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.
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.
