RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki and Deputy Commissioner Michael Duheme, who is in charge of federal policing, testified Tuesday before the Public Order Emergency Committee. The couple also participated in an interview with commission lawyers in September. A summary of that conversation was entered into evidence on Tuesday. During that interview, Lucki said the RCMP was concerned the week of Jan. 31 — the week after the first weekend of protest — that the Ottawa Police Service (OPS) did not have an overall operational plan to end Occupy Ottawa . Both Mounties said they needed to see a plan before committing more resources to Ottawa as similar protests against COVID-19 restrictions began to spring up in Western Canada and at the Windsor, Ont., border crossing. Duheme told the commission’s lawyers that he participated in a call with Ottawa officers on Jan. 31 where OPS said it wanted to launch an aggressive enforcement operation from Feb. 3 to 6. “Duheme said he felt OPS did not have the resources to carry out these operations and had neither the resources nor the plans to sustain them long-term,” the summary of the interview said. WATCHES | Lucki says local police demands ‘caught us off guard’ during protests
Lucki says local police demands ‘caught us off guard’ during protests
RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki details concerns about Ottawa Police Service resources during the escort protests as she testifies to the Emergency Law Inquiry. “Lucki was concerned that OPS did not have a plan for using the RCMP and OPP resources that were then assisting OPS.” Lucki and Duheme said they have never seen a comprehensive operational plan prepared by Ottawa police. “It was unclear to them whether OPS did not have such a plan or was unwilling to share it with the RCMP,” their interview summary said. Lucki also said it would be inappropriate to interfere with Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly’s intelligence planning and evaluation processes.
Trudeau cited policing issues when he invoked the act
The Public Order Emergency Commission is assessing whether the federal government met the legal threshold to invoke the Emergency Act to clear Ottawa of protesters last winter. Under the Emergencies Act, a public order emergency “arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to constitute a national emergency.” The act refers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s (CSIS) definition of threats, including serious violence against persons or property, espionage, foreign interference or intent to violently overthrow the government. An RCMP vehicle blocked off Wellington Street outside the Supreme Court of Canada as a protest against COVID-19 restrictions marked gridlock and the sound of truck horns continued into its second week in Ottawa on Feb. 6. (Justin Tang/ The Canadian Press) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cited issues with police when he announced his decision. “It is now clear that there are serious challenges to the ability of law enforcement to effectively enforce the law,” he told a news conference. According to the Emergencies Act, a national emergency is “an urgent, temporary and critical situation that poses a serious risk to the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively addressed by the provinces or territories.” “It must be a situation that cannot be effectively addressed by any other law of Canada.” A document presented to the committee on Monday showed that CSIS did not believe the self-proclaimed Freedom Escort posed a threat to national security, as defined in its enabling law.
