Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

According to the transcripts that were made public, the regional team seemed to think it was a bad idea to publicly disclose the type of weapons used because it could compromise the investigation. That is what we understand from Lee Bergerman's account. However, in response to a question, you said earlier that it was more the idea of the people on the ground to publicly disclose this information.

Can you clarify again where the intention to disclose that publicly came from? Did it really come from the people on the ground, or did it come from the government or your RCMP team?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

Thanks for asking that clarifying question.

In fact, the question was asked if this information was to be included. I thought it was a really great question because I felt that at this point.... This was a huge media event. They had planned it for days and speaking notes were very fluid. It was something that was going on very quickly, so it was important that we include as much information as possible.

They did speak about a one- or two-liner in this transcription. They talked about doing a one- or two-liner that they did not want to put in the speaking notes. They were going to bring it out in the question and answer. That was their idea. I didn't get into any specifics on how it should be done or why it should be done. It was just, specifically, whether they were going to include it and they said yes.

I had no reason to ask what needed to be included because they told me it was going to be included.

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

Thank you.

We learned from CBC this morning that the American who supplied some of the weapons used in the shooting said that he could not bring himself to testify before the Mass Casualty Commission. He told the investigators that he got rid of all his guns. The RCMP and the commission reportedly continued to investigate information from Maine, where some of the killer's weapons were purchased and later smuggled into Canada.

I think this information proves that it was important to proceed cautiously with the investigation and the disclosure of certain information sooner or later in the days following the shooting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ask your question quickly, please.

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

Do you think this information could compromise the investigation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Please answer quickly.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

Yes, that's why it's important to go back to the command triangle and ensure that we don't release information that could compromise an investigation.

Giving the number and the general type of firearms used would not have compromised that investigation. Darren Campbell, who was in charge of the command triangle, in fact released that in a Q and A. Why? It was because it would not compromise the integrity of the investigation.

I would never ask that information that would compromise an investigation be included in any media.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. MacGregor, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I'd like to ask you about Dan Brien. Of course, it's from his phone that we have the transcript.

Did he announce to all of the participants that he was recording the call?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

No, he did not.

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

Is that something that he normally does, and is that justifiable? Usually you have to get the consent of people first.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

Yes, the normal procedure is to get consent. If you notice, in a Microsoft Teams environment, you can see when the recording button is on, but nobody was aware that he was recording.

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

Nobody was aware.

Of course, the story of how it ended up on his phone and the different stories we've gotten about whether it existed, whether it was deleted, whether the phone was stolen.... They had his personal phone, I believe. A forensic unit managed to get three audio files adding up to nearly 24 minutes.

What do you have to say about the fact that he recorded this on a personal device? This was a very high profile briefing. This is you as the commissioner with your direct deputies in Nova Scotia.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

This is part and parcel of a complete security review and an administrative review, so I would hold judgment until I get all of the information, because I have no idea what the intent was, if it was for nefarious reasons or not, and I don't have all of the information in front of me.

I do know that we did go through all of the RCMP devices in the first instances because we control those devices, and it wasn't until we were given the personal device of Mr. Brien that we were able to retrieve those, and that was within a day of receiving that device.

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

Of course, lawyers representing the families before the Mass Casualty Commission have remarked how helpful it would have been to have the recording during the time when they were doing the cross-examination.

I can see you nodding that you agree with that.

I understand that you want to wait for the investigation to run its course, but have you taken steps for future conference calls to make sure that operationally sensitive information is not being recorded on someone's personal phone?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

That's part of our departmental security policies and procedures, so, if it is found that those policies and procedures were not followed, then, in fact, Mr. Brien will be held to account for that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

That wraps up our questioning.

Thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today and assisting us in our inquiry.

I would like to advise the committee that it looks like we'll be able to finish witness testimony on Thursday for Bill C-21, so I'm asking everyone to get their amendments in by close of business on the following Thursday so that we can take up clause-by-clause the following week.

With that, thank you all—

Go ahead, Madame Michaud.

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

Can you clarify that, Mr. Chair?

We said that we agreed to hold an additional meeting so that this study wouldn't delay the study of Bill C‑21. Since this meeting was held today, will we still have an extra meeting on Thursday on Bill C‑21? So we'll have two meetings on Thursday. Is that what you mean?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, I am saying that.

The clerk and I were panhandling for meeting slots last week, trying to arrange this meeting. We managed to get the spot on Thursday—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Why, Mr. Chair? Why is that? We didn't skip any meetings for this, so why are we having an extra meeting on Thursday?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We were able to get the slot because we thought we were going to have to have this meeting then.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

This is the extra slot. We did not agree—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We didn't have this slot then. The whips have been advised; the whips are aware of this. I would encourage you to take it up with the whips, but currently the plan is to finish up Bill C-21 on Thursday so that we can go ahead with clause-by-clause after the constituency week.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but we did not agree to that. We didn't even discuss that as a committee.

The motion in good faith put in a clause that, if this meeting that happened today were to overtake a Bill C-21 meeting, we would have an extra meeting, but because that did not happen, there was no conversation among all parties. There was nothing on the record, and we did not agree to that, so that is something you unilaterally did without our consent. Is that what I'm understanding?