Volume 23 (November 15, 2022)
Volume 23 has 352 pages of testimony. 26 people spoke before the Commission, including 3 witnesses.
Very important disclaimer: testimony from this site should not be taken as authoritative; check the relevant public hearing for verbatim quotes and consult the associated transcript for the original written text. For convenience, testimony includes links directly to the relevant page (where a speaker started a given intervention) in the original PDF transcripts.
The testimony below is converted from the PDF of the original transcript, prepared by Mitchell Kersys.
Speakers, by number of times they spoke:
- Brenda Lucki, Commissioner (Comm) - Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Government of Canada (GC-RCMP) (spoke 639 times)
- Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 393 times)
- Michael Duheme, Deputy Commissioner (D/Comm) - Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Government of Canada (GC-RCMP) (spoke 306 times)
- Curtis Zablocki, Deputy Commissioner (D/Comm) - Royal Canadian Mounted Police / Government of Canada (GC-RCMP) (spoke 187 times)
- Brendan Miller, Counsel - Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers (spoke 145 times)
- Donnaree Nygard, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 116 times)
- Paul Rouleau, Commissioner - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 103 times)
- Tom Curry, Counsel - Peter Sloly (spoke 69 times)
- David Migicovsky, Counsel - Ottawa Police Service / City of Ottawa (Ott-OPS) (spoke 60 times)
- Christopher Diana, Counsel - Ontario Provincial Police / Government of Ontario (ON-OPP) (spoke 55 times)
- Nini Jones, Counsel - National Police Federation (spoke 55 times)
- Alan Honner, Counsel - Democracy Fund / Citizens for Freedom / Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms Coalition (DF / CfF / JCCF) (spoke 52 times)
- Ewa Krajewska, Counsel - Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (spoke 45 times)
- Anne Tardif, Counsel - City of Ottawa (Ott) (spoke 43 times)
- Michael J. Morris, Counsel - Government of Saskatchewan (SK) (spoke 35 times)
- Stephanie Bowes, Counsel - Government of Alberta (AB) (spoke 30 times)
- Janani Shanmuganathan, Counsel - Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) (spoke 27 times)
- Cheyenne Arnold-Cunningham, Counsel - Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) (spoke 24 times)
- The Registrar - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 16 times)
- Graham Reeder, Counsel - City of Windsor (Win) (spoke 13 times)
- The Clerk - Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) (spoke 6 times)
- David Shiroky, Counsel - Government of Canada (GC) (spoke 3 times)
- Heather Paterson, Counsel - Windsor Police Service / City of Windsor (Win-WPS) (spoke 2 times)
- Emilie Taman, Counsel - Ottawa Coalition of Residents and Businesses (spoke 1 time)
- Thomas McRae, Counsel - Windsor Police Service / City of Windsor (Win-WPS) (spoke 1 time)
- Unidentified speaker (spoke 1 time)
Upon commencing on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l'ordre. The Public Order Emergency Commission is now in session. La Commission sur l'état d'urgence est maintenant ouverte.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good morning. Bonjour. Okay, I understand we have a new panel of witnesses for this morning? Okay, and who are Commission Counsel?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Commissioner. This morning, we have the first of two RCMP panels, Commissioner Lucki and Deputy Commissioner Duheme, and I would ask if they could come to the panel. And while they are getting themselves seated, I'll just make a preliminary comment to the parties that ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Could you just identify yourself for the record, please?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Gordon Cameron, Commission Counsel. Commissioner, yesterday at the close of the proceeding, a matter was raised by Mr. Miller about the state of documents on the party database, and in light of those comments, Commission Counsel investigated the matter last night. And most of the parties will have received and had a chance to review Commission Counsel's email to them explaining what we've been able to learn about that situation, and so I won't elaborate on that, except to say that, two things: We did recognise that there had been a glitch with respect to the uploading of documents, and that was corrected over the weekend. It was unfortunate, but the matter is in hand and the party database is in good form. The other thing we'd like to assure parties, Mr. Commissioner, is that Commission Counsel did have access to all of the documents, and indeed, the parties will notice that the documents, including those that just went up on the party database over the weekend, that some of which are included in our list of documents for the examination of this panel, and so we are prepared to proceed confident that we have had a thorough review of the documents in advance of this panel appearing.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thank you for that update, and it's appreciated. And again, I'd simply reiterate, if there are issues please raise them with Commission Counsel as soon as they're noted so that we can address them and resolve them if there is something to be done.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
So with that, we'll ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If I could ask ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- proceed with the panel.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- that the panel be sworn.
The Registrar (POEC)
Deputy Commissioner Duheme, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I swear -- I can swear on a religious document.
The Registrar (POEC)
We have available the Bible, the Koran or the Torah.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
The Bible.
The Registrar (POEC)
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Full name is Michael Robert Duheme. Duheme is spelled D-U-H-E-M-E.
D/COMM MICHAEL DUHEME, Sworn
The Registrar (POEC)
Commissioner Lucki, will you swear on a religious document or do you wish to affirm?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
(Inaudible response)
The Registrar (POEC)
For the record, please state your full name and spell it out.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Brenda Marie Lucki, L-U-C-K-I.
COMM BRENDA LUCKI, Sworn
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. GORDON CAMERON
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Good morning, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Good morning.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Good morning.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Nice to see you again. And I'll begin by reminding you that you met with Commission Counsel back on September 7th, and with you were a number of your colleagues. And you were interviewed, and a summary of that interview was prepared that has since been put on a party database and been made available to the parties. For the record, it's WTS00000069. And so I'll ask you some questions about the adoption of that summary on the record, with the qualification that four of the people who were in that interview aren't here today, so I'll just ask you to confirm that the interview summary is accurate to the best of your knowledge. So the way I'll put it is this: that you have reviewed -- each of you two have reviewed the summary and confirm that insofar as it contains your information you believe it to be true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief, and that insofar as it contains the information of your colleagues, you understand it to have been reviewed by them for accuracy and confirmed as accurate. Is that true?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
True.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now, Deputy Commissioner Duheme, we got another chance to talk to you later on, on October 11th, and there is a separate interview summary of that interview. For the record, that is WTS00000068. And have you reviewed that summary and confirmed that it's accurate?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I have, and it's accurate.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And do you adopt is as part of your evidence?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now, there is a third summary, and this is the summary of the interview of Ms. Ducharme and Ms.Vinette. And for the record, that is WTS00000067. And since they're in your division, Deputy Commissioner Duheme, I will ask you to confirm that that summary has been reviewed by Ms. Ducharme and Ms. Vinette for accuracy and that it has been filed with the Commission as part of the RCMP's evidence?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
My understanding it has been reviewed those two individuals.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And it's adopted as part of the RCMP's evidence?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now, finally, there -- the RCMP filed an institutional report that has been on the party database for sometime as DOJ.IR.00000011. And I'm going to ask you to tell us what you can about a recent clarification to the status of that institutional report so that we can make sure the proper version gets adopted as your evidence. Can you help us with that?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I can. I don't have the exact page because I was given the copy this morning from counsel, from DOJ, but it does refer to police agencies and jurisdiction. And the -- my understanding is that counsel -- Commission Counsel had requested this information. And we did - - when we went through the validation process is what was written in there is a standard operating procedure that was not in force at that unit at the time. So we just wanted to clarify that.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And so the institutional report that is about to be or perhaps already is updated, in any event, will soon be updated to the party database, will have that correction made in it?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm assuming so, yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. And so if I can put it this way, can you prospectively adopt that corrected institutional report as the evidence of the RCMP?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Based on the copy I was given, yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes, thank you. And, Mr. Commissioner, for the benefit of parties who may be concerned about a last-minute correction, I can confirm and I think, Deputy Commissioner, I'll ask you to confirm. This is a relatively minor correction to the currency of a version of a document cited in the IR that has, in fact, has been updated and the updated version will be reflected in the as filed version; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. With that administrivia out of the way, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, I'll ask you some overview questions just to get you to introduce yourselves to the Commissioner and to the parties. And so I'll ask by -- I'll begin by asking you, Commissioner Lucki, to just describe your role within the RCMP. And just so that you don't need to tell us the whole of that, perhaps you could concentrate in particular on your role as it pertained to the convoy and protest events that are the subject to this inquiry.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Thank you. Generally, my role as Commissioner is to oversee the operations and administration of the RCMP. In relation to the convoys, obviously, we had convoys across the country, so I was getting operational updates in our jurisdiction. When it came to the specific convoy in -- or the protests in Ottawa, there was a few roles I had. One was to -- I was liaising with Chief Sloly on a couple of occasions, relaying resource asks that we received. If I was in receipt of those resource asks, I would pass that down through our command structure. It was also one of the major responsibilities was to get the information from across the country and to brief the Deputy Minister community, the Ministers, there was four Ministers that we would -- that I would brief. And then halfway through, the Prime Minister called Incident Response Group where I would brief situational reports from across the country of anything that was happening related to the convoy. And generally speaking, I had to make sure that in our police of jurisdiction that our divisions had the resources, ensuring that they had the resources, the equipment that they needed to deal with those incidents.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And with respect to your observation that you were briefing Ministers, would that have included Minister Mendocino and Blair and also presumably the National Security Intelligence Advisor?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, and I believe it also included Minister Alghabra, the Minister of Transport, as well as the Minister of Governmental Affairs, Minister of Law.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you also participated in regular briefings with DCO, PMO and Justice Intergovernmental Affairs briefings where those departments would have been represented?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Mostly at the Deputy Minister level we would have discussions. I am not sure who all was there, but it was mostly at the Deputy Minister level, the representation of the same Ministers, of the DMs of the same Ministers I mentioned before.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And in particular, you participated -- to that point, Commissioner Lucki, you participated in the Deputy Minister's Committee on Operational Conditions, the DMOC?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. We normally have those meetings, and we sort of morphed it into convoy briefings as well.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And judging from the minutes of the meetings of the SSE and the IRG, you were in attendance at those meetings as well?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I was.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you mentioned that you liaised with then Chief Sloly and presumably later on with Deputy Chief Bell. Were you also in regular contact with the Commissioner of the OPP, Mr. Carrique?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I was.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thanks. And, Deputy Commissioner, could you describe your role in the RCMP generally and as it had particular application to the convoy and similar events?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I'm responsible for federal policing. Federal policing program within the RCMP has about 5,000 people assigned to the program. Our mandate is to investigate national security, such as foreign actor interference, terrorism, ideologically motivated violent extremists. We also investigate transnational service and organized crime. We are also responsible at the border between the ports of entry, and we also have a protective policing mandate, which ensures protection to certain incoming dignitaries or the Prime Minister, Chief Justice, the Governor General and others that are appointed by the Minister. And they also have our intelligence in international policing that reports into federal policing. So my role on the convoy from the onset really, we were looking at it through a lens of protective policing. That was our -- so that was our core mandate when it all started. As the resources ask started and this -- as this grew, the Commissioner appointed me to be the point person for the organization to coordinate the assistance that were provided to OPS throughout. I was part of the gold command structure when it was formed. My responsibility throughout from the beginning was to ensure that the Commissioner had the right information to brief up at the various briefings at the DM level, at the Ministerial level at the ERC and the coordination of resources from across the country that needed to be brought in, I had a team looking after that. So really, the assistance to the OPS and support of resources, regardless of the skillset was under my responsibility.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. We're going to come back in a few minutes to the federal policing responsibility of the RCMP, but you mentioned an expression in there that might come up later in our discussion. It has been mentioned before in various context, I think you might have called it the gold command structure, but I think the expression is the gold, silver, bronze command structure. Could you just describe how that works for the RCMP and how in some of the contexts it came to bear on the management of the convoy?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, the gold, silver, bronze structure, and it's well explained in the report, but basically, the gold structure is really providing the strategic direction to manage the operation. The bronze is really the people who would look at planning the event. And then when you get to the silver, it was actually the people who are actioning the plan that's being done.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Reverse.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Pardon me?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Reverse. Gold, silver, bronze.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Gold, silver -- sorry, yeah. Silver are actually preparing the strategies that was dictated by the gold command. And as it trickles down to the bronze, bronze are the feet or the boots on the ground, the SMEs that actually action the plan.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And that command structure, as I understand it, there wasn't just one applicable to all of the RCMP. That might be implemented in particular jurisdictions or indeed to deal with particular situations or instances; am I right there?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So you might, for example, for Coutts or for a province have a gold, silver, bronze structure implemented to deal with events in those locations?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct. The one in Ottawa was specific to dealing with the one in Ottawa.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now coming to the RCMP federal policing mandate, this is the first -- just to help you answer the question in context, the first of a series of questions I have to try to describe what the RCMP does with all of those 5,000 personnel in Ottawa compared to what it does with the personnel it has in the provinces where it is police of jurisdiction under contract to the provincial governments. So with that overall picture in mind, federal policing in Ottawa, you mentioned some of the areas it covers, but with respect to the convoy, your particular concentration was on the RCMP's protective policing mandate; is that correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct. And I just want to correct is when I mentioned 5,000 people, it's not 5,000 in Ottawa. 5,000 federal police employees across the country and posted internationally as well. They're not just uniquely in Ottawa.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I see. I’ll come back to a distinction there, but how many are in Ottawa, roughly speaking?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
National Division’s composed of about 700 people. And then when you add the component National Headquarters, probably around, I’m just throwing a guess here, 1,200.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That’ll do for these purposes. Now, could you expand a bit on the RCMP’s protective mandate, as it’s sometimes called; the Protective Services that the RCMP officer -- offers in the City of Ottawa or the National Capital Region?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, the protective mandate for the RCMP derives from the RCMP Regulations. We are mandated to protect, on the threat risk assessment base of the Prime Minister, of the Governor General, the Chief of the Supreme Court, visiting dignitaries, Presidents from other countries, that would fall -- it would fall under our responsibility, or any other appointed official by the Minister of Public Safety. We also have -- within that protective, we also have an intel unit that feeds in to prepare -- to better prepare our posture and respond to any incidents. Here in Ottawa, we are looking at about 400 people that are assigned full-time; and when I say 400, it’s all categories of employees assigned to protective policing.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And if you can describe it, we might come to some particulars as it relates to specific incidents, but generally speaking, what was the impact of the arrival in Ottawa of the convoy; what was the impact of that on the protective mandate of the RCMP?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, one of the things -- and I forgot to mention the people that we protect is also elected officials, that fall under our responsibility. So it was bringing a coordination in ensuring the secure transport of the elected official to Parliament on the Monday, the 31st -- I believe it was 31st -- to it. Coordinating routes to get into the area. There was also concerns with demos that would creep up at Rideau Hall or at the Prime Minister’s residence, which required us to mobilize additional resources to make sure that we had the right posture to address any incidents that would occur during the arrival of the convoy, or while they were there.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. That’s a helpful example. So if you expected to encounter protest activity as part of escorting and ensuring the safety of the Prime Minister, or one of the other people for whom you’re responsible, and you encounter this protest activity, so if I can put it this way, in the way of your -- that -- the path that you expected to take, your protective policing mandate, would that include dealing with those protesters on a Public Order management basis, or would it deal with getting the -- your protectees where they need to go safely?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
In this instance, our POUs were not dispatched to clear the roads or to assist in any ways. We work and thought about police service, to ensure what were the egress and ingress with regards to Parliament Hill. Without -- obviously with the dynamic and the fluidity of what was going on downtown, a lot of the routes could not be guaranteed, so that’s something that we had to factor in and had to shift our plans as we went forward.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Again, at the risk of belabouring the point, I just want to make sure I understand correctly. The impact on your protective policing mandate wasn’t that you had a Public Order mission to clear the routes, it was just that your mandate was more complicated because you had to coordinate with the OPS and make sure your routes were safe?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Coordinate but also with the elevated -- the intelligence that we had, the increase we sort of set were required to ensure the protection on the different sites that we -- that we are responsible for.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now, another part of your police work, I’ll put it this way, because I’m not sure how it would fall into these mandates; certainly, your federal mandate was to collect intelligence as the convoy was approaching. Now, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on that, and Commissioner, this is the point where I would footnote, so to speak, the witness summary that I referenced at the very beginning because Commission Counsel did do an interview and filed the interview summary of Ms. Ducharme and Ms. Vignette specifically on this point of the RCMP’s collection of intelligence in relation to the convoy, so we’ll just ask this panel a few questions about this. You did have intelligence, an intelligence team analyzing the information available as the convoy was approaching; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, we did.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Can you just give a quick overview of who those people were?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, there’s several structures in place when it came to intel within the organization. So we had ideologically motivated criminal intelligence team that were looking at it more from a national scope as to what was going on and providing strategic threat advisory bulletins; I think there’s eight in total that went out throughout the legal protests. And we also had our Protective Intelligence Unit that was really gathering intelligence to help us with our protective posture, but it doesn’t neglect the fact that the information gathered, and under the PIU Unit would be shared with other agencies. And eventually, early on, I think it was on the 28th or the 29th, pardon me, we did create what is known as a Combined Intelligence Group that would bring together people from different law enforcement organizations within the Ottawa area, such as you’d have OPS, OPP, Sureté du Québec, Service de police de la ville de Gatineau, that would be present and that’s meant to bring to a hub together so that everybody can share the information that they have. Because it’s not just the RCMP working on a block of information; every organization’s working on the information and it’s coordinated through that Combined Intelligence Group. As this grew and there’s more and more increase resources being brought in, we stood up -- at the National Headquarters, we stood up another combined group really to coordinate the intel from a national perspective so that we could prepare the Commissioner with a picture of what’s going across the country. I’ll factor that in too, you’ve heard the Hendon report several times, that was a report from the OPP that was also used to help the CIG, the Combined Intelligence Group, in the analysis of all the intel that’s coming in. So there’s several players involved when you look at a combined intelligence unit or group.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And what -- where was the Combined Intelligence Group working?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I believe it was out of the NCRCC, National Capital Region Command Centre, that was located -- it’s located in Orleans -- which is located in Orleans.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now, Commissioner Lucki, this is probably something that is best directed to you, because what I’d like to do now is ask you to describe quite a different role that the RCMP performs in the provinces other than Ontario, Quebec, and perhaps Newfoundland, but the role of police of jurisdiction in the provinces and some of the municipalities of those provinces. Can you give us an overview of that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, this falls under our Contract and Indigenous Policing business line, and it is the policing that we do in all provinces and territories except Ontario and Quebec. It represents about 70 percent of our workforce and they’re contracts with provinces, municipalities and some Indigenous communities. The contracts are held by Public Safety Canada, and we provide the policing service under those contracts in those provinces. We don’t do policing in the entire province. Why I say that is usually in big municipalities; for example, in Alberta, you have your Calgary Municipal Police, you have your Edmonton Municipal Police, and then generally speaking, the RCMP. There’s a few smaller ones like Lethbridge, but generally speaking, we police the rest of the province, except for some of the bigger municipalities who have their own independent police agency.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Let me ask, if I can -- if you can draw a comparison, for those of us who are more familiar with the policing situation in Ontario and Quebec, where we have a provincial police force which is sometimes also the municipal police force, but sometimes the cities have their own police forces. Do I understand correctly that in the province’s other than Ontario and Quebec, that would be the RCMP, you would be the provincial police force, and in some cases, the police force of the municipalities that don’t have their own police force?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, very similar to what the OPP or Sûreté du Québec are.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So functionally speaking, again, this sounds Ontario and Quebec centric, but the RCMP is the OPP or the Sûreté du Québec in all of the provinces except Ontario and Quebec?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And that is arranged by a contract with each of the provinces; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It -- no, not necessarily. We have 194 contracts -- 169 contracts. Some, in the case of B.C. for example, the Province has the contract and they sort of subcontract. But in places like Alberta, they have a provincial contract, and then they have municipal contracts. Any municipality over a certain population will go into a municipal contract, and it changes the funding formula. As well as there are certain Indigenous communities where there’s a different funding formula.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, when you two have left the stand, we’re going to have Deputy Commissioner Zablocki here to describe the situation in Alberta in particular, but I just - - but before he gets up to describe that situation, perhaps, Commissioner Lucki, you could describe the way in which the contracts you have with the provinces, either a single contract or multiple, as you just described, allow you to move resources within a province to areas where they are needed or between provinces when there are higher demands in one province than another?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, this is the beauty of our model, in the sense that under the Provincial Policing Services Agreements that we have, we can move resources. It’s called an Article 9. So in the case of Alberta, Commanding Officer Zablocki can move resources from within Alberta as he wishes, just advising the Province of that, if we’re doing any big movements of resources. And then again, under a different subsection of Article 9, we can request up to 10 percent of resources in any other province. And so what we do is we normally -- if it’s urgent matter, we move the resources and then ask for permission later, because we’ll never compromise the safety of Canadians. But generally speaking, when we know big events are coming on, we will prepare those letters in advance. The letters go from myself to the Minister, the Minister to the applicable policing jurisdictions. And it’s always based on a cost recovery.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Which is to say if one province borrows a bunch of your officers from another, there’s a financial arrangement to compensate for that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. And that’s exactly what ended up happening in Alberta during these convoys. We do also have access to federal resources, like Deputy Commissioner Duheme was saying, across the country. Those don’t fall under those agreements. They’re federal resources.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
All right. Now let me ask you, are there advantages, from an operational point of view, if you are bringing in officers from, say, British Columbia to Alberta, or from northern Alberta down to southern Alberta, et cetera, in having officers with the same equipment and the same training and the same command structure and what not? Does that offer you an advantage that you might not have been able to achieve, for example, when you were coming in to assist in Ontario?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Absolutely, because we have the same, more or less, training standards and service standards across the RCMP and that flexibility allows for, especially in extended events, where you’ll have multiple -- you have to provide relief, and you can’t sustain things like the forest fire in Fort McMurray, the man hunt in Manitoba. You can bring those resources in seamlessly because they have the same level of training and the same equipment.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now, moving a bit closer to home, at least insofar as it pertains to the events in Ottawa, I would like to ask, and these are probably questions for you, Deputy Commissioner Duheme, but not necessarily. So please feel free, Commissioner Lucki, if you are the better person to answer, to talk about the role of the RCMP in Ottawa. We’ve heard about their federal policing role and their protective services mandate, but I’d like to take you back a bit in history and ask you if you can -- well let’s start way back, so to speak. Has the RCMP, at least in our living memory, ever been a city police? The police of jurisdiction in Ottawa?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not as far as I can recall.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But there was a time that you’ve outlined in your summary, your witness interview summary, when there was a more substantial contingent of what you might call uniformed officers on the ground in Ottawa. Can you explain when that was and what the purpose of those forces were?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, and that’s correct. The RCMP did have a larger footprint in the Ottawa region in the year 2000s leading up to 2014, after the attacks on Parliament Hill. There was a review that was done. And I should just say that prior to that, the organization, the RCMP was responsible for the security of Parliament Hill, outside component of House of Commons and Senate, not the interior. The interior was managed by -- House of Commons had their own security, Senate had their own, and the RCMP was responsible for the outside grounds. At that time also, we had more resources. When it came to our protective policing mandate, we had more clients to protect at the time, and then over years, there’s a different approach on the way we did business that reduced actually our footprint when it came to protective policing, as well as patrols of the embassies. Back to the -- our responsibility on the Hill, we had an excess of 120 people there that were assigned to the Hill on a permanent basis to ensure the security. When the attacks occurred, there was a review done of the entire security posture on the Hill, and that’s when a new legislation was created to create the Parliamentary Protective Service, who the RCMP was responsible leading the integration of security of different units that were there. What we saw after a year and a half being there, it was decided to put a plan forward that realizing that the job that’s being performed on Parliament Hill was not a policing function, but more security function, there’s a transition that was done with PPS with the accord of the both speakers to reduce the footprint of the RCMP. Currently, legislatively, the only position that requires an RCMP member is the position of director. So when you talk about shift, and resources, and footprint, there’s a significant one that happened recently. Protective Policing, when it came to our clients, happened before that. So if I may, when you look at the dynamics prior to this change, the RCMP, when it was responsible for the Hill, looked after all the planning of the different events that took place on the Hill. This is prior to the creation of PPS. And we would work jointly with Ottawa Police Service, being a demo that’s going through the streets of Ottawa and would land on Parliament Hill, then it becomes -- it’s shifted over from OPS to us, and we worked jointly on that, in regards with the plans, the preparation, to respond to any demos that are going on Hill. When PPS came in to effect, I was the first director, and what we were looking at is the PPS becomes distinct and basically not separate from the RCMP, because the RCMP still had a role to play, but must be distinct. So the planning was now done from PPS. Since 2015, every event that was done on the Hill was being done from PPS, and not necessarily RCMP. We assisted in the beginning, but now they’re completely autonomous when they’re planning for events on the Hill.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And in your witness summary, some of the questions the Commission Counsel asked had you explaining that this perception that the RCMP and the OPS should be working jointly to manage large events in Ottawa hasn’t entirely dissipated from the minds of the people at Ottawa and the OPS. Can you just give us a description of that situation as you see it now?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So we still work jointly with the OPS. I can give you an example of any event that would occur on Parliament Hill, PPS would have the lead for planning the event on the Hill, but you would also have -- OPS would be responsible for whatever is in the street, and we’d be involved from a protective lens as to what’s going on. Will there be any road closures? Will there be -- what’s the impact on our mandate? But there’d still be a lead role for OPS, but organisations will come together.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And would that also be true for other events perhaps elsewhere in Ottawa where your protective policing mandate would be effective? We talked about how in the convoy you needed to move people around the city, elected officials and whatnot, but would that also be true if there were some other event independent of the convoy today that you would -- that your protective services people would liaise with the Ottawa City Police?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Definitely. Any significant event in Ottawa, I mentioned earlier, the National Capital Region Command Centre, that's that coordination hub where we have various partners at the table to understand the dynamics that are going on on a daily basis, or even hourly. And then sometimes it allows us, it allows emergency personnel, such as fire departments, paramedics, to adjust their response according to the intelligence that comes into this hub. But on a day-to-day basis, yes, there's liaison going on with OPS, with the Ottawa Police Service, but it's more -- there's liaison going on, but less of a reliance to rely on OPS on a daily basis, but it's only when events are in the area that's when we come together, NCRCC, and make sure that everybody is informed so that we can properly plan. Everyone can properly plan.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Now, moving to the period immediately prior to the convoy, what did you expect, and I'm saying "you", Deputy Commissioner Duheme, but perhaps, Commissioner Lucki, you also had a view on this, but what did you expect this event to be?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I was looking at it purely from the lens of our mandate when it comes to protective policing, how is this going to impact the people that we're mandated to protect, does PPS need any assistance as this moved forward. So it's really through a lens of not a demo but really how is it going to impact us on our service delivery when it comes to protective. Early discussions I had with OPS on the matter, there seems to be no concerns whatsoever, good relationships with the organiser, organisers, and there was no need for us to question the relationship they had with them. And we felt comfortable, well I felt comfortable that the Ottawa Police Service had things well in hand negotiating with the organisers and having a discussion on how this would unfold in Downtown Ottawa.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If I just cast back to the point about intelligence that was being collected by your INSET and other people in conjunction with the convoy, your forces in Ottawa, including the Intelligence people, would have been aware of the project Hendon, and similar intelligence that was being shared among Intelligence agencies with respect to the size and scope and possible intentions of this convoy; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And despite your having had access to all that intelligence, you still viewed this as an event that the Ottawa Police appeared to have under control and didn't cause you any particular concern other than the extra attention you would have to pay to your protective mandate?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct, and there was no additional ask for resources as they were planning when the convoy was going to arrive in Ottawa. So we -- I was of the feeling that they had everything under control, and as I said, if there's no request for resources, I know in incidents, situations like this that the organisation on the intel side come together to share that information, but I didn't have any concerns because I was of the opinion that they had everything in hand.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. There is a fair bit of material that's come before the Commission already, and a lot of it is set out in your institutional report and your -- the summary of your interviews, so I won't rehash it all. But I do want to spend some time on the question of the requests by the OPS for assistance and resources to be provided by the RCMP. I'll begin by just asking you to describe, this is probably for you, Commissioner Lucki, the logistical challenges and perhaps administrative challenges that the RCMP faces when it, well, I suppose some of these apply even when you're moving within provinces that you have contracts with, but in all events, the logistical challenges that you had when attempting to mobilise resources to assist in Ottawa, or otherwise, in Ontario?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, first and foremost in the requests, they weren't requests for plainclothes officers, which is what we primarily do in -- within Quebec and Ontario. We -- obviously they're police officers, so they have uniforms, they don't work in those uniforms each and every day, so when we make requests for the federal resources in a uniformed capacity that's changing their role, their primary role. Within the two provinces, it's a lot easier that outside of the provinces only because we have control of the federal resources, but also because they can drive into Ottawa. But they don't come in a big chunk, so when we need additional resources we fan that out from Deputy Commissioner Duheme to the commanding officer of Ontario and Quebec requesting additional resources, and then they do their -- what they need to do to get those resources, and they will come individually, or you know, driving however they get there. When we're doing the same thing nationally, of course we have to request the -- under the PPSA, the Article 9, and then we get into way more logistics in the sense of flying them out, are there going to be vehicles available, what kind of shifting are they going to do, what types of resources do you need. Because in -- especially in the contract policing environment, we have a multitude of different types of resources within the uniform capacity. So it's -- we need to know what kind of resources and how long they'll be gone. Because when we take resources out of the contract side of the house they have to be backfilled somewhere else because policing goes on. So we have to make sure that all of those logistics are done at that level.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Can I add to that? An important factor that we have to remember is that requesting resources, be it from Quebec or Ontario, the RCMP still has a mandate to fulfill in those provinces, and mobilising resources, you have to find the resources. We have ongoing investigations that we cannot stop, so it's finding that right balance of how many resources can we release to make sure keep the lights on to ensure that we are still on mandate of what we're doing in the respective provinces. So it's not just -- it's easy to say we need 50 additional people, but then we have to look at who is releasable in the divisions based on the functions of the responsibilities that they're -- that they have right now. So, thanks.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
There is a lot on the record, and -- about how many resources were available when. Can either of you give us the basic facts of how many RCMP resources were available from the beginning to the end of this and approximately when they were made available? I'm going to leave it to other parties to drill down on that, but just if we can have a big picture of what resources the RCMP committed to the events in Ottawa.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Oh, go ahead. In a general sense, any requests that we got from Ottawa Police Service we had fulfilled, and in the beginning it was between 30 and 50, for example. And when -- that was the first weekend. And as the time went by, the resources started to increase. So we had not only increase of frontline resources, but increasing at the NCRCC when we got into a unified command, there was people behind the scenes, those numbers were increasing. And at one point, I think we got up to...
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
The total number at the end, and it -- in total numbers we had in excess of 1,100 people, 1,100 people, employees dedicated to either the Ottawa Police Service assistance or our protective mandate. And I can break it down even more in the sense that a little over 650 police officers to assist the Ottawa Police Service, and close to 210 to assist us in our protective mandate. So that's a significant lift. I know there's been a lot of numbers circling around, from 30, why don't we respond with 50. There's also that 250 that was raised. The 250, I just wanted to clarify that. It was -- it wasn't 250 dedicated to OPS, Ottawa Police Service, it actually was a mix-up. We went -- we tallied up everybody that was sworn in, and some of the people that were sworn in was actually in support of the protective mandate, and not necessarily supporting OPS, but still available if they were required.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
And ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Deputy, if you could slow down in your testimony ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Oh.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- as much as possible for the translators because you tend to speed up.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Speed up.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I know you want to get out of here and get back to work, but... (LAUGHTER)
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I will add as well there was the whole -- we had also provided resources to Windsor, so we diverted some resources for the Windsor blockade.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thanks. We’re going to come back to Windsor, though if I don’t offer you the chance to say more about that, please volunteer it at an appropriate point. But with respect to what you said, I sense there’s a bit of a glossing over from the initial 50 to the ultimate 650. We all know that there ended up being a very substantial commitment by the RCMP and the OPP towards the very end when enforcement action was imminent, but can you tell me, roughly speaking, what the curve looked like in the first sort of 14 or 15 days before the implementation of the enforcement plan started to become imminent?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would say generally it started at around 30 and then it continued up in the 200s. It got up to about 200 throughout that timeline. And then, of course, when we were gearing up towards the actual enforcement in that last week, the numbers grew exponentially, and that’s when we went outside of the -- up till then, the resources were drawn from Ontario and Quebec primarily, and it was in those last week where we were drawing resources from across Canada.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That’s exactly the information I was looking for. Thank you. On that point, can you -- there was a fair bit of controversy both between RCMP and the City of Ottawa and the OPS about just how many RCMP officers were available. You’ve acknowledged some confusion about whether they were available as boots on the ground to be deployed by the OPS versus people you were bringing in to assist in your protective mandate. But can you explain why there was that difficult of communication between the RCMP and Ottawa or the OPS about just what resources you were allocating to deal with the situation in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, I’ll start and then I’ll pass it over to D/Commissioner Duheme. But part of the confusion came out of the fact that we were swearing in a bunch of officers that may, in fact, be used, but weren’t being used, so we -- that were in the vicinity, so we made sure, like D/Commissioner Duheme said, we swore in some of the people under protective in case they were brought over to assist in OPS. So their numbers even -- they were swearing in certain numbers. Those numbers might have not all been deployed at that time of the swearing in. Also, the fact that there was requests and some of it was -- there was confusions over is it so many per shift or is it a total number. But from the tactical or from the -- you know, the bronze level of our command that we were talking about, we were advised that any of the requests that they had for frontline -- when I talk about frontline resources -- we fulfilled those requests. And I think there was a confusion between what the Mayor may have been reporting and what the Chief may have been reporting, but we were advised at the tactical level that any time they needed resources because that’s where they get into what kind of resource, where are they going to be placed, what shift are they going to be working. That was all done at their level. We didn’t -- we didn’t get the intimate details of that, but we were advised that any of the requests that they were getting through the command centre that they were fulfilling.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, that’s accurate.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Clerk, perhaps I could ask you to pull up on the screen SSM.CAN.00008433. And if I’ve got the number right, that should be the letter of February 7th from Councillor Deans and Mayor Watson to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety. And you’re familiar with this letter, Commissioner Lucki? Or perhaps not the letter, but the substance of ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Substance, yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I ask this in particular reference to your comment that all of the requests by the Ottawa City or the OPS had been responded to positively by the RCMP and yet, one might say, we have this letter, I would say, going from about as official as Ottawa can get to about as official -- as official as the City of Ottawa can get to as official as the federal government can get in which there is a very specific request for certain categories of police officers, a total of 1,800. And Mr. Clerk, yes, if you’d just -- that’s right. Thank you. Right there. And yet this is February 7th and that’s why I asked you the time scale. You acknowledged to me that the substantial 600-odd figure of RCMP boots on the ground, so to speak, did not get to Ottawa until much after this, and yet at this same time you were assuring Parliament that all of the requests by the OPS had been met. And so the question for you is, how do you reconcile your statements with this letter?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
What was the date of the letter?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
The letter’s February 7th.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Seventh.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yeah.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
At that point when there was a request for 1,800 resources -- and obviously, I was in consultation with the OPP Commissioner. And it tells what kind of officers, but it wasn’t is it 1,800 RCMP, is it -- you know, because there was still the OPP who were responsible for securing resources from all the various municipalities. We were under the impression that it was 1,800 between all of us, and what did that mean, who was going to provide what resource. And when we get into these high numbers, that’s when we have to ask, okay, what is the plan. What -- where’s your plan, how are you going to rotate these resources, what kind of resources specifically? And it sort of talks about that, but 100 civilian staff, what does that mean? There’s all kinds of duties under civilian staff. The Public Order officers, 600. We don’t -- you know, to have 600 Public Order officers, the OPP was actually responsible for the prioritizing of Public Order officers within the province of Ontario during that time. Did that mean they were going to provide the Public Order, we were going to provide front? So until we saw what the plan was because the minute we draw outside of Ontario and Quebec, we have responsibilities to our contracts. We have to know when we draw them out how long are they going to be gone, when are they going to be replaced, how are they going to get there, what are the logistics. Is there equipment that they can’t bring with them that they need when they land like certain vehicles or command centres in the -- in the case of Public Order? If they are going to drive their command post, then they need lead time. So there’s lots of things to consider. A general request like this, it sort of, in a way, caught us off guard because we didn’t have those discussions with Chief Sloly up to that time. There was talk about increasing the resources for enforcement, but we didn’t get into any specifics until this letter came out.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. If -- the paragraph that begins, “We ask the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario to work with us to secure this combined officer surge”, is that what you mean when you didn’t know which -- of which force were being asked for?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, because it wasn’t -- even though it was to the federal Minister who was in charge of -- you know, oversees the RCMP as part of his portfolio, we didn’t assume that we were being asked for 1,800, so did it mean that three-quarters of those resources would come from Ontario and 300 or 600 would come from RCMP? We needed to see a plan, so this is from, you know, politician to politician, but we needed to translate that into operational plans. So we wanted to see what the plan was and what kind of resources specifically they needed with what skill set and with what equipment.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
On a related question, during your interview, Commissioner Lucki, you described what you believed to be the appropriate sequence by which the Ottawa Police force -- sorry, Ottawa Police Service should seek assistance when it was beyond its own capacity, and that, in particular, it should go to the Ontario Police -- Provincial Police first, or at least the Ontario government, and ask for assistance, which presumably would be provided by the OPP. And you referenced the provisions of the Ontario Police Services Act as indicating the path for this to take place. But was it your impression that that was the -- that that provision of the Ontario Police Services Act obliged Ottawa to go to Ontario either first or only to get assistance, policing assistance?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I'll be honest. I didn't know the nuances of the Ontario Police Act until this convoy because we don't fall under the Ontario Police Act. So when it -- but like I said, at the beginning, we just provided resources directly to Ottawa Police Service. They didn't go through the OPP. This was, you know, assistance to a neighbouring police service and we provided that. And even subsequent requests wasn't going through that. But when it got to this number, that's when the OPP Commissioner explained to me the process, of which I wasn't aware of, that such requests should go through the OPP, and then the OPP would exhaust all avenues within the province of Ontario, and if required, would come to outside -- you know, they could go to, like, another municipality, like, Edmonton City Police or a different police services, or they can go to the RCMP. And it wasn't until we got that big ask that I was getting more information about the Ontario Police Act.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And that information came to you from Commissioner Carrique?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. I want to talk to you now about the role that the federal government, and I'll put in that category for now, both senior officials and politicians, what role they played in your decisions to allocate resources to Ottawa, or as it might be, Windsor, but locations outside where you are police of jurisdiction, and in particular, if I could ask you to go back to the beginning and remind us for a minute who it is you report to and who it is gives you guidance or input on matters such as the events in Ontario.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, first and foremost, any of the deployment of resources is the government -- or the Minister has nothing to do with that. This is operational decisions, and we make those operational decisions based on our availability of resources, our ability to deploy such resources. If in fact, like, obviously, this was -- the last example you gave, this was a letter from the mayor to the Minister. He would pass the letter on to us and say, "Here's a request." And he would never say fulfil this request. He would say, "See what -- you know, here's the request. Deal with it what you can do," depending on the numbers, because we may not have the numbers available to be able to do that. And that's why we were surprised, because it never usually goes to that level. It usually just goes, you know, from police service to police service. If they require assistance, they would come through our police service. We would fulfil it when we -- as best as we can. Because in this particular convoy, our goal was to assist Ottawa Police Service as much as we can -- we could, so that they could be successful in putting an end to the protest. As far as the -- any of the operational decisions, the government isn't involved with that and it's just more of an information where we provided -- you know, we're providing additional resources to Ottawa Police Service. Those were our situation in -- those were included in situational reports to the Minister and the Prime Minister.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So but if you can remind us just for a second, who would you have been interacting with to the extent the federal government was either inquiring about or expressing an interest in the situation in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, obviously, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Rob Stewart, would have been sort of the interlocutor between the Minister and myself at times, but when we were -- we were doing three briefings a day. One was at the Deputy Minister level, one was at the Minister level and after I think February 10th or so was at the Prime Minister level, so there was lots of briefings on the situation, the movement of resources, if it -- only if it included RCMP because that's the ones that I would report on. But generally speaking, we didn't talk about numbers of resources specifically with the Ministry.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Let me ask the clerk to pull up PB.NSC.CAN.00008043. And just so that we can understand the timestamps of these, as I understand it, these are about five hours ahead of time because they're in Greenwich Mean Time, so this conversation which is -- begins the timestamp at 5:59 would have been taking place at about 12:59 or about 1 o'clock that day; is that right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I don't think anything turns on that for this particular discussion, but it might later on in the other Teams' chats that we look at. Mr. Clerk, can you scroll down to page 3? And the line I'm looking for is a statement by Flynn to the effect of when the AG starts talking like this. There we are. Can you first tell us who Mark Flynn is?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Mark Flynn is the -- he's the second in charge of federal policing. I don't know his official title.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, Mark Flynn's Assistant Commissioner responsible for National Security Program as well as our Protective Policing Program.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And can you -- either of you recall what discussion was being -- usually these Teams discussions are discussions among RCMP personnel at the time some other meeting is going on; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, because often -- normally, we'd be in a room, and they'd be in the room with me. I'd bring people to assist with the information because there is often questions that I wouldn't know the answers, so I'd have my team. But when it was, like, for instance, on the weekends, often people would be at home, so we would just create a Teams meeting.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And this February 5th Teams chat is observing a discussion in which we see a reference to the Attorney General talking. So this is an observation about the Cabinet or SSE meeting; is it?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And did you understand what Mark Flynn meant when he said -- I say this because you would have been listening to the conversation that he's listening to when he makes this comment, "When the AG talks like this, we better get our own plan going..." And your response looks like you were trying to thumb out ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Lametti.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- Lametti.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, because I think up top it says who is this speaking, and because I'm a slow typer, I probably ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I see.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
And a bad typer obviously.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So what did you understand Mark Flynn to be saying when the AG talks like this, we better get our own plan going?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Probably at the time, I would know what he was talking about. Now fast forward, I have -- I can't connect the dots at all. We had -- like I said, there was so many meetings going on, three or four, sometimes five a day during this time. And if you had asked me at the point in time, I could probably give you a lengthy explanation, but I have no idea.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Can you join me in the inference that just by what Mark Flynn said that the Attorney General has said something to the effect that the RCMP might have to take some action?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. When I look at that, there's a lot of things I think that it could be possibilities. It could be the fact they could be talking about our protective mandate and making sure that we -- our plan is going. I honestly, I wish I could help you with this. I have no idea what the reference was to this.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well, it doesn't look like I can take it further than that. Let me try another one. Mr. Clerk, can you call up OPP00004583? And on page 3 of that, and we're going to have to figure out who's who in this text exchange. But first of all, Commissioner Lucki, can you confirm that this is a text exchange between you and Commissioner Carrique of the OPP?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I believe so, yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And I don't know whether to ask you, Clerk, to scroll up or down, but -- there we are. The blue, I believe, is Ms. -- is you, Ms. Lucki, is it ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Is me.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And in the middle there, you say this, "Between you and I only. GoC..." And by that you would have meant the Government of Canada?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
The: "...GoC losing/lost confidence in OPS...we [got to] get to safe action/enforcement." Can you tell me what you meant when you said that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, generally-speaking, and I had mentioned it earlier, is our goal, and especially from my point of view, was how can we help Ottawa Police Service succeed in this occupation of downtown? And so now we're into the second weekend. Of course, there's much we can do during that weekend because the numbers are -- have grown exponentially. So I think, first of all, when they first came on the very first weekend, people assumed that they would -- the convoy would come into town, would -- they had an agenda, they'd follow their agenda and then they would leave. And when that didn't happen and we got into the second weekend, nobody saw -- we didn't -- from my point of view, we weren't expecting that, for them to stay that long, and now it's -- they've -- they're creating infrastructure, they're disabling vehicles, so now they're there for -- which appears to be a longer term. So instead of reducing the footprint, which is always our goal in protest, to reduce the footprint so that if you do go into enforcement action you can do it the safest way possible with the least amount of resources, it was increasing exponentially. So of course, people were losing confidence in the OPS's ability to deal with the situation.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, I'm going to leave to others the more particular comments in your -- the summary of your interview about the leadership of Chief Sloly and the specific Operations of the Ottawa Police Service, but on this point, you talk about the Government of Canada losing confidence in the Ottawa Police Service. What was it in your interactions with the officials and politicians with the Government of Canada that prompted you to have that view?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, we always got the same question each and every day, "When is this going to end? How is it going to end?" And we really couldn't answer that. And of course, early on we weren't intimately involved with what was going on, so there obviously could have been negotiations with the protesters, the leaders of the protest groups. But people from the outside looking in weren't seeing any decrease in the activity, they were seeing the opposite, they were seeing increase in activity from the protest groups and more people getting involved, especially on the weekends, so of course, people were wondering if there was ever going to be an end to this because they hadn't seen any outwardly enforcement action. So it was -- in a way it's -- it wasn't a completely, if I could use the word, educated point of view because nobody knew the nuances of what was going on tactically from OPS, it was just a comment from the outside looking in.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay, I've tried twice to get you to describe what it was that made you believe that the Government of Canada had lost confidence, and I think twice you've told me why one observing the situation ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- might have lost confidence. So if I can bring you back to that ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Sorry.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- and ask you if you had some inputs that made you believe the Government of Canada had lost confidence in the OPS.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, when we had deputy ministers meetings, people were -- nobody said out loud that -- I don't recall people saying, "you know what, we're losing confidence", it was my observation by the various comments about "How come this is still going on? When is this going to end? How come it's getting bigger?" So from -- I was inferring from those comments "When is Ottawa Police Service going to do some enforcement? When are they going to deal with this situation?" I could hear the impatience, I could hear the frustration, and from that, I inferred that they were losing confidence in Ottawa Police Service.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you for that.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Sorry.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, if I can take you down, sorry not down, but further on in that text, you say: "...we [got to] get to safe action/enforcement." Can you decrypt that for us?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
So that's all about let's help them get a plan together so that we can help them with safe enforcement. So again, on having experience in public order, it's all about minimising the footprints. You won't do that on those weekends, as we all saw the numbers grew exponentially, so obviously any enforcement action should be between, generally- speaking, between the Monday and the Friday where the footprint was minimal, and so helping them get to a place... Because we knew that the numbers were too big even with a minimised footprint for them to handle it themselves. And they've -- they already mentioned that they needed assistance from the various police agencies, so how can we help them do that is that what I ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- was referring to.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And in the last text here, first of all, the reference in there to the Emergency Measures Act, in retrospect am I correct in guessing you meant the Emergencies Act?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I would imagine.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Okay. So "Cause if they go to the Emergency Measures Act, you or..." And is it ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
"I".
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- "I".
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thumbs are not working ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- with perfect agility here: "...you or [I] may be brought into lead...not something I want." So a concern you had was that if, and this is February 5th, and you're contemplating the possibility of the invocation of emergency legislation: "...if they go to the Emergency Measures Act, you or [I] may be brought into lead..." So that was a scenario you thought was a possible outcome of invocation of the Emergencies Act was that ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- either the OPP or the RCMP would be in charge, so to speak, of the Ottawa situation?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. Very early on, when they talked about Emergencies Act, I had no idea what exactly that meant. And there was talk about "Well, what happens if Ottawa Police Service cannot enforce or have the ability to deal with the situation?" And there was talk about, you know, "Do you change leadership? Do you change police?" It was all in general conversation, nothing specific, and really, it was from a place of problem-solving. Everything was put on the table and it was -- so that was one of the things that came up, whether or not that could actually happen. That's when I started learning more about the Ontario Police Act, where if they started to go through the process of the Ontario Police Act, they would in fact be the OPP that would be next in line to assist. And so it was just -- all it was was sort of let's -- we need to help Ottawa Police Service as best we can so that... Tom Carrique and I had lots of conversations about helping Peter succeed through this unprecedented event, and doing what we can through resourcing, through equipment, through advice any which way we could to help them get through the situation.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And if I could ask Clerk to bring up PB.NSC.CAN.00008042, and scroll down to page 2. If I've got the right document, there should be a comment by Whelan, "what is his objective." There we go. Thank you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, we can see from the extract above, that you were a participant in this Teams chat. Again, can I take it correctly that you are in a Teams chat monitoring I think an SSE meeting?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes? And do you understand what Alison Whelan meant by: "What is his objective beyond getting us to take over."
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Can you scroll up a bit?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Clerk, could you give Commissioner Lucki the context there?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm imagining, again I'm speculating because there was a lot going on. I don't know who "he" is in this reference, but obviously it's somebody talking, I'm imagining one of the ministers, or somebody in that meeting, about what are the next steps if in fact OPS needs further assistance? I’m not exactly sure what it means -- what she means by that, but I’m just wondering if there was any -- she’s asking is there any other options besides us taking over?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Let me ask you more directly then, rather than through what we have to agree our difficult decipherings of long ago, choppy text messages. But were you having discussions with senior officials or your Minister about the possibility of the RCMP actually taking over policing in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I think there was a misconception, because people automatically assume the RCMP being the federal police agency, that that’s what our responsibility was. So there was a bit of education on that in saying, of course, when people are looking at solutions, one of the solutions was, well why doesn’t the RCMP take over? We got asked that quite often. We’d say, “Well, it’s not our -- we’re not the police of jurisdiction. We don’t have jurisdiction in the Province of Ontario. There’s a lot of other layers before coming -- you would never come to the RCMP. That’s not our role.” But I think there was an assumption, because we’re the federal policing or national policing agency in Canada, there was an assumption that that’s what that meant. And so we were trying to educate Deputy Ministers and Ministers that, you know, our role is not to overtake any police agency. We’re here to assist in any way we can.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And were you getting input from senior officials or your Minister, or other Ministers for that matter, to the effect of, “What more can you do? Can’t you do more? Couldn’t you be in there?” Statements like that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well there were things like, “What do you need? Do you need anymore resources or any equipment you need? Is there anything we can help you with that would help Ottawa succeed in this event?” Because I was the touch point for all police agencies. So whether it was Windsor, Coutts, the -- you know, the Lower Mainland, it was always -- whenever any big event happens, I always get the same questions, “Do you have everything you need? Is there anything you don’t have that you need? Please come to us.” So I get those same questions.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
The question to you, “Do you have everything you need,” is, I think, substantively different than, “Are you doing everything you can?” or, “Can’t you do more?” or, you know, “We’ve got a terrible problem in Ottawa. Why aren’t you in there helping to solve it?” Were you getting input like that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well we were, again, when they were talking about us potentially, and it wasn’t very lengthy conversations about us potentially taking over, there’d be snippets of that that would come out and we’d have to correct that, saying that wasn’t our role. But obviously it was all hands-on-deck on the solution, problem solving. So people were asking, you know, is there anything else that you could do to assist that you’re not doing? Is there -- how can we -- again, when is it going to end? How is it going to end? Do you need anything to help make it end? Those were questions that were getting asked quite often.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
But did you get a sense that the senior officials or the politicians, understandably concerned about the situation in Ottawa, were asking you what you could do? Not what resources you needed, but what you could do to solve the problem in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not specifically in those terms. We would -- they’ve asked us, “Are you giving --” you know, “Are you able to give them the resources that they’re asking for?” That was one big question, because between the Mayor and the Minister, there was talk about resources. And we were explaining that a lot. As you mentioned earlier, the confusion over the numbers. And we were -- we told them we were giving them everything they needed. And when they’re ready to enforce, if they require additional resources over an enforcement plan, we’ll be ready to assist. But there was nothing specific like what -- how you mentioned.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And I’ll ask this question generally. Did you ever get a sense in the input you had either from the senior officials, your Deputy Minister, or others, or the Ministers, your Minister or others, that pressure was being put on you that if I can -- I think you’ll understand, if I put it this way, that crossed the line in terms of the propriety of officials and politicians giving you direction about how Ottawa should be policed?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Absolutely not. There was a lot of -- we -- I didn’t feel the pressure from our point of view, because we weren’t the police of jurisdiction, but I did feel the pressure internally, because we wanted to do everything we could to help Ottawa Police Service. But as far as from the politicians providing direction or pressure, there was, in general, wanting to find an end solution to this, of course. Within our own organization, especially on the gold, silver, bronze, when they all came together, everybody was rolling up their sleeves trying to figure out, “How are we going to end this?” And how are we -- you know, “How are going to deal with?” So we were putting a lot of pressure on ourselves, from an organizational point of view. And I would say that the politicians felt the same pressure of wanting this to end. And of course, they’re -- you know, like you said, they’re asking, you know, “Are we doing everything we can to help them?”
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
And our answer would be the same. “They’re leading it.” It would be -- and often I’d say it’d be like Chief Sloly going to Edmonton City Police and telling them, you know, what to do. There’s jurisdiction, and there’s jurisdiction for a reason. And they -- despite -- even at the final days of enforcement, Ottawa Police Service had the lead in that, and that was very, very important, that they -- there always has to be somebody who is taking the lead, and it’s the police of jurisdiction.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Coming back to this point about -- I think it might have been you, but somebody used the expression a line between church and state, which whether that’s what you meant in the context, we’ve all assumed means the line between the political side and the policing side, and all of the both jurisprudence and analysis that’s been done on where that line should stand. So my question to you is, where does the RCMP look for guidance on where that line is? And I’m just going to insert, parenthetically, we’ve had a lot of information about how the Ottawa Police Service has, between it and the City Council, the Ottawa Police Services Board, and the same will be true of other police of jurisdiction of various places. We don’t see the same between you, the RCMP, and either the senior officials or the politicians. So where do you -- where does the RCMP look to help find that line between what we’re calling church and state?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well for me, it’s pretty clear. Anything operational, we’re advising what’s happening, but we’re not taking direction on how to do things. And we’ve never been provided direction on how -- what we should do. And it was actually interesting, I think, in one of the meetings, because normally when I brief, I brief generally speaking, the Minister of Public Safety, and sometimes now that they’ve split, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. In this case, there was additional Ministers. So I think it was maybe the first IRG, or maybe even the First Minister meeting, where I believe it was Minister Mendicino advising these Ministers that, “You are not to provide direction to the Commissioner.” They remind themselves. My Ministers don’t need to remind themselves, because we deal with them on a daily basis, or regular basis, but with the new Ministers, there was even just a reminder, because sometimes what happens is when you’re into problem solving, problem solving can sometimes translate into, you know, “We should do this and we should do that. Could we do this and could we do that?” And sometimes that -- people might feel that that’s direction. I don’t consider any of that direction. Direction to me is something that you specifically would turn to me and say, “Commissioner, we need you to do this,” or, “Don’t do this.” That’s direction. That’s interference. We don’t get any of that. It’s strictly an exchange of information, for the most part.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you for that. Is there some institution or body though ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- that stands between you and your Minister the way that one might analogize to the Ottawa Police Services Board standing between City Council and the Ottawa Police Service?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, we don’t have a police commission. We’ve just brought in, in the last couple of years, a Management Advisory Board, ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, repeat that? I missed that.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
In the last couple years, we’ve just brought in what we call a Management Advisory Board, but they are there to provide advice to the Commissioner. They do not -- they don’t -- they’re not the filter between us and government.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And so if your Minister or a Minister were to cross that line, it’s simply a function of you having to say, “You’re over the line, Minister", or otherwise, defend your own jurisdiction, so to speak. There's no institution that protects you from that. Everybody is just expected to follow the rules or you call them out.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, there's no institution in between the two of us, but we definitely have our policies and our procedures and our direction, and under the RCMP Act, I am in charge of the operational command of the RCMP. I can get Ministerial directives from the Minister, but it's in regards to administrative matters. But I won't get anything -- for example -- if I was to get a Ministerial directive, and I'm just hypothetically speaking, that I felt crossed over in the operational domain, I would bring it to my legal advisors and say, "Is this crossing over?" You know, so I'm just trying to - - as I'm talking, I'm trying to think of some body that would act as that and the only people I can think of is probably legal advisors that may, in fact, if I felt that happening. But I've never had to -- in meetings, I've never had to really, you know, tell everybody to stop and you're crossing the line because it's -- they're very cognizant of it and they're very protective of it, because we have similar countries in the five eyes that are struggling with this and they actually come to us and ask how we do it. But it's basically from previous testimony at the Mass Casualty Commission, I'm -- because I've been asked this question several times, I think it's time that we put something to writing that outlines the -- what you can and cannot do from both the Commissioner's perspective and the politicians, especially from a rotational point of view. There's a lot of different -- you know, politicians change, so that they are understanding, because we're not the only operational entity in the federal government. There's Corrections, there's Border Services. So I think it's time to clarify because it's been a topic of conversation.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I'm glad you went there because that was the next question I had because the provincial and municipal police forces have already run into problems with this -- those problems of generated Commissions of Inquiry that have made recommendations and given some guidance and perhaps this Commission will add to that body of material. But how would you envision this further or better guidance, and you might have noticed that Deputy Minister Stewart made the same observation yesterday, that there was room for development on this point, but how would you envision that? What would it be contained in it, some policy guidance document, and is there work on this now?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, actually, I think one of the members of Parliament has put in a private members bill on that very subject and said, "It won't be difficult to do because there's many police agencies who have examples of what needs to be put in text to make this happen because it's already out there." And I'm just -- the name is escaping me, but there is a private member's bill to discuss this very issue.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And to be clear, you -- I heard you say that this wasn't an issue with respect to the convoy or the blockade, but it is a topic you believe should be addressed; is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, absolutely, because in the last six months I've had to respond to it on several occasions, and so ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- my hope is that my replacement won't have to, so we need to clear this up.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. I want to come back on a particular point of interest that has attracted some attention already before the Commission and that has to do with -- well, perhaps I could ask, Mr. Clerk, for you to call up WTS00000068. And if you can get to page 10 of that? No, you had it there. And I recognize that handwriting.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It's not mine.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Deputy Commissioner, this question is for you because am I correct in identifying that as an extract from your notes?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And perhaps you could first read, for those of us who haven't learned to decipher your handwriting, read the two asterisked points that are in your notes there?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, the first one is "Peter", referring to the Chief -- Chief Sloly from Ottawa Police Service -- "...said he's going to ask double of what he needs." And the second asterisk is, "Planners from our shop integrated Planning cell. What [...] resources [are] required?" Because we're talking at point have an integrated planning cell, what type of expertise do we have to bring? And this -- these notes stem from on the page before that, I believe it was Steve Bell that was briefing us, providing an update and that was the comment that was shared by Steve Bell.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I was just going to take you to that. If you look in the typed text below your written note, you describe roughly what you just said, that the note reflects a call with Deputy Chief Steve Bell of the OPS concerning the OPS's request for resources. This is your note of what Chief Bell -- sorry, Deputy Chief Bell told you?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Exactly.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And if I ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
If I could have the page before that because I don't have my notes, but I'm quite certain it reflects a call with Chief Steve Bell. It's written down below, yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I can pull up your notes if you want, but I ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, that's okay. I ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- can confirm for you that that is what you have indicated earlier.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I'm okay with that.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And if you can help us with this, and you're not the first one to speak to this statement or comment, what did you understand Deputy Chief Bell to be meaning when he said -- well, first of all, Peter's Peter Sloly; is that correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
"He's going to ask double of what he needs." Can you understand what -- explain at least what you understood Chief -- Deputy Chief Bell to be saying?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So the way I interpret it, the numbers that were provided publicly and through the letter that went to the Minister, the 1800 ask, is that really reflective of the needs. Because, again, I go back to what the Commissioner said earlier, throughout this process, there was no plan to support or to demonstrate to the organization what skillsets and resources are required to support an operational plan and to support Ottawa Police Service. So I took it when this was briefed to me the first time, the 1800 police officer or 1,000 police officers, 600 Public Order Teams, 100 support staff, I took it that is that what they're asking, considering that Deputy Chief Steve Bell says he's asking to double what he needs. So I wasn't sure if that was an ask, and it was starting to sound like a broken record where, without a plan, both us and the OPP were kind of struggling as to what types of resources do you actually need to assist in addressing the issue in Ottawa.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And I understand that an integrated planning cell, which we've sometimes heard called the IPC, was established by the RCMP and the OPP on about February 8th; is that your recollection?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Around that date where we brought the SMEs, the subject matter experts together to start reviewing what they had and start building a plan.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And as I understand it, the purpose of the IPC was, among other things, to review such planning as had been done to date and to further develop the plan to deal with the situation in Ottawa; is that right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Did that effort, that is the establishment of the integrated planning cell, allow you, and presumably the OPP, but allow the participants in the planning cell to put a finer point on the resources that would be required to deal with the situation in Ottawa?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That was one of the objectives is to nail down what was required for Ottawa.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. I'll ask this question in an open-ended way. Do you feel that the February 8th timeframe by which that integrated planning cell was established, did you feel that the situation in Ottawa could have been handled more effectively if that integrated planning cell was established earlier in the process?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
It would merely be speculation on my part how it could have been handled if this was put together sooner. Could it have -- would it have come too an end sooner? Perhaps, but I -- I'm not in a position to say that it would considering everything that was going on.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Fair enough.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
And the other thing to factor in is it's one thing to look at the plan, but again I go back to what I mentioned earlier, when it comes time to mobilise resources from across the country, it's not only challenging but sometimes resources don't get in the next day, it takes a couple of days before you get there.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
If I could also add. Not being intimately familiar with what OPS was doing, they could very well have been in negotiations with protesters. And we always say in Public Order, if you're -- in -- sorry, in protests, if you are in negotiations with the leaders or various people in these protests, while you're still having the conversation is not -- you're not going to go into enforcement. So not knowing that, we could only speculate that they could go into enforcement when they might in fact be in the midst of negotiating a peaceful resolution.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So did you view the integrated planning cell as strictly an enforcement -- a mechanism to organise enforcement?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, because part of that when we're dealing with protests you have taskings going to your Police Liaison Teams who are dealing with the leaders of the protest group. From what I understand it was a little bit more problematic because generally-speaking you have one leader, in this case there was several leaders, so obviously it makes the task a little bit more difficult when you're dealing with quite a few different people. But it's all about having those conversations about how to find a peaceful way to get an illegal blockade back to a peaceful protest.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And we'll come back to that very point. But just so I understand correctly, what you're saying is you don't mobilise your Public Order Units right away when there's still a viable option of a liaison solution to the situation?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not necessarily, it depends on the dynamics. Because if you are negotiating and there's problems where people -- where public safety is at risk you may in fact have -- you may be in negotiation and still have your Public Order teams staged at a location, so you still may need them just in case in the event. Every protest is different.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I'd like to move on to another topic now. And for that purpose, Mr. Clerk, could you call up OPP00000151. And the topic here is, not everybody monitors these proceedings as closely as some of us do, but what we're calling the "engagement proposal". I think you're familiar with that I think, at least from our interview with you, Commissioner Lucki.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So I just want to ask you some questions about your involvement in this. And maybe I'll just throw it out to you to describe how you first learned about this possibility, what your involvement was with Deputy Minister Stewart and in connecting him ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- to Marcel Beaudin, et cetera. So if you could just begin at the beginning and tell us what you can about that.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
So there was conversations about the protest groups wanting to talk to a -- an official, like a politician, or an official of some sort, and nobody was sure if it was at the provincial, municipal, or federal level at that point. And so I believe that Deputy Minister Rob Stewart was tasked with looking into the possibility of having a -- an official speak with the protesters. And he wanted to know how that works with the liaison teams and how they -- what they're doing as far as negotiations with the protesters. Because we weren't involved with all of that, I reached out to Tom Carrique, and Tom Carrique advised me that it was in fact the OPP Police Liaison Team that was leading the negotiations with the protesters, and so I asked if I could connect the lead -- who the lead was of that team and if I could connect them with Deputy Minister Rob Stewart so he could get more information. And really, my role as a facilitator, and I introduced the two of them so they could talk. Later on, he was coming up with this protest engagement strategy. I think he asked, you know, what we thought of it. I sent it back to my team who deals with liaising. We have a different structure but the same idea but different structure. I gave it to them to say is there any red flags on these documents or is there any advice we can provide Deputy Minister Stewart. I think we provided him a bit of advice on that. I think as well I included asking Inspector Beaudin what he thought of what I had said, but then I had already realised that he had reviewed the document I think, so it was just a matter of connecting Deputy Minister Stewart with Inspector Beaudin on this protest engagement strategy as one of his tasks.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, we did hear from Deputy Minister Stewart about the evolution and ultimate demise of this proposal, but in terms of your observation of it from its conception through to the end, did you hear it discussed among either officials or at the IRG? Did you have input on it to the IRG as to whether you thought it was a viable proposal?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not me, specifically. It was Deputy Minister Stewart who was leading that, and any thoughts I had on it I would have provided to him.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I can switch gears here a bit.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Is this a good time for the break?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Actually, Mr. Commissioner, this would be a very good time to break, yes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So we'll take the morning break for 15 minutes.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess for 15 minutes. La Commission est levée pour 15 minutes.
Upon recessing at 11:15 a.m.
Upon resuming at 11:36 a.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
Order. À l'ordre. The Commission has reconvened. La Commission reprend.
D/COMM MICHAEL DUHEME, Resumed
COMM BRENDA LUCKI, Resumed
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Go ahead.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you.
EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. GORDON CAMERON (Cont'd)
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner, we understand from the records, we can call them up if it's helpful to you, but that on or about February 13th, you got a sense that the plan that your Integrated Planning cell and Chief Sloly had been working on had come to a state of fruition or maturity. Is that about the right timing, February 13th?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that was when it was completed.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And we've heard some evidence about this from the other police agencies, but just for your perspective on it, this was a team effort, so to speak, by planning experts, subject matter experts from the RCMP, the OPP, and the Ottawa Police Service?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And as I understand it, you in particular, Commissioner Lucki, and perhaps the rest of your team who looked at it, were generally satisfied with the plan as an Operational Plan to deal with the situation in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, both myself and Commissioner Carrique were briefed on the plan the Friday before that. Like, I think it was around February 11th, we got an actual briefing from the planners on the plan. And yeah, we -- yes, we were satisfied with the plan.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And would it be correct to say that on your observation of the plan it was developed in reliance exclusively on your existing legislative and common law authorities?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, but they also did take into consideration because around the same time the -- Ontario had put in their Emergencies Act, so there was talk about how that would affect the plan or not. And going forward, there was talk of the Emergencies Act, which nobody really knew what that meant, and just that, a recognition that if in fact any other legislation or authorities came through, we’d have to adjust the plan. But it wasn’t taken into effect in the planning of it.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you for drawing -- I’ll say carving out the Ontario emergency plan. But if I can be more refined then with my question, the plan, as you understand it, and Commissioner Carrique understood it, was drafted without any reliance on any of the powers that might be available to the enforcement forces ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- from federal emergency legislation?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And did any of your subject matter experts involved in the integrated planning cell, that is the RCMP experts on that team, express any concern to you that the plan was deficient because of gaps in existing authorities?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not at that time, no.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, you -- we’re now going to move into a time period that ends up being densely packed with meetings and activities and the development by you and your team of key messages and everything. This is the 12th, 13th, and 14th, the days leading up to the invocation of the Act. And I understand that on February 13th, you attended, you, Commissioner Lucki, attended -- I’m going to insert parenthetically there, when we say “attended a meeting”, sometimes this would be virtual, sometimes it would be physical, or was it always virtual?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Both.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Depending on -- the Deputy Minister -- the Minister’s meetings were generally virtual. Many of the IRGs were in person.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And on February 13th, if I can refresh your memory, there was a DMOCC at around noon and a briefing with Minister Mendicino and Blair at about 1:00 p.m., an IRG at about 4:00, and a Cabinet meeting at about 8:30? Is that right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And the subject matter of all of these meetings was the convoy and blockade situation across the country? Is that right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
We have a number of your key message documents that you developed for presentation or delivery to these meetings, and I’ll just you the sort of big question we’re trying to get some elucidation on here, and then we’ll break it down in as many parts as you think would be helpful in your remembering what went on in those probably very densely packed days. But the question we’re trying to get to is how much of your key messages got delivered to the DMOCC, and the IRG, and Cabinet? Because we’ve tried to follow the sequence of events, and we do this forensically by watching your Teams chats and trying to figure out, as you folks are watching the meetings going on, whether you ever got a chance to speak at a given meeting or whether your points were ever discussed, et cetera. So rather than me trying to create that whole forensic analysis as to what happened on the 13th, to your efforts to educate the IRG and Cabinet on your views about these events, maybe I could just put it over to you and say if you remember those days, the development of those key messages, and how, if, when you were able to deliver them in those various forums?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Pretty well, I don’t want to say 100 percent, but pretty close at the beginning of each of those meetings, after they brought up the agenda, I would be generally the first person they would go to and I’d give that situational overview and literally be reading those key messages. So most all of the information that were in those key messages were delivered. There might have been some exceptions, but very minor in nature.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Let’s call up the key messages document to see if we can see what it is you were hoping to, and as you just described it, in some cases able to communicate. And this would be SSM.CAN.NSC.00002906. Now, we’ve seen several, I don’t know if they’re drafts or variations of this, do you know what different documents were used in different contexts, or if they are just drafts of a single document?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Sometimes what would happen would be a very similar document was delivered at the Minister’s briefing, and then there might have been slight amendments, because the situation changed, but that would be the only reason why it would change. But generally speaking, the DMOCC, the Minister’s meeting, and the IRGs were very similar messaging.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And if we could just scroll down? And as we’re looking at this, Commissioner Lucki, is this something that you would read from or jump through? How did your presentation tend to go?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would read through it. I would read through it.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you would use -- was there PowerPoint or was this piece of paper distributed among those who were in attendance?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So these were just your speaking notes?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
My speaking notes. Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. You mentioned that you would be among the first to speak at these meetings. Were you, in affect, Cabinet and the IRG’s window into the law enforcement situation for the purposes of those bodies’ understandings of the convoy and the blockades?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I was representing, for the most part, all law enforcement. So we would gather up the information from the various protests, it didn’t matter which police was the jurisdiction. I would report on behalf of police, which is often what happens when there’s a national event.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So to the extent that the OPS or the OPP have information about the status of the protest or blockades in their various mandates, that came to cabinet, or the IRG, or the DMOCC, through you?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If you look, we scroll down the page to the heading, “Additional Supports”, it’s, I think, page 6 of this document. Now, can you explain what this section of your speaking notes is about?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well it’s in reference to discussions on the implications of the Emergency Act. And that’s where I had mentioned earlier about being consulted as to whether the -- any of the authorities that they may provide us would -- we would be able to enforce, if there was any challenges to that enforcement, and it was doable, so to speak, from a law enforcement perspective. We were also consulted on potential authorities, and so we created a little list of what we thought would be potential authorities early on. And in here, you see there’s a few examples of additional tools that would be useful.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, did you consult other police agencies in the course of compiling this list of possible other authorities for ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
At that point, I don’t believe so. I think we did consult internally within the RCMP, where, like, B.C. is -- B.C., Alberta, and Manitoba especially, because that’s where some of the protests were in our area. I don’t believe we reached out to all of the other agencies. Like, all other police agencies. I wasn’t -- I don’t think, because of -- possibly we weren’t to reach out outside of the RCMP on this because it was part of Cabinet.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So there might have obligations of confidence ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Confidence.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- that prevented you from consulting outside the RCMP?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I’m guessing. I don’t know specifically, but I don’t believe that we reached out to other police agencies, but there could have been talk at the planning level like through the National Capital Region Command Centre or the Integrated Command Centre. They may have spoke about it, but I -- you would have to ask the D/Commissioner Mike Duheme because I wasn’t involved in that command structure.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Over to you.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
To my knowledge, sir, there was no consultation, one, because of the confidence aspect because the drafting -- they’re looking at -- they’re putting measures into the Act. And the other thing I’d like to highlight is the -- we had a very short turnaround time to get these recommendations or what we thought would be useful for law enforcement, so it was -- it was -- as I recall, it was done strictly internally of the RCMP.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And can we scroll down further, Mr. Clerk, in this document? It’s the paragraph that begins, “That said”, the one that’s up there. And I’ll read it and you can read it with me, and then I’ll ask some questions. These are your notes and presumably what you said to the IRG and Cabinet on the relevant occasions: “That said, I am of the view that we have not exhausted all available tools that are already available through the existing legislation. There are instances where charges could be laid under existing authorities for various Criminal Code offences occurring right now in the context of the protest. The Ontario Provincial Emergencies Act, just enacted, will also help in providing additional deterrent tools to our existing toolbox.” And then the bullet below that: “The existing tools are considered in our existing plans and will be used in due course as necessary.” As I say, this set of speaking notes had been in various iterations and also ended up in an email that you sent to Mr. Jones, the Minister’s Chief of Staff. Was this point that you mentioned here in your addresses to the IRG and Cabinet -- was that also something you had expressed to, for example, Deputy Minister Stewart or Chief of Staff Jones before these speaking points were distributed or before your email on the topic?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I’m not sure of the timing. I know that there was an email exchange with the Chief of Staff, so I don’t know if it was before or after this meeting.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If it helps you, it was in between the IRG -- it was -- if you look at the time stamp ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- it was right in between the IRG and the Cabinet meeting you sent, in effect, these points, including -- sorry, your speaking points, including these two bullets here. Had you had these discussions about your views on existing authorities with any of the officials before the circulation of these notes?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I think we would have been exchanging verbally. Like D/Commissioner Duheme said, it happened so fast. There was -- Deputy Minister was working on this. We weren’t in the working group. We were just brought in as subject matter experts on various authorities that -- potential authorities, but we weren’t in the drafting of any of this. That wasn’t our role. So this would have been provided probably verbally. We would have spoken about it and then obviously, because I was asked in an email, it was provided in writing.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If I can ask the clerk to call up PB.NSC.CAN00008041. This is another one of the Teams chats. And if you look at the time stamp again allowing that these are stamped five hours ahead of the time zone that we would have been here in Ottawa, you’ll see the date is February 13th. And if you just look from the first page to the last, you see it covers a period of time up to, looks, like, 6:35 p.m. at the very end. Are you able to -- if I ask the clerk to scroll ahead to the end of the document just so that Commissioner Lucki can see the range of the discussion there. The point I wanted to draw your attention to in this particular Teams chat, Commissioner Lucki, is at page -- well, it’s page 19 of this document. Mr. Clerk, maybe if you can find that. If you go down to the first -- yeah, there we are. Now, if we look at the time stamp at 10:21 p.m., this would actually be, if I understand correctly, 5:21 p.m.? Is that right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And now you’re nodding there, Commissioner Lucki, but ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- the transcriber will want to hear yes or no. Thank you. And again, just so the parties and viewing public can understand what’s going on here, this is a discussion that you and your team are having sort of offline. These aren’t actual comments in the meeting. You’re -- well, were you present at this IRG meeting? I believe this was the IRG meeting of the 13th.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I believe so, yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So have you got your phone out and you’re -- and you’ve got your team watching at -- on their computers in their offices, perhaps?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I may have been there in person. I’m not sure. I ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
You think the team was actually there.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, the team wouldn’t have been there. I might have been there in person or it could have been on video. There was a couple on video, and so I don’t know which ones.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Well, you might -- you might get some insight as we go through your comments here because you’re asking somebody in the first entry here whether you are the next up on the agenda. Someone suggests that ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- you’re not. And then someone says, “Situational updates”, et cetera. The next is you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And so -- and the question we’re wondering, it then goes over to -- Mr. Clerk, if you can just scroll down the page to a point where -- there’s an entry under “Flynn, Mark” on page 20. That’s it. “Situational update”. And then it says, under number 2, “Minister Mendicino may turn to Commissioner Brenda Lucki”. And I guess since these are from your notes, you may also ask to speak, et cetera. Do you figure that that’s where you got asked to give the situational update with respect to Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Possibly, yeah. There was always -- usually a spot for a situational update. Sometimes on -- on the IRG there was always -- usually a spot for me to provide a situational update depending as they got closer to the -- there was one that I didn’t -- I believe I didn’t provide much of an update because there was a discussion mostly on the - - on the Emergencies Act, so it wasn’t about me providing information. It was just discussing the Emergencies Act.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Could we have 8041 brought up on the screen? Sorry, PBS.NSC.CAN00008041.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
That’s what this is.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Oh, I’m sorry. Right. Then it’s page 12 of that document I’d like to look at. And there’s a section under Mark Flynn. And I'll just read it for you: "OPS just confirmed the plan is finally reviewed and approved. Their planning group will integrate here with our group." And paragraph, sorry, parenthetical comment "(This came from Carson)." And I take it that's Carson Pardy?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Were you able to update the IRG with that development when it came in on your phone?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don't believe so.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think, though, in that -- the IRG from February 13th, I did provide some information on the plan in general, but not with this latest development.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, if we could turn up OPS00014566. And I don't know if you recognise these, Commissioner Lucki, but if it helps you they're described to us as the notes from Chief Sloly's scribe of a meeting. And we'll get to a point... If you ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If you scroll down, Mr. Clerk. There's a point where there's a meeting with Commissioner Lucki, it's about two pages down. There we go.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
There.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So that's, again, if you understand these to be the notes of then Chief Sloly, this is a meeting between him and you and Commissioner Carrique of the OPP. The point that I'm interested in, in light of the conversation we just had, is the second bullet under the redacted section, where Chief Sloly, and again, this isn't your note, it's his observation of what he understands you to have told him: "...did not get the prime minister briefed on the plan." Can you understand why Chief Sloly would have had that impression?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm not sure. Because this was on the 14th?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I believe that's right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. Because I believe in the IRG notes that I provided I did speak about the plan. So I am not sure if that in fact -- why that was put on there.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner, may I just ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- if I can be of any assistance to my friend. It may be that the interpretation is the opposite. That these are Commissioner Lucki's statements to the meeting that recorded by that scribe. I'm not certain that those are Chief Sloly's words to her ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- or a question to her.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Oh, okay. Sorry, that's even more helpful, then. So ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, they're not -- like, I don't know -- I've never seen these. Like, these aren't ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- my notes or anything.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But the scribe has recorded you as saying that you didn't brief the Prime Minister on the plan. And you're -- you don't have an explanation for why that would be there? Do you think ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- you said something that would've given the scribe the impression that that was what you were saying?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No idea, because I would assume -- because in the IRG of the 13th I briefed him on the plan. So I don't know why on the 14th it says that.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Is it possible that the IRG on the 13th, you didn't reached on the agenda or you didn't get a chance to say what you'd wanted to say about the plan?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Anything's possible, but generally speaking I was always was turned to at the beginning of all those meetings and with the speaking notes. So I'm not sure about the discrepancy.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Mr. Commissioner, if I can just have an indulgence here because I would like to see if need to pursue that point any further, just by seeing if I have a different version of the February 13th IRG minutes. No, I will move on.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I think page 20 of the previous document, 8041, indicated that the Commissioner didn't get reached. So that may be what you're looking for.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Maybe, Mr. Clerk, if you can put 8041 back up. Thank you. Yes, I see what's happened.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
A little further down.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If you go to page 20, down the -- towards the bottom of the page. You make the comment, Commissioner Lucki: "[S]o doesn't look like I will be reporting on anything." And what we were wondering is if that is why you said to Chief Sloly the next day that you didn't report to the Prime Minister on the development of the plan.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Anything's possible. I don't want to refute the notes of the scribe if that's what the scribe wrote. The only thing I would say is I would have to look -- if they had -- if there were any notes on the IRG that were shared, then I would be able to compare that if I did in fact. Because usually when I was briefing in the IRG, that would've been shown.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Well ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
So that ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- again, because I want to be fair to you here just to make sure you have the best recollection you can of this February 13th meeting, because you can see you here saying "doesn't look like they'll be reporting on anything", Andrea Howard observes that they are on the last item, which I'll infer was the last agenda item. And at the top of the next page, Mr. Clerk, if you can scroll a little further, "He may not go to you."
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Is this during -- is that the timeframe, just to be sure, this timeframe of 1754 is when the IRG was going on?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Well, the timeframe on the timestamp is 10:55, which would be 5:55 ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- in the afternoon, which would have been when the IRG was sitting. Okay?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then I'll just -- I think you inserted a bit of exasperation or humour into this discussion at the -- if you scroll down further, with the ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Oh.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- hypothesis that you did not get reached. You say: "[P]lease...do not invite me to cabinet." So with that recollection, and I thank the Commissioner for taking me back to that document, does that help you recollect that maybe you didn't get reached at that IRG meeting?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It would indicated in all likelihood I wasn't, but I guess ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. Now ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- I'm just going by these notes. It appears that that's what it's ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- leaning towards, yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
In fairness to your recollection, there was another -- there was a Cabinet meeting the same night. Do you know whether you spoke at that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don't think so. I think I was invited to support the minister, but I didn't speak at that.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I'll ask you, then, to go with the hypothesis for now, acknowledging that your memory is just based on these notes, that you prepared the speaking notes in which you made, roughly-speaking, two points. There was a -- we didn't take you through it, but it was a description of the status of the OPS, RCMP, OPP plan that you wanted to -- had intended to present to the IRG, it was your point that you believed that there were enforcement options still to be exhausted, and that the plan had been developed without reliance on any special measures, and you had those two points. You weren't reached on the agenda by hypothesis if these Teams chats are accurate, and that would also explain why you might have said to Chief Sloly the next day, "I didn't brief the Prime Minister on the plan." If I put all of that together to you, does that help you accept the proposition that you didn't present your key messages to the government on the night of the 13th, and that is why you told Chief Sloly the next morning that the plan hadn't been briefed to the Prime Minister?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, and if I was to brief on the plan, it wouldn't have -- I wouldn't have briefed them on the plan. I would have just told them of the existence of a plan to go forward ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- but not the nuances. But it would -- from what you're saying, and like I said, there was five or six meetings a day, it sounds like that's how it might have occurred.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. But I want you to concentrate on that scenario then. Cabinet is on the verge of invoking the Emergencies Act. You are their window on law enforcement, you told us this earlier. Your update to Cabinet, as it is deciding whether to invoke the Emergencies Act, is that the police now have a plan. They've pulled it together. And that you, as the Commissioner of the RCMP, consider that plan to be workable without the authorities of the Emergencies Act, and that doesn't get delivered, your messages don't get delivered to Cabinet when they then deliberate on the invocation of the Act. You appreciate the significance of that scenario?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes and no, because we had spoken about the fact that we had an integrated planning cell, that we were bringing together a plan, an enforcement plan to go forward. So there was talk about a plan and that a plan was in progress. I reported on that, I believe, in my previous IRG. So it wasn't a brand new concept. But, yes, in fact, the fact that we now had a plan, I'm not sure if it was signed off either as of that point because we were having difficulty getting it signed off. We didn't realize it needed to be signed off. But I know that on that same day, like, we -- I think it was the Sunday that would have been, I'm guessing, the -- that was the 13th. I'd actually, I think, reached out to Chief Sloly about signing off the plan. I'm not sure the timing on that. But the existence of a plan was known, just the fact that it was official or not official wasn't reported on.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Let me summarize what you're saying and then put a question to you. As I hear what you're saying, though you didn't get a chance to present either the plan or your view that the invocation of the Act would be taking place before law enforcement tools had been exhausted, even though you didn't get a chance to deliver those messages at this meeting, you feel that in general those points had been briefed up to your -- the officials that you reported to; is that what you're saying?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, because I believe in the second IRG, which was on the 12th, I had spoken about the integrated command, a centre had been stood up, that a plan was -- we brought in planners. They were in the process of doing a plan. I believe I reported on that. I'd have to see the notes though. But I didn't officially, going to your point that, you know, that could have -- that wasn't reported that the plan was now officially signed off or officially in place.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So acknowledging that there might have been some less precise messaging to the officials and to government before the meeting where you didn't get called, nonetheless, you appreciated the significance of those meetings that were taking place on the 13th and you appreciated the significance, I assume, of the fact that you hadn't got a chance to give those key messages that we've looked at before. Did it occur to you that you should make sure that government was aware of your views on these points before it came to land on the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I guess in hindsight, yeah, that might have been something significant. Honestly, there was so much information going back and forth, I'm not sure, you know, where they were at in the invocation as such. I know they were talking about it, but it was very, very fluid. Obviously, I'm not sure if it would have changed anything in the sense that these were -- even, like, now, I'm going to use my hindsight, the plan ended up -- those authorities ended up to be useful with the plan, if I use my hindsight, because it wasn't whether or not we'd have -- we were still -- we would have still been looking at enforcement, but we needed ways to reduce the footprint. So we were using some of the authorities obviously under the Ontario Emergency Act. We weren't incorporating anything on the Federal Emergency Act because it wasn't in place. But we didn't have when exactly the plan was going to start, or we knew it had to be starting in the weekdays as opposed to the weekends, so now the plan was in place and the implementation would have been the next exact when we were going to implement it.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That's fair enough. And I won't ask you to speculate or hypothesize about what might have happened if you had had an opportunity to deliver these two messages, but I think, as I understand what you've said, knowing the gravity of the issues that were facing the IRG and Cabinet on the 13th, you prepared your key messages with those two points that the police services had come together with a viable plan and that you considered that there were still law enforcement tools to exhaust before emergency legislation is necessary; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Now if we move on, there's another constellation of events happening on the 14th, so we're going to go over to the 14th. And the -- this involves a series of crisscrossing emails, and I'll ask the clerk to first call up PB.NSC.CAN.00008485. And I'll ask, first of all, because this is a name that's new to the cast of characters so far, a name -- we're not going to see it right away, but just so that we can understand when it comes into the picture, who Adriana Poloz is, and I think this is probably a question for you, Deputy Commissioner.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, Adriana Poloz is responsible for our Intel in International Policing Program. So the INSET I referred to earlier on, ideologically motivated criminal intelligence, it -- that reports into her program.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Perfect. Thank you. Now, Clerk, if you could scroll down on this a little bit, there's a series of emails by which -- there, we can stop there. This is sort of -- Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, I don't expect you to have seen this email other than you might have in the course of preparing for this hearing. That is, I don't expect you to have seen it at the time perhaps, but just to set up what is going to come at you so you can understand the context, this is an email from Jody Thomas, and we all know that she's the National Security Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister. And it is February 14th, and I don't know if that's a reliable email timestamp, but if -- assuming it's just a normal email timestamp, it's about midday on the 14th. And that's probably going to put us somewhere just after the first Minister's meeting or just before, anyway, right in the context of that event on the 14th. And we have Jody Thomas saying, and I'll just read it out, so that it's on the record. She is writing to Mike MacDonald, and we'll learn later on who he is, but he's another person in the PCO Intelligence apparatus, and he's copied Rob Stewart who we say yesterday as the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. And Ms. Thomas says, "This is about a national threat to national interest and institutions. By people who do not care about or understand democracy. [We are preparing to be violent -- sorry,] who are preparing to be violent. Who are motivated by anti government sentiment." And can you scroll down to the -- a little further, Mr. Clerk, on that? And then, again, we're all going to have to be a little bit detectives figuring out what's going on with these emails because this is a sort of orphan email from Jody Thomas, not obviously to anybody, but is attached to the one that we just looked at, where she says, "I need an assessment for Janice..." And I'll just ask you to speculate with me that that's Janice Charette, the clerk for the Privy Council. "...about the threat of these blockades. The characters involved. The weapons. The motivation. Clearly this isn’t just COVID and is a threat to democracy and rule of law. Could I get an assessment please. David is this you? It [is] a very short fuse. Please call if you have [any] questions J” Now, again, you’re perhaps wondering why I’m reading you emails that aren’t to you or from you. But what we’ll see, and this will be the next email, is that the request for an assessment gets directed to Adriana Poloz, which was why we talked about her. On that point, could I ask the Clerk to pull up PB.NSC.CAN.00003462? Okay. And just to get the sequence correct, let’s go down to the bottom of this, or least to there. If I’m understanding correctly, and maybe, Mr. Duheme, since you ended up getting copied in here, you would be able to help us with this? It looks like the request from Jody Thomas got directed by some means, perhaps, by Mr. MacDonald, or perhaps by you. If you could help us with that? Got somehow directed to Adriana Poloz. Is that how you interpret that?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, the request would have gone from -- directly probably from Mike to Adriana on this one.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And that’s because it’s going, roughly speaking, from the National Security Intelligence Advisor and her Directorates down to the RCMP’s Intelligence people; right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct. And they were probably looking for additional information because the Strategic Threat Advisory Reports that were being shared with government were also being shared for PCO. So those eight documents I mentioned earlier. Might have been a follow up on what was in one of those documents.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So what you’re saying is PCO is used to getting intelligence briefings from Ms. Poloz’ department, or at least the department that reported to her?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
The document was shared with them. Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yeah. And then again, Ms. Poloz writing back to Mr. MacDonald, gives an assessment, and we’re not going to read through the whole thing, but Mr. Clerk, maybe you could just scroll slowly down so the audience can get a gist of what’s in there, as I say? We don’t really have time to read the whole thing. The document is available to parties if they want to look at it in more detail. But it’s a description -- we see a reference to Three Percenters, to Diagolon, to Canada First, et cetera, to various movements or individuals that could be implicated in national security matters, and then a reference to IMVE groups, and then finally, in the penultimate paragraph there, reference to blockades at the international borders. So let me ask the sort of chain of command or institutional flow question here to either of you, Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner. How does it happen that when the NSIA wants a security threat, it doesn’t go through one of you, but goes directly to somebody in an intelligence directorate that frankly none of us had seen before we saw this email?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
It happens based on some relationships that are built, that they reach directly into the units. Preferably there should be one stop for all requests that come in so we can have at least an idea of what’s going out. But it happens where they reach in directly to the person, ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- and the person will either CC me on a message, or brief me about what the request is.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And -- but the point about briefing you is the one that intrigues me. This wasn’t just a request for a threat assessment by somebody who happened to know somebody in your department. As I think everybody understood at this stage, the NSIA was giving advice to the government on the invocation of the Emergency Act for the first time it had ever been invoked, and that threat assessment goes straight past everybody to Adriana Poloz, and then straight from her back to the NSIA. And is that how you would have expected things to happen if there had been more time or more attention to conventional channels?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So honestly, I’d have to go through the document in its entirety, because I think -- I’m not quite sure if we’re into -- when I’m looking at this, Adriana is explaining some of the signs that we’re seeing from IMVE groups from across the country, flags, posters, stickers. But I’d have to go through the entire document. And it’s possible that Adriana would have briefed me before sending it out. But I think one thing that we have to understand is the NSIA -- the RCMP is only one organization that’s providing criminal intelligence to the NSIA. You have the service, ITAC also has a role to play. So the NSIA is getting information before she forms an opinion. I get the brief. Whoever she’s getting information from, other departments as well. So we’re really -- the RCMP is really in the criminal space when we provide that intel.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That’s fair enough. And as I think we saw, this was a very time pressured situation. Ms. Poloz was asked to turn it around very, very quickly. Ms. Thomas was interested in a very short order. So it might be understandable that corners were cut or direct contacts were used, as you said. I’m just trying to figure out. You needed up getting copied on this, Deputy Commissioner. Did you appreciate the significance of the fact that people under your command were giving a threat assessment, or at least they’d been asked for a threat assessment, whether that’s how you would describe the product they delivered is another question. But were you alert to the fact that this was a threat assessment going from your people to the Privy Council Office in connection with the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, like I said, I don’t recall if Adriana briefed me beforehand. And when I’m looking at it, they did produce a product with regards to IMVEs, but I see some of the paragraphs are coming from that product. So did she cut and paste the information from product that was already provided? Just a reminder here, the key -- here are the key messages? Or was it a complete different one? But yeah, no, I wouldn’t be able to confirm if she’d briefed me, other than just being CC’d on a message. But I’m led to believe that it’s a cut and paste from the document that they had produced in the past.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Well I think that’s as far as we can take that, unless you have, in retrospect, any -- was there any follow up by you after seeing this? Or any further involvement of Ms. Poloz in this process that we should know about?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
No. Okay. Thank you. Now, we’ll switch gears just briefly, though quite significantly, to talk about protests outside of Ottawa. And I’ll just ask us all to remember, which means you can remind me too, that Deputy Commissioner Zablocki is waiting and we don’t want to steal all his thunder talking about work of K Division in Alberta. But I just wanted to talk briefly about the work that the RCMP was involved in with respect to the blockades and protests outside of Ottawa. And the first of these I wanted to ask you about was Windsor. And in the interest of time, we won’t go through the whole sequence of events that led up to you getting involved in Windsor, but as I understand it, you received a request for assistance in Windsor. And can you begin by telling me where that came from? That is, from Windsor? Or from OPP? Or from Ontario?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Go ahead, Mike.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I’ll cover that, Commissioner. So one important note, when that request came in, I was sharing an office with Deputy Commissioner Chris Harkins, who is part of the gold command with me. And the request went - - to my knowledge, the request went directly from Windsor Police Service to our folks in Ontario for Public Order Unit or Tactical Support Group, and with everything that comes with it. so the first deployment of members -- and this was to assist with the blockade in Windsor. We sent a total of 64 members initially, and then another 50 members to help contain the grounds once they started moving with the tactical support group. So -- and it was led entirely by, I believe, the OPP? The OPP.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. And can you describe some of the differences between the assistance you were able to provide in Windsor, I’ll say at that relatively early date, compared to the ultimate deployment of your Public Order Units in Ottawa a week or so later? Why -- first of all, one obvious thing is you had units, as I understand it, available in Ottawa who could be redirected to Windsor? Is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that’s correct.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So they didn’t have to be brought in from the other side of the country? That was just logistically easier to do; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
It is. And faster because they’re already mobilized with all their equipment in one single area.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. And was there any difference in your expectation of the ability to work with and integrate the Windsor Police -- with the Windsor Police Service and the OPP relative to the situation you were facing in Ottawa that allowed you to immediately deploy this unit to Windsor?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think what I'll mention, what's important to note is that early on, the OPP Commissioner took control of all the Public Order Teams in the province, and they would decide what priorities, where each Public Order Team would go because there was a lot of things happening in different areas. So he had announced, and I think actually you were -- Mike might have been on a meeting at that time where he talked to all the Chiefs of Police in the -- or the majority of them and said that he will be -- do not deploy your Public Order Teams. We will decide what the priority is and we will deploy as and when necessary. So that request came from OPP. At the time, there was no active enforcement going on in the Ottawa area, so we felt -- because we had a team that was originally from that area, although -- and they might have even been back in their area in Ontario, that we could redeploy them to Windsor.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And at the time you made the decision to -- that it was appropriate to deploy these resources to Windsor, did the Windsor Police Service or the OPP have a plan for their deployment or, I mean, of the same type that you were waiting to see in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
We didn't get into the -- you know, the specifics of the plan. The fact that the OPP Commissioner was deploying the various Public Order Units and the fact that he was sort of taking the -- not -- he was in charge of the -- what was happening in Windsor, and they had this enforcement plan, we had advised that we could provide that Public Order Team. Is that ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So the absence of a plan before the fact needn't be an obstacle to you deploying, or at least sending resources to be deployed by another police force?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, there's always -- like, even in the early days of the Ottawa convoy, we gave, you know, 30 to 50 resources with the idea that there was a plan for those resources, but we didn't get into the intimacies of the plan in that instance, nor did we do that with the Windsor. The fact that they were going into enforcement, we knew that. We knew that they had an enforcement plan, that they were going to go what we call kinetic and actually move the protesters. We knew there was a plan. So that's why that's a specific type of resource. It wasn't a frontline group that they were asking for. They were asking for a Public Order Team for enforcement purposes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. I'll leave it to others to see if that should be pursued further. I'll just ask you, was this a situation in which Windsor was a higher priority than Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. I should add though, like, they were going into enforcement action, and on the ground in Ottawa they were not. So I wouldn't ever say that one was a higher priority than the other. They were just at different stages.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. I want to talk -- move us over the hump and talk about the operations of the RCMP post-invocation. We are going to circle back on some orphan topics later on, but just keeping in chronological order here. If the clerk could call up OPP0000 -- sorry, 00000788? Now this is February 15th, so the Emergencies Act has been invoked but enforcement action, at least in Ottawa, hasn't commenced on the level that resulted in the clearing of the protest. But if you can -- do you recognize these notes of -- do you recognize -- do you remember the meeting that these are notes of?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, vaguely remember the meeting, yes. I don't -- these aren't any notes I've seen before.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Sorry?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I vaguely recall the meeting, yes, but I ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- don't recall the notes. I ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- I wasn't given these notes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If you look at the first statement there, you are attributed with saying, and I'll just ask you to -- before I ask any questions about it, make sure I ask you if you agree that this is what you said, "...we all need to succeed -- need to get credibility and maximize the regs. We are here to help in any way we can." First of all, is that -- does that accord with what you -- or at least the message you remember giving at that meeting?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Oh, my goodness. I don't think people appreciate the amount of meetings we had. I could have very well said something to that effect, we were now going into enforcement. That was the beginning of the enforcement stage. So it was, you know what, this is time for us, as police, to get credibility back from not doing anything for many days and we all need to succeed, so let's, you know, use the regs and anything we can do to help. It would have sort of been just a little bit of a pep talk, but you know what? To ask me if I recall if that's exactly what I said, I honestly couldn't tell you.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then acknowledging that you're at the limits of your recollection here, the expression that I wanted to ask you about was "maximize the regs." And can you tell us what you -- if that ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, it's all about, like I said, reducing the footprint, so that when we go into enforcement, there's as few people as possible, so not -- because we have the invocation of the Emergency Act, let's not have people come into the protest area. Let's make sure there's no kids there. Let's make sure there's, you know, motivating and incentivizing people to leave, so that we can get down to the minimum amount of people in the footprint, so when we enforce, it'll be much safer for everybody involved. And that was kind of the essence of the plan.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So if I can paraphrase, we've been given some new tools, let's use them as fully as we can?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, if they -- obviously, if they're applicable and there are things that we can use, yes, most definitely.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thanks. And, Mr. Clerk, if you could call up now SSM.NSC.CAN.00000408? These we will see when we come up, IRG minutes. And, Mr. Clerk, if you could scroll to page 7? And if I can go -- draw your attention, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, whichever of you might be able to answer this question, the left -- sorry, right-hand column, the first row, so we're at the word "law enforcement in Ottawa." Do you see that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
M'hm.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
It says, "Law enforcement in Ottawa, have been able to secure perimeter successfully without a need to employ any designations through the EA." Can you explain what that indication there is?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
What date is this?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
This is the February 23rd IRG meeting.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay. So that would refer to on February 18th in the early hours of the morning before activating our operational plan, we were able -- we, I say the both silver, bronze, able to set up a control access zone, which is a perimeter. And Ottawa Police Service had the lead on that and used existing authorities when they put it in, so we did not use the Act specifically for the control access zone. They do it during the Canada Day. They do it during other events in Ottawa, so they use existing authorities to put the fence up, to put the perimeter up.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. That's very helpful. You're not going to get off the stand without talking about tow trucks, so if I could just ask you a few questions about that. So if I could just ask you a few questions about that. As I understand it, Commissioner Lucki, you were, under the Regulations passed pursuant to the Emergencies Act, empowered to instruct tow truck operators to make their services available, but did you ever, yourself or did the RCMP, ever exercise that power in the province of Ontario?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, we didn’t. I delegated it to Comm. Tom Carrique.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And if you can just help us understand what that means. You have the power, but you are able to, at least as you would’ve understood it, lawfully hand that power over to Comm. Carrique, is that right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I was allowed to delegate it. So in the event, let’s say, we didn’t use it in RCMP jurisdiction, but if the -- if Commanding Officer Curtis Zablocki needed that authority, I could’ve delegated it to him -- which I didn’t, because things were solved before that happened. But because we were going into enforcement action, I delegated that authority to OPP Commissioner -- to the OPP Commissioner.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Were -- other than delegating that authority to the Commissioner of the OPP, were there any other delegations you made of that power?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you didn’t exercise it yourself?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And so, to the extent that power was used at all, it was used pursuant to the delegation you gave to Comm. Carrique?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, and this was primarily because I have no knowledge of the tow truck situation in Ontario. Each police agency has that -- they know -- they have that knowledge, so for me to use that authority in a place where I have no jurisdiction wouldn’t make any sense. So I would’ve done the same in Quebec if they had needed that, because it’s -- we’re not the police of jurisdiction.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That makes sense. The challenge it poses; not for you, for Commission counsel, is that when we try to trace what happened to that power you’ve handed it down to Comm. Carrique, and so does that mean that you thereafter lose visibility of the use of the power?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I have no idea. It’s the first time we’ve ever had that power, so there wasn’t a playbook on what to do with that. You know, I delegated it to him so that he could use that authority. I would assume that they would take, you know, account for that authority, but it wasn’t -- we didn’t have a conversation. I know there was an actual delegation document I signed. It may have had some instruction there, I can’t recall.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. I’m just wondering; that delegation authority did not, it seems, include some requirement for the OPP Commissioner to report back to you on the extent to which he’d used those powers?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not to my knowledge, no.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thanks. Well, then, I’ll ask you to bear with me on the next question and then see if you can assist with it. Were you aware at the time -- there’s been a lot of information since, but I’d like to know if you could try to remember at the time. Were you -- was it your understanding at the time that you delegated the power to Comm. Carrique, that the OPP had already been able to secure the assistance of some tow truck operators without the need for the use of that power?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I wasn’t aware of any of the details of the tow trucks.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. So you can’t assist us with that issue as it relates to your delegated power?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. It was just if, in fact, they were going to use that authority, I would -- I delegated it to them. It wasn’t -- I wasn’t sure if it they would even use it or not, but it was delegated. I was assuming that they would need to use it.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
When you delegated the power -- let me see if I can approach it this way; when you delegated the power, were you aware that one of the things that came along with the exercise of that power was an obligation on the part of the government to compensate tow truck operators for their work, ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- pursuant to orders?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And has that come back to you? Has the bill come back, so to speak?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And can you give us any information about that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It was a big bill.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
It was a big bill. In the context of processing that bill, for example, and I’ll -- you’ll see why I’m trying to tease this out of you, and if you’re not the right person to answer it, we’ll just have to live with that. But were you self-conscious of the fact that you were giving the Province a way to hand the costs of the towing back to the federal government?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Under the Emergency Act, yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. You realize that that was one of the implications of giving them this power?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And you probably realized that one of the implications would be that, whether or not the power was needed to compel the use of the tow trucks, it would all be processed that way so that the compensation could come back up to the federal government.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, I assumed that if they had to compel tow trucks under the Emergency Act, that we would -- in fact, the federal government would pay for that. But if they had the ability to get the tow trucks on their own, then it wouldn’t be under the Emergency Act, and we wouldn’t be paying for it.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. And would it surprise you, then, that some of the tow truck operators decided to go the route where they got paid by the feds and Ontario decided to process it that way, even though they’d been secured before the Emergencies Act was declared?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I have no idea.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I guess it’s an integrity issue.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Thank you. Mr. Commissioner, I do believe I’ll finish by lunch. There’s one other issue I wanted to pursue. Well, there’s a number of issues that are going to have to fall off the agenda, so to speak here, because of the time. But there is one other issue -- one other topic I wanted to explore before we break for lunch, if I may. I realize I’m a bit over my time, but may I take that...?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Well, yeah, you’re a bit over your time but we’ll let you go till lunch.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I think ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Can you figure out what’s priority in your -- in what’s remaining?
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. I am prioritizing here. (SHORT PAUSE)
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Mr. Commissioner?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Is it possible that the Commission’s Counsel could be given more time without taking away time from parties? There was other records discovered last night, for example, being 113 pages of the Deputy Commissioner’s notes that are extremely important. I don’t know if my friend is wanting to deal with those; I’m guessing he probably does. Subject to any of the parties’ objections, as long as I didn’t lose the 20 minutes we have, I would be happy for my friend to keep going. It’s a very important issue and these witnesses are probably two of the most important witnesses this Commission will hear from during this entire proceeding.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
There was never a question of shortening cross-examination time. As anyone goes over, I don’t take it from anyone else, unless there’s been a -- an agreed-upon trade. If you’re willing to give up your time to the Commission, that’s -- that would be the only way you would lose it.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
What I’m saying is, is I think the Commission Counsel should be given as long as he needs in order to complete what he needs to complete, and not remove things from his agenda.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
That’s all I’m concerned about.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Oh.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I appreciate Mr. Miller’s concern. And, Mr. Commissioner, I’ll say to you, and through you to Mr. Miller, we -- though those notes did just go up on that particular database, Commission Counsel did have access of those notes; and, as a matter of fact, I’d recommend the parties that they review the interview of D/Comm. Duheme, the witness summary as it’s called, because that summary was specifically for the purpose of pursuing those notes. So with that in mind, Mr. Miller might be able to focus his conversation on the parts of those notes that he considers important to you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thank you.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If we could pull up the team’s chat, which is at PB.NSC.CAN00008040. And we’re going to have to ask you, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, to try and recreate this in your memory again, acknowledging that a lot was happening at this time. It’s February 12th, putting the timestamps five hours ahead. It's earlier in the morning at the beginning, but when we go down to page 2 we'll see a timestamp for... Mr. Clerk, can you scroll down to page 2, a timestamp for a heading to suggest that there is going to be a meeting with Mr. Sloly. Can you just scroll through until we find that? Yeah, there we go. So you are advised, Commissioner, in the course of this Teams chat that you are going to have a meeting with Chief Sloly at 2:00 p.m. And if we go down to page 5 of this document at 6:37 in the timestamp, so I think 1:37 in real time. Now, we're all going to have contend with this. None of us gets to see what's behind the -- well, you did at the time, but you're not going to tell us now.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I wouldn't remember.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
But you come in at 6:37 with this statement: "[D]isregard, as OPP Commissioner advises there is a pretty straightforward way in that the Minister goes to the Ontario Police Commission." Can you tell us what you were talking about there?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It would be sheer speculation. I honestly don't -- I would say that it's about talking about if and if they needed to go to the Ontario, I don't even know, Ontario Police Commission.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
In fairness to you, let me take you to some more of this, and maybe when you see some more context you'll be reminded of what that's statement's about. Mr. Clerk, can we take the -- take us down to page 16 of this chat? And there is the statement "I don't get it."
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
"I didn't get it."
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And I'll read that out. This is you, Commissioner Lucki, speaking: "I [don't] get it...are they going to the province or not regarding PS?" Which you'll probably agree with me is a reference to Peter Sloly?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, it could be -- "I didn't get it." I don't know if they're talking about the mission statement, "I didn't get it." That's how I'm ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, "I didn't get it." Correct.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
In other words, you didn't hear what they were talking about or you didn't understand what they were talking about?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Or I didn't -- looking at the modifications -- the ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- mission statement, am I saying I didn't get it, I didn't get the mission statement? I'm not sure. "Are they going to the province or not regarding".
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
I see.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Can you scroll ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. Please, Mr. Clerk, please scroll up to help Commissioner ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Just to see if I can jog something in my memory.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. And ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Maybe go to the next ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- scroll along so that she can follow the context of the point that I just put to her. Can you scroll down a little further? No, sorry, down, so she can follow the...
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don't know what he means by: "...the modification is simply at the high political element of the plan." Can you keep going? I have -- honestly, I have no idea what that all -- like I -- I can understand what some of the comments mean, but I don't know the context. Right? I can't seem to put it into context.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So you can't recall what the people you're listening to -- again, you're, as I understand it, here listening to the IRG meeting of the 12th, and you are -- somebody is talking, and that prompts you to wonder whether they are going to the province or not regarding, if that PS is Peter Sloly, regarding Peter Sloly. That doesn't trigger your memory about what you were hearing that prompted you to say that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, not at all.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm trying to put it together.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
That's fair enough. And if we go down -- scroll a little bit further, we see the words "maybe I tell him". Scroll up, please, Mr. Clerk, so Commissioner Lucki can see the lead into this comment. A little up further so she can see what -- "they need to land". Okay. So again, this is a continuation of the discussion you just saw.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And then scroll down, please, Clerk. "Something we need to land." Then you say, "maybe I tell him". And scroll down further.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
"Yay or nay".
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And "yay or nay". Perhaps you're asking your team what they think. And then Mark Flynn says: "Maybe a one on one face to face with the [Minister]?" And then Deputy Commissioner, here you come in and say, "agree and the PM." So I'm guessing that this is something pretty important because what is being proposed here is that you, Commissioner Lucki, meet ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Oh.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- face-to-face with the Minister and perhaps the PM.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think this is about something completely different.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Oh. Well.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I think, and I'm not sure, but I think it's about Coutts, actually.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
It's about Coutts.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Coutts.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So that answers that. Thank you for clarifying that. One last topic, then, in the five minutes that I'd have, with the Commissioner's indulgence. Could we go to OPP00004583? This is a long document, and perhaps, Mr. Clerk, if you can find page 52. And these texts have already been canvassed somewhat in the hearing, Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner, but this might be the first time you have looked at them in recent memory. Can you scroll down to the point where Commissioner Carrique says, "With respect to your comments". There we go. So again, to orient ourselves, as I read this, the green is Commissioner Carrique and the blue is you. And this -- do you recollect this exchange? And I'll ask the clerk to scroll down so that she can read the rest of her input to this.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I recall.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
And that's you, Commissioner Lucki, saying if you have some ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, that's ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Sorry, I mean that's Commissioner Carrique saying if -- saying to you, "If you", Commissioner Lucki: "...have some influence it would be helpful." And then could you scroll down a little further? And here you are ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
--- telling the Commissioner that -- when you say "Had DM Stewart" is that you saying that I, Commissioner Lucki, had Deputy Minister Stewart reach out to, am I reading that correctly?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, because this is three hours later, or four hours later.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yes. Yes.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. So that's how I -- before I even saw that that's how I figured. Because Deputy Minister Stewart was speaking regularly to the Ottawa City Manager, so yes, that's what it refers to. I asked Deputy Minister Stewart if he could reach into Steve, and I won't try to pronounce his last name, he was the City Manager.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Kanellakos?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, Kanellakos, sorry.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Steve K, that's ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Steve K.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Yeah.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Because obviously we didn't want to lose continuity. We are just now ready to put -- implement the plan, the Integrated Command Centre was going to take that integrated plan and implement it, so it was important that we didn't -- since Peter -- Chief Sloly wasn't there, and the Deputy Chief Bell had been involved with the plan and ready and knew about the plan to have somebody new come in because there was talk, rumours I guess that they may bring somebody new in, and that would delay us going into enforcement action, so we were hoping that one of the deputies -- well, Steve was the obvious choice because he was taking the lead. It could have been Deputy Trish McPherson, I think it was ---
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Ferguson.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Ferguson that could also have taken the place, but we knew that it was -- he was going to be the Deputy Chief -- he was the senior Deputy Chief.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
So the upshot is you and Commissioner Carrique are talking here about your hope that the new Chief of Police will be someone who’s already part of the command structure?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. It wasn’t about who would be the new Chief of Police.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Sorry. I phrased that wrongly. I didn’t mean that.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
The new person in charge of the ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Interim -- by interim would be somebody that was already in place by -- de facto it was Steve Bell, but it was -- could have been “Joe Schmoe”. It was whoever was already in place.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Understood. You wanted continuity.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
You and Commission Carrique wanted continuity with the work that had been done. I understand that. The question I have, though -- so understanding the sort of logic of the proposition, you mentioned earlier both in the context of these proceedings here and other proceedings you’d been in the division between church and state. Were any red flags going off in your mind when this dialogue took place between you and Commissioner Carrique that you would go to Canada’s Deputy Minister of Public Safety, who would go to an official in the City of Ottawa to exercise influence about who would be the next interim Chief?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It wasn’t about who was -- Deputy Minister Stewart had -- I never talked to Steve at all. He had -- they had had communication -- regular communication. For me, it was about the relationship that they’d already established and that because we were on the verge of enforcement that it was only about can we continue on with the enforcement plan under existing personnel, and that was the goal. That it wasn’t about put Deputy Commissioner Steve Bell in that position so he can be the Chief. It wasn’t influencing them on who was going to be the Chief. Just the continuity of the plan because that would have set us back if we had to brief somebody new and put somebody new in the position. I didn’t -- I didn’t look at it in the eyes that you’re looking at.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Now, acknowledging that in - - for the reasons we discussed before and your structure and relationship to the people you report to, you wouldn’t have been familiar, perhaps, with the way that the Ottawa Police Services takes its direction. But did -- it didn’t occur to you when you were putting in place this communication from your Deputy Minister to an official -- senior official at the City of Ottawa that an option would have been if such an approach were to be made about the importance of continuity that it would have been better placed to the Police Services Board?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. Like I said, I didn’t know how -- how their structure worked at all. It was just a connection into Ottawa Police or that’s the person that was -- that they were dealing with. I didn’t understand the Board concept.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
If I can summarize, you had an important message to deliver, which was that continuity in command was important and you used a connection that you knew about to deliver that message.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, just that it would be preferable. Ultimately, the decision is theirs to do what they wish, but we were on the verge of enforcement and it would be preferable if we had somebody who was already in the chair knowing what the plan was so that we could move forward because it was literally the 16th, which is on the Wednesday. We were full blown going into the plan and to stop that and knowing that the weekend was coming, we had -- that plan was originally supposed to be a four-day engagement plan into enforcement, but because we had a late start on it, we only had two or three days before the weekend was coming, so time was not on our side.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Right. So the message makes sense and, as I say, the path you took, you took simply because it was a connection you knew already existed between Stewart and Kanallakos.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, exactly.
Gordon Cameron, Senior Counsel (POEC)
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Those are my questions for this panel.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. So thank you. So we’ll take the lunch break and come back at 2 o’clock.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is in recess until 2 o’clock. La commission est lever jusqu’à 14h.
Upon recessing at 1:04 p.m.
Upon resuming at 2:02 p.m.
The Registrar (POEC)
The Commission is reconvened. La Commission reprend.
COMM BRENDA LUCKI, Resumed
D/COMM MICHAEL DUHEME, Resumed
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Good afternoon. Bonne après-midi. Oh, okay. We’re ready to go then. Go ahead.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BRENDAN MILLER
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
For the record, my name is Brendan Miller. I’m counsel to Freedom Corp, which is the corporation and entity that represents the protestors that were in Ottawa in January and February of 2022. First, both of you, thank you for your service and thank you for testifying here today. So I just want to begin by doing sort of a housekeeping matter from yesterday, but I’m going to use you folks to do that. If I can bring up document SSM.CAN.00000283_Rel.0001? Okay. And you had said in your evidence-in- chief, Commissioner Lucki, that the RCMP in Ottawa also dealt with the safety, security, et cetera, for international diplomats from foreign countries? Is that fair? Okay. So yesterday we heard evidence from the Assistant Deputy Minister Security and Emergency Management at Global Affairs Canada and she testified that they were concerned about the security and safety of foreign diplomats in Ottawa. And this document is a February 4th email -- if we can scroll down, please -- from Bill McCrimmon, Deputy Director of Diplomatic Security and Outreach Programs with GAC, so Global Affairs Canada. Are you familiar with Mr. McCrimmon?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And if you just want to take a moment, I’ll read it to you, but in that email, he states, on February 4th: “The Office of Protocol has not been made aware officially of any significant concerns by the diplomatic community in the National Capital Region…”
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Could you just read a little slower, please?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah. “…linked to current ongoing demonstrations in downtown Ottawa. The RCMP Protective Operations Assessment Unit advised that there is no particular concern at this time for the diplomatic community. Some foreign missions have requested that the RCMP conduct security assessments, however, no specific concerns have been identified. Several missions have informally raised issues and inconveniences with the Chief of Protocol that have been affecting their operations related to limited access to buildings, blocked streets, noise impeding their work, and the odor of diesel fumes. The Office of Protocol (Diplomatic Security Liaison Unit) remains in contact with the RCMP and will advise of any significant concerns affecting [the] diplomatic missions.” And can you agree that of February 4th, that was the assessment also of your office?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would have to see our assessment, but if he’s saying that the RCMP said that ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And I take it that though this is February 4th, this situation, as described here, remained the same throughout the whole protest. Did it not?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I can’t speak for sure. I don’t have any of the documents.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And yesterday the Assistant Deputy Minister, she couldn’t give us any other information other than a blanket statement with no evidence or information. So is it fair to say that if there was actual evidence or information ---
Excuse me, I don’t think that that’s a fair description of the evidence that was provided by the witness yesterday.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. I’ll rephrase. So would you say then that you would have no more further information with respect to specifics than the Assistant Deputy Minister did yesterday?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don’t know what the Assistant Deputy Minister said yesterday, but what I can say is I would have to look at the RCMP threat assessment documents or any of the requests to know what the threat environment was throughout the convoy, just to be fair.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. Now, Commissioner Lucki, I’m going to ask some pointed questions on the next following set. Now, Commissioner Lucki, can you agree that under the RCMP Act, it doesn’t provide sufficient independence from Political Executive and political interference from your office? Is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well I assume it does, but others don’t.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And you know that from your appointment as Commissioner, under section 5 of the RCMP Act, that appointment is what’s referred to “at pleasure”? You understand that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you understand that that means that the Governor in Council, on a recommendation from the Political Executive, the Prime Minister, Cabinet, can remove you at any time at will ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
--- without reason; right? And this is different than what’s referred to as an appointment of good behaviour? You understand what that is?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. Not intimately, but.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And an appointment of good behaviour, you at least understand requires actual grounds of misconduct to remove you? Kind of like a judge; right? You get that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And for example, I take it you’re aware of the former SNC Lavalin, Jody Wilson- Raybould scandal with respect to the Director of Public Prosecution Services of Canada? They -- that Public Prosecution Service’s Director, you’re aware that they’re appointed at good behaviour? They’re not subject to being removed at will? You’re aware of that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And you understand -- I understand you have an understanding of the SNC Lavalin, Jody Wilson-Raybould scandal though, do you not?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And the issue with that was is that the Political Executive trying to use Ms. Raybould-Wilson essentially tried to skirt the Act with respect to advising Prosecution Services on how to conduct themselves. Is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I guess.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I’m not intimately familiar.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And the problem with that was is that Act, you know that any direction from the Political Executive via the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, that seeks to compel the Director of Public Prosecution Services to do something, it has to be through the legislative process, and then whatever they direct them, has to be published in a gazette within six months. Are you aware of that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. And you agree that your Office of Commissioner has no such safeguards; does it?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you know that the common law in policing is that you, as Commissioner, and other chiefs of police throughout the country, and the common-law world, really, are to be 100 percent independent from the Political Executive?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And do you agree with me that the Political Executive ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would say though, we do get direction on the administration side of the policing, but not the operational side.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And you can agree with me that the Political Executive should not be placing undue pressure on you or directing you what to do with respect to policing, other than the administration part that you mentioned?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And it’s not -- it’s true, and I’m not trying to probe, but it’s public knowledge that previously, the Political Executive has asked you to do certain things in investigations, such as release information that could undermine an investigation? Do you remember that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
You’ll have to be more specific of what you’re referring to.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
You agree that happened when you were asked by federal Ministers to release the form of firearms the RCMP in Nova Scotia knew were used in the mass shooting while the investigation was ongoing? You remember?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
But what are you referring to specifically?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I’m referring to the issue with respect to releasing the forms of firearms for the purpose of furthering the legislation ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
There was no pressure to do that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And but the Minister asked you to do it?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. The Minister asked me if in fact the information about the firearms would be part of a media release.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And when ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
He didn’t ask me to put that in there.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And when it wasn’t, there’s the transcript and the recording with respect to that, that you had said to some of your colleagues, “Why couldn’t this have been done? The Minister asked for a small ask. Why wasn’t it done?”
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
That’s not the context in which that was taken.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. Now I take it that -- would you agree that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, both yourself and you, Deputy Commissioner, they tried to tell you what action to take during the protest; didn’t they?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Sorry, they asked us to what?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
They tried to tell you what actions to take in policing during the protest ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Absolutely not.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Did they not ask you -- they wanted you to take it over?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So the Clerk of the Privy council and you, Assistant Commissioner, did not have a phone call on February 3rd, 2022, recorded in your notes, where they said that “We need to take this over”?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, but saying it and doing it is two different things.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. Can I take you -- can we please bring up Document PB.NSC.CAN.00008073_Rel.0001? Okay. Now this is a copy of your notes, sir. There’s been a few -- there’s two copies of your notes. The one that my friends have been referring to in your summary statement, just so you’re aware, that’s Document 8073. This is the other set, or it's -- that was document 8074. There's another set and there's some highlighting that you've made in these notes and I'm going to take you to it. Beginning first we'll go right to the February 3rd note, which is on, my apologies, I believe it's 19. If we can go to page 19, please? All right. So begin at the top that says February 3rd. That's the note for the day.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
M'hm.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
If we can scroll down, just a second here. Just keep going. If I can just have a moment?
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Sure.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And, sir, just for your understanding, this was the record we found that was deposited over the weekend. That's why I'm having a little trouble navigating it. Okay. Great. There's actually a second one. It's on page 19, I believe. That's the Mins call. But we'll start with this one. And this is the Minister's call at -- if you can scroll up? Right, so 12:30. And that's the Minister's call and I take it that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness is on that call with you?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would have to check the minutes, but I just have Minister's call, normally it would be Minister Mendocino. Sometimes I'll -- right, and I see Blair a little further down. That's correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So and there it states, "Question, Mendocino's observations." And "non-policing response seeing way more" -- or seeing way -- can you tell me what that says?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Saying that, "way more traffic..." Can't make out the last word. Way more traffic.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And "does not seem to be a plan. Must start with enforcement."
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So he tells you that?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And then Bill Blair, of course, that's the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, he's the former Chief of Police of Toronto; is that correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think that's correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And he says, "[The] PM is increasingly concerned [about] how the City will deal with this." Is that right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
According to my notes, correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And so you agree that, you know, as a police officer, you're trained to take notes; right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you take notes of the conversations and investigations contemporaneously during an investigation?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And you write down relevant material matters that you want to remember later in time; right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Key points that I want to remember, brief up.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So it's fair to say that these things that you wrote down, this is what was said to you by those two Ministers; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And if we can scroll down to the next page, please? And this was already put in the other set of notes, but there I see that Minister Mendocino, he says to you that his colleagues feel unsafe going to the Hill. They feel -- is that harassed, or what ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
--- does that say?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Feel harassed. Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Short-hand written.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah, and then what is it the second ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
"Concern of Ottawa central citizens essential care..."
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
"Counter Protest".
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
"...Counter Protest".
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. Okay. So if we can keep scrolling down -- actually, I think I understand why I had it wrong the date I had with respect to when you had the meeting with the Clerk of the Privy Council. It's actually the 9th. So I'm going to take you down to February 9th. Let me just find that there. And that's 41, page 41. Yeah, so at the top there you see that's the date, the 9th, and it says, "Call with clerk".
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
M'hm.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
0800. And that's the clerk of the Privy Council; is that correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would assume so.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And they -- you were there, "Flush[ing] out [...] financial[s] financial compensation, employee's business [and] PS" Are you referring there as Peter Sloly or Public Safety?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Let me just read it here. I'm not quite sure if that was Public Safety or Peter Sloly.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Well, it says ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm guessing if it was the clerk, it's because it's Public Safety.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So "feels organized". What's that word right after the period?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Ambassador Bridge.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
"Ambassador Bridge". Want to just read it out for me?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
"Feel[...] organized [...] Ambassador Bridge stretched OPP incremental success OPS working at incremental very small things Chief 48 [to] 76 hours to gather the troops."
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So at the time, at least on February 9th, I take it that you thought the OPS was doing an okay job; is that fair?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Remind me of that date?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
That's February 9th.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm not necessarily that they were doing a good job.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. But they were making incremental ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, that's what we're being shared.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
But still, it was difficult to understand what those incremental gains were, were very small things that were done.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And the clerk responded to you that, "We need to take this over, do they know what this means"
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, and I'm not quite sure. There was probably other people on the line and I just said the clerk said we need to take this over. I'm not necessarily speaking ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Rarely do I brief the clerk alone. "We need to take this over, do they know what this means" And, again, I think there's a lack of understanding of how it works when you look in that jurisdiction when a comment like that is made, just like when ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. Right. But the Clerk of the Privy Council is the highest ranking civil servant in the entire federal apparatus; right? They're ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Right.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
--- the equivalent in provinces as what's called the DM, the Deputy Minister. She answers to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone; right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
My understanding.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And so on February 9, she's telling you that the federal government and yourselves, the RCMP, have to take over.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And then we'll scroll back up to the top, if I can. I'm just going to go through this in order. If we could go to page 11? So if you can scroll down there? And this is another briefing to the Ministers; is that right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I see Minister's brief 1300 hours 3 points, yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Is that not what you're informing them, a police operational plan?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I am -- they are being briefed on discussions that we've been having with OPS or that OPS would share with us. So one of the concerns the Commissioner said earlier, how is this going to end? When it's going to end was less frequently. For anything we had on the planning side, we would brief up to the Ministers to inform them that there is something that we don't always have access to, but there's discussions that -- there's plans ongoing.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And is it not fair to say that throughout this protest, that the political executive and the executive branch of the federal government were asking you for operational plans and even asking you to give the operational plans of the OPS to them?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So I will defer to the Commissioner on this one, but my dealings with the Deputy Ministers and the Ministers, never once did they ask for the operational plan.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
They -- we kept them updated on the work that's being done. Commissioner, I'm not quite sure if you need to add?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
We were never asked to give any operational plans. We did brief generally that there was a plan, but we never went into the -- I didn't get briefed on the plan until February 10th I think it was, or February 11th, but we didn't ever give them ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- they had never asked for the plan.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And can I take you down now to page 25. And if we can just go to the top of page 25, the first thing. What meeting is this, "Pre meet SBE"?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
What date is that?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
This is from the 5th.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay. So it's: "Pre meet SSE. Assistance [with] Alberta." Probably key things that we had looked at for the pre meet with SSE.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm not sure if it was internally or with the deputy ministers, I'm not sure.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And if we can just scroll down to where it starts with OPP. And it states here: "OPP offered [its] legal expert worked Ipperwash hearing that the OPS is priority for political reasons." So is that the offer from OPP? Did they offer the RCMP legal counsel because of political interference concerns they had?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, not all. What that as is trying to muster the people together that had the expertise, that had the knowledge, that have worked on several key incidents, and in this case is the result of what came out of the Ipperwash Inquiry to help them.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And that's to help the RCMP?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, it is to help the OPS, the Ottawa Police Service.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. So ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
We were an assistance to Ottawa Police Service.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And so the OPP had relayed to you that they had concerns with political interference.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I'm not quite sure why I put the "pivoting for political reasons", I'm not quite sure why I put it there.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Well, the Ipperwash proceeding was about that partly, and it's like one of the main things, and as I understand it, one of the main reasons that the political executive in Ontario wouldn't get involved in this matter because it was against the principles set down in Ipperwash and police independence. So the OPP is offering legal experts to deal with police independence, and so why would they do that if they didn't have a concern with political interference, sir?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So I'm not aware, fully aware of the Ipperwash. I didn't read the report. And what I can say is that what was offered there from the OPP was just assistance with their person who worked on the Ipperwash Inquiry for lessons learned. That's all I can say. I can't go in for because it was political reasons. All I know is they were offering up resources for -- to assist.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're over your time already, so ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Sir, there's -- there is -- this is 113 pages of notes. I would like a little bit of extra time. These notes were not dealt with in the statement of the witness because there's a different set than the ones that the Commission had dealt with, which is 8074. These were not uploaded or provided to the parties until Remembrance Day, and we found them last night.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Well ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And I understand the Commission wasn't able, in my view, to deal with these issues only because they were using another set of notes. And these notes are a contemporaneous outline and timeline of this witness's evidence of what happened. They are extraordinarily relevant material, and I would ask leave to be able to finish the examination.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
They are the same notes, I believe as the -- every set of notes.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
They're not.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
There is just a bit of highlighting, but it's the same text as I understand it. But in any event, there are 16 other people who want to question this panel, and it's a matter of organising your exam. The ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Sure.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- I must say I didn't interpret when you were examining about the proceedings in Nova Scotia, but ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
--- that was not exactly relevant for this hearing.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. If I could take -- then if I could ask this, I'll finish up. If we could go to page 38 of this document. And so this is another meeting. If we can scroll down. And it says "12:35, M3". I take it that's Marco Mendicino, that's the Minister you're calling M3?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And there, he's discussing about changing the posture when it comes to provincial engagement and what OPP can contribute, and then Blair goes on that it doesn't show how the Chief will -- essentially, based on not having a plan, in his opinion the Chief is not going -- the Chief of the OPS is not going to get the resources that he requires from the province. Is that fair?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Can you scroll up before that, before Minister Blair -- Minister Mendicino? Okay. And the question, sorry?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So is he saying there to you that the plan from OPS, it is such that the Chief will not receive the resources he needs from other Ontario Police Services, that's what he tells you?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. And if we can scroll down to the next page, please? Who is the individual right there with Seamus, it says: "Concentrated effort to make this country look bad. Start to mid-terms." Who is that? Who is Seamus?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That would be Minister O'Regan.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Minister O'Regan, okay. So he tells you that, I take it, that the convoy and the protesters are a concentrated effort to make the country look bad?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's what I wrote down on the comments that were made, yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And I'm almost finished, sir. If we could please go down to page 45, please. And scroll down. And there, you highlight that the: "President will be calling the PM. Pressure to seek additional resources." Is that -- who relayed that to you?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That was in a call -- the pressure to release additional resources, that's something that I put down, in a sense that it was in relation to the Windsor bridge where there was concerns with the duration of the blockade, and I just put down "seek additional resources" ready to give the assistance required for it.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And then just to page 49, please. If we can scroll down. So this is the meeting from the 10th of February with the Minister's briefing. Again, that's the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. And I take it that the Minister of Public Safety states to you that the intel they're getting is not sufficiently and timely -- is not sufficient or timely, and to stop the protests and setting this up. "View, what is the plan?" And "Different for convoy" -- can you read that last sentence there?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
"Different phases coming to the realization that [we're] not responding fast enough." And what Minister Mendicino was alluding to is we had these slow rolls, more specifically in the Province of Ontario, that, without having the right information, they were able to set up before we even knew that they were going to do so.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And then Minister Blair canvasses you: "Question if exercise some jurisdictional change..." Is that speaking to the policing, you're taking on a role; is that fair?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I am not -- it doesn't ring a bell.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And if we can scroll down, then, just to the next page. And this is the intel overview? Is this your words here or is it somebody else's?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Can you just go up for a sec? That would be from someone else.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And is it from -- it says OPP on the side. Would that -- would it be fair to say that's Commissioner Morris?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That would've been the meeting, I wrote down OPP and OACP, a meeting that -- I believe it was a meeting with the -- that was chaired by the Commissioner of the OPP with representatives of the Ontario Association Chiefs of Police Association.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. And was there anyone from the federal government at that meeting?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Other than the RCMP was present, I'm not aware of anyone else.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And the intelligence that Commissioner Morris provided you there is similar to what he's testified about before this Commission, was that these were normal people and they were essentially resentment to the Trudeau government for COVID measures and multiple groups, et cetera; right?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And -- so can I take you down to, this is February 11th.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay, you're going to have to wrap up. I've been ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So I will go, then, right to -- if we can go to page, the one with the -- I believe it's the 13th. You actually had notes of the IRG meetings, 65. If we go to 65, please. Well, 64 first. And there Minister Blair "discusses throwing Ottawa under the bus". That was your note?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That was my note, correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
All right. And I take it when you're saying Ottawa, he's talking about the Ottawa Police Service; is that fair? It's not the City of Ottawa?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So his plan on that date is he's intending to throw Ottawa under the bus, being the OPS for any failures that have been dealt with, with respect to policing; is that fair?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
He could have made a comment during the meeting saying that he was not satisfied with the work that's been done by Ottawa Police Service.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay. And then can I just take you to ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Most of these notes are not word for word what was said. Sometimes ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- just a quick recap of ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And if I can take you up to page 62, please? And there you wrote "Comment[...] PM". I take it that that's the Prime Minister? And it says, "Regarding RCMP they haven't done anything."
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that was in reference to the overall blockades that were taken across -- that was going on across the country. There was some -- they were not displeased, but did not understand the flow -- speed and flow and what it takes when you're dealing with a demo ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- and that came across that they were not happy with how we were handling the different demos.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And this will be the last note. So page 67, please. And this is from the 14th at 9 o'clock. This is the National Security Intelligence Advisor that you're meeting with, I take it?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's correct.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And that's Jody Thomas?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
At the time, yes, it was Jody Thomas.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And I take it there that, for whatever reason, you're recording what she's saying. And there on one of the points, "measures put[...] out draconian. They will turn to us. Everyone is using their authority that's been given. RCMP taking advantage of authority." What was that about?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I'm not quite sure what I meant by that, to tell you the truth. Measures putting out.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And from the -- and just for you, Commissioner Lucki, in ending this, it is a fact that in the ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Excuse me. You're not giving the witness a chance to read the notes. He said he's not sure what it says and he's trying to read it and you're moving onto something else.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. So ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
If you're going to ask the ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I can ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- witness questions, then let him have a chance to read it ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I can wait.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- please.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
I can wait. Go ahead.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, no, I don't have any more comments on that. I'm reading it and I ---
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Yeah. Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- I'm not quite sure what it was meant.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
That's how I understood the evidence as well. So, Commissioner Lucki, you were present for both the February 13th IRG as well as the February 14th Cabinet meeting?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I think there was -- the Cabinet meeting was on the 13th.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
And -- well, yeah, and so the IRG meeting, they -- according to the text messages and the messages that we've reviewed, they never even asked you to speak?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not on the -- definitely not at the Cabinet meeting and I don't -- what I did do -- I don't think I spoke at either. I thought I did because I had speaking notes, but I did brief the Minister before that meeting.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And the Minister never asked you what your opinion was with respect to whether or not there was a Section 2 CSIS Act security threat; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
In respect to what?
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Whether or not there was a threat under Section 2 as defined in the CSIS Act, if there was a threat to the security of Canada?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, he would have to ask CSIS that.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Right. And CSIS, you're aware, told him that there wasn't?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
That's what I've been told.
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
So if ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're going to have to -- -
Brendan Miller, Counsel (Freedom Corp / Convoy Organizers)
Thank you. Those are my questions.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Thanks. Next is the Ontario Provincial Police.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CHRISTOPHER DIANA
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Good afternoon, Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. My name is Chris Diana. I'm Counsel for the OPP. We've heard some evidence from Commissioner Carrique that, Commissioner, he worked very closely with you throughout the convoy time period; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And we've seen some of the text exchanges between you and him. So is it fair to say that you either spoke with him or texted with him pretty much every day during the course of this event?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Very often, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And it's fair to say that you worked together to help support former Chief Sloly in trying to manage the Ottawa event; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And in particular, Commissioner Carrique had probably more kind of one-on-one dealings with Chief Sloly than you did; is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And ultimately, your mutual cooperation with Commissioner Carrique helped lead to the development of the integrated planning team; is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Where both provided subject matter experts to make sure that there was a way to resolve the Ottawa occupation; is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that was our goal.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Now I believe it's in your -- the institutional report that at no point did you ever ask for the invocation of the Emergencies Act; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
But you did -- you were asked though what tools would be useful; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
So we've already seen that document, but I want to bring it up again. So if we can look at PB.NSC.CAN.00003256, please? All right. Now we've seen this already today. If we can scroll to the bottom and see what the genesis of this was, it's an email from Mike Jones, who I understand is the Chief of Staff for Minister Mendocino; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And this is sent to you February 13th at 7:25 p.m. And there's a section that's blacked out there. I'm not entirely sure why. The reason for the redaction is not entirely made clear, but my understanding is that you were asked to speak about two things. You were asked to give some information on what tools would be useful and you were also asked questions about critical infrastructure; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I believe so.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And as you can see, obviously, there's a -- timing was important here because as it says, "quick follow ups before Cabinet". Now what was your understanding of when that Cabinet meeting would take place?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, 7:25 p.m., I thought -- I'm sure -- I think the Cabinet meeting was at night so ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Sorry, I didn't -- can't hear you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think that Cabinet meeting was that night, so I'm not sure, I thought it would have already been in progress or obviously it wasn't. I'm not sure what time the Cabinet meeting was that day.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Yeah, but regardless, your understanding was that this was a very time-sensitive request; is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Everything was time sensitive, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Sure. So if we can scroll to the top, we'll see that you responded, I guess 12:47 a.m., so approximately 5 hours later; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I have the -- I'm not sure how those ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
This is ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- times work.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
--- this is one of those cases where you need to subtract five.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Subtract five, yeah.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Oh, thank you. So ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I was just going to say I'm never up past 10 o'clock so ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
I had figured ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- surprised I would have responded.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- I had figured that issue out for the text messages, but, okay, so that applies to this as well then for the -- if we scroll to the bottom? I just want to make sure I'm clear on the time too ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- but that says 7:25 p.m. Is that actually 7:25 p.m. or is it my time?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
Yes, it's only where it has the plus 0000 that you have to ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
So in the same email exchange, you've got two different ways to figure out ---
Donnaree Nygard, Counsel (GC)
It's usually just the top email you have to do it on.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. Okay. Well, thank you. That's very complicated. All right. So then let's go to the top. So the email was sent from Mike Jones 7:25 and your response is at 7:47 then. Would that be -- you responded almost right away?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Right away, yeah.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Okay. So I take it that in that time period, you clearly wouldn't have had an opportunity to consult with other law enforcement agencies about what tools might be useful; is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, we had already consulted within our organization to the commanding officers. I'm not sure if we were able to consult outside of the RCMP because of Cabinet confidence.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Okay. Well, I'm going to get to that in a moment.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
But let's backtrack a little bit because I want to ask about the initial request from Mike Jones. You were being asked for advice on what tools would be useful. Was it your sense when you received that email, and either from that email or from conversations you had around the same time, that they were waiting on your advice on these issues, or was it your sense that they'd already made up their mind that they were going to invoke it?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm not sure what they were thinking. But just given the time, it was very quick turnaround. I would not have put that together off the top of my head. I would have got that information, that information was already established. And if you look, it's quite detailed. I wouldn't have just been typing that off the top of my head. I would have got it from somebody. And the fact that it was so quickly afterwards, I think that information was already in the queue somewhere else.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Yeah. I wanted to ask about that because I haven’t -- there are a lot of documents, thousands of documents, and maybe I’ve missed it, but do you recall how that information came to you?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
This would’ve come through my people, probably I would’ve tasked that through to D/Comm. Mike Duheme. They would’ve gone to the -- especially the commanding officers in BC, Alberta, and Manitoba, where three of the big protests in our jurisdiction were, because they would have -- they were dealing with the protest, and we wanted to know what authorities might be useful if they did invoke the Act.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. Now, we’ve heard from Comm. Carrique, and he was very clear in his evidence, that at no point that anyone from the RCMP reach out to him to ask him for his advice ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- on what tools would be useful; and you have no reason to dispute that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I was actually kind of surprised because in my mind I thought that we had, but obviously if he says that, then we probably didn’t.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. And so -- and he said it very clearly, I can bring up the transcript ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- if you wish, but ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, no, I’m ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And certainly, there’s no documentary evidence to suggest that you ever consulted with him. You would agree, I take it, that because the OPP was involved kind of as a lead in Windsor, they were very involved in leading the integrated planning team in Ottawa. There were issues all throughout Ontario that the OPP had an important interest in what tools would be made available to it; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Absolutely.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And that in retrospect would you agree that it would have been a good idea to have consulted with Comm. Carrique so he could have given you his opinion on what may have been helpful?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
And like I said, I didn’t -- if I did not, obviously, according to Comm. Carrique, consult with him, but I -- in my mind, I thought there was consultation done with OPP and OPS. Not at my level, because I wasn’t doing the consultation in my own organization; some other people were doing that. But I assumed, wrongly, obviously, that when I asked for consultation with the various agencies, that that was -- that they were included in that, unless we weren’t allowed to do that.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Yeah. And the reason I find it odd is because, you know, you would communicate with him by text, by phone call; you could’ve simply just picked up the phone and said, ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Absolutely.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- “Oh Tom, I just got this email. You know, keep it on the downlow, but -- because we don’t -- because there are confidences involved here, but are there any tools that the OPP would find useful here?”
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I assumed this list was - - was the consultation of police. That’s -- honestly, I thought this list, where it came through my -- obviously my chain of command, but I assumed that that was part and parcel of consultation.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. So somewhere there was a breakdown in communication; OPP should have been consulted but they weren’t.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Unless there was reasons why they couldn’t, I’m not sure.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Okay. And I know that, whether it was you or the Deputy, ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think the Deputy.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- had mentioned there were two possible factors, one was timing. But, of course, that could’ve been done very quickly with your relationship with the Commissioner; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And the other issue was matter of confidence, but we all know when policing that confidential information between police services is shared. And I take it that you would’ve trusted Comm. Carrique enough to have that conversation with him; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
It depends. Like, Cabinet confidence is quite -- like, policing information is one thing, but -- because it’s our information, so I can say that I can share that. But when it’s not my information, I’m not at liberty to share.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. But you could’ve done it another way. You could’ve said, “Commissioner there’s some consideration about the Emergencies Act,...” ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, there’s probably ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- “...and so what are your...” -- and so I don’t -- because you had mentioned the Emergencies Act several days before. So you could have said that as a hypothetical, “If Cabinet was to invoke the EA, or are there any tools that would be useful?” You could have done that, right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I absolutely could have, except I might be breaching Cabinet confidence so I don’t know if I would have.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Okay. But you referenced Emergencies Act possibility -- I forget the day, maybe it was February 5th, and that ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. And back then I called it the Emergency Measures Act. I didn’t even know what it was.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. Now, I might circle back to this. I want to make sure I don’t run out of time, make sure I get a couple of my points in here. I’d like to go to towing, ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- very briefly. And I’ve heard your evidence that you weren’t directly involved in that aspect. But I think, you know, there’s been some back and forth and some question, but there’s a document that I think needs to go into the record that I need to put to you, that I think will help clarify the issue. Do you know the name Sgt. Kirk Richardson from the OPP?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. He was -- and we’ve heard from Carson Pardy that he was one of the subject matter experts on the integrated planning team who was responsible for towing. If you can, Clerk -- Mr. Clerk, put up the document PB.NSC.CAN.00005777? All right. So you can see that there’s an email exchange here between some folks in the RCMP, Kelly Bradshaw. Deputy Commissioner, do you know who Kelly Bradshaw is?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. Oh.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, Kelly Bradshaw was an RCMP member responsible for Financial Crime Unit.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And I believe, there’s already been reference to Mark Flynn. If you could scroll down please, so we get the context of this email exchange? Further down. All right. So stop there. You’ll see Kelly Bradshaw, and this is to the -- an email to Kirk Richardson from the OPP: “Hi Kirk,...I am being asked the following question: Did OPP use [Emergencies Act] on tow companies yesterday in Ottawa?” So if you can scroll up, for the response, and this is from the subject matter expert that was dealing with this, and you can see his response on February 20th. He writes: “Hello. The tow contractors used for the operations to clear the protest areas were approached to see if they would provide service. The heavy tow providers (two companies) both are contractors with the...(MTO)....The light duty tows were arranged by Ottawa Police I am not sure what the arrangements were related to costs. I do not believe the EO was used to make them tow but it was referenced in relation to protection and compensation if damage occurred related to the protest.” Now, I take it you wouldn’t have any information to contradict that from the subject matter expert?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
This is the first I’ve seen this information.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. And you have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I can’t refute it or accept it; I have no idea. I’ve never seen this information.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Okay. That’s fine. Can we -- I want to take you to your witness summary, please. And the reference for that is -- I have it written somewhere, if we can go to the RCMP witness summary, which is WTS69, and go to page 24. And again, this is just another loose end that I want to tie up because it’s important to have all the facts before the Tribunal. You’ll note that there’s a reference to the theft of about -- approximately 3,400 firearms from Peterborough area; do you remember that incident?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Now, your witness summary doesn’t make a reference to the fact that those firearms were recovered about two days later. You will recall that; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And so I think it’s just important for the record that we hear acknowledgment that while that was a significant -- that was a matter of significant concern at the time, it was resolved within two days; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And that, in fact, you told the in -- and I’m not going to bring the minutes up, unless you want to see them, but because it was an important issue, you made sure that you told the incident response group the next day that the guns had been recovered; do you remember that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. I believe so, yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Because you did not want to leave the mistaken impression that there were ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Guns ---
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
--- 3,000-odd guns out there.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- out there.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
And so that was important to make sure you cleared that up; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
Right. It wasn’t in your witness summary, the conclusion; I wanted to make sure that was on the record. Now, if I can go to -- going back to the consultation piece, if -- I think I may have a few more minutes yet.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
One minute, as the way I have the count, but sorry...
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
If we can go to page 22, second paragraph. Next paragraph down. Okay. So it says, “Commissioner Lucki sought input...and...other police agencies....” Here you talk about seeking input from different divisions, and you’ve spoken with that already. And one of the question -- and a question that I really wanted to ask is that when you consider the extraordinary nature of the Emergencies Act, do you agree that it would be useful to keep a written consultation record so that when we go back and look at how we use the emergency powers, we’re able to identify who we spoke to, what -- and what they said about what tools would be useful? Do you agree that should be kind of clearly set out in writing so we can keep a record?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
There was a thousand things going on that we could’ve kept record of, absolutely. You can never -- I guess you can never over record, but it wasn’t kept.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
No, but I mean I think that it’s -- and I ask the question because it’s not entirely clear who was consulted, when they were consulted, and what they were said. And again, for future reference, it would be helpful, wouldn’t it, to have that? Because we have a consultation report filed by Government of Canada that talks about consultation with the political leaders, but what I’m putting to you is it would also be helpful to have that kind of record on law enforcement consultation?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I would agree it would be helpful.
Christopher Diana, Counsel (ON-OPP)
All right. Thank you. I appreciate your time.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay. Next I’d like to call on the Ottawa Police Service, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVID MIGICOVSKY
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Good morning, or good afternoon, Commissioner Lucki, and Deputy Commissioner Duheme. My name is David Migicovsky and I’m a lawyer with the Ottawa Police Service. Commissioner, if I can start with you, you were on record as saying that you do not view the invocation of the Emergencies Act as a failure of policing. Is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Say that again?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
That you’re on record as saying, “I do not view the invocation of the Emergencies Act as a failure of policing”?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. I agree, if I -- yeah.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yeah. You’ll agree with that. And that’s because, as I understand it, this was a very unique and fluid situation and what happened in Ottawa was very different from what was seen across the country; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, it was the first of its kind.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I also understand, Commissioner, that you are a trained POU commander?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, dated, but yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And although you have a very lengthy history in law enforcement, I think this was the first time you saw a protest such as this one as well?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Is that right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
In one of your key message updates, and I won’t turn it up, but I don’t think it’s contentious, but it was your February 3rd key message update. You talked about the convoys returning for the weekend, which we know was a phenomena that occurred, and there was a discussion of farm equipment. And you said at the time, “Look, there’s no bar on farm equipment from coming into the city,” and that there had been convoys in the past with farm equipment downtown in Ottawa in the past; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Deputy Duheme, I understand that the NRCC -- or the NCRCC, I apologize, was stood up for this event; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, it was stood up around January 28th, I believe.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the RCMP was part of that NCRCC?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct. The RCMP and many other partners.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And it is used as a hub for intelligence that goes on for the event?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not just intelligence. It’s a coordination -- it’s a command centre that ensures coordination with different partners throughout the table. As I mentioned earlier, you could have Ottawa City Transport that’s there, paramedics, fire department, Service de Police de Gatineau, Sûreté du Québec, and other partners that are there so that’s a coordinated approach every time there’s an action taken on the scene.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
But included within that, I believe, was a hub for intelligence?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that’s correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Commissioner Lucki, my understanding is that the RCMP followed the convoys across the country and in fact provided on the ground information to the OPP when the convoy crossed from Manitoba into Ontario?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And that information then was funneled through a JIG, a Joint Intelligence Group?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, or CIG. I can’t remember which one.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And Deputy Duheme, you indicated, I believe, in your witness statement, that the OPS had the same intelligence as the RCMP; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Through our Combined Intelligence Group. That’s my understanding.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I believe you also indicated, Deputy, in your witness statement, that when it became clear that the convoy was coming to Ottawa, police agencies began to share intelligence, including that through Project Hendon; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. And I think the sharing started actually before that, but I believe it started before that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Commissioner, you were -- and both of you, I guess, were part of a panel that was interviewed by the Commission, and I think there were several of your colleagues that joined you, Deputy Commissioner MacDonald, Deputy Commissioner Zablocki, Deputy Commissioner Brennan, and Liam Price, the Director General; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And there was a discussion with your colleagues, I see in that summary, about the social media messaging of the convoy and the statement to the effect that there was some social media messaging saying that they wouldn’t leave until the mandates were lifted, and Deputy commissioner Brennan stated that the RCMP had concerns about the reliability of that messaging because many protest groups use social media messaging as a diversion. And you didn’t disagree with that; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, his opinion on that, I had no opinion on that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you didn’t disagree when he said that; did you?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I was agnostic.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
In fact, you said, in response, that there were different groups here as part of the convoy and they were not all on the same page; ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
--- correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I believe, Commissioner Lucki and Deputy Commissioner Duheme, you both expected, you indicated in the witness summary, that some protestors might stay in Ottawa until the Monday, January 31st, which is when Parliament was returning to session; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And initially, and I can take you to the document if it’s necessary, but there was a PCO call on January -- actually, it might be helpful if we turn up the document. Mr. Clerk, it is SSM.CAN.NSC.00002591. And if we could please go to the first page? And if you’ll see the third bullet under “4 lanes of work”, “Peaceful Event”. Do you see that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And if you -- sorry, actually, if you go down to the third large bullet, where it says “Non-threat”? Just underneath that. Yes. “Sgt at Arms, PPS, OPS, RCMP, all seeing peaceful event, no indications otherwise but watching the chatter”. Correct? And that reflects what you knew at the time?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don’t know what date this is referring to.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. If we can go up to the top? I believe it was January 27th.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, the convoy hadn’t even arrived yet.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. Oh, okay. In our events. Yeah. As it was crossing. Yes.
David Shiroky, Counsel (GC)
Apologies. David Shiroky, Government of Canada. Again, it’s the minus five hours thing. So I think we’re on the 26th in the evening.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Thank you. Yeah, so it’s -- again, if we can just scroll down again? And if we can go to the second page? So this would be the evening of the 26th. So if we can go to page 2? The first bullet you’ll see just at the top: “Blocking of intersections - protestors say they’re not going to do that, but it’s a lot of cars” Which is what you understood at the time as well? They were not planning to block intersections?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Where is this?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I’m sorry?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
This is in Ottawa?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Yes.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Because they’re not even in Ottawa yet.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I’m sorry?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Like, from what I understand is that January 28th, the convoy ---
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
That’s correct. But based on what you knew on the 26th in the evening, you understood that they were not planning on blocking intersections?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
In Ottawa?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Correct.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
That I don’t know. But if it’s ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Can I just add something here, sir? This is the first time I’ve seen the document.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I’ve never seen this document.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don’t know who participated in the calls. I understand reading through the lines the RCMP -- but this is the very first time I’ve seen this document.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Are you disagreeing with it or you simply don’t know?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I wasn’t there, and I don’t want to question what’s in there, but I wasn’t there. Some of the things that I see, I can validate it through other intel that I had from other -- but I don’t even know who the representatives of the RCMP was on this call.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. You have no information to suggest at that point in time that the protestors were planning to block intersections? Is that fair?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Not at that time.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Right. Thank you very much. And I believe, again I can turn up the document, Commissioner, but I understand that as of just a couple days before the demonstration, there was some discussion at the RCMP about it was unknown how long they were saying, but there was some social media saying that they might stay until January 31st, which would be the Monday when Parliament was supposed to resume session; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Again, I wasn’t intimate -- like I wasn’t into the details of the intelligence and maybe D/Commissioner Duheme would be better suited to answer that.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I can show you the document if you want, Deputy, unless you’re ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, no. I do recall seeing documents saying that they were planning to stay until the 31st.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
And there’s another document that I’m not quite sure if it’s before they arrived or after they arrived that they didn’t -- they didn’t want to leave unless they met with the Prime Minister, so I’m not quite sure if it was before they arrived or after they arrived.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. So just for the records, it’s PB.NSC.CAN00008069, which I believe was the 25th, which is a -- or indicated that some social media were saying that they would stay until January 31st. And if you -- you will see if you go to the bottom of this email -- you’ll have to go to the third page and then -- just so you can see what it is. Yeah. So you’ll see it’s something that was sent to you, “Hi, Brenda. He just shot me these questions.” And then if we go above it, you’ll see you asked for some bullet points, and you’ll see, “Anything you can give me would be great.” And then you get some information in response. So this is January 28th.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Okay.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so you’ll see question 3(a) at the bottom was “Latest on what if scenarios”. “What if truckers leave vehicles parked on Wellington beyond Saturday?” and a series of other questions you’re asked about, “What if it turns violent?”, et cetera. And so if you go up to the first page, you see the answers to those questions. So you’ll see -- sorry. If you could just go to 3(a) at the bottom, OPS -- I’m just on the third line: “OPS has reached out to the hotel industry in the NCR who have confirmed that accommodations are fully booked through the weekend but appear back to normal as of 22/01/31.” So as of the Monday; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And so OPS, it sounds like, was saying that they checked the hotels. Contrary to some other evidence that we’ve heard, they’re reporting that, in fact, the hotels are back to normal on Monday; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that’s the information we received.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And then if we look at the (c), if we go to the next page, in the event that the protests turn violent, then there’s a POU team available. The OPS has one. OPP has two POU teams. I believe Toronto was there. And some of the other municipal police services were there that weekend as well with the POU team in case; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And fortunately, those were not needed. And then if you go down to just below the redaction, we see that OPS and OPP PLT are continuing to work closely with the organizers of the event. And it says, “Collaboration between all security partners in the NCR remains strong.” And that would include the RCMP as one of the security partners; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Deputy Duheme, I know that on January 30th, if we could please turn to PB.NSC.CAN00000033, you’ll see on the January 30th intel update -- this is an RCMP update. “OPP PLT are now reporting -- have reported chatter that the end date of the event could be February 2nd”; correct? So that would be the Wednesday?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That’s correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
You would agree with me there were, obviously, very many trucks on the streets and some of them we know travelled great distances to get to Ottawa; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
That’s my understanding of the group that were in the downtown core.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And one of the things we’ve heard from various police witnesses and law enforcement officials in this inquiry is a certain -- a concern about taking actions which can inflame a crowd and cause danger and the need, sometimes, for police to show some restraint at the time. And that, as I understand it, is a standard practice in policing?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would say yes. Every situation is different, but there comes a point that you have to assess and reassess your positioning and plan, I should say.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. And so if I can ask you -- I just want to get your reaction to this. If we can call up PB.NSC.CAN00001154. And it’s page 7. Commissioner, I wonder if I might have an extra five minutes.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
I’ll give you a few minutes, but -- go ahead.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Thank you. And so if we can please go to page 7, the second- to-last bullet. I want to get your reaction. Open sources are -- this is -- did not occur, but open source reports are suggesting police are setting up roadblocks outside Ottawa and such reports seem to fuel some truckers’ agitation. And so you see that can cause -- you can see how something like that can fuel truckers’ aggression if they believe that; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah. Can I know what that document is, the entitlement of the -- the title and the date?
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
I’m just asking to just get your reaction to the statement.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, it could. A police action sometimes could generate a reaction.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Sure. And I also saw there was an email, and it’s ONT5099, from the provincial security advisor. And one of the things he noted at that time under his assessment, he referred to the possibility of police stopping trucks from entering the city and noted that that could result in increased support or participation for the convoy. Does that make sense to you as well, Deputy?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
It could, but it’s also speculative.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. You would agree with me that it could be a risk and it could inflame the crowd; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
It could like it could not inflame the crowd, so it’s one or the other.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
The RCMP, you told us, was part of INTERSECT and was also part of the NCRCC and, in that context, would have access to the OPS traffic plan; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, that’s where the coordination takes place.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you’re aware that the plans -- that the traffic plan and the instructions that were sent out to the convoy participants clearly showed that there would be some convoy staging areas on Wellington; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I did not see the plan as it was rolling in.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. You’re not disagreeing, though, that that information was available to the RCMP just as it was to the convoy organizers and it showed that there would be some staging of vehicles on Wellington; correct?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
What I will say is that when I was initially briefed on the file, I wasn’t aware of any stoppage in the downtown core, more of a slow roll. And if that’s changed over the course of negotiations with the organizers, I wasn’t made aware of it. But I will agree that any intel on the situation downtown would be shared at the -- under the NCRCC and the combined intelligence group.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. If I can just ask you now to go to PB.NSC.CAN.00002476. And just while that's being called up, Deputy Duheme, in your joint witness statement on page 10, the second last paragraph, you talked about a call on January 31st, where OPS stated that it wanted to launch aggressive enforcement between January -- between February 4th and 6th, and you felt that they didn't have the resources or the plans to support that. Do you recall that?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I recall a conversation, and it was reported to me, not that it was -- it was briefed to me by, I forget who, but they were intending on launching an operation on the weekend of the 4th, and the concern that was brought to my attention is that there doesn't seem to be a plan, no one was aware of what's going on, and there's no maintenance after -- there's no maintenance portion after you've cleared the area. That's what was reported to me.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And the concern about enforcement, I'll show you this document, is on February 9th, if we go to the second page, there is the -- there is -- actually, I guess if you start at the first page. So you'll see, just so that you can see where we are... Just if we could go up, please. Yeah. So you'll see under background: "...February 8th, RCMP were advised that the OPP was attending Ottawa to assist..." Then third bullet: "February 9, OPP...and RCMP Supt. Lue attended to OPS...to assist in the development of [a]...plan." And then the -- at one o'clock, at 1300, there was a concept document that was provided. And then if you scroll down, and then go to the following page. You'll see just at the top. And so this is again the concern about taking enforcement action when it may not be appropriate. And it says: "Continuing in the meeting, with less than 24hr notice to partners and against the advice from the RCMP and OPP, the OPS Chief announced that Enforcement action was to take place on Feb 10 beginning at 6:00." And then it set out what it was. And then current situation, you see that it was then delayed, there was no kinetic plan. And so under the analysis, we see RCMP expressing concern about it not being a viable plan. Do you remember that?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I do recall being briefed on that; correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And I guess ---
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're well over time now.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Thank you. I'll just finish off. I guess that concern about the absent -- about taking action before there's enough -- before there's a full plan and the absence of a plan was something that I continued to see, Deputy Duheme and Commissioner Lucki, in both of your notes where you throughout your key message reference there isn't a viable plan here up until the very end when the integrated cell becomes involved. Is that correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
We were not ever shared a plan, so I couldn't say if there was a plan or not.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Okay. Certainly you reported at your key message meetings, and I don't have time to turn it up, but the documents are in the record, that you reported that there was no plan that you were aware of and it was never shared with you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And you did as well, Deputy?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, correct.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
And it's in your notes as well?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
It is.
David Migicovsky, Counsel (Ott-OPS)
Thank you very much. I do have more questions, but I am out of time. Thank you very much.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Well over time. I gave you more than five, so you're -- you've done well. Next, we'll -- I'm calling on former Chief Sloly's counsel, who generously gave up part of his time.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TOM CURRY
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes. That, Commissioner Lucki, Deputy Commissioner, that is this Commissioner's warning that I'm not getting that back. So I'm Tom Curry. Let's see if we can -- what we can do in the 15 minutes that we have together. This was a difficult problem?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, I agree.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
More difficult problem than either of you have faced in your policing careers, at least of this kind? You agree?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I agree.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Had a lot of difficult problems, but not this kind.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. This one is, well, we -- you've touched on it when you speak of the Emergencies Act or the -- its predecessor, the first time in your careers either of you where the Government of Canada has had resort to legislation of this kind, right, obviously?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Now, I want to speak for a moment about the circumstances that faced the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Police Service because you were both involved in among other jurisdictions in dealing with the problems that were here. The -- you had -- you knew Chief Sloly before this -- before he took this command; is that true?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, not very well, but we had occasion to meet, yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And did you know -- Deputy?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I didn't cross paths with ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- Chief Sloly.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Did you know, either of you, did you know of his work in the City of Toronto in the Toronto Police Service or internationally?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I heard of his work with the Toronto Police Service.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And like the two of you, he's -- he came to this role with a very long experience in policing. You knew that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he came also, you knew, presumably, just in watching the police services, he came with a change mandate.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
You knew that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I wasn't aware of his mandate when he arrived.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Commissioner, you knew that; yes?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And a change mandate that was fixed at least in part on issues that were challenges for the Ottawa Police Service in terms of racialized communities, community policing, and the kinds of things about which he was very experienced?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes. I didn't intimately know, but I knew that it touched on some of that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And because you've probably had enough of these kinds of challenges in your own command, that makes leading a police service an extra special challenge; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And in the circumstances in which Chief Sloly found himself, I think you've both touched on this, there was enormous pressure brought to bear upon him leading this service at the time of the convoy protest; correct? You observed that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I originally would say I can't imagine the pressure he was under, but I could, and he was under a lot of pressure to succeed.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes? And obviously, Deputy ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I agree.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- you saw that too?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, agreed.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Because he had the worst possible position if you think about. Every person in the country had an opinion about what he should be doing, first of all, some of those elected office holders. You reviewed with my friend, Mr. Miller, some of the notes that came to you through the federal cabinet. Cabinet ministers were themselves frustrated about what they thought was inaction by the Ottawa Police Service in the first few days; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And the provincial government felt similarly to your observation?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I think that was the general consensus.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And obviously, here in Ottawa, the elected officials, the Ottawa City Council, the Police Services Board, the residents similarly felt enormous frustration that their city had become the site of this particular protest against the federal government's mandates; right?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No doubt.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And it was also obvious, wasn't it, to -- at least to you as experts in policing that there were no solutions that could be had, at least within the resources of the Ottawa Police Service; right? It was overmatched?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Within the existing resources?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would say that's correct.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Commissioner? Obviously?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I -- I'm just thinking it through because I'm thinking from the beginning through the end of the convoy, depending on situations, but generally yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah. I mean, well they -- you can do the count. It took essentially a doubling of the -- more than doubling of the police -- or the entire police service to make this work, and it would have been obvious if the protesters, particularly because as you've described, it ebbed and flowed, and the protest grew and gathered momentum, the Ottawa Police Service did not -- simply did not have the human power to deal with a Public Order operation to move the protesters. Is that obviously true?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Again, I -- it depends on what part of the protest I look at because early on, depending on if there was a different plan, I don't -- I -- I'm just surmising. I just -- when you're asking me to say that, I don't know the makeup of the Ottawa Police Service.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. That's fine. Deputy, you knew that they didn't have the numbers?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Based on what was there on the weekends, the numbers of people that were there, I think is -- to me it was clear that they needed additional resources - --
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- based on the numbers we saw on the weekends.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And Chief Sloly identified that issue early on and put up his hand to ask for help; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, he requested resources.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And he requested them from the province, of course, and he requested them from the federal government through the -- to the RCMP obviously; yes?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And there was, you agree, a period of time where the province and the federal government were seemingly at odds about who should be the first port of call for resources; right? You knew that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I wasn't privy to that. I know at the ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yeah.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- beginning, the requests were coming directly to us, which was no issue, because that's how we operated. So it was no issue for those requests, but we don't have unlimited resources to keep providing resources unlimitedly.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And so they -- the resources that -- am I right though that the view that you had, or maybe it was the Minister had, was that the first port of call for the Ottawa Police Service should be the Ontario Provincial Police?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I don't think anybody thought that at the beginning. It wasn't unusual that we gave resources, and it was anything we could do to help. It was a big event coming to the city, so we weren't thinking in terms of that. It wasn't until maybe the second week that we -- that I was even privy to the order of affairs under the Ontario Provincial Police Act.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
So when the Chief identified and had the support of the community leaders to identify that there were approximately 1800 additional human resources required, then when that request was made, were steps taken immediately by RCMP to coordinate with the Ontario Provincial Police as to how that number of human resources could be mobilized to assist here in Ottawa?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, there was definitely discussions and to determine what did that mean. What did 1800 mean? I know there was a general overview in the letter, but we didn't know if it meant that, you know, 1200 were coming from Ontario, 600 -- we didn't know what that meant, so we had to get more clarity.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. And did you seek that clarity from the OPP?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I'm not sure who we sought the clarity. I know it was -- that's -- for us, to get the clarity was to look at the plan, what the plan showed ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- and what kind of resources they needed.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And I understand it wouldn't have been your job as the Commissioner to look at a plan. You never saw the plans that the OPS had; right? You, yourself?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I did get briefed on the final plan ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- only because it was integrated ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
13th.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- at that point. Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And, Deputy, you were also not -- it's not your role to paw through plans of the OPS; is that true?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I did see the last plan that went forward.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
At the gold command structure within the incident command response, did see the plan.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. So were you aware -- were you made aware by your own people that the Ontario -- that the Ottawa Police Service rather, had plans from the beginning to the end, including plans that Superintendent Lue of the RCMP used as part of the integrated planning process? Did you know that Superintendent Lue had built on the Ottawa Police Service plan or no?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, I'm not aware of that.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Commissioner, didn't know ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- that? Okay. So the idea that the OPS had plans, I'm not going to show you them in the time I have, would have been left to others in -- within your command who had that responsibility?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Fair?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Fair.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Now the -- of course, others have heard -- the Commissioner has heard evidence about what happened in Windsor, and obviously, the Windsor Ambassador Bridge blockade was a significant national security threat. Do you agree?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I wouldn't define it as a national ---
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- security threat.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. National security event?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. And when that occurred, am I right that both the province and the federal government joined hands and mobilized resources immediately to Windsor to help relieve the Windsor Police Service problem. You knew that?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Sorry, say that again?
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes, the federal government and the province agreed to mobilize resources to Windsor immediately to relieve that blockade?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Well, it wasn't really the federal government. It was the RCMP.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Can I just show you -- I'll just show you one thing, if I could, Mr. Registrar. SSM.CAN.6068, and then the suffix is REL_0001 and it should be page 2, just for your benefit, panel ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
And earlier you asked me if it was a national security event. It was an event. It wasn't an event of national security.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Okay. Others have had their opinions about that.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I just wondered where you were -- that's fine. So page 2, and just to orient you, this is a summary, a transcript of the -- of a call between the Prime Minister and the Premier concerning resources. And the Prime Minister makes a comment about the -- just scroll down. Maybe - - hold on just one second there, please.
The Clerk (POEC)
It's further down.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you. Yeah, there it is. Here it is. RCMP. Do you see it, second last paragraph, "RCMP told me..."
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don't.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"...they don't have jurisdiction and said they need to get asked and they need [something] in there."
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
"I told them to be prepared to respond to ask and if they need more resources we need to be there at whatever cost." Premier says, "I agree. I'll check with the solicitor general, [...] I understand they passed a regulation to have the RCMP act as local police. They did it for Ottawa, [...] I'll check to see if it applies to the whole province." I'm not sure what that last part is, but did you understand from the Prime Minister, or indirectly from the Government of Canada that the RCMP should do whatever is required to respond to the blockade in Windsor?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, they never came out and said that to us.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
And yet, the -- those resources were mobilized by -- RCMP resources were mobilized even though no plan had been developed by the Windsor Police Service or the OPP at the time you were asked and ---
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
So ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, we were told there was an enforcement plan by the OPP.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
All right.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Two things, sir. This here is -- we're not -- I'm not aware of any political discussion at that level. When we got the request to have RCMP's tactical support group to head down to Windsor, we were told that there was plan and they were going to initiate the plan the following day, I believe, or the two days, so we -- the request actually went directly into our folks who are in Toronto, and we mobilized a troop that was up here in Ottawa to get them down there to assist.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Right. But that's the point. You were told they were working on a plan. Nobody at the RCMP saw a plan. But you mobilized. And the suggestion is, surely you could have done so in Ottawa.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No, it's a completely different situation. This was 50 resources that we had within the province under the federal mandate. When we go outside the province and gather up 10 percent from each province, there's a lot of work that is done with that. There's a lot of requests that go with that. So when we're asked for -- when the number 1800 came up, that was when we said what kind of resources, how long do they need to be here. With the Windsor plan, OPP was in charge of all Public Order Teams, and they asked Windsor is a priority, can you move a Public Order Team from the RCMP there. So that was a -- it was a different dynamic.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. And I'm sure we all understand, I'm sure Canadians will understand why it takes more time to get resources from one coast to the other into Ottawa, but don't we also understand that they were needed here?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, it wasn't a question of what -- how much time it took. It's just a question of what day do they need to arrive? How long do they need to be here? Because we have to backfill those positions where they are. We have agreements under a contract with the provincial entity, so we have to make sure we respect those agreements. We can only take, like I said, 10 percent, so what kind of resources, how long are they going to be gone, when is the plan going to start, when is the suspected end date, because we have to account for rotation of resources. And rotation, when you're dealing with planes and trains, or -- however, it's a lot of logistics. So it's not as easy as us taking one of our Public Order teams that's based out of Toronto, that was temporarily deployed to Ottawa, to go to Windsor. It's two different scenarios.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Very quickly, can I just go to the issue of Chief Sloly and the plan that was the integrated plan. There has been a suggestion in this hearing from time to time that he delayed somehow the approval of the plan. Am I right that you understood that he had approved -- first things first. He didn't have to approve it, but suffice it to say that there was no question but that the plan had all the approvals that were required by the 12th of February in the afternoon?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. I was given information from Ottawa Police, the deputies, not -- I didn't create this information. When we got briefed on the plan on the Friday night, about February 11th, we were -- I believe Deputy Commissioner Bell [sic] was there, and he said, "We need to brief the Chief on this plan, and he needs to approve it." I said, "Great." Off they went. The next day, somebody followed up with them and said, "Okay, is the plan approved?" "No, we haven't." I don't think they briefed him. They might have briefed him later on on the 12th. When we asked about it, I was told on the 13th that, we were asking why aren't we starting the plan, and he said, "Because the Chief has not signed off on the plan." And I said, "Well, when is that going to happen?" I actually reached into Chief Sloly and said, "Are you going to sign off on the plan?", and he told me, "I don't need to sign off on the plan."
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Yes.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
So I was given erroneous information, obviously.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Got it. That's what I was just going to clarify. So whatever -- who told you that, by the time you reached the Chief directly, there was no issue about that. Is that fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, and that information was from members of the Ottawa Police Service, not somebody from the RCMP.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Understood. Can I just show you PB -- one of the things that my friend showed you from Commission Counsel, PB.NSC.CAN.8040, and it should be page 15. This was a document that you saw earlier. I just want to clarify because I think at that time you had confirmed you had the approval. Just scroll down I think. Just stop there. Yeah, perfect. So do you see at -- and I don't know if whether this is the actual time, I think it's minus five hours: "Integrated Planning Cell met with Chief Sloly and some of his team for a briefing on the Plan. He approved the plan however they are still working on blending their new Mission Statement and other aspects of the Ops Plan with a goal of [setting] it back..." Just scroll down, please. The modification, do you see Mark Flynn: "[T]he modification is simply at the high political element of the plan. Mission Statement." Other witnesses have told the Commissioner that was not -- that had nothing whatever to do with ---
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I don't even know what that sentence means.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
--- Chief Sloly. And then, Commissioner, I just have one last question.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
You're now three minutes over your time.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
I will be finished, then. Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
Okay, thank you.
Tom Curry, Counsel (Peter Sloly)
Thank you.
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Thank you.
Paul Rouleau, Commissioner (POEC)
CCLA, please?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. EWA KRAJEWSKA
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioner Lucki, and Deputy Commissioner Duheme. My name is Ewa Krajewska, and I am counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I'd like to start off first with respect to the consultation that the Chief of Staff of the Public Safety Minister, Mendicino, did with you, Commissioner, with respect to your requests for -- under the Emergencies Act. And this is document PB.NSC.CAN.00003256. It was up earlier where he emailed you and asked you what the RCMP may request, and you provided a list. And I just -- the document is up for your reference, but I just want to confirm that many of the requests that you made were restrictions on the right to public assembly; correct? That was kind of the -- those were the main suggestions that you were asking for Cabinet to consider?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think some of it also had to do with tow trucks and making sure that there were no children in the area, and...
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
That's correct, you're right. You also asked for tow trucks, and you also asked for cell phone disruption. And my understanding is that other than the cell phone disruption question all the others were put into place under the emergencies orders. Would that be fair?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I think so. Not maybe in the exact way we said it, but yes.
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
And you understood that when you were making these suggestions or providing this advice that the declaration of a state of emergency does not suspend the operation of the Charter; correct?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yes, correct.
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
And you understood that to the extent that any of these suggestions would limit any Charter rights, those limits had to be carefully tailored and not disproportionate to the objective of the measures?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
I would say yes. Those are complicated.
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
And Commissioner Lucki, you did not provide or the RCMP did not provide any suggestions with respect to the economic measures that were enacted?
Brenda Lucki, Comm (GC-RCMP)
No. We may have been consulted, our financial people may have been consulted on process-wise, but not -- I refer to Deputy Commissioner Duheme.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
Yeah, I think we might have been part of the consultation process. I'm not 100 percent certain.
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
So you may have been also consulted with respect to the economic measures that were enacted as well?
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
I believe we were ---
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
Okay.
Michael Duheme, D/Comm (GC-RCMP)
--- but I'm not 100 percent sure.
Ewa Krajewska, Counsel (CCLA)
And if I take you to the economic measures that were enacted and their i