bill Blair, specifically asked you if weapons used during the attack would be mentioned in the press conference of April 28.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes, in the sense that it was any of the weapons involved in the incident. Some were seized and not used and some were used.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You made a promise to him that this information would be released in the April 28 press conference. Correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I confirmed, in fact, that they were going to be part of the media event.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So with regard to Darren Campbell's account of the meeting that you had called following that press conference—again, that meeting happened immediately or within two hours after—where he wrote in his notes that you had made a promise to Minister Blair that this information about the weapons would be released, he was accurate in this, given what you're saying.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

That's what he wrote, but as I said in my notes, in the context.... The word “promise” that I used was in the context of confirming the answer to his question.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

But you used the word “promise”. Correct? It's a very specific word.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I don't recollect that. I may have—I'm not going to question Superintendent Campbell's recollection—but it was in the context of confirming the information that was asked of me.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You said to the RCMP officials, in that infamous April 28 meeting, that you promised Minister Blair that the information about the weapons would be released, just in sum. Correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I was referring to the confirmation of the question.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Campbell also mentioned in his notes, as you're aware, that you tied that to the forthcoming gun policy. Correct?

(1220) Commr Brenda Lucki :

It was when we were speaking of many different flows of information through the last 10 days. There were a lot of issues with the flow of information. The weapons were but one part of my frustration with, and why the meeting was called—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Commissioner Lucki, did you...? According to Darren Campbell's notes and the letter to you from Ms. Scanlan from a year later, both of them said in their remarks that you tied that promise to the forthcoming Liberal gun policy—or OIC, pardon me.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Is that correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

—what I did recall mentioning was that the reason why the weapons were so important, and why they asked if they were going to be included, was tied to the minister's mandate letter.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So you did connect the two.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes, I did.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. Ms. Scanlan also mentioned that you said in the meeting that there was pressure from Minister Blair on you. Is that correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No. I don't recall saying that.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So she is incorrect in what she wrote to you.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I cannot tell you if she is incorrect or not. That's her recollection.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So you did not feel pressure in that meeting when you spoke to Minister Blair and you promised him that you would get that information released about the weapons used.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

First of all, I didn't promise him. I confirmed the answer to his question. Second of all, in regard to the second part of your question, there was a lot of pressure, and it wasn't just from the minister's office. It was from the various downtown offices. The most pressure was probably from the media. There was a lot of pressure internally to get communications out, because we had lost a member. There was a lot of communications. I was going in front of the media quite a bit.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

So you confirmed to Minister Blair, when he asked you if the weapons information would be released in that press conference, that, yes, it would be. Correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

That's one of the reasons you were so angry with your deputies in Nova Scotia in that meeting, correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I wasn't angry.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

You weren't angry at all?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Not at all. I was disappointed. I felt let down, but I wasn't angry or upset. It's not part of my DNA.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Darren Campbell said that you specifically said you promised. You're saying, “Maybe I did, but I definitely said I confirmed to the minister....”

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I may have said that, but it wasn't the context. If Darren Campbell put that in his notes, I'm not going to question his notes. What I'm saying, though, is my intention was not.... It wasn't a promise in the traditional sense. It was confirming the answer to a question.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Commissioner, on April 23 you said that the information about the weapons should not be released because it was related to an active investigation. Why did you change your mind three or four days later? To me, it seems like this conversation with Minister Blair changed your mind.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No, not at all. It wasn't all about the investigation either. It was the fact that—

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Pardon me. On the weapons specifically, you said not to share it, and then four or five days later, you were reprimanding your deputies for not sharing it.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No. It wasn't specifically about the weapons, whether to share or not to share.... In that email, yes, but it was also about the protocol that they had in place on the ground, because nothing was to be released by anybody in government until the RCMP released it in the media.

The Chair :

You have 10 seconds to finish your answer, Commissioner.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

—and secondly, we had protocol with the families.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Did the minister influence your demeanour in that meeting with your deputies? Did the minister influence your demeanour?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No, he did not.

The Chair :

We're out of time. Thank you very much. We now turn to Ms. Damoff. You have six minutes in this round, Ms. Damoff. Go ahead whenever you're ready.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Thank you. I, too, would like to follow up on the comments made by a number of my colleagues recognizing how triggering this meeting can be, not only to those from Nova Scotia but also to all Canadians who have lived through gun violence. I want to recognize that. In particular, to our colleague across the way, MP Ellis, and those in Nova Scotia, my condolences. Commissioner, I recall after that shooting—and you mentioned this in your remarks—the pressure from the media. I recall pressure from Canadians.

Opposition party MP Barrett asked a question during question period about when this information was going to come out. It sounds like you had a number of conversations with Minister Blair about what would be said in that press conference. Was that a normal thing that would transpire between you and the minister, especially with a national tragedy such as what happened in Nova Scotia? Would it be normal to relay to him what he could expect to see at the press conference?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes. Many times we provide the speaking notes beforehand, but because there were so many details, and they were changing—they were adding and subtracting and adding and subtracting—we didn't have a final version. It wasn't necessarily with Minister Blair at that point. It would have been with his staff going back and forth. I would provide one. I only gave one copy because, like I said, it was so dynamic, but that's normal practice.

(1225) Ms. Pam Damoff :

Were those conversations only related to the guns that were used, or were they...? I recall Canadians being quite upset about the communications by the Nova Scotia RCMP at the time and the lack of information that was provided, so was that conversation only about guns or was it a broader conversation that you had?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No, all of the conversations were about several things. The number of deceased was always changing. Where the deceased were located, the background of the perpetrator, the replica uniforms and the replica cars were others. There were so many different points. What was getting frustrating was that the media was reporting everything before we did. With regard to the number of deceased, for example, I remember looking up on a screen and seeing 22 faces on a screen, and we were reporting different numbers.

We needed to get in front of it, because this wasn't a normal type of investigation, in the sense that the perpetrator was deceased. Usually the information is more forthcoming, but my heart goes out to them. They didn't have the capacity on the ground. It's a small division. They don't have a big communications centre. I should have mentioned this. They were doing the best they could with what they had, and we were trying to get a team on the ground to assist them, but because of COVID, non-operational people were not allowed into the province.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

That's right. There was a ban on travel into the province at the time, wasn't there?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes, there was.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Commissioner, one of the weapons that was banned in the order in council was the AR-15, and when Minister Blair appeared earlier, he talked about how the Sandy Hook shooting in the United States with an AR-15, in particular, impacted him. My colleague Mr. Hardie mentioned the Christchurch shooting in New Zealand. Marine core combat veteran Dr. Kyleanne Hunter testified before the U.S. Congress recently and explained the difference between an AR-15 and other types of weapons. She said, “It was designed to kill someone wearing a military helmet....

What that does to a civilian wearing nothing...is liquify organs.” That really struck me at to why in both 2015 and 2019 we promised to ban weapons like the AR-15, and also why it was in the minister's mandate and why we took action in the order in council. Commissioner, you have far more experience than I do, is that an accurate description of an AR-15?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I would like to say that I do have that kind of experience, but I don't. I have subject matter experts who assist me in the firearms regulations. Specifically, we have a lab with a full inventory of weapons, and the experts are far more adept at that than I am.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Given that she was in the marines, I'm going to suggest that she probably does have a fair amount of experience to be able to say that. On that note, was the RCMP involved in discussions with the minister's office about what weapons to include in that order in council? How long had those conversations been going on?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

We are always involved with anything with policy or legislation that affects policing as is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It was the same type of process when we were dealing with the cannabis legislation as well. Of course, within the RCMP we have many subject matter experts who came to the table and briefed the minister regularly when they were looking at legislative policy and policy changes.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

How long had that been going on, Commissioner? The announcement had been made, and it seems to be a suggestion that the decision to do this was as a result of the—

Commr Brenda Lucki :

For months.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

Months?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Months and years, probably since I got in the chair.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I think Minister Goodale was actually involved in some of that.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes.

Ms. Pam Damoff :

I only have four seconds left, so I will turn it back to the Chair. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Damoff. I will turn it over to Ms. Michaud. Ms. Michaud, you have six minutes in this round. Take it away.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Lucki and Mr. Brennan, thank you for being with us today. We greatly appreciate it. As I mentioned earlier, this is a sensitive topic for many, and I think that those who want answers to their questions deserve to have them, or at least get some clarification about what happened. Allegations of political interference are always a serious matter. This means that we are trying to truly understand what happened, based on different accounts. There is a lot of talk about the notes that Mr. Campbell took.

I will refer to those as well, because there are some things in there that raise important questions. And I would like to hear your comments on that, Ms. Lucki. Ms. Lucki, in a statement you issued, you assured us that you would never take any action or make any decisions that would compromise an investigation. Do you consider publicly disclosing the type of weapons used before the investigation is complete, such as in this case, to be the kind of thing that can compromise an investigation?

(1230) [ English ]

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I'm a bit confused because there was no inquiry at the point when we were discussing that in a media release. Is that what you are referring to?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

What I mean is that it seems as though political pressure was applied to reveal the weapons that were used. What we're hearing from the Nova Scotia RCMP is that public disclosure could compromise the investigation. Do you agree that this could have or would have compromised the investigation?

[ English ]

Commr Brenda Lucki :

That's very difficult to say because there was no inquiry called at the time that we were talking about the release of the types of weapons that were seized. It wasn't until months later that this was released, and it wasn't released by ourselves.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

At this stage, hypothetically speaking, do you consider that revealing this type of information could compromise an investigation?

[ English ]

Commr Brenda Lucki :

It's hard to be hypothetical because it depends on what they're looking at in the inquiry. If they're not looking at weapons, then it might not compromise anything.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

The minister just told us that he never made you promise to reveal the weapons used. You just said the same thing, that you were not pressured by the minister or the Prime Minister . However, you did mention that the government had exerted pressure to obtain certain information. Can you tell us what that information was? What kind of conversations did you have with the government that lead you to believe you were pressured?

[ English ]

Commr Brenda Lucki :

First of all, there was pressure for every single bit of information related to this incident: the number of deceased, where the deceased were located, who the deceased were, the background of the deceased, the perpetrator, the background of the perpetrator, the perpetrator's common-law spouse, the fire hall incident, the types of vehicles that the perpetrator had, the replica uniforms. It went on and on, and it was relentless, especially from the media. I and the minister and the Prime Minister were going in front of the media in the first three days quite often.

To have as much up-to-date information as we could was important. It was about me providing situational awareness, and most of it was done on my volition to them in regard to this being the normal practice of giving situational awareness to events such as.... Well, there was no event such as this.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

So you're saying that the government simply sought information, just like the rest of the public, and that pressure was not necessarily applied to obtain information in a privileged way, before the public knew about it, for example. Correct?

[ English ]

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No, there is never.... Much of the information that I provide is a heads-up. I like to give government officials a heads-up before things are released in the media, and normally they will be released shortly thereafter. I am only the messenger in all of this. I am not the keeper of any information. I always have to go back to either my deputy of contract policing or my deputy of federal policing, or I need to go to the commanding officer of the division and say, “I have a question. Can you tell me something about it?” Then I see if they give me the reply, and then I'm repeating their reply. It's much the same with any of the media that I do.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

You say you are simply the messenger in this type of situation. However, as the commissioner of the RCMP, I assume you still give instructions to your employees. I will quote from Mr. Campbell's notes to provide some context. On the subject of that notable meeting, he said: [ English ]

The commissioner was obviously upset. She did not raise her voice but her choice of words was indicative of her overall dissatisfaction with our work.

The Commissioner accused us (me) of disrespecting her by not following her instructions.

[ Translation ] He also said: (1235) [ English ]

The commissioner said she told Comms to tell us at H Division to include specific info about the firearms used by [the killer].

[ Translation ] You had issued instructions, which presumably were not followed. You were angry or upset about it. You linked it to the conversation you had with the government regarding the promise, or not, to give information about the type of weapons used. Do you confirm what is in the notes? Perhaps you were upset about something else, like what you said earlier, or other things discussed at that meeting?

[ English ]

The Chair :

I'm sorry, Madame Michaud, but we're out of time. But I want to give the commissioner 15 seconds to answer that question. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I want to stress that I was not upset. First of all, upset and anger are not part of my DNA. I'm a fairly calm police officer. I always spoke in terms of how I felt. I felt disappointed and I felt frustrated with the flow of information over that past 10 days. Using the weapons as an example was but one example of the lack of flow of information back and forth between the ground and national headquarters.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. MacGregor, I now turn to you for your six minutes of questioning. The floor is yours.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the commissioner and deputy commissioner for joining our committee today and helping walk us through the series of events from April 2020. Commissioner, you stated that in your mind it wasn't a promise but a confirmation and that the information would be released at the press conference. I know that there was a lot of pressure. There was a lot of pressure from the public. There was a lot of pressure from the federal government in trying to get this kind of information.

I guess for some people, when they see the Minister of Public Safety asking you, as commissioner of the RCMP, whether or not the information on the firearms would be released at a press conference, because of the very nature of the relationship that the minister has with the commissioner of the RCMP, some people might perceive that to be undue influence in the very posing of the question. Do you see how that could be perceived by some members of the public?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Anything's possible. There were also a lot of questions about when the names of the deceased were going to be released and when the information about the fire hall incident was going to be released. They could not talk about anything until we spoke about it at the media events, so of course anything that we hadn't spoken about to date was of interest. I really pride myself on giving accurate and timely information. To not give that information when I'm briefing the minister or, by extension, the Prime Minister , is not something I like to do. I like to be accurate and timely.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Commissioner, did you get a sense that when the question was posed to you, this was information the minister and his chief of staff did really want to see released to the public? In the asking of the question, could you infer that this was a result they actually wanted to see happen at the new conference given by the RCMP?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I didn't think at all. It was a question; I provided an answer. The minister is very conscious of.... First of all, he has an appetite for questions. He's a former police officer, so the who, what, where, why, when and how is almost part of his DNA. Any time there's an event, he will ask those questions. I provide the answers I can, but I'm always going back to the source because I often don't know what the answers to those questions are. I wouldn't infer anything from what he said. It was a simple question that I was going to provide a response to.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Just hypothetically, if the minister had asked for this information to be released through the RCMP, do you think that would be regarded as an operational directive or more of a communications directive?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I think it could be a little bit of both. The thing is, if information could be released, then I would say, “Yes, it can be released” and I will ask them to do that. I will check and see if they can actually do that or if they cannot. The question is not interference. It's what happens with it. If I feel that the question is forcing me to do something that I don't want to do, to me that's interference. Asking me to do something in the investigation is interference. Asking me to arrest somebody, not arrest somebody, sanction somebody or not sanction somebody is interference. Asking questions is not interference.

(1240) Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

I understand. I guess if you, as commissioner, were presented with a directive that you felt was operational interference...what tools does a commissioner have at his or her disposal if the government of the day is asking that? Commissioner, we have examples from the past. In the previous hour, I cited how the Diefenbaker government directed the RCMP to send forces to Newfoundland. The Liberal government under Jean Chrétien, during the 1997 APEC summit, tried to give directional information to the RCMP about the president of Indonesia's visit. What tools does the RCMP commissioner have at his or her disposal if the government of the day is very intent on micromanaging those types of affairs?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

First of all, as commissioner, I have no qualms about saying, “We are entering an area of direction”. I'm prepared to leave a meeting. Also, like I said, any of the information that I'm providing is not my information. I go back to the team that holds the information and we have a discussion if need be. If somebody says that we cannot release that information because of A, B and C, then that's it—I don't even ask any more. That's the beauty of the way we do it. It's not my information to release, nor was any of this information for me to release.

I've had a lot of discussions about this, obviously, since it's come to light. Sometimes I think it's time for all three governments to have a conversation. Whoever the government in power is, we should make sure this is very clear and that people are signing off on this, so that we're not having this discussion at the next SECU appearance.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you. On that subject of clarity, I just wanted to nail down on that because the

section of the RCMP act that deals with this simply says, “under the direction of the Minister, [the commissioner] has the control and management of the Force”. Some people complain that it's far too vague and very open to

interpretation. Do you feel that we, as legislators, could be looking at that to shore it up, so that we are not in situations like this in the future?

The Chair :

You're out of time, Mr. MacGregor, but I want to give the commissioner 15 seconds to answer that question.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Anything that prevents me from coming back to this committee to answer these questions would be welcome.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Commissioner. We now move into the second round of questions, and we'll be led off by Mr. Lloyd. Sir, you have five minutes, whenever you're ready.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here, Commissioner. Would it be fair to say, Commissioner, that you believe this entire saga has been the result of a miscommunication, that you were mistakenly told that the information about the guns would be revealed and that this led to the meeting where you were unhappy about the information not being revealed? Would you say the miscommunication is the heart of the issue?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes, I think miscommunication is at the heart of many issues.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay, but in this issue in particular, there was a miscommunication. Now, as to the meeting you had with Minister Blair when you gave him the confirmation that the information about the firearms would be included, how many people were in attendance at that meeting?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

It wasn't a meeting. It was just a question, I think, from his chief of staff saying—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Was it an email?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Normally my calendar tells me everything I do each and every day. Unfortunately, I was by myself. Because of COVID, everybody was working from home.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Earlier you said that the minister asked if the guns would be included. You said that earlier.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I said the minister's office.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

It was the minister's office. Who was it in the minister's office?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

It would be the chief of staff.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

So the chief of staff, not the minister, asked you if the guns would be included.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

At that point in time, I wasn't talking very often to the minister. It was more with his office.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

The deputy minister earlier today said that you had a meeting with the minister during this time period. He was not in attendance at the meeting. Did you have a physical meeting or a teleconference call with the minister between April 23 and April 28?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I don't have that in my records. I know that I was speaking with that office fairly regularly about this event, as there were a couple of other things going on as well outside of the event.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

The minister said you guys were meeting on an almost daily basis in the wake of this.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

The first three to five days, yes.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

So you weren't meeting on a daily basis between the 23rd and the 28th, or even semidaily.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

We didn't physically meet very often because of COVID.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

So it was over the phone and you would have had no way to tell who else could have been in the meeting.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Were you aware of departmental staff or political staff?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No. Anytime I was talking to the minister, it could have been just him and his chief of staff. I had no way of knowing for sure.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

We didn't have MS Teams or video then.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

So when you sent the email on April 23 and said that the information about the firearms should not be disseminated beyond the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, you had every reason to believe that the Minister of Public Safety understood the direction from your email that the information should not be shared beyond the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister's Office.

(1245) Commr Brenda Lucki :

You would have to ask him if he understood, but it was pretty clear, I think.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

But you can confirm that that information was relayed to the minister; the minister was told.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

The information was never released.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

That should have ended the conversation right there. Why, five days later, were you being asked by the minister's office if this information would be included, if you had just told them five days before that this information should not be included because it would impact an active investigation? What changed? How would it have been appropriate in any way for the minister or the minister's office to ask even the most benign question about whether this information was going to be included? What would make them believe that that was appropriate in any way, given your previous direction?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

It wasn't just about weapons. Questions were asked about when the names of the deceased were going to be released.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

You were asked specifically about whether the guns would be included. You said that in your testimony. You were asked specifically about the guns.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[ English ]

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I'm sorry?

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I'm stopping my time. Is there a point of order?

The Chair :

Who has a point of order?

Hon. Greg Fergus :

It's Greg Fergus.

The Chair :

Mr. Fergus, go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Greg Fergus :

As per

section 18 of our Standing Orders, it is important to grant witnesses enough time to at least answer the questions posed by members.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Yes, that's my job, and I will do the best I can to ensure—

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thanks, Chair Fergus.

The Chair :

—that there's the proper toing and froing. We'll go back to you for an answer, Commissioner.

Commr Brenda Lucki :

I think I need the question repeated.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you. I had about three minutes and 30 seconds on my time.

The Chair :

I saved your time, Mr. Lloyd; don't worry.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, you said specifically in your testimony that the minister's office asked if information about the guns would be included. You specifically said that. Is that correct?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Yes.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Okay. What would have made them think that was an appropriate thing to ask, given that five days earlier you said this information should not be disseminated beyond the Prime Minister and the Public Safety Minister's office? Was there a meeting you had in those previous five days where you said that, actually, it wouldn't be a big deal if the information was released?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No, it's because things changed hourly.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

What changed?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Everything was changing hourly. Those weapons were seized. Things changed so that we could release certain points of information. We were continually adding information at each and every press conference we did, so to ask if they were going to be part and parcel of another media release was not unusual.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

But what changed? What changed about the guns in particular between those five days? Was there no active investigation anymore into where the guns came from?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

No, I was assuming that eventually that would be part of a media release, so it was not an unusual request to be asking that question, because I was given the information, thinking that, in a couple of days, that would be part of a future media release. I was simply giving them the heads-up.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Were there any discussions about the upcoming—

The Chair :

Thank you. We're out of time. I now move to Mr. Noormohamed. You have five minutes in this round, sir. Go ahead whenever you're ready.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, for being with us today. Commissioner, I think there have been a lot of assumptions made and a lot of aspersions cast. I just want to clarify a few things, and you might help me. Can you speak very briefly about your understanding of the role of the Minister of Public Safety and the role of the commissioner, what the lines are and what lines should not be crossed?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

It's about the principle of police independence, and it's about exercising police powers and making decisions in the operational realm. But, providing it's appropriate, I feel, for government and police to exchange information to provide situational awareness on events.... But if any of the political officials were to ask me to do something in an investigation specifically or provide specific direction in an operational realm or in an investigation, that would be crossing the line. Asking me to arrest somebody, asking me to investigate somebody or asking me to turn a blind eye and not to investigate somebody would be some examples.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Did the Minister of Public Safety ask you to do any of those things, anything that would be considered inappropriate or cross that line?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Absolutely not. If anybody is more conscious of that, it's Minister Blair, especially as a former police officer.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

What would you say to those who say that the government wanted to leverage this into a gun ban? What would you say to those people, and what can you say to us about the work that was done previously in respect of banning weapons such as the one that was used in this awful tragedy?

(1250) Commr Brenda Lucki :

As per the conversation with Ms. Damoff, it was absolutely something that's been on the radar for several years. It followed from Mr. Goodale into Minister Blair's portfolio in the mandate, and it continued with Minister Mendicino . We had been helping them with policy and legislation for several years, well before I became the commissioner.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Is that something that happens regularly between the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Department of Public Safety, regardless of who is in power?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Absolutely, if it involves the police. I gave the example of the cannabis legislation. We provided a ton of advice on that as well.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Let's switch a little bit to the conversation around pressure. I can only imagine the pressure that you and your team were under in trying to make this happen, pressure from the government, from opposition, from the media, everywhere, and you provided good context in your comments earlier about this. Can you share with us whether or not you felt the pressure that you were under was inappropriate in any way, shape or form from the minister or from the government?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Absolutely not. The only inappropriate pressure was the media.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

If you were to look back, were you asked to do anything out of the ordinary that a government should not be asking you to do in such a situation?

Commr Brenda Lucki :

Absolutely not.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Did the minister ask you to do anything inappropriate or questionable as time evolved, not just the beginning but throughout, that would then change the wa