Evidence of meeting #31 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
The first three to five days, yes.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
So you weren't meeting on a daily basis between the 23rd and the 28th, or even semidaily.
12:40 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
We didn't physically meet very often because of COVID.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
So it was over the phone and you would have had no way to tell who else could have been in the meeting.
12:40 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
Yes, absolutely.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Were you aware of departmental staff or political staff?
12:40 p.m.
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.
12:40 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
We didn't have MS Teams or video then.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
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.
12:45 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
You would have to ask him if he understood, but it was pretty clear, I think.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
But you can confirm that that information was relayed to the minister; the minister was told.
12:45 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
The information was never released.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
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?
12:45 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
It wasn't just about weapons. Questions were asked about when the names of the deceased were going to be released.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
You were asked specifically about whether the guns would be included. You said that in your testimony. You were asked specifically about the guns.
July 25th, 2022 / 12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
Yes.
12:45 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
I'm sorry?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'm stopping my time. Is there a point of order?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
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.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
