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.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Tessier, did you at any time communicate the details to Lia Scanlan of what was being asked before that press conference?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Former Director General, National Communication Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
I was never asked to do anything in the conference. I was asking that we release as much information as possible. It wasn't coming from outside.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you.
I now call on Mr. Hardie for the last chunk in this round.
Given the time and that we have a hard stop at three o'clock eastern time, I'm going to cut the questions and let the witnesses go after this. Then we will go back to the motion.
Mr. Hardie, you have five minutes.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I may cede some of my time to Ms. Damoff if there is a question I haven't quite gotten answered.
We're dealing with the fog of war here. Things are dynamic. Information is coming in in dribs and drabs, some of it unconfirmed.
Chief Superintendent Leather, at one point you were asked if the alleged gunman was known to the police, and you said no. Okay. That stuff happens, and it happens rather continuously.
I submit to you, Ms. Bergerman, that if the commissioner was not happy in that April 28 conference call that she had with you, it may not have been because the information on the firearms wasn't released but that what happened was yet another failure in the communication process, one of many, that of course was putting your department under a lot of stress and pressure and putting the commissioner under a lot of stress and pressure.
Is that not feasible here?
2:25 p.m.
A/Commr Lee Bergerman
Well, that's not what was communicated from her during the phone call. It was directly related to pressure about the calibre of weapons and that we didn't understand the big picture of the dynamic here with downtown. Certainly she didn't say on the call that she was displeased about our overall communication.
I would submit that the press conference that Chief Superintendent Campbell had just done was one of the best ones I'd seen, and—
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
But there was an expectation. With all of the various speaking notes going back and forth—and Ms. Tessier, I want you to chime in on this—at one point there was a reasonable expectation on the part of the commissioner that the information on the firearms would be disclosed. Now, how that changed and morphed with the various versions of the speaking notes going back and forth is perhaps a discussion that deserves longer time than we have, but tell us what was going on on the ground. Again, in the fog of war, or in this case this investigation, you had media after you continuously and you were under a lot of pressure. Indeed, there was a lot of criticism of the nature, scope or accuracy of the information that the RCMP was providing to the public during the episode and after the episode.
What was the common knowledge? What kind of information, particularly about the firearms, was being talked about at the street level, on the open-line shows or in the opinion pieces and news reports? Do you have any information on that?
2:25 p.m.
A/Commr Lee Bergerman
No, I don't. I can't speak specifically to what was being talked about publicly because there were a lot of things being talked about publicly. However, I do know, based on Darren Campbell's and the investigative team's advice, that it would have been detrimental to the investigation to release the makes, models and calibres of the weapons publicly.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I understand.
Ms. Damoff, did you want to take my remaining time?
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Sure.
Ms. Tessier, the witnesses we have here have said they would not release the types of weapons that were used to elected officials. However, this was given to them because it was in the speaking notes. Is that not correct?
2:25 p.m.
Former Director General, National Communication Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
No, that's not correct.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
So where did the commissioner...? The commissioner understood that the information on the weapons would be released. Why was that?
2:25 p.m.
Former Director General, National Communication Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Well, she understood that we would discuss the weapons. As for the calibres, models and all that, I cannot recollect if that was in one of the versions. I remember it was quite high level, but I assume the decision was made not to discuss them at all because it would just lead to further questions that we couldn't answer at that time. From what I understand, the information that was released was released after a direct request by the commissioner to Nova Scotia.
2:25 p.m.
Former Director General, National Communication Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
You're welcome.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
No, that's fine, Chair. I would ask, if we could, to suspend for five minutes, though, after the witnesses are released.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Okay. I will release the witnesses with a thank you for the generosity of your time and your expertise.
Colleagues, let's take a five-minute suspension. Then we will come back to deal with the motion.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I now call the resumption of this meeting.
We will now discuss and debate the motion on the floor.
I understand that it's been circulated to all members and translated. Is that correct?
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
I open the floor to discussion on the motion.
Clerk, you're going to have to help me with the hands that are up because I cannot see them electronically.
2:35 p.m.
The Clerk
We have Mr. Anandasangaree in the room.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will let others speak on the overall motion, but I do want to propose that we remove “Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and his officials”. We don't believe that it is relevant to what's being discussed today and the original motion that led to the meeting today.
The issue with respect to Justice is about documents. There were over 75,000 documents that have been disclosed to date through the process. The ministry has done that already. The review and disclosure of documents is a work undertaken by officials at the Department of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and does not involve the minister or his office in any way. In fact, any manner in which the minister directs these would be inappropriate, as you are aware, Mr. Chair. Reviewing documents for privilege, which includes cabinet confidences, solicitor-client privileges, other privileges and personal information is the usual process done in all litigation inquiry work by the department—not by the minister or his office.
In addition, document production that follows review is a labour-intensive technical process that happens on a rolling basis and needs to be triaged based on production deadlines and the immediate needs of the inquiry for upcoming hearings.
I can assure the members that all documents related to the April 28, 2020 meeting have been disclosed to the commission. The Department of Justice and government are working co-operatively with the MCC to ensure that all relevant documents are received by the commission in a timely manner.