The Mass Casualty Commission focused its attention today on masculinity, past violence committed by Gabriel Wortman, and gender-based violence in rural Nova Scotia. Two California professors presented their research on how data in the US shows how men tend to be the perpetrators in mass shootings, there was a Foundational Document presentation on Wortman’s past violent behavior, and there was an expert on family and gender-based violence in Atlantic Canada.  This agenda is the beginning of a week where the MCC will focus on family violence and gender-based violence more generally. The week will culminate with Wortman’s common-law spouse of 19 years, Lisa Banfield, speaking on Friday. The MCC would say that Ms. Banfield is “testifying” on Friday, but whereas she will not be cross-examined by any other lawyers, I prefer Patterson Law lawyer Michael Scott’s description – that we will be getting an oral version of a statement that was given behind closed doors.  I took some time to review the statements that Ms. Banfield has provided to the MCC. You may have noted that MCC lawyer Emily Hill has been publicising that Ms. Banfield has sat down for five ‘lengthy’ interviews and has provided documents to the Commission. There is something slightly misleading about this statement. Listening to it, one might expect that Ms. Banfield has sat down for five sessions with Commission investigators in recent months, since having her criminal charge referred to restorative justice (which effectively means the charges have been dropped), but in fact four of those five interviews were done in the ten days following the events of the mass shooting back in April, 2020.

As part of their continuing effort to reduce the size of their viewing audience, the Mass Casualty Commission today featured a roundtable discussion on “Rurality and Community Well-Being”. The information on the MCC website suggested that the goal of the discussion was to address culture and attitudes of rural life in Nova Scotia, limited and differential service delivery in rural areas, and health and safety of those working in rural communities and how the rural context affects their working lives. The roundtable as facilitated by Dr. Emma Cunliffe, Research and Policy Director for the MCC, and featured Robin Campbell, PhD Candidate at Dalhousie University, Madonna Doucette, Director, Youth Project, Dr. Karen Foster, Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, Dr. Lesley Frank, Professor at Acadia University, and Dr. Marilyn MacDonald, Professor at Dalhousie University’s School of Nursing.  It is difficult to understand what the MCC Commissioners think they are getting from these discussions, particularly considering the time and resources being expended in having ‘expert’ reports prepared and then scheduling days and days of hearing time to listen to them. Dr. Cunliffe and the research team seem to be fascinated by these academic discussions, but they are only marginally connected to the events of the mass casualty.

On the second day of proceedings this week before the Canada Day long weekend, there were three featured items on the MCC agenda. First, there was an announcement on a schedule of significant witnesses who have been subpoenaed to appear over the summer. Then, there were two roundtable discussions, one on mental health impacts on first responders, and one on policing rural communities.  Commissioner MacDonald read from a statement that the MCC has released on their website this morning, regarding significant witnesses from whom the Commission will hear over the summer months. They include Lisa Banfield (July 15), Supt. Darren Campell (July 25-26), Chief Supt. Chris Leather (July 27-28), Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman (August 22-23), and Commissioner Brenda Lucki (August 23-24).  We will also hear from Cst. Greg Wiley (who has stated that he visited with Wortman over 15 times), Cst. Troy Maxwell, and Wortman’s former Portapique neighbour Brenda Forbes, though the dates have not been published. Cpl. Rodney Peterson will not testify, but will rather submit a sworn affidavit.  The most notable part of that announcement is with respect to Ms. Banfield. Officers who participated in press conferences are testifying for two days, while the person who lived with the killer for 19 years, and spent the day with him before he went on his killing spree is going to testify for only one. It does not bode well for an in-depth examination of their lives together, or any hope that we will get a thorough examination of what lead to Wortman killing 22 people. In the midst of approximately 7-8 hours of available time, there will be breaks for lunch, two lawyer meetings to discuss what further questions should be asked, and perhaps additional breaks for Ms. Banfield to gather her strength.  Just as significantly (and perhaps more so), there will be no cross examination of Ms. Banfield by lawyers for other participants. Instead, questions will need to be submitted to Commission lawyers, who will decide what questions will be asked.

After a week of dramatic testimony and revelations which made national news, the MCC is looking to be much quieter as we end the month of June. Today, there was a seven-person roundtable discussion on the mental health needs of families and communities after a mass casualty incident. On Thursday, there will be a similar discussion, focused on the needs of first responders after a mass casualty. Part of the mandate for the Commission is to examine issues around supports offered to the families of victims, affected citizens, police personnel, and the community. That means that there is a requirement to try to understand what supports might have been seen to be effective in other cases, and to compare them to what has happened in Nova Scotia following the shootings. Like with other areas that are to be studied, the MCC has taken that requirement and adopted a very (and perhaps overly) thorough approach. There was no discussion of the specific events of the mass casualty of April 18-19, 2020 in Nova Scotia. Instead, the discussion (which lasted nearly five hours) was a broadly based one that brought in other examples of tragedies in other places, such as Norway, the 9/11 attacks in New York, and the Swiss Air crash of the coast of Nova Scotia. The discussion was lead by Dr. Emma Cunliffe, who is the Research and Policy Director for the MCC. There were seven panelists (or, rather, roundtable participants) for the discussion. They were Grete Dyb from the University of Oslo, Levant Alten from Victim Support Europe, Mary Fetchet from Voices Centre for Resilience (a 9/11 support group), Great Village resident and former Norther Zone Grief Coordinator Serena Lewis, Megan McElheran from Wayfound Mental Health Group, Terry Mitchell from Wilfred Laurier University, and University of New York Associate Professor Jaclyn Schildkraut. The introduction portion of the discussion took half an hour to complete.

On a day when the MCC proceedings included a technical roundtable on communications interoperability, followed by an expert witness presentation on supporting survivors, the main public focus turned to (or remained focused on) a brewing political controversy. The Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, has become the subject of heavy criticism following the revelation that she tried to compel senior NS-based RCMP officers into releasing the makes and models of the firearms used by Gabriel Wortman in the April 18-19, 2020 mass shootings during one of the initial press conferences. She is alleged to have done so at the direction of Prime Minister Trudeau and Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair. I think many people have things wrong when it comes to Commissioner Lucki.

On a day when the MCC proceedings included a technical roundtable on communications interoperability, followed by an expert witness presentation on supporting survivors, the main public focus turned to (or remained focused on) a brewing political controversy. The Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, has become the subject of heavy criticism following the revelation that she tried to compel senior NS-based RCMP officers into releasing the makes and models of the firearms used by Gabriel Wortman in the April 18-19, 2020 mass shootings during one of the initial press conferences. She is alleged to have done so at the direction of Prime Minister Trudeau and Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair. I think many people have things wrong when it comes to Commissioner Lucki.

The proceedings today focused on some of the after-effects of the shootings and the services made available to family members and others. There was a Foundational Document presentation on mental health supports offered, and then witness testimony from Cst. Wayne “Skipper” Bent, who was assigned to be the family liaison officer on behalf of the RCMP. The most explosive part of the evidence was left until the end of the day, when we were told about political pressure from the Prime Minister, through Commissioner Lucki, to use the shootings as support for the government’s gun control legislation.

The MCC proceedings featured two decisions from the Commissioners, on witness questioning and the release of the videos from the Big Stop. Commission lawyer Emily Hill presented evidence today on the chaotic and slow process of notifying next of kin about the deaths caused by the NS mass shooter, a process which angered many family members, and is at least partially responsible for the current state of animosity in the relationship.  Cst. Nick Dorrington, an outspoken and highly competent officer, testified about his involvement in the containment efforts, his thoughts on being told not to go into the community in the early moments, and recommendations for improvements to how rural areas are policed.

The MCC’s short week of proceedings continued and concluded today with two further ‘small group’ sessions. The morning session featured service providers from Victim’s Services, the Medical Examiners office, and a funeral director. In the afternoon session, we heard from MLA Tom Taggart, and Mayor Christine Blair. It is in the mandate of the MCC to look at the services that were available and provided to victims, their families, and the community, and so it was necessary in a way to hear from these individuals. I suspect the audience numbers for today and yesterday’s sessions were considerably lower than for days where there were factual witnesses testifying about the events of the mass casualty itself.  The morning session, in particular, was not exactly riveting television. The speakers, following the lead to the (two, for some reason) moderators, spoke slowly, and in low tones. Similar to the paramedics and 911 call takers from yesterday, these participants were trying to convey what it is like to be them, or to be in their role, during an event such as this. They were not called to provide factual narratives of what took place, but rather to give us a window into their worlds, and to comment on any changes that they may recommend.

The stage had been set for a hearing tomorrow morning on an application by Frank Magazine, supported by other media organizations, along with family participants, to have surveillance videos from the Enfield Big Stop be published as exhibits in the Mass Casualty Commission. The issue has been resolved, but how it played out has exposed what appears to be a rift between the MCC lawyers and the three Commissioners.   David Hutt, a media lawyer at Burchells, has done excellent work leading the way on the application for Frank Magazine. The MCC was initially opposed to the videos being released, but now say that was all a big misunderstanding. The Federal DOJ had opposed the release as well, but once the MCC lawyers changed their minds, leaving the DOJ alone in opposition, they seem to have calculated that it would be worse to publicly state their untenable position and lose the application than to just let the videos be released.   In the course of changing their minds, or at least their position, the MCC lawyers placed the blame squarely on the three Commissioners for the videos not being made public, and even went so far as to say they had not been told why that decision was made and could only presume what the Commissioners reasons may have been.   This shot at the Commissioners by the MCC lawyers may be a response to the Commissioners' Interim Report, which reminded us all that they the Commissioners could only act on what was put before them by MCC lawyers, who they have instructed to be tenacious in their pursuit of the evidence. The message from the Commissioners seemed to be, if you have complaints about the MCC, don't blame us.   We will hear what the Commissioners have to say about this in the morning. After that, and over the course of Monday and Tuesday, there will be "Small Group Sessions", which are apparently going to be different than "Roundtables" or "Panels" in some meaningful way that is not yet clear.