The biggest surprise of RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki’s testimony before the Mass Casualty Commission was her candid admission she knows nothing about Canada’s gun laws.
[Question] Under the Firearms Act, the RCMP commissioner also serves as the chief executive of the Canadian Firearms Program. Isn’t that right?[i]
[Lucki] I’m the Commissioner of the Firearms Program. Yes.
[Question] Making you the most senior administrator with respect to the Firearms Act in Canada.
[Lucki] Yes. But not the most senior subject matter expert on all things guns. I very rarely brief on anything to do with the guns.
[Lucki] I’m ashamed to say I’m not even that intimately involved with firearms, even at that level. Like I said, there there’s so many aspects to firearms and lists and the categories and the classifications. Uh, I, I don’t know that stuff.
[Lucki] I’m not a gun expert by any means.
The Canadian Firearms Program issues an annual report titled “The Commissioner of Firearms Report” under her name, yet by her own admission Brenda Lucki doesn’t have a clue about what’s contained in that report.
So who is really running the Canadian Firearms Program? It’s obvious it’s not Brenda Lucki.
Could this be why the RCMP mandarins continue to manufacture laws and impose them on licensed firearm owners?
Not Wearing Uniform?
When RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki testified under oath before the Mass Casualty Commission last week, we were appalled to see her dressed in civilian clothes.
Why was she not in uniform, as she is every other time she testifies before government committees?
“What is the overall message when the very sight of the uniform was decided by these three Commissioners as off-putting to the participants?” asked commentator Pete Cross.[ii]
“I also found it strange that the commissioner of the RCMP did not appear in uniform for this testimony,” wrote Gail Lethbridge.[iii] “She was answering questions as the leader of the force. It makes me wonder if this was a visual tactic to somehow divert attention away from the RCMP.”
Queen of Conditional Apologies
“I want to apologize for the RCMP, but in such a way that we weren’t what you expected us to be and I don’t think we were what you wanted us to be or what you needed us to be,” Brenda Lucki said.[iv]
“I wish that we could have been more and we could have been different and we could have predicted and we could have had more hindsight. But I still think that it (the shooting) was extremely heinous; I’ve never seen anything like this. I have 37 years of experience.”
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride…”
An apology followed by “but” is not an apology.
It’s a pathetic attempt to abdicate responsibility for the RCMP’s abject failure as the Nova Scotia mass murders took place, as well as Commissioner Lucki’s failure to implement a single recommendation from any of dozens of past inquiries.
Josh Bryson, a lawyer for the family of two victims, noted that the RCMP left the home of victims Peter and Joy Bond unsecured for over 18 hours.
“You’re sitting here today, two years later, and you don’t know why the Bond home was unattended for 18 hours? And you haven’t delegated anyone to look into this, correct?” Bryson asked.
“No, I haven’t,” Lucki responded.
Yet Lucki claims she is “committed to any recommendations that we can implement out of this commission.”
We ask Canadians not to hold their breath waiting for Lucki to keep her word on this, because if past actions are an indicator of future ones, the RCMP won’t lift a finger to correct themselves this time, either.