Public Safety Committee on July 25th, 2022

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

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

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

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?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

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?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

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?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

It was overwhelmingly positive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

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

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you, Minister.

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

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

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.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you. We're out of time.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I now move to Mr. MacGregor.

Sir, you have a two-and-a-half-minute slot. Whenever you're ready, the clock will go.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Would you support a legislative requirement to do so?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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, Liberal, Jim Carr]

You have 10 seconds, Minister.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

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, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you, Minister.

I now move to Mr. Lloyd.

Sir, you have five minutes in this round. The floor is yours.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

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?