Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to participate on this panel.
Over two years ago, family members, friends, communities, first responders and members of the RCMP endured a massive and devastating attack on their loved ones that deeply shook the people of Nova Scotia and Canadians across the country. Two years later, the gravity of the unprecedented tragedy still has a strong hold on me and my RCMP colleagues, and to this day, I hold the victims, their families and those who faced the danger in my heart.
My husband is from Cape Breton, where we spend several months a year. My children are all students or graduates from St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. I have seen in my family and friends the grief, devastation and bewilderment caused by the rampage in this province. The sense of loss is profound.
I've been invited here today to discuss allegations of political interference in the 2020 Nova Scotia mass murder investigation. On April 18 and 19, I was more than 1,000 kilometres away and had the benefit of not being in the eye of the storm. I was the director general of the RCMP's national communication services in Ottawa. While I worked very closely with the communication teams across the country, they ultimately reported to their commanding officers and worked in partnership with their colleagues on the front line, who briefed them on operational issues.
We provided advice and guidance. Communications, generally, does not have the authority to direct or dictate what our subject matter experts share. We were non-partisan and protected our operational independence while respecting the communications protocol of keeping our partners in Public Safety and the Privy Council Office updated. I also regularly briefed our senior leaders, including the commissioner.
While I have a profound respect for the work of the RCMP—my father was a regular member, as is my son—I know enough about the complexities of policing to know that I am by no means an expert. However, what I do know, after more than three decades working for several different departments, is how to communicate and how to manage a crisis.
As such, in the aftermath of the April 2020 massacre, my positioning was clear. I was strongly advocating for the timely release of information, knowing some would need to be withheld to preserve operational integrity. My goal was to uphold public confidence and trust in our organization and more specifically the Nova Scotia RCMP. The backbone of this was to be open and transparent, sharing what we could and explaining why some details could not be discussed at that time. My goal was to give clarity to the public without divulging any information that could impede an ongoing investigation. It was, to say the least, a delicate balance indeed.
This is why I was pushing to share more information and information constantly, quickly and openly to the media and the public. One such item was the weapons used. The public knew about the presence of guns and I advised that we provide as much detail as possible. In crisis communications, silence is not golden and can bring doubt, rumours and speculation. You cannot build trust in a vacuum.
I was present at the meeting convened on April 28, at the request of the commissioner, to discuss the ongoing communications. Now, two years later and having retired in November, I'm at a disadvantage, as I do not have access to all of the information from that time, such as emails or communications material, but I will share my recollection.
I remember it was an unpleasant meeting. Commissioner Lucki was controlled but clearly frustrated and dissatisfied with our overall communication efforts. I cannot speak to how others felt, but it was emotional for me. I don't know anyone who likes to hear that their boss is unhappy with their work, particularly after so much effort.
At the meeting, I shared that I had informed the commissioner that there would be more clarity on the weapons, albeit at a high level, during the news conference held earlier that morning. I briefed her that it would go one way; then it went another. To my recollection, this was the impetus for the conference call shortly after. With regard to political pressure, I cannot recall the commissioner's exact comments, but I do remember she was irritated that she had briefed the minister that we would be proactively discussing the weapons, based on my earlier update.
I'm not here to second-guess my actions or those of my colleagues. Our experiences, perspectives and views were different. They were under immense pressure in Nova Scotia. There had clearly been some miscommunication between us, as can happen when moving at an unrelenting pace, adjusting to remote work and having numerous versions and discussions circulating at once. I offer this for context, not as an excuse.
These are the perspectives from which I will be speaking today, and I look forward to answering your questions to the best of my knowledge.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.