Clinton Jaws - RCMP Commissioner THROWS Everyone Under the Bus

Episode Date: September 2, 2022

Former Police Officer Dissects the testimony of the RCMP Commissioner at the N.S Shooting Inquiry. This is part one of two.  Brenda Lucki tells the committee there was no benefit for the Government if they were to release the details of the firearms to the media. On April 24 2020 Lucki congratulated Darren Campbell for a job well done. 4 days later she scolds him on his performance when he refuses to release the details of the firearms. In this video we talk about the RCMP and Brenda Lucki the Commissioner call the hotline [phone] Clinton Jaws: Official Website https://www.clintonjaws.com https://thegoldenbadge.comJoin this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWxFkykJzUk32iGqzSzXNYQ/join https://www.instagram.com/clintonjaws/ https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWntbop6gLEg6RFR0aOzJ https://www.facebook.com/clinton.jaws.7/ https://twitter.com/ClintonJaws #canada #novascotia #rcmp

And here I came in and burst their bubble by outlining my expectations. It wasn't easy. Oh, my God. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I got to tell you my expectations. Talk about throwing people under the bus. This just brings me back. It brings me back. And I really thought this was going to be a 10-minute video.

I can't stop watching it. There was no benefit for the government. Let me ask the question. You understood the question. Let her talk. There was no benefit. for the government. What are you talking about?

Clinton Jaws, guys. There's a website out there called clintonjaws.com. I feel I've just started this back up again. And I feel like I'm hammering lucky. And it doesn't feel good. I'll tell you the truth. I've watched this already, like hours upon hours, of the Mass Casualty Commission,

watching her get grilled. And I'm like, oh, God. It was kind of hard to watch. And I'm like, part of me felt bad for her. And then a part of me got angry. I'm going to share the angry parts. And I shouldn't feel bad. She called me racist.

She said that RCMP is systemically racist. And I just can't get over that. I can't get over that fact. I can't get over the fact that she has done nothing. for the RCMP but make the organization weaker and really girly and I got to stop saying the word girly I know that but I'm up I'm upstairs thinking about it like she had a problem with 1986 I mean and I'm gonna I'm gonna bring this up after all this I'm gonna show you to serve and protect episodes the reason why I became a cop how we used to handle crap I hate saying the word crap pieces of you know what I'm saying

we don't do that anymore we're weak we give them chance after chance after chance we let them grab their phones and put it in our faces we don't do anything about it she sits back and she's not helping us out we're drowning out there members are drowning out there they're getting beat up by the media she admitted that she admitted earlier that i can't believe what members go through but yes she doesn't do anything about it How about beefing up the obstruction charge? How about bringing back the old? The old wasn't so bad when you're dealing with clients.

One chance, one chance only. You're going to put that phone on my face. You're under arrest. You're gone. You have to put the scare back into police. All police. I always respected a cop when I was younger. I don't see that anymore with a younger crowd.

Do you see it? We just let them, we let them attack us. We let them piss on us. We allow it. She's allowing it. And she could take control back. But the moment you come out and call us systemically racist when it's not true, it's no wonder nobody's applying anymore.

It's no wonder when we show up to a scene that everybody hates us. she came out and said, here's a reason why you should hate us. I already went too long on that part. Okay, we got to watch us. We've got to continue to watch us. This is basically the main event. There's a lawyer called Michael Scott.

I kind of like him. Yeah, I kind of like a lawyer. And I watched this live. And then a news clip came out and it said something about Michael Scott rattles Brenda Lucky. And he really does. I love how he uses. When you interview somebody and when they tell you, are you interrogate somebody?

And they tell you, can I add to that? You leave a pause on purpose as an interviewer, a good interviewer. And all of a sudden they want to talk. And she starts talking and rattling. And he lets her. He knows what he's doing. There's nothing better when you're in interview. I used to be in interviews. For example, give me one good reason why I should believe you. And did they say something like, well, I guess, I guess something real deceptive like. I guess I don't have a reason for you not to believe me. Then I would just sit there and say nothing.

And it's amazing the power of silence. Because they don't sit there and say nothing also. You give them a few seconds of saying nothing. You just stare at them? and they start talking. And that's truth. That's how you get truth out of somebody. By using that small little technique, he does that.

This is part of the main event. I'm trying to make these clips shorter. Let's just watch it. So my question is, how many courses do you have to take to be able to sit in the chair that you're sitting in now and tell the truth? You don't need any courses to tell the truth. If I ask you a simple question

and the answer to that question is yes, then presumably you'll say yes, right? Depending yes on the question, obviously. And if I just, okay, I'm just showing you this because I like this. I got no comment. I just want you to see this. Okay, so I want to, so this lawyer, Scott, he, he's upset with, I think it's Darren Campbell. He goes to the media, I think it's Darren Campbell.

He goes to the media and he says, he doesn't know totally. how many people died. But at the time, it was more than 15, I believe. And so Darren Campbell says, in excess of 10. And this lawyer is saying, that's misleading. Why don't you guys just say what the number is? Why do you have to say in excess of 10 bodies found? We heard testimony a couple of weeks ago from Chief Superintendent Leather. And one of the that we got on is one that I think that you're already well aware of was at an early press conference after the mass casualty a journalist had asked the chief super like I said it was Chris Leather for intendant how many people have been murdered which in the

circumstances is probably a very reasonable question to ask and the response that was given was in excess of ten when the commission has information that the best information the RC&P had at the time was 15 and probably more. And that was the information that was actually provided to you as the commissioner. So my question is, what course does Chief Superintendent Leather have to take to not create an issue like that? Is that not simply an issue of if you're asked a simple question? and the honest answer is we're pretty sure that 15 people have been killed and there's probably more than just say that Yeah, you know, I agree with you in certain respects absolutely, but I think sometimes people want part of policing culture is perfect get to perfect and

Perfect is a second in time because a second later it's not perfect people do not want to provide inaccurate information and they get so worried about it. It's it and she's right Sorry, but she is. Cops want to be perfect all the time. They don't want to ever be inaccurate. He can't get over this, though. He keeps on talking about it. And how it can happen, because people are just nervous about providing wrong information. That's true.

Police officers always, you know, they testify in court very often, and they always pride themselves on giving the most accurate information. It's part of our culture. I'm not sure it's... A racist culture. Always the best approach, but I try to, I always try to seek some understanding as to why that would happen. I don't think saying in excess of 10 is, I've never heard that until that day. And even myself, I scratched my head and said, what does that mean?

And so I was struggling with that. Why would she struggle with that? Because it was in excess of 10. Do you see, like, what are you doing? Why don't you just sit up there and say, I have no problem with him saying that because it's the truth. In excess of 10, oh, I'm sorry I didn't say 14.15. But no, she doesn't. She struggled with it.

She scratched her. She scratched her gray head. In excess of 10, you'll agree with me, is misleading. You know, we're talking about the concern for giving accurate information in everything but the most technical sense. I don't think it's misleading, though. Actually, I just think it's, I don't think, because when I think of the word misleading, I think of intention. And I don't think their intention was to mislead. I think their intention was to not, to try to manage expect.

It gets better. Just hang in there, okay? This is interesting points. Whether it's right or wrong or whether you or I agree with it, I think they were really trying to manage expectations and not go too far down something that they may have to go back on because things were happening so fast. Again, I'm not saying I'm completely in agreement. I'm just trying to understand how it happened and how we can... I'm in complete agreement of him saying it. I got no problem with it, and you shouldn't either.

She doesn't say that, though. When I try to understand how things happen, then I try to figure out how we can make it not happen for the next time. Because it's not very transparent, is it? No, for people, you know, for the families with loved ones, I can't imagine what that meant to them. What? Why?

Does that make any sense? Leave a comment. I couldn't imagine. They're trying to make sense of something, and I don't think that's helping. Well, surely... The families didn't know how many people were dying. They were getting the information, okay?

You're getting the information. You don't want to be wrong about it. More than 10. Ooh. We're going to get to it later, but one of the reasons that you called the meeting on April 28th was to address concerns you had about information flow from H Division, and you weren't happy with it.

Yes. We know that in September of 2020, H Division was planning to participate in an interview and do background for a CBC documentary, I believe, called 13 hours, than they had decided, I believe, Darren Campbell. The fifth estate came to Darren Campbell in these guys, and they said, hey, we want you on the episode. Lucky Kaiboshes it. Just hear this point.

This is my second point. Aaron Campbell was going to participate. And do I understand correctly that right before that was to happen, your office overrode that decision and canceled it? And you got an email back from one of the producers, who was not very a woman named Gillian. Findlay who was not very happy about having been called off after oh no CBC wasn't happy guys Darren Campbell had agreed to participate you recall that I do recall that not it like not the exact

words but now that you're saying it yes and I'm going to suggest to you that in your in your reply to to miss Finley you said a number of things but one of them was in order that the the RCMP would not be participating in that interview in order to protect the integrity of the public inquiry. Unfortunately, we will not be participating in this interview. And I wanted to take you to that wording where you said so as not to protect the integrity of the public inquiry. Now, can you help me understand in what possible scenario could Darren Campbell participating in an interview with the CBC negatively impact the integrity of the work

that the mass casualty commission is doing. Because the CBC FFN sucks. You can't believe. Do you actually think they were going to do a two-sided episode? It was always going to be one-sided. The theme that they would have done would have been terrible.

terrible idea. Guys, RCMP, stop relying on the media. Stop thinking the media is our friends. They're not. They're our enemy. They always have been.

They always will be. And CBC is the worst of the worst. Of course. Lucky's not going to allow them to go to the CBC. How stupid. And Lucky, why don't you just say that? The CBC sucks. There is no media.

media, there is no media outlet. It doesn't exist. Be your own outlet. Why not just say that? Just make it easy. No. Hey, Scott, no. We're not going to the CBC. Why'd we go to the CBC? It's Trudeau funded. Do you really think they're going to tell a fair and truthful story? It doesn't matter what we say. They're going to cut it out.

And I'm glad they didn't go and do that stupid episode on CBC. First, I should say that is but one of the reasons. There were several other reasons why we had chosen not to participate in that interview. But given the fact that many of the information of the facts, people having the facts, and many of that would be fleshed out through the inquiry and we preferred that avenue versus flushing it out in the media. You're not flushing out facts on the media, okay? They're not going to report the facts.

That was just like point number two. Okay, I just wanted to... She does say some good things. And she does have some good decisions. That gross me out. It gets better. Oops. Richard, sorry.

Are you... I couldn't tell if you were trying to get my attention or... No? Okay. You know, he did that on purpose. He wanted to break there. Because he knows the second part of what he's about... to say he's going to really grill her and he doesn't want interruption i want you to remember that part he

knew he knew that they didn't want his attention but then he thought if he said that that he'd go they said no and he was hoping that they'd go no but hey do you want to take a break that's just what i think that's something i would do we've been hearing commissioner lucky about a meeting that you had with some of the senior officers at age division on April 28th. See, that's why he did it. Because he's now going down a road where he wants to win. He wants a break to hammer her without interruption. That's pretty good.

That's why I like the guy. 2020, you know the meeting I'm talking about? Yes. Chris Leather and Darren Campbell and Leah Scanlon. And given the information that has, that's come forward on that, it appears that there's two very different accounts of what transpired in that meeting. Would that be fair? What? They're not similar, but I wouldn't say in many respects that they're completely different either. Oh, that's weird. But they're not,

there's definitely some discrepancies, yes. There are definitely some discrepancies. She admits to nothing, but she'll admit to, uh, they're kind of similar. Discrepancies, but they're kind of similar. In fact, there are a number of things that some of the people in Nova Scotia report as having been said that you've been quite clear just weren't said. Yes. And you've also been very clear that the purpose for that meeting was because your expectations were not being met in regards to communications and the flow of communications between the division and national headquarters. Yes. Your intention was to make the CEO and Chris Leather and Darren Campbell all aware of your expectations.

Yes. And really all you had were some concerns about the accuracy of the information that was being provided to national headquarters that you were then passing on to the government. No, not necessarily because I was doing a lot of media as well. So there was the flow of information, the accuracy, the timing of the information. There was a lot of issues. So the rhythm, yes. And I know my communications folks had come to me with some concerns about just trying to really push the envelope again for them to be a bit more proactive and not so reactive because it was difficult and to be more prepared and getting them more prepared for media events. Right.

So your communications people were complaining about the job that age division was doing in terms of of communications? They were expressing some frustrations. They knew that they didn't have the capacity. They were trying to help from a distance, but it wasn't working out so well. But the general impression from your office and from your communications people was that there were serious problems going on with each division in their communications. Right.

Including their handling of things like press conferences and media, things like that. Yes? Right. Madam. Anyways, guys, I'm going to fast forward this part because all of the Brenda Lucky talks about is, well, there's a meeting because I wasn't getting the right information. Because she was sitting at home. Did you know that? Did you know that? Brenda Lucky's upset. This is what she tells everybody, okay? She's not upset that she promised Trudeau

that she would provide a list to the media of the guns that Wartman used. So that will enforce his gun legislation that he wants to push out in a couple days from that, from the meeting on April 28. She's pretending to be upset because people in Halifax in Nova Scotia are telling her, wherever she is, a million miles away at her home, they're telling her misinformation. And then she goes to the media and she tells the media wrong information. So she's mad at this group. This is what she wants you to believe. Had nothing to do with Trudeau. It had nothing to do with them, not wanting to give her a list of the guns, a detailed list of the guns,

had nothing to do with that. Because she doesn't want to admit to political interference. She doesn't want to admit to that. So she goes down this road. I'm just mad, you know, I'm mad at them for giving me wrong information. That's really what I was upset with. I wasn't politically trying to interfere into an investigation. Of course not.

And it's unbelievable to me. if you aren't getting the right information, then you hop in a plane and you go there. Did you know she's working from home? While these 22 people were being murdered, she's working from home, eating Chef Borrard and talking on the phone. upset with the investigation upset with what these members are doing mad at them while she's sitting on her ass at home she tears into them on that day in that meeting on April 28th 2020 tears into them that's what makes me sick they're the ones doing the work while she's sitting on her ass at home. At home. How goofy is that? Oh, it's COVID. It's COVID. It's better if I work at home.

Just the face. I picture that face in that meeting on April 28th, just like that. She's probably laying in her bed. Working at home. How dumb. While every cop has to go to work, while those cops had to go to work, and deal with the families of murdered victims. And she's going to host a meeting from her house and just piss all over these cops. But she denies it. So what's the truth?

Because I've been told information, I can't verify it. I've been told there's some pretty nasty words in that meeting. I don't know why they haven't come out. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to admit. Yeah, this was said. Like Scott said, he wanted to find out exactly what was said in the meeting, but we're not really finding out exactly what was said in the meeting. I don't understand why.

Anyways, I kind of went off there. Clerk, could we pull up Com 020441? Should be an email from Commissioner Lucky to Darren Campbell date at April 24th. It appears to be an email sent from you to Darren Campbell on the 26th of April. 2020. Yes. And April 24th. Do you see that?

April 24, 2020? 3.11 p.m. Again, from you to Darren Campbell, I believe, great job on the press conference today. You represented the RC&P extremely well and provided the information that people need to answer, that people need to answer their many questions. And then you go on to talk about how the Minister of Public Safety, Bill Blair passes on his gratitude, is on his gratitude for a job well done, that the minister was impressed by the outstanding job

that Darren Campbell did, of explaining a very complex and tragic situation with calm and composure, the fact that you very succinctly answered every question you received. So do I read this correctly that certainly on the 24th of April you didn't have any concerns about the job

that people like Darren Campbell were doing? Do you see what he's doing there, guys? It's important. Might be boring to you. She didn't have a problem with them. She only had a problem with them until they wouldn't hand over the information about the guns. That's when she started having a problem with them. Because she promised Trudeau.

You're disappointing me. She panicked. She belittled them. It's really disgusting. And now she's trying to put on a front that, no, no, no. I was upset with them. is they kept on giving me misinformation that I was then relaying to the media. That's what this lawyer is trying to prove.

Not on that particular press. I don't talk. No. So the significant concerns about H. Devin's communications and dealings with the press that would have been outside of what you were referring to here. This is one particular event that I was commenting on, yes. So by the time you get to the 28th, a few days later, That's when you feel it's necessary.

I think you described it as the straw that broke the Campbell's bag. Oh, yeah. Because there's been all these issues ensuing. So many issues. Between the 19th and the 28th. And it wasn't in particular to Darren Campbell or Leah Scanlon or Lee Bergamon or Chris Leather. It was about their lack of capacity. It was about the fact that things were not flowing the way they ought to have.

Get off your ass and go down there and do something about it then. Really? And it wasn't meeting my expectations. Don't you love it when a boss says that? You're not meeting my expectations. I can see right through her. That's dishonesty. That's what that is right there.

All cops know what I'm talking about right now. New cops? You're going to hear that word a lot. Expectations. Wanted to have that conversation. And you weren't angry or upset. Pardon? You were not angry or upset?

No, I don't. I'm not a person who gets angry. I get frustrated. Sometimes I get disappointed. Oh, she'll admit to the disappointment part. But to be angry, I'm not. Isn't disappointment worse than being angry? I think it is.

That type of person. Right. I think you said before it, that's just not your DNA. You're a calm person. And you said that it was just a conversation that had to happen. Yeah, I think I would. would be remiss if people aren't meeting my expectations, if I was to ignore it, how am I expecting anything to change if I don't bring it forward?

It's got to change, guys. Well, it's your role. What needs to change? What was Darren Campbell and the rest of the group doing so bad? Is it not? Part of my role, yes. It's your role if the people around you are not meeting your expectations and you have reasonable expectations to communicate to them, then that would be entirely within the scope

of your role. Would it not? Yes. Yes. Got to think about that one. Mm-hmm. Ooh, he's trying to get me. Am I correct, though, that that particular meeting seemed to have a particular focus on one issue?

Well, it was the example that I used because that was the example that was sort of, like I said, the straw that broke the camels back. I don't like to give misinformation or disinformation. It really bothers me when I... Do you see how she's going down that road? That's why I was angry. It wasn't because they weren't giving me the information I wanted for Trudeau. I do that. And if it's something that I can change, I need to change it.

And so I felt that it could have been about widgets or this glass of water. It wasn't about the topic. It was about the fact that I asked a question, I got the wrong answer. I transmitted the wrong answer. Oh, poor baby. And that is not something that I like to do when I've, brief I'd like to be as accurate as I can. Right. It wasn't about the subject.

And stop eating, Chef Yardee. And hop on your stupid, goddamn plane. And go there. You lazy. Don't blame them. How can you blame them for something so stupid? With what they're dealing with? She's throwing them under the bus. Why not just come out and say?

Yeah, you know what? I was a little bit too tough on them. I really did want them to give them. me the list of guns so I can make my boss happy Trudeau. That's why. You know, Bill Blair, yeah, he wanted, he wanted the information about the guns. That's true. He wanted, why not just say that?

Why not just tell the truth? Right, it wasn't about the subject matter, that the details of these firearms. It was about the accuracy of that information. Yeah. Right? Part of it, yes. Yes. You weren't angry that, uh, that information hadn't been.

revealed you were frustrated because the information that you had relayed was inaccurate. You had no vested interest in whether the information of the firearms was released publicly. No, there was a ton of information that we were requesting at any given time and by that point in time there was only a few outstanding issues left that needed to be brought out in the public and what does that mean? Weapons was one, the chronology of events and there was a few things about the perpetrator themselves that had to be that were still outstanding so there was a few things

that needed to be addressed in media because we were getting a ton of in media shut up f the media you're you're upset what side are you on this is unbelievable i don't even got the words she's upset because misinformation was going to the media well then stop walking to them if you're if you want to talk to the media get your butt down there and figure some things out don't blame other people you're talking on the phone eating chocolates i know i keep on saying that but you can't be that useless you're going oh so many times bosses would blame you for their inadequacies she's a typical boss i shouldn't say that because there's some great bosses RCMP. She's going to look back at this one day. No, she won't. She won't care. She's lying.

In the public and weapons was won. The chronology of events. And there was a few things about the perpetrator themselves, himself that had to be, that were still outstanding. Do you notice that she doesn't really give you an example of what she's talking about? There was a few things that needed. Because she doesn't know. To be a draft. She doesn't know. She knows what she was mad at.

She was mad at one thing. They wouldn't give her the information that she wanted. It has nothing to do with anything else. This is what people, this is how people act when they lie. You don't really understand what they're saying. In media, because we were getting a ton of questions. It strikes me as particularly reasonable that if you were getting inaccurate information from your subordinates, that that would be

that would be something that you would raise in a meeting to see if we can address that and ensure that that that's going forward. Yeah, wouldn't you? Did she? Did she raise that? You know, I'm going to put money on it. No, I'm not. Was that meeting recorded?

Are we going to hear a piece? I think I might record that meeting if I was in it. I think I might just hit record on my type recorder. Why wouldn't I? Wouldn't it be something? if a recording popped up after all this. But in your interview with the Mass Casualty Commission, you said, and I'm quoting, and for the benefit of my friends on my page 84, we talk about that meeting.

It sickens me. When I think about it before I go to bed, I can't sleep. I don't even like talking about it. And what I wonder is if we're simply talking about having a calm conversation with subordinates to address a fairly mundane issue about the fact that, you know, You know, we've had some communications mix up. Yeah? Why would that prevent you from sleeping?

Why would it sicken you to think about that? Well, she's got a good answer for this. It sickens me because the letter I got a year later. From Leah. That's what sickens me. If I had known that I had that negative effect on Ms. Scanlan, didn't know. If I had caused her sadness or grief or anxiety or any one of those negative emotions.

Turns out Leah Scanlan was crying during that meeting. I would have wanted to have that conversation. right away the next day make the right wrong that's who I am I'm not afraid to admit if I have my I could have been more sensitive I look at I look at it from a she's telling the truth there you can tell when she tells the truth and you can tell when she doesn't tell the truth she probably didn't realize the effect she probably didn't even care to realize she was so selfish that day when you're selfish in a moment, you don't care if somebody hurts.

It's a year later where you reflect. You're like, I wasn't very nice that day. But there's no way I'm going down for political interference. I will throw you under the bus to save my career. Maybe I'm wrong. But that's how I see it when I watch this. Leadership point of view, I forget, first of all, the power of the commissioner's office.

Sometimes I even forget I'm the commissioner, honestly, because I know I like to connect with people. I like to connect with people. I could have been more sensitive. I could have tampered my comments with more positiveness. She likes to connect with girls. There's a few things, but I was truly frustrated. I was hurt that the negative narrative on my people

watching it happen when I knew they did the best they could with the circumstances they faced, and watching that happen before my eyes and feeling completely powerless, it was difficult. It was difficult as a leader. Stop saying to your leader. I ought to have maybe just waited 24 hours. Maybe I should have only talked to the commanding officer.

But I felt that, you know, it was so difficult in those days. We weren't faced. Why would you just talk to the commanding officer? Because you said earlier that you want a big table. You want collaboration and you want respectful talk. You want everybody's opinion and statements. Nothing can be shut. Why would you just want a meeting with one person?

Wouldn't you want to bounce off ideas? To face, we didn't. I had no indication of body language. It was difficult. And it was difficult because when I found out a year later, when I found out. When I found out. She couldn't sleep at night because of that meeting.

But I guess that was a year later. later that she couldn't sleep at night? A year later? Not directly after the meeting? It's not adding up. So that's why when I replay that meeting and I think of the things that I could have done better as a leader, I know that I still needed to outline the problems and I still needed to outline my expectations, but I could have done it differently.

And that's the thing that keeps me up at night. Oh, yeah. Madam Register, if we could go to... Believe me, she's snoring. She's fast asleep. Well, also, all the, the people in Ottawa, we were all at individual, our own locations, our homes, most of us. And the group in Nova Scotia was all together. And it was post that. Doesn't that make you sick? She's doing this all from home. That just makes me sick.

Every cop's at work. They aren't, they weren't even allowed. She booked it. She put in COVID restrictions. Members weren't allowed to take leave during this time. That's all her. Big media event. So, of course, you know, people were, it was very emotional for them. They were, they just came off of a very successful media event. And here I came in and burst their bubble by outlining my expectations.

It wasn't easy. Oh, my God. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I got to tell you my expectations. talk about throwing people under the bus. This just brings me back. It brings me back. And I really thought this was going to be a 10-minute video. I can't stop watching it.

Conversation to have, like I said, in other testimony. If we could go to Com.com. Gosha was all together, and it was post that big media event. So, of course, you know, people were, it was very emotional for them. They just came off of a very successful media event. and here I came in and burst their bubble by outlining my expectations. It wasn't an easy conversation to have. But I had to have it.

Like I said, in other testimony, I was always framing things about the issues and how it made me feel. I was very calm about it. So when I saw some of the comments that she said in her letter, I was shocked because that's not how it happened. That's not how I saw it happen. and I verified with people that were at the meeting to see if, you know, if I missed something, if I had zero self-awareness.

And people said I didn't say certain things or I didn't do certain things. This is the thing that worries me. We're hearing that she said, you let the boys down. I'm hearing horrible human. I'm hearing you're the worst person I've ever worked with. You've disappointed me. but none of these things according to her did she say now who's telling the truth how why is this so impossible to figure that out you knew i hadn't but you know of course you want to validate that

but um even to this day i i don't even want to read the letter right i don't even want to see the letter um well i can read it for you in the in the letter from from miss canland she suggests that that you're see i kind of like that oh all round you don't have to read it. I'll read it for you. And I read this letter. And there's a lot of redacted stuff on it. It's all blacked out. Leah, what's the blacked out part? Can we talk about it? Our conduct in that meeting was appalling, inappropriate, unprofessional, extremely belittling. And I assume that your position is that that bears no resemblance to the meeting that you were a part of. I respect her opinion. I completely disagree with it.

See? Like what? Why can't anybody back up what Leah Scanlon say? And have they? Have I missed it? We have a comment? See, that's my understanding from listening to your Secu evidence is that your position is that they remember the meeting in one way and I remember a different way. And maybe it's because we're all in different places and on the phone. I couldn't see body language and there was some misunderstanding. but wires got crossed. Is that generally how you would resolve the issue? No, I know what I said. I know how I said it. And you know that it's not the things that Ms. Scanlan is suggesting that you said?

According to her letter no. Right. So you can see why there are some that, given the disparity between these two reports, have concerns that perhaps somebody isn't being entirely candid or transparent about what was said meeting. You can understand that because of reconciling those two accounts?

Yeah, I do. And, you know, obviously everybody has a different opinion. And I, like I said, I respect it. I know that... It's nothing to do with opinions. It has to do with facts. What are you talking about? I was made privy to some of her notes that she made during that meeting and it wasn't reflective of any of this. So it sort of surprised me. And I, and I, like I said, I find it extremely hurtful and um that's not the person i am and i would never say that and i never said that no which raises the question why is miss scanlon i don't know say do you even know what they're talking about said what they would even delve into what was said what are you talking about

there's just something not right here yeah it gets better don't leave Sandlin suggests that three points in that letter that while berating the H-Straim, the age division team, that you told them that they had let the boys down, which she interpreted as being referenced to Blair and McCleigh children. And you categorically suggest didn't say those words. If she had just put, let the boys down, I would have no idea what that meant, and it wasn't, it's only in that letter that I know what it meant. I had no idea.

And that's why I say. That's why I say how hurtful it is because I'm not a hurtful person. And for her to say that and knowing I didn't say that, but you know what, I cannot, I cannot. See? Wow. Brenda Lucky in her head is like she's actually telling the truth. She believes that she didn't actually say in the meeting, you're letting the boys down. And a part of me is like,

Is Scanlan, does she write it down wrong? Like, are we being silly with words? The boys are going to be let down? She didn't say, you're letting the boys down? And it's easy to say, I didn't say that. Well, I said, the boys are going to be let down, but I didn't say you're letting the boys down. Do you know what I mean? Like, I don't know what to believe.

Because Brenda Lecky right there is telling the absolute truth. So there's something missing. There's something I'm not getting. I don't like it. And what the hell are you looking at? Walk an inch in Ms. Scanlan's shoes. I can't walk a mile. I can't walk anything.

She was on the ground. She knew the people. She went through a lot of things that obviously I didn't. I can't imagine what she's going through, what she went through. And so when I read the letter, I really just thought maybe it's just, a way for her to deal with a bunch of different things. I don't know. I'm not a psychologist. But it was around the one-year anniversary. I just can't imagine what the things that she went through, what she saw, what she had to report on, that's got to take its toll on people.

Oh, no doubt. You know, and certainly we can never walk in the shoes of anyone else, but that's not what we're talking about. By your evidence, Scanlan is reporting things that didn't happen. You can walk a mile in her shoes to the extent that you were in the meeting. We weren't there and you would know better than anybody whether those things were said or not. And to the best of your understanding, it sounds like Ms. Scanlan was making things up. Well, there are things like when Ms. Scanlan, for instance, talks about when we make reference to things like political interference, she was never in any of the conversations that I was in.

So for her to have that view, I don't know where she would get that view. So everybody's entitled to their perspective and their opinion. And like I said, I respect it. I just don't agree with it. That is not how it happened. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but surely we don't have different sets of facts. Something was I just said or it wasn't said. Thank you.

Right? There's no my truth and your truth. There's just the truth. Yeah. Well, in policing, we often say there's three sides to a story. I just say that, you know what, it's perception is what you were. Why would there be three sides to a story? There's two sides to every story.

What are you talking about? Three sides? What was going through your mind during that day can affect your perception of words. I'm not saying that I would never want to call anybody a liar. I just don't think that way. I just, like I said, I know what I said and I know what I didn't say. Yeah. See, that's the truth.

And it was really hoping when I was watching this. It gets better, guys. It's like the third time I watched it. And every time I have more to say. And I know this is going to get 100 views because it's so long, but I can't help this. I want to get to the bottom of it. And I think you also suggested that there were other people on that call that you went to and they sort of agreed with your recollection?

Yes. And can I assume that those people were all in Ottawa? Yes. So those were all people that work on your team? They're in Ottawa, yes. Brian Brennan and Sharon Tessier. Dan Brian? Yes.

Right. And you're aware that we've heard from Darren Campbell and Chris Leather and Leah Scamla. and each of them have reported a version of the conversation that's quite consistent. You know that? I know that they've talked about it, yeah, from their perception and their point of view, yes. And that there's some understanding that their recollection, everybody in Nova Scotia seems to have heard a very different conversation than the one that you and your staff participated in. Yes?

Yes. There are certain things in Ms. Scanlon's letter that other people in Nova Scotia have not spoken about, so I'm not sure. Why? That's the part I don't get it. Like, why haven't you spoken about it? Either it happened or it didn't happen. Why isn't Darren Campbell saying, yeah, she said that about the boys?

Yeah, she said horrible human. She said, you're terrible, the job you do. But, like, why isn't Bergman saying it? Why haven't they be have they been asked? Is that a hearsay? Like, I don't get it. I don't get, I don't get, I don't get, why they can't figure this part out. I think you said that if, if you had known the impact that your words had back at the time, you would have, you would have fixed it the next day.

You would have made it right. Yeah, I was told that people, people left in, or a person left in tears, I think it was. Ms. Scanlan, yeah. Yeah, I, there's no, I would never. Today, I don't want anybody here leaving in tears. Is that the first time we're hearing that Scanlan? Because I said that Scanlan was the one that left in tears like a month ago. Is that the first time we're hearing it?

It's the first time I'm hearing it. Well, the second time. Anybody leaving in tears, no matter how bad a situation is. So to hear that she left in tears saddens me because then I would have had, I would. Yeah, but you're still sleeping. I love to have a conversation with her. And I have reached out to her. But presumably when you got that letter in April 2021, the first thing you did was pick up the phone and call Ms. Scanlon.

No. Okay, so we're going to fast forward this part. She talks forever about not contacting Scanlan, and then she reached out to Scanlan. And of course, Scanlon didn't want to talk to her. Why would Scanlan want to talk to her? So we're going to fast forward that part. Ms. Scanlan wasn't working at the time. See, Brenda Lucky right now, she's painting a picture.

I didn't contact her. She went off, okay? She went off because obviously Scanlan is suffering from. PTSD. There's no doubt. I'm guessing. But it's almost like she wants to paint a picture. She went off. I don't want to bug her at home. She's going cuckoo. That's almost because that's what they do. Sorry to say, but there's a lot of bosses out there that do whatever they can to make you look like an insane person. It protects them. How do I articulate? How do I articulate how crazy Clint has got to make myself look good? How do I protect myself?

Oh, off on duty. Like Lucky didn't have to say that. She says it. That gave me a gross feeling. like she's throwing it all out there you need to understand this is who we're dealing with she's not doing well the thing she went through she could no longer work she's at home she can no longer work that's who we're dealing with guys

that's why clint is acting that way it's going through nothing to do with me everything to do with what he's going through he's losing his mind Clint's losing his mind You wait. You wait. I got a hell of a story to tell you. That's when I had planned to.

You received the letter in April 2021, and for various reasons, you didn't make any attempt to make it right. No, I wrote the letter, but I didn't send it. Do you have that letter? Not with me, no. And do you have a draft of it? I believe so. I still kept it, I think. You'd be willing to produce that letter? Yeah.

I'll ask you an undertake to produce the draft letter or any. drafts you have that you were I think you should I think you should direct that to council mr. Scott that we'll take that under advisement for now deal with it under advisement today like why thank you why so my question is if if an civilian employee of yours writes you a letter that not is not simply expressing you've said some things that have that have hurt me but is rather plainly accusing you having acted in a way that was appalling inappropriate, unprofessional, belittling, and then as attributing things to you that you know firsthand are factually false.

She's suggesting that you said things that you just didn't say. How does that not warrant immediately picking up the phone and saying, what is this letter? What are you talking about? I don't know what room you were in, but I was part of that conversation and I didn't say any of those things. Why would I want to do that at that point in time when Ms. Scanlan was dealing with her own wellness issues? Why would I want to do that at that?

See how she says that? When I first saw this, I thought, that's a great answer. But why does she have to tell you that Mrs. Scanlan's having wellness issues? So you understand what we're dealing with here. Okay. Hey. Not me. I'm not the problem here. It's her who's dealing with wellness issues, guys. You see? Do you see that? Did you see it? Because I've seen it my entire career. I'm not the problem. She's having the problem. Time. That's the questions I asked myself. And I didn't feel it was appropriate. I did not want to cause her any more.

hurt. I wanted her to get well. I wanted her to come back to work. I wanted a lot of things. Why would she want her to come back to work? Isn't that weird? Why wouldn't you be like, don't come back to work? Take as much time off as you want. I wanted her to come back to work. It's just, nothing's adding up here. So for me to pick up the phone, as you suggest, I would never do that. Your concern was that, uh, any of these things that Ms. Scanlan or others may have imagined were a result of perhaps some sort of illness or trauma? No, my... I never caught that before. I didn't know he said that before.

...alice or trauma or... No, my concern was for Ms. Leah Scanlan, for her to get better. For me to try to explain things or try to have that conversation would be only self-serving. Fair enough, but why do you have to add that part? ...the way you suggest it. Darren Campbell and Chris Leather and Leah Scanlan all seemed to be under the impression in that meeting. You were very clear that you were upset about this information, details about the firearms not being released. You guys got to hear this. You got to hear this part.

Because it was tied to pending gun legislation from the liberal government. It was part of a mandate letter and legislation, yes, but that wasn't. It wasn't about, like I said, it was just about the erroneous information that I was given. That's all it was about, guys. Erroneous information that she was given had nothing to do with that. This is so good. It was about all of the issues that we were having about communication. Lyer.

That was but one of many examples. No. I wasn't getting that. We weren't getting the information that we needed. I was doing a lot of media and it was very difficult and I've... Get off your ass. Go do it. down there and find it. They're working hard. I wasn't getting it. They weren't giving it to me in a

timely fashion. Oh. Never usually in the position where I actually have to ask for the information. It usually just comes free flowing through. Have you ever had to deal with 22 dead people? I was, I'm not used to that. You're supposed to be able to adjust. They're busy. They don't got time to inform you. I once had a watch, commander. We all got our guns out. Jaws update. Turner update. Sit to base and update.

And I'm like, shut up, dude. We got our guns out. There's a bad guy running around with a gun. And you just completely wanted an update. And he did this every three minutes. Get your dumb ass out of the office and come on down. It's like her. I wasn't getting in a timely fashion and I'm really upset.

You weren't upset over that. You were upset that they didn't tell the media about Wartman's guns details. That's what you're upset about. I don't know why you just don't admit that part of it. I was upset at many things. That was just one of them. That's not true. I wanted, again, them to be more proactive and not reactive.

We've talked about that. And they weren't meeting the expectations that I would expect in a calm situation. Oh, my God. They weren't meeting the expectations. Just drives me insane. Drives me insane. I went to a call and the guy's guts are hanging out of his body. And I got my gun on him.

He had a firearm. And he goes, I'm going to die. And I'm like, how are you still alive? That's what I was thinking. And we had to clear the house. I'm dealing with all these things. In the middle of it. My staff sergeant calls me up and goes, I'm pretty disappointed.

You didn't tell me that this was going on. It was a day shift. He's in the detachment. Why are you listening to the radio? Do you think I'm going to drop important things to pick up the phone and inform you of this information that's going on? Inform you of the call? Your problem, you don't know about it. Get your dumbass down here and help us out.

They like to blame. That's what they do. They blame. When they don't look good in the public eye, they will throw you under the bus every time, all the time. You know, I'm sorry, I just don't get it. I don't get it. I don't get it that she's focused on this word expectations.

It's saving her butt. She's trying to save her butt right now. Were you really that disappointed in them not giving you the information in a timely fashion, not fast enough? There's not a good enough rhythm? Of course not. that's a lie you're sacrificing your own membership for your reputation there's nothing more gross than that and it brings me back you can see it i'm learning more and more when i watch us a third time

there was that and there was i think at another time i had also asked about the chronology uh there was a bunch of different little outstanding ones but see do you see how she throws that in there it's not just that scott it's about it was about it was about it was a bit it was a bit it was a bit of it was a was a bunch of things, okay? I don't want you to think that I was mad at that part. That was like nothing. That's what she's doing. One of them was the weapons in that particular email, yes.

And then right around the same time, you called Chris Leather directly to inquire about when are we going to get the information about the firearms. I don't recall that phone call either. You're aware that when Chief Superintendent Leather was here, he testified that he got a call from you. Yeah, that's when I heard about it. I didn't have to. You don't dispute that. I have no recollection of that.

Well, maybe I do. I have no recollection of it. It might not have happened. This is what drives me nuts. Refer to your notes, Lucky. You got a notebook there, don't you? Why wouldn't you? You're testifying.

When we give evidence, we refer to our notes all the time. You would have made a note in your notebook, right? You're always criticizing members for not taking good enough notes. Where's your notebook? You would have had the date and the time that you called the guy. All good cops would keep good notes, right, lucky? She has no recollection of a phone call. I'm going to tell you something right now.

That's not true. I have a recollection of every phone call. Every phone call I've ever made. Guaranteed. If somebody was to refresh my memory, I would remember it. I would remember the call. I've been to thousands upon thousands of calls. I would remember it if somebody was to

refresh my memory. We got to watch that again. I don't know what I'm getting so excited. I guess I'm just enjoying myself. It's kind of weird. I enjoy getting angry. By the way, I've been down here for hours. I have no recollection of that phone call.

No. And he also said that he's never received a phone call from you prior to that, normally communication would have gone obviously to the commanding officer. It's not unusual for me to reach out to Crops officers, criminal operations officers, sorry. Did you ever call Chris Leather before that day? No, I don't. I didn't. She remembers that part, doesn't she?

No. Quick to answer that, no. How would you remember that? You know what I mean? Testing, testing. I honestly, I know the conversations I had with the minister. I know the conversations I had with the minister's. staff with the Deputy Minister, the National Security Advisor, there was never any direction

provided, no interference, no political pressure. Was there pressure? Yeah, there was a lot of pressure, most of it coming from the media itself, but as far as what people think happened, it didn't. And Minister Blair, of all people, is very cognizant of interference because he himself was the chief of police of Toronto. Very often we have meetings and when we have ministers

outside of the RCMP or outside of the portfolio, there's always reminders about that. So what she's saying is Minister Blair, he just asked. He just said, you know, are you gonna? He didn't demand it.

He just said, just curious, are you gonna? That's how she took it. Are you going to? to release the details of the guns? Just the question. No interference here. Just a question. How can you interfere with it when it's just the question? I'm not, I'm trying to, trying to answer the questions to the best of my ability, but I don't think I'm, I'm communicating properly because it seems to still be an issue and I'm sorry if I'm trying to clarify myself,

but. Do you remember what the question was? No. Sorry. You weren't aware that Sharon... Karen Tessier sent an email to Leah Scanlan at 436 p.m. saying, please tell me, Darren is going to mention the guns. My phone is lighting up. No, I wasn't aware. That's the answer, isn't it?

It is no. No. Right. And do you know, if it wasn't a big deal, and it wasn't that important and it's being blown out of proportion... Yeah, it's not a big deal, guys. It wasn't a big deal. Why is Sharon Tesier's phone lighting up? It's a good question.

I have no idea. You'd have to ask Sharon Tessie. Oh yeah. You'd have to ask her. I don't know. Wasn't a big deal that Blairs. You don't ask the question. It was just a question. Are you gonna release the details of the guns? And then you got this Tessier.

Please tell me that's what you're gonna do. Was it you calling her? I doubt it. I doubt it. Was it you calling her? Were you calling Tessier? No. But I doubt it.

I think we're going to find out if it was. I wasn't, I didn't even watch the full media event. She's mad about the media event. And she didn't watch it? I started to watch it and I think I was, there was a lot of other things going on in the RCMP at that point. Like what? What else was going on in the RCMP? I'm, unfortunately.

with COVID and still a bunch of other events. Were you aware that a few minutes later, 449, Ms. Tessier sent another email to Ms. Scanlon saying, is there any way to relay to Jennifer slash Darren the need to talk about the guns? No. I wasn't aware of that. It does seem, however, given the communication

that there appears to be a great deal of concern at that point that this information isn't going to be released publicly. Yeah. Like I said, the only reason I can think that Sharon is sending those messages is because she already told me that the weapons were going to be part of the media event and that I transmitted that information up. And so maybe because she was misinformed or she misinformed me that she was trying to correct that, I'm not sure. And based on your previous testimony and when you spoke at SECU, is it fair to say that your position has always been that number one, you can confirm that Minister Blair never directed you to release any information? He never, he has never directed me.

No, he's never ordered you to do anything, and you recognize that that would be incredibly inappropriate, and it would be your responsibility at that point to say no. Absolutely. I think of your preamble to your... She whispered, absolutely. Your Secu testimony says, specifically, I was not directed to publicly release information about weapons used by the perpetrator to help advance pending gun control legislation.

But you do agree that through the government, the minister, chief of staff, the prime minister's office, it was a request. Can this information be released publicly at the press conference? No. No, wasn't that? It was never a request.

It was never a request by them. Okay? They were asking if it was going to be part of the media event, the big media event. Asked only if. That day. The distinction you're drawing is between direction or an order, which is improper. And somebody simply asking. When somebody says, can you do that?

That's to me direction, and it wasn't that at all. It wasn't can at all. Just an if. Just an if. Is that information going to be part of that media event? So that's why I'm having a difficult time with your questions. You understood that there was no benefit for the government. Let me ask the question.

You understood the question. Let her talk. There was no benefit. For the government. What are you talking about? Wow. She's getting rattled. There was no benefit for the government.

Let me ask the question. You should have just let her babble, dude, right there. Let me ask the question. You understood that the question was, even if it was framed as, is that information going to be released? The message was, we'd really like to have that information released. I didn't see it like that. That's a lie, guys. Yeah, you did.

And you whispered it. I didn't see it like that. I didn't see it like that. If you didn't see it like that, why would they ask, why would they ask the question? Do you see what's happening here right now? She's protecting the government. They asked the question. Are you going to release the details of the guns?

The lawyer says, what they're really saying is, we really want you to. Lucky says, no, that's not true. I didn't see it like that. Keep on watching. I didn't see it like that. No? You thought it was just out of sheer curiosity? No, because it was one of the outstanding items that still wasn't out in the public. And we had...

Why would that outstanding item have to be out in the public? Why would you be upset with that? No, because... Oh! She's red in the face. Is that information going to be released? The message was we'd really like to have that information released. Absolutely.

I didn't see it like that. Liar? You thought it was just out of sheer... instead of sheer curiosity. No, because it was one of the outstanding items that still wasn't out in the public. And we had made it very clear to the government that you could not talk about anything until the RC&P released the information. Each division on the ground had a very specific protocol of the release of the information.

They wanted a no surprise environment, as did I. So until they released it, none of the government officials could speak about it or release it in their media events. Right. So wouldn't that make a benefit, wouldn't that make it a benefit for the government if you released it so they can then talk about it in their media outlets? But she said there was no benefit for the government? That's a benefit right there. They wanted a no surprise environment, as did I. So until they released it, none of the government officials could speak about it or release it in their media events. That's a benefit. But I guess my question is then if you're suggesting that you had no idea why they were asking for it, it was just a question, is this going to be included or not?

Then why on the 28th when you're meeting with H Division are you telling them this is tied to pending gun legislation? Well, because it was about the weapons. So it was really, like I said, it wasn't, the specific meeting was the fact that I gave the wrong information is what frustrated me the most. And it was yet another example of issues with communication. So when I am asked a question and I give the wrong answer, I don't like to do that. I don't want to give misinformation.

Not big of a deal. There's enough misinformation out there. I don't want to be the perpetrator of that. So when I gave the misinformation, that's the part that frustrated me. And it was, again, part of many other issues. And so it was watching things happen that we could be better at. We could be better at those communications. It's not true.

The weapons was but one example. And because that was the most recent example, that's the one I spoke about. Oh, so you admit that you spoke about it, more than the rest? My question, Commissioner, was if your understanding was that you were being asked, that you didn't know why you were being asked with this information or what? She didn't know why she was being asked the information from the government about the guns. If your understanding was that you were being asked, that you didn't know why you were being asked for this information or what the purpose was,

then why in that meeting are you expressly telling Darren Campbell, wait for me, ask a question, Darren Campbell and Chris Leather and the escape, you're telling them this is you don't understand how important this is. It's tied to pending gun legislation. Because the question that was asked to me was about the weapons. That's why I said, that's why they asked if the weapons would be included. I'm guessing because it's part of their mandate and it's part of legislation. So I was tying it to the reason why they asked if the information of the weapons would be included in the release.

But you said there was no benefit for the government. So now you get it all of a sudden. Right. The information of the weapons would be included in the release. You understood what the interest was in that information. And I was just expressing what I felt was their interest in that information being part of it. And they're asking if it's part of it. I advised yes.

I tell them yes. And like I said, that was the end of those conversations. Be fair, you were more intimately involved with that pending gun legislation than simply being aware that it was part of the minister's mandate, weren't you? No. there was a lot of briefings, but I usually wasn't the ones doing it. We have two or three experts that do it. The odd time I was briefing, but I'm not...

She's lying, guys. A gun expert by any means. Yeah, under the Firearms Act, the RC&P Commissioner also serves as... Okay. Got to the bottom of nothing, really. You know what? I can't get to the bottom of it. Yeah, you watched a video of me not being able to get to the bottom of something.

There's no way the government is going to... be convicted or anything, anything's going to come from this. You can never prove that there was political interference. But what I don't like is lucky protecting them. There was no benefit for the government. She knows that's not true. They wanted to talk about it. If it smells bad and it does here, it's bad.

And I don't know exactly. what we're being lied about too. But it's something, and it's something big. I don't think we'll ever get to the bottom of it. When you squint, you're lying. Yeah, under the Firearms Act, the RC&P Commissioner also serves as the chief executive of the Canadian Firearms Program. Isn't that right? I just want to show you one last thing before I get out of here,

because I'm going to do more videos on this, if you can believe it. It drives me nuts. That I'm still confused. about it. But he's he's the, and I'm going to bring up this up in the next video about, uh, Brenda Lucky being the head of some firearms such and such. She's a big wig when it comes to firearms, a leader when it comes to firearms. And she knows nothing about firearms. And he finally, he's really getting to her. He's really getting answers out of her. And this is what the commission does.

Sorry, Mr. Scott, it's 5.30. I'm presuming you're wrapping up. See what it mean? That's why he wanted to take a break earlier so he can continue this way. They want him to wrap it up. He's finally getting somewhere. And what does Scott say?

Watch us. Big pause. He's not even listening to him. He doesn't care. He's like, go away. Or maybe you can tell us where you are in the... I'm happy to keep going. I'm sorry?

I'm happy to keep going if the commissioners will hear me. Sure. How much longer do you think he'll be? None of your business? Not long. Okay, thank you. I love that. Okay, okay.

I just love that. Don't interrupt me right now. I'm not going to do this the next day. I finally got what I want. And what does Scott want? What did we figure out that Scott wanted? What does Scott get out of all this? Probably maybe a lot.

And maybe nothing. Drives me nuts that I did a video for I don't know how long and I'm still confused. Anyways, guys, thanks for watching. Bye, bye.