Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2022

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chiang.

I think it really comes down to an issue of public trust. If the public are going to trust that the police will follow the rule of law, that the police will act in the public interest, there can never be a suggestion the the police are acting out of a political interest. Someone once said to me it's a grey line, and it's not. It's a bright line. It's a bright line that stands and needs to be defended and acknowledged and recognized, between any political interference, or even the appearance of political interference, with operational decisions, including whom to investigate, how that investigation will follow a certain course, and including the release of certain information pertaining to that investigation.

I think there may be, and I think there are always, suggestions and allegations by people who perhaps don't understand where that bright line is, that for political reasons some of that information should be released. But I believe most vigorously that's never the case.

Mr. Chiang, not only in my previous career as the chief of the Toronto Police Service, but also in my advocacy as the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, there were a number of times with previous governments when I have stood for that principle, as I stand for it now. It's a principle not only that I respect and vigorously defend, but also a principle that was honoured and respected throughout this very tragic event that occurred in Nova Scotia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chiang.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I will now give the floor to Ms. Michaud for two and a half minutes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, according to the report on the mass shooting and the account by Superintendent Darren Campbell, the RCMP Commissioner, Commissioner Lucki, stated during the meeting of April 28, 2020, that she had promised you and the Prime Minister that she would publicly release information on the weapons used during the mass shooting, even if it could compromise the investigation, because she knew that a regulation would be issued two days later and that revealing the type of weapons used would help the government.

Do you agree that releasing certain information, such as the weapons used in the mass shooting, could have compromised the investigation?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Ms. Michaud, the fact that the RCMP investigators believed it could compromise that investigation is good enough for me. But, as well, just to be very clear, I didn't ask the commissioner to release that information. I've always said it is solely the responsibility of the RCMP, who are responsible for those operational investigative decisions to decide when and if that information is released. I said that publicly, by the way, on April 20; I repeated it publicly at a press conference on the 25th, and I said it once again on May 1 at a press conference, that it's only the RCMP who can make that decision.

Frankly, if the RCMP said the release of that information had the possibility of compromising that investigation, that's not something, quite frankly, I would question. It's not something that I would disagree with. It's their decision, and I respect that.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

It's rather strange that you announced the May 1, 2020, regulation banning certain assault weapons, two days after Commissioner Lucki pressured, or allegedly pressured, Superintendent Campbell to disclose the weapons used. The weapons used in the Portapique shooting were covered by this regulation.

It's rather strange that you announced this immediately afterwards. I know that you had been working on it for a long time. You said that you had been working since 2018 on this regulation, which was to ban certain assault weapons.

However, we get the impression that you acted in response to this unfortunate event, in order perhaps to gain public support or approval. It seems to me that this is also what happened with Bill C‑21. This was announced just days after the shooting in Texas, which was appalling.

Can you confirm that the fact that this regulation was announced only a few days after the shooting isn't a coincidence?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

If I may, I wouldn't characterize it as a coincidence. The prohibition of assault-style rifles, for me, has been a very important goal since the mass shooting in Sandy Hook, where 22 little kids got killed. There have been numerous mass shootings involving these weapons since. In Canada, I've been to the funerals of the police officers who were killed in Moncton and in Fredericton and in Mayerthorpe. I've also attended a number of vigils for the worshippers who were killed at the mosque in Quebec City and at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Every year I've attended vigils for the women who were killed at École polytechnique.

When there was a mass shooting in Nova Scotia, we had been working for several months, years in fact, in compiling the list of the weapons to be prohibited. We were working with the Canadian firearms program and others in developing that list. I had gun consultations across the country. When that mass murder took place in Nova Scotia, for me it was the last straw. It deepened my resolve. We had to act, and we acted. It wasn't a coincidence, but neither was it exploiting that terrible tragedy. It was responding to that terrible tragedy and saying “never again”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank, Minister, I'm going to have to cut you off there.

Mr. MacGregor, please go ahead for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, we've referenced subsection 5(1) of the RCMP Act a few times here. It provides for the appointment of a commissioner “who, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Force”.

I appreciate, and you stated, that you understand the line between your former role as minister of public safety and the commissioner of the RCMP, but I think the wording of this act is sufficiently vague to allow it to be open to interpretation. We know that previous federal governments have gotten in trouble with direction of the RCMP. There are examples, like the previous Chrétien and Diefenbaker governments.

We have examples in Canada, like Ontario's Police Services Act and the Manitoba Police Services Act, where they do specify that the board shall not give the chief of police any kind of operational decisions. They took the time to put in the specificity of that language.

We have jurisdictions abroad, like the South Australia Victoria Police Act, which goes on to specify all of the matters where the minister may not give the police directions, including “enforcement of the law” and “investigation or prosecution of offences”.

There are examples, legislatively, around the world where jurisdictions have taken the time to add more specificity to the law.

My question to you, sir, is, would you support an effort to add that kind of specificity to subsection 5(1), so ministers of public safety in the future understand clearly where the difference lies between their role and the commissioner of the RCMP's role? Would you support efforts to add specificity, as we do have examples, not only here in Canada, but abroad?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Obviously, I'm quite familiar, by the way, with the Ontario Police Services Act. It's something I worked under for a very long time. I would also point out to you how important—

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

But on the question—

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I promise I will get to your question.

I'd invite you to come have a look at the mandate letter that was provided to Commissioner Lucki upon her appointment. It was provided by the then-minister of public safety. It is a very clear and explicit articulation that the government will not and must never interfere with the operations—

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

With respect, a mandate letter does not have the same force as a statute of Canada.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No, and I understand that. I wanted to share that with you because I think it's clear that our government declared that principle right up front and made it public.

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

To my question, sir....

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

To your question, there are a number of legislative remedies that I think might be worthy of the consideration of perhaps this committee or Parliament.

If you bring forward such recommendations, I would certainly look at them with a very open mind because I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that the law is clear and that important principles, like the independence of the police, are clearly recognized in law. It's a principle that I certainly recommend and recognize.

If you were to bring that forward, it's certainly something that I would look at with an open mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Thank you, Minister.

We're really short on time, but we're going to try to shoehorn in a couple of quick slots, with three minutes for the Liberals and three minutes for the Conservatives.

Mr. Lloyd, please go ahead.

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

Minister, would it upset you if you found out that your political staff went behind your back and sought to ask the commissioner to release information?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Are you asking me to speculate on something that there's no evidence of?

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

Would you be upset if that hypothetical situation happened? I'm not asking you to speculate on if it happened. I'm asking you, if it hypothetically happened, would you be upset about that?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

With great respect, Mr. Lloyd, I'm not going to speculate on a hypothetical. I think that would be silly and a disservice to this committee.

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

Okay, so you're refusing to say whether you would be upset if your staff went behind your back to politically interfere in an investigation.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Again, you're mischaracterizing what I just said to you. I said I'm not going to speculate on your hypotheticals. I think it would be a disservice to this committee.

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

On April 23, Zita Astravas, your chief of staff, as well as the deputy minister at the time, Rob Stewart, received information about the types of firearms that were recovered from the Nova Scotia crime scene.

Your office reached out to the RCMP commissioner to ask about what guns were used in the crime scene. Would you agree that it is completely appropriate of your staff to ask that kind of question?