Public Safety Committee on Aug. 16th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Ms. Scanlan and Madame Normandin, time's up. Thank you very much.

We're going to go into our last two-and-a-half-minute round with MP MacGregor.

Please go ahead.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to direct my questions to Ms. Scanlan. In reference to the last line of questions I had to Chief Superintendent Campbell, you went into some great detail in your letter and he did reference that it might be more appropriate for you to answer for yourself, and I agree with him.

When Commissioner Lucki made reference to this being linked or tied to pending gun control legislation, first of all, could you just reiterate your reaction to that? Second of all, given all of your experience in the RCMP, I would also like to get some of your comments on the actions you think legislators need to take, specifically with the RCMP Act, subsection 5(1), which lays out what the commissioner's powers are, because we have seen instances in previous decades where there has been political interference and direction of the RCMP. It happened under the Chrétien government. It happened under the Diefenbaker government. Do we as legislators need to make an effort to reform a section of the RCMP Act so that those legislative guardrails are firmly in place?

Thank you.

[Lia Scanlan]

As I stated in the letter that I wrote...and I do have notes also from that day. I have notes from April 20 that were disclosed to the Mass Casualty Commission and the federal DOJ that I haven't seen yet publicly, but I do have notes. As I stated, it was a feeling of disgust. I was embarrassed to be a part of it. I was embarrassed to be listening to it and message received, I understood exactly what was being said.

With regard to the latter part of your question, I don't know the act specifically, but I just think it's important, yes, that it be examined. There needs to be a level of independence so that from the selection process all the way through there's a very different...a mandate letter. Keeping our partners informed or providing information to the Minister of Public Safety or the minister 's office, that's very different from interfering, influencing or exerting pressure.

I think that words need to be carefully examined, and if it's vague, we should be more specific so that we're never in this situation again, especially those on the ground who are dealing with the investigation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you very much. I think that's an appropriate time to conclude.

Witnesses, thank you very much for being here today. I recognize how very difficult this is to discuss. I very much commend your bravery and your courage in being here today, being forthcoming with your responses, and on behalf of Canadians, we very much thank you for bringing your testimony today, and we wish you all the best in the upcoming weeks and months.

Thank you very much.

Committee members, we will take a brief two-minute recess while we allow the witnesses to vacate the room.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

All right, colleagues, our two-minute recess is up and we're going to resume discussion about the motion that was introduced by MP Perkins.

If you have thoughts on the motion, please raise your hand.

MP Ellis, go right ahead.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it's exceedingly clear that there continues to be an evolving story here. Certainly on behalf of the families, which are mostly my constituents, I would suggest that as the story evolves, there are others out there who know the answers to these questions. Even though perhaps at the current time it is becoming about the integrity of the RCMP officers who were on the ground, made notes and provided them very graciously to the public at large, it's very clear that there's more to this story that is not coming forward.

I also believe, to Mr. MacGregor's point, that there are other things that need to be elucidated in terms of the independence of the RCMP. I think Mr. MacGregor tried multiple times to get towards that today. Obviously, we need more information to better understand exactly what happened and, perhaps equally important, how we're going to move forward with respect to ensuring that this type of political interference is not allowed to continue.

I thought Ms. Scanlan made an interesting remark with respect to the choice of the commissioner. How the commissioner is chosen at the current time is of course, as we know, through a political appointment, and they serve at the pleasure of the minister. Obviously, there's more to be understood. There are more stories to be told. I certainly think that continuing on with the appropriate witnesses is absolutely imperative, not just for the families and constituents who are affected in my riding but for all of Canada, so we can continue to understand that we can have faith in the systems of policing that we have.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Ellis.

Ms. Normandin, the floor is now yours.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like the member who moved the motion to clarify something for me.

I would like to understand what type of information we are seeking from these witnesses that may not have already been disclosed in the last two committee meetings.

Ministers often have to answer these types of questions rather than officials, since officials are not always aware of the facts.

In this context, can someone explain to me what information we are seeking?

How could the suggested witnesses answer those questions?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Perhaps MP Perkins can respond.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Hopefully I can. I had my hand up to speak anyway, so I think it's timely.

Primarily, when you look at the witnesses, we've already asked for several of them and we're asking for them again. There seems to be some confusion about the issue of providing the firearms list to the political level. From emails, that appears to have happened through the minister's chief of staff, so there's a question as to where that direction came from. Even some Liberal members have raised that issue in questions today when asking about where the request for this information was coming from. We know from the email stream that it was provided to the minister's chief of staff, and from the text of that we also know that it appears to be a response to a request.

Second, we have had various testimonies, both here and at the Mass Casualty Commission, about the role of SIRT, what SIRT said and the rules for SIRT in providing information to civilians, at the Mass Casualty Commission and again here today. Those who were provided it on the 23rd were not members of the RCMP, and that seems to be contrary to the SIRT's request, so it's important to have a clear understanding of that process and whether or not rules were breached.

As well, Mr. Brien has been mentioned in the Mass Casualty Commission testimony by various people as intervening on things like the messaging around how many victims there were, so he was involved in the communications decision-making process. Obviously, he has some background in his life before that, which leads to his connections with the government at the political level.

Ms. Bayers was also mentioned during the Mass Casualty Commission as asking whether or not on the 28th they were going to release the information, so she was clearly contacted by someone suggesting that this should be done. We need to get to the bottom of those issues.

There's still a lot of mystery, in my mind, as to where the request came from to send this information outside the RCMP. I know it wasn't released publicly, as some people have said, but in essence, when you're releasing it to civilian people such as the chief of staff, the minister and the government officials who were listed on Commissioner Lucki's email of April 23, it's clear that the release was beyond the limits of what SIRT said. We need to delve into and understand why those requests were made, who made them, when they made them and why they were requesting to go around the normal police procedure in this terrible incident.

I think there's a lot of clarity we still need to get from these witnesses, and that's why I put them forward.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Perkins.

Go ahead, MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I respectfully disagree with my Conservative colleagues that there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. I think the information we've received in the two meetings we've held already with the minister and the commissioner, who were both very clear in their testimony that there was no political interference, the testimony we heard today from the Department of Justice that there was no political interference in what was released to the Mass Casualty Commission, and even in the testimony we heard in the last panel here today....

I also want to stress that in the new motion we received, only two of the witnesses were on the list previously. My understanding is that they were invited by the clerk and were unable to attend today.

I would like to propose an amendment to the motion that was put forward. The amendment would keep “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee”, and then everything after the word “committee” would be removed and replaced with “convene a meeting of Committee Business to determine if it wishes to continue the current study, and if so, what witnesses should be heard from, and that meeting be held after September 19, 2022.”

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Damoff.

Are you able to send that amendment to the clerk, please?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I can, but I do not have it in both official languages. It's not very long, so I'll send it to her in English.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

While you get that done, I'll just ask for a point of clarification. Since you've only read it once, I want to make sure I'm clear on what the amendment is looking to achieve.

We would convene a subcommittee meeting, which would be an in camera meeting, to determine if we wish to continue and, if we do, what witnesses would be invited, and we should have the in camera subcommittee meeting following September 19. Is that correct, overall?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I did not specify that it was the subcommittee, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Oh, okay. Pardon me.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I did say after September 19, so it would be up to the chair to call a meeting of committee business. Normally, we do it in camera. I would be open to that if someone wanted to add it to my amendment, but at this point it just says to convene a meeting of committee business after September 19 to determine if we want to continue.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Okay. The motion does not specify in camera, so otherwise it's in public, then.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

That's correct.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Okay.

This amendment is officially moved, and we are debating it now.

Go ahead, MP Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My concern with the amendment, and perhaps Ms. Damoff can clarify this, is that while the chair can call a meeting after September 19 to discuss committee business, there's no timeline that forces him to call a meeting right after September 19. He could delay it. Also, I don't think there's anything in the motion that states the committee business has to prioritize a discussion about what we want to move forward with on this. We could have a meeting about committee business and somebody could put up their hand and totally change the subject of what we're discussing.

I would like some assurance that if we did have this committee business meeting, committee business would be primarily about and would prioritize this study and that it would happen in a timely manner, as soon as possible—even before September 19, possibly, or right after September 19, not in October or November.

Second, given the original motion, which is now being amended, I think it's very important to have email evidence that shows the chief of staff, Zita Astravas, was in communication with the commissioner on the subject of the public disclosure related to the mass casualty event. We've explored a lot of different sides of this issue. We've explored the Department of Justice, obviously, the RCMP and the minister himself, but what we haven't explored is the connection in the minister's office that we know exists. I think it behooves us to look at every corner of this. It's not a fishing expedition. We do have evidence that there was discussion between the chief of staff and the commissioner, so this is an important link.

I'd like to see something productive come out of this study so we can say, “Here's where there was a mistake”, whether it was political interference, a misunderstanding or a breakdown in the protocol, or somebody was responsible for a severe lack of judgment, which I think is the case here. We need to have those witnesses so we can have a comprehensive report.

Those are my concerns with the amendment. I'll rest it there. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

Thank you, MP Lloyd.

Go ahead, MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I think MP Ellis was up before me.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Raquel Dancho]

My apologies.

Go ahead, MP Ellis.