Evidence of meeting #32 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.
12:50 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
That's correct. I did not.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Director, Strategic Communications Unit, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
That's correct.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Okay.
The commissioner came before us and testified that she did not experience any political pressure. The minister came before us and said that he did not exert any political pressure on the commissioner to release information and that she did not promise him that she would.
Minister Blair was a long-time police officer, and he explained to us very clearly that he understood the chain of command and the lines that could not be crossed. If the minister's office, the minister and the commissioner have all said that the minister didn't ask for this information, what was prompting this request?
12:50 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
Can we just determine who the question is directed towards?
12:50 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
Okay, sorry.
Could you just repeat the last part of your question, please?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Yes. We had the minister say he didn't ask for the release of this information, and the commissioner said she did not feel pressured by the minister or other political offices to do anything. Why do you think, then, there was the sense of pressure?
12:50 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
As I testified earlier, Chair, there was pressure for information from all sides, whether it be the public, the media, government, or within the organization itself. However, it was clear during the meeting that the commissioner had said that she had made a promise and that it was tied to the legislation.
I can't speak to who it was who might have had those conversations. I can only speak to the fact that I was involved in a meeting on April 28 and that's what I heard and that's what I made notes of.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Then you never heard the minister or the Prime Minister's Office or any minister's office direct her to do anything. Is that correct?
12:50 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
No, I didn't. In fact, it would be very inappropriate for me to have those conversations at that level. That would not happen at my level whatsoever.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
This is what I'm struggling with a little bit. I want to make sure that we are all very clear. One of the things that I think we all hate is the idea that the work the RCMP does becomes politicized, because what you do is incredibly important. All Canadians should be able to see that the work you do is independent and in the public interest.
Then at no point did anyone in the RCMP we've spoken to see or hear the minister or the Prime Minister's Office or the minister's office demand a particular action in this regard. What we're struggling with is this: How do we make sure the public understands that the RCMP's work was not compromised? How was your work not compromised?
12:55 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
Is that question directed towards me?
12:55 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
I'm not sure how to answer that question in terms of how we make the public understand that our work was not compromised. Our work could very well have become compromised. That's a very difficult question for me to answer.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
But you are here before us saying that the minister's office never directed...or you never heard the minister's office direct anyone to do anything. You never heard the Prime Minister's Office direct anyone to do anything. You never heard the Prime Minister direct anyone to do anything. Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
C/Supt Darren Campbell
That's correct. I never heard the minister or the Prime Minister's Office directing anyone to do anything. However, there has been evidence before this committee of emails that would suggest a certain or a significant interest in that information from the minister's office to the commissioner of the RCMP's office. Whether those conversations took place verbally, I can't speak to that, but what I can say is that I think the evidence is clear that there was interest by the minister's office with respect to specific information on those firearms via email.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
MP Noormohamed, I believe your five minutes are up. We have a bit of a timing issue, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. It's a little bit over five, I believe. Thank you very much.
Ms. Normandin, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Scanlan, I would like to ask you questions about the discussion of April 28. I ask that you keep in mind Commissioner Lucki's statement that she would never take any action that could compromise an investigation.
Do you agree with Mr. Campbell that Commissioner Lucki fully understood the risk of disclosing the type of firearm used?
12:55 p.m.
Director, Strategic Communications Unit, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, my takeaway, my experience from that conversation, was that the risk seemed irrelevant.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
So you feel that Commissioner Lucki fully understood the risk involved, but that seemed secondary to her willingness to disclose the type of firearm used.
Is that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Director, Strategic Communications Unit, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I can't speak on behalf of the commissioner, so it would be unfair of me to say that. She can speak to what she understood. As a police officer, I think she would have a clear understanding of what it means to compromise the integrity of an ongoing investigation, especially one of the largest mass casualty in Canadian history.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like to talk to you about an email you sent to Ms. Tessier, in which you requested that your team be given the responsibility to decide what information could be released.
In response, she asked you to talk to Commissioner Lucki about it.
What are your observations about the scope of Commissioner Lucki's decisions on what was and was not to be released to the general public during the investigation?
12:55 p.m.
Director, Strategic Communications Unit, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
My communication is not with the commissioner directly. I communicate with national communication services, so Sharon Tessier, Dan Brien and Jolene Bradley, my colleague. I can't determine exactly what the commissioner's scope was.
I can only speak to what my experience was. In the early days, on April 19, we had done a press conference where we indicated a number of victims. Later that evening, the commissioner released a separate number, and again that evening, she released another number in one-off interviews, unbeknownst to us in Nova Scotia. I actually found out from the media. We at Nova Scotia RCMP had committed to doing a press conference the following day, where the first order of business would be updating a number of things, including the number of victims.
Again, that's publicly available. In terms of issues thereafter, the commissioner's.... I'm making assumptions, and Sharon Tessier or Jolene could speak more appropriately to this, but at the end of the day, that's who I deal with and I would make the assumption that they're taking more direction directly from the commissioner, as that would be the most appropriate.