The day before the federal government invoked the Emergency Act, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki had notes advising cabinet that other policing tools were in place and there was finally a workable plan to deal with the protests shutting down the capital, but he did not speak in two separate meetings. The nation’s top Mountie acknowledged the omission during hours of testimony at the inquest examining the use of the act on Tuesday, in which she could not recall key encounters during the protests. he said he did not understand the role the emergency law could play. and was unable to explain comments from meetings and text exchanges in which he participated. The federal government invoked emergency law on Feb. 14 to end anti-government protests over the anti-vaccine order that shut down Ottawa and several border crossings. The Public Order Emergency Committee, headed by Judge Paul Rouleau, is studying whether the unprecedented decision to activate the act was justified. CSIS said the convoy protests did not pose a threat to national security before invoking the emergency law Justin Trudeau rejected the idea of negotiating government policy during convoy protests, referred to as “armed rebellion” Commissioner Lucki testified alongside Deputy Commissioner Michael Duheme for nearly eight hours. Commissioner Lucki said the RCMP was repeatedly asked by the government if it could take over the police response to the protests in Ottawa, but her view was not an option. Evidence presented to the inquiry on Tuesday also shows that when the government decided to invoke the emergency law, the prime minister’s national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, believed the protests posed a “threat to democracy and the rule of law”. . However, the issue that dominated Commissioner Lucki’s questioning was why she did not make her views on the Emergency Act clear to Cabinet. At the time the government invoked sweeping powers, Commissioner Lucki was of the view that the police had “not yet exhausted all the tools available” through pre-existing legislation. That comment was included in notes she was prepared to present at a Feb. 13 incident response team meeting chaired by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a subsequent full cabinet meeting that afternoon, but never did. The same notes detail a comprehensive plan to end the protests that have locked down downtown Ottawa. Several police agencies jointly created the plan, including the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ottawa Police. The notes state that Commissioner Lucki and OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique supported the plan. “Did it occur to you that you should make sure the government knew your views on these points before they resorted to invoking the Emergency Act?” Commission lawyer Gordon Cameron asked Commissioner Luckey. “I guess in hindsight, yes, that might have been something important,” she replied. But he told the inquiry that senior government officials knew a plan was being drawn up for Ottawa and emailed Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, his chief of staff Mike Jones and Ms. Thomas to advise them of it. perspective before the full cabinet on the evening of February 13. However, the e-mail from Commissioner Lucki to Mr Mendicino and Ms Thomas shown to the committee on Tuesday shows that while she sent them talking points on her behalf, any reference to her reservations about the emergency law was removed. Despite not speaking at the Feb. 13 meetings, Commissioner Lucki attended both the incident meeting chaired by Mr. Trudeau and the full cabinet meeting, minutes show. Commissioner Lucki was not asked about the change in talking points in the investigation Tuesday and testified that eventually the powers granted under the federal emergency orders “ended up being useful.” Speaking to reporters after her testimony, she did not explain why key points were removed from her notes before they were sent to Ms. Thomas and Mr. Mendicino, but noted that her original advice was sent to the minister’s chief of staff and said that “as if I give it to the minister.” Her e-mail to Mr Jones shortly before the February 13 cabinet meeting said: “I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all the available tools that are already available through existing legislation.” Until the public hearing of the inquiry began in October, the public was unaware that Commissioner Lucki had privately informed the Government that there were other tools available. In May he told a House of Commons committee that the “Emergencies Act gave us the tools we needed”. She did not explain to reporters why she omitted her private advice to the government when she spoke to the committee. Mr Mendicino told a House of Commons committee on February 25, “We have been advised by law enforcement that we have complied with the limit.” The government has not specified which agency gave this advice. Commissioner Lucki told the inquiry she did not take a position or advise the government on whether invoking the act was appropriate or whether the thresholds for its use were met. Concerns about political interference were raised by Brendan Miller, a lawyer for the convoy organisers, who presented notes from the time Deputy Commissioner Duheme wrote. In memos on Feb. 5, Deputy Commissioner Duheme wrote that he was hearing that Ottawa police were “turning around for political reasons.” The notes also show that regarding the blockade in Coutts, Alta., the Premier said at one point that the RCMP had “done nothing”. He also recorded a question from emergency preparedness minister Bill Blair about a “change of jurisdiction”. Asked if Mr. Blair suggested the RCMP take on a role, the deputy commissioner replied: “It doesn’t ring a bell.” Commissioner Lucki testified that the RCMP was asked quite often whether they could take responsibility for the protests in Ottawa, but said they had to “educate” deputy ministers and ministers that they had no jurisdiction in Ontario. Elsewhere in Deputy Commissioner Duheme’s notes, however, he wrote that there was “enormous frustration with [law enforcement].” “Lines were crossed many times,” he wrote. The deputy commissioner said that while no elected official had crossed the line, bureaucrats from the Privy Council Office told the police “what we could do”. He added that in one meeting they “blurred the lines of communication”. The notes also show that Privy Council official Janice Charlette said, on February 9, “we have to take it on, they know what that means”. Deputy Commissioner Duheme testified that when such a comment is made, it shows a lack of understanding about jurisdiction. Commissioner Lucki said she was never instructed about what to do by political officials and that no official ever crossed the line, although she suggested a need for clarity. “I think it’s time to write something outlining what you can and can’t do from both the commissioner’s perspective and the politicians’ perspective,” he testified. On the morning of February 14, hours before the government announced the invocation of the Emergency Act, Ms Thomas sent an e-mail requesting a threat assessment on the blockades. “The characters involved. The weapons. Motivation. Clearly this is not just COVID and it is a threat to democracy and the rule of law,” he wrote. “It’s a very small security.” He followed up in a second email saying the situation was a “national threat” to the country’s interests and institutions, adding: “From people who don’t care or understand democracy. Who are getting ready to be violent. Who are motivated by anti-government sentiment.” The assessment was provided by the RCMP several hours later. “The potential for violence by a lone actor or fringe group cannot be discounted as protesters remain in Ottawa,” it says. He adds that while not all people participating in the convoy protest adhere to ideologically motivated violent extremist thought, some supporters have been identified in the demonstrations.
title: “Rcmp Chief Brenda Lucki Did Not Share Her Plans For Other Options Before Invoking The Emergency Act " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-11” author: “Della Schmidt”
The day before the federal government invoked the Emergency Act, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki had notes advising cabinet that other policing tools were in place and there was finally a workable plan to deal with the protests shutting down the capital, but he did not speak in two separate meetings. The nation’s top Mountie acknowledged the omission during hours of testimony at the inquest examining the use of the act on Tuesday, in which she could not recall key encounters during the protests. he said he did not understand the role the emergency law could play. and was unable to explain comments from meetings and text exchanges in which he participated. The federal government invoked emergency law on Feb. 14 to end anti-government protests over the anti-vaccine order that shut down Ottawa and several border crossings. The Public Order Emergency Committee, headed by Judge Paul Rouleau, is studying whether the unprecedented decision to activate the act was justified. CSIS said the convoy protests did not pose a threat to national security before invoking the emergency law Justin Trudeau rejected the idea of negotiating government policy during convoy protests, referred to as “armed rebellion” Commissioner Lucki testified alongside Deputy Commissioner Michael Duheme for nearly eight hours. Commissioner Lucki said the RCMP was repeatedly asked by the government if it could take over the police response to the protests in Ottawa, but her view was not an option. Evidence presented to the inquiry on Tuesday also shows that when the government decided to invoke the emergency law, the prime minister’s national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, believed the protests posed a “threat to democracy and the rule of law”. . However, the issue that dominated Commissioner Lucki’s questioning was why she did not make her views on the Emergency Act clear to Cabinet. At the time the government invoked sweeping powers, Commissioner Lucki was of the view that the police had “not yet exhausted all the tools available” through pre-existing legislation. That comment was included in notes she was prepared to present at a Feb. 13 incident response team meeting chaired by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a subsequent full cabinet meeting that afternoon, but never did. The same notes detail a comprehensive plan to end the protests that have locked down downtown Ottawa. Several police agencies jointly created the plan, including the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ottawa Police. The notes state that Commissioner Lucki and OPP Commissioner Thomas Carrique supported the plan. “Did it occur to you that you should make sure the government knew your views on these points before they resorted to invoking the Emergency Act?” Commission lawyer Gordon Cameron asked Commissioner Luckey. “I guess in hindsight, yes, that might have been something important,” she replied. But he told the inquiry that senior government officials knew a plan was being drawn up for Ottawa and emailed Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, his chief of staff Mike Jones and Ms. Thomas to advise them of it. perspective before the full cabinet on the evening of February 13. However, the e-mail from Commissioner Lucki to Mr Mendicino and Ms Thomas shown to the committee on Tuesday shows that while she sent them talking points on her behalf, any reference to her reservations about the emergency law was removed. Despite not speaking at the Feb. 13 meetings, Commissioner Lucki attended both the incident meeting chaired by Mr. Trudeau and the full cabinet meeting, minutes show. Commissioner Lucki was not asked about the change in talking points in the investigation Tuesday and testified that eventually the powers granted under the federal emergency orders “ended up being useful.” Speaking to reporters after her testimony, she did not explain why key points were removed from her notes before they were sent to Ms. Thomas and Mr. Mendicino, but noted that her original advice was sent to the minister’s chief of staff and said that “as if I give it to the minister.” Her e-mail to Mr Jones shortly before the February 13 cabinet meeting said: “I am of the view that we have not yet exhausted all the available tools that are already available through existing legislation.” Until the public hearing of the inquiry began in October, the public was unaware that Commissioner Lucki had privately informed the Government that there were other tools available. In May he told a House of Commons committee that the “Emergencies Act gave us the tools we needed”. She did not explain to reporters why she omitted her private advice to the government when she spoke to the committee. Mr Mendicino told a House of Commons committee on February 25, “We have been advised by law enforcement that we have complied with the limit.” The government has not specified which agency gave this advice. Commissioner Lucki told the inquiry she did not take a position or advise the government on whether invoking the act was appropriate or whether the thresholds for its use were met. Concerns about political interference were raised by Brendan Miller, a lawyer for the convoy organisers, who presented notes from the time Deputy Commissioner Duheme wrote. In memos on Feb. 5, Deputy Commissioner Duheme wrote that he was hearing that Ottawa police were “turning around for political reasons.” The notes also show that regarding the blockade in Coutts, Alta., the Premier said at one point that the RCMP had “done nothing”. He also recorded a question from emergency preparedness minister Bill Blair about a “change of jurisdiction”. Asked if Mr. Blair suggested the RCMP take on a role, the deputy commissioner replied: “It doesn’t ring a bell.” Commissioner Lucki testified that the RCMP was asked quite often whether they could take responsibility for the protests in Ottawa, but said they had to “educate” deputy ministers and ministers that they had no jurisdiction in Ontario. Elsewhere in Deputy Commissioner Duheme’s notes, however, he wrote that there was “enormous frustration with [law enforcement].” “Lines were crossed many times,” he wrote. The deputy commissioner said that while no elected official had crossed the line, bureaucrats from the Privy Council Office told the police “what we could do”. He added that in one meeting they “blurred the lines of communication”. The notes also show that Privy Council official Janice Charlette said, on February 9, “we have to take it on, they know what that means”. Deputy Commissioner Duheme testified that when such a comment is made, it shows a lack of understanding about jurisdiction. Commissioner Lucki said she was never instructed about what to do by political officials and that no official ever crossed the line, although she suggested a need for clarity. “I think it’s time to write something outlining what you can and can’t do from both the commissioner’s perspective and the politicians’ perspective,” he testified. On the morning of February 14, hours before the government announced the invocation of the Emergency Act, Ms Thomas sent an e-mail requesting a threat assessment on the blockades. “The characters involved. The weapons. Motivation. Clearly this is not just COVID and it is a threat to democracy and the rule of law,” he wrote. “It’s a very small security.” He followed up in a second email saying the situation was a “national threat” to the country’s interests and institutions, adding: “From people who don’t care or understand democracy. Who are getting ready to be violent. Who are motivated by anti-government sentiment.” The assessment was provided by the RCMP several hours later. “The potential for violence by a lone actor or fringe group cannot be discounted as protesters remain in Ottawa,” it says. He adds that while not all people participating in the escort protest adhere to ideologically motivated violent extremist thinking, some supporters have been identified in the demonstrations.
