The Mass Casualty Commission is sitting for two days this week, during which there will be a series of “Small Group” sessions, which we are assured is different than a “Roundtable” or “Witness Panel”, despite their similar appearance.  We had been expecting to hear about the resolution of an application to the Commissioners by Frank Magazine (and supported by many others) first thing Monday morning, but there was no mention of the videos at any point during the day, and they are still not posted to the MCC website. This would seem to be contrary to the expectations of the applicant, so something may be going on there. Whatever it is, the Commissioners evidently felt no compulsion to tell us anything about it.  The first small group session involved paramedics Jeff Aucoin, Jesse Brine, Bruce Cox, and Melanie Lowe. Each of them responded to calls during the mass casualty events, with Mr. Aucoin, Mr. Brine, and Ms. Lowe among the first to arrive at Portapique.  In the afternoon, two 911 call takers participated in a discussion. Both Bryan Green and Kirsten Baglee were in the Operational Communications Centre on the morning of April 19, 2020. They spoke of the sheer volume of calls and information they had to process, and gave a sense of a room where there was ‘controlled chaos’ taking place.

There were foundational documents presented today dealing with the (ultimately futile) helicopter efforts, assistance from the Halifax Police, and the 911 and radio systems in NS.  The one RCMP helicopter that serves NS and NB was out of service for nearly two and a half months around the time of the mass shooting, and there was no backup plan in place. There were military helicopters in Greenwood and Halifax, but (despite also being federal agencies) they were not deployed. NS Department of Natural Resources has four helicopters, but they could only fly during the day, and when they did become involved were always a step or two behind the action. Helicopters could have been the most valuable response tool for the RCMP, but they were never involved in a helpful manner.  Today also marks three months since Lisa Banfield was referred to restorative justice, rather than proceeding with her charge of supplying ammunition. There has been no update over that time on her cooperation with the MCC, or with the RJ process. On Monday, the Frank Magazine application to have the videos from the Big Stop released will be heard by the Commissioners. It is an application that should be supported by all parties, as it gives the best evidence available of those final moments, yet we can expect its release to be opposed by lawyers for the RCMP, and perhaps the MCC itself.

There were two witnesses today appearing before the Mass Casualty Commission, one civilian member, and one staff sergeant, each of whom had a role in public communications during the events of the mass casualty. In the morning Director of Strategic Communications, Lia Scanlan testified. In the afternoon, Staff Sergeant Addie MacCallum gave his account of the events of April 18-19, 2020. Both witnesses had strong emotional responses at times during their testimony.

One of the main complaints in the immediate aftermath of the April 18-19, 2020 mass casualty events was the use by the RCMP of social media posts to warn the public, rather than issuing an emergency alert to citizens’ cell phones, and then the low degree of accuracy of the content of those posts. Today, after a brief presentation by Commission lawyer Anna Mancini, three witnesses attempted to explain why Twitter was the primary communication platform chosen, and why accurate information was so seemingly difficult to provide to the public.  By now, we know that key information such as the fact that the killer was in a fully marked replica RCMP car, his name, and that he had not been captured was known to at least some RCMP officers since before 11pm on the night of the 18th. At 11:32pm, a tweet was issued from the RCMP account noting that there was a firearm complaint in the Portapique area and that people should stay in their homes. Nothing else was sent out until 8:02am the next morning.  Eleven further tweets were issued, but there were delays in issuing photos of the perpetrator and his replica car, and each time a tweet was sent, the information was delayed so much so as to be of little practical use. As a result, even those such as Kristen Beaton, who was tracking social media that morning, did not have information that was known to police, which they could have used to protect (and likely save) themselves.  The witnesses today were retired Cpl. Jennifer Clarke, who people may recognize as a frequent spokesperson for the RCMP in Nova Scotia, Glenn Mason from EMO, and Superintendent Dustine Rodier. Cpl. Clarke was involved in the drafting and sending of the tweets. Mr. Mason was the EMO official who offered the RCMP use of the Alert Ready system. Spt. Rodier was in charge of the Operational Communications Centre, and has been a central focus of questions around the failure to use the Alert Ready system.

Just before being appointed as one of the three Commissioners of the NS Mass Casualty Commission, Toronto-based lawyer, Kim Stanton finished writing a book on Inquiries, called Reconciling Truths. There are several themes and lessons the MCC may draw from this work, which might help it fulfill its mandate, and increase the level of public trust in the Commission.

The focus of the MCC was on the Town of Truro today, with a Foundational Document and witness discussing the interaction between the RCMP and Truro Police as Gabriel Wortman made his way towards, and ultimately through, the Town of Truro.  We have heard from Chief Dave MacNeil before today, as he has been interviewed about the Truro Police role in and knowledge of the killer’s movements through Truro, and the Truro Police relationship with the RCMP. Chief MacNeil has been critical of the RCMP’s response, their lack of information sharing with Truro Police during the mass shooting, and their efforts after the fact to keep important information from being made public.

This was the second day in a row where the Mass Casualty Commission had hosted experts from a wide range of locations to discuss approaches to critical incidents. Unfortunately, as was the case yesterday, there was no discussion whatsoever of the events of the April 18-19, 2020 mass casualty in Nova Scotia. There were two panel discussions. The first one in the morning dealt with issues around making decisions under stress. The afternoon session involved discussions on the societal context of policing, which included discussions on budgeting priorities, training, and use of force training. There was an interesting story from CTV news this morning about the ongoing boycott by participants, which could result in a pathway to ending the boycott. In the article, one of the lawyers for the participants, Tara Miller, noted that she is going to make an application to the MCC on her client’s behalf to ask the Commissioners to amend their Rules of Procedure. The amendment would be to section 52 of the Rules, which deals with questions to witnesses. It currently states in part that “Participants may have an opportunity to question the witnesses, to the extent of their interest as determined by the Commissioners.” The proposed amendment would change that “may” to “shall”. There would still remain discretion for the Commissioners to limit questions based on the degree of interest of a party, and they can also limit the “scope and manner of questioning” based on their discretion. The last restriction would be applied only to ensure that questions are relevant (scope) and that the questions are not being asked in a hectoring or otherwise uncivil manner.

There were two discussion panels held today by the Mass Casualty Commission, dealing with responses to critical incidents. The first one dealt with how best to prepare the police and other first responding stakeholders for a critical incident. The second session dealt with how to corporate civilians, 911 operators and others into the response package.

In video posted yesterday evening, retired Sergeant Andy O’Brien testified about his role in the response to the mass casualty events. Sgt. O’Brien oversaw operations for the Colchester County RCMP, but was off duty on April 18, 2020 when he was contacted about the initial reports out of Portapique. He has stated that he had 4-5 drinks of rum that night, and though he was initially reluctant to take on any role, he soon had a radio and was giving directions to officers on the scene from his home. Many of the participants in the MCC continued their boycott of proceedings, as a result of the accommodations granted to Sgt. O’Brien. The testimony was conducted by Zoom, and was not broadcast live. There was also no cross examination permitted, but rather the participants were to provide questions to Commission lawyers to ask. Nothing about Sgt. O’Brien’s presentation or demeanor would convince a neutral observer that he required any accommodations. He was treated very gently at first by Commission lawyer Anna Mancini, who initially tended to read out long paragraphs of Foundational Documents relating to Sgt. O’Brien’s previous experience, then his involvement, and then asked him whether he agreed or had anything to add.

Staff Sergeant Brian Rehill testified yesterday, by Zoom, and the video was released this morning. S/Sgt. Rehill had asked for accomodations to allow the testimony to not be broadcast live, and for him to not be cross examined.  The MCC Commissioners granted his request, but should be having second thoughts after watching him testify without trouble for over five hours.   S/Sgt. Rehill testified about miscommunications on the containment efforts in Portapique, the dynamic of having multiple commanders giving orders over the radio, and distinctions between his evidence and S/Sgt. Halliday's when it came to knowledge of the gunman's replica police car.   MCC lawyer Roger Burrill asked the direct questions, and then asked some questions on behalf of the other participants. It is not clear why this procedure was considered less traumatic for the S/Sgt. than having  another lawyer ask the same questions, though Burrill's gentle approach and lack of any follow-up may be the answer.   In the video, I talk about what I think the Commissioners need to start doing in order to start fostering and establishing some confidence among the participants and the public. It is *not* more pre-written, vaguely phrased remarks about how difficult all this must be for everyone.