Top Mountie asks watchdog to investigate seizures of guns from flooded homes -

Top Mountie asks watchdog to investigate seizures of guns from flooded homes


OTTAWA – The head of the RCMP is asking for an investigation into the seizure of firearms from homes evacuated during the Alberta floods last month.

Commissioner Bob Paulson has written to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, asking the agency to look into the matter.

The Mounties have said they took the weapons as officers searched homes in the High River flood zone to look for flood victims, pets and anything that might pose a threat to returning residents.

They said any firearms they took weren’t properly stored.

The Prime Minister’s Office condemned the seizures, saying the RCMP should have been focused on protecting lives and property.

In his letter to Ian McPhail, the interim chair of the watchdog agency, Paulson said while he is proud of the way his officers handled the disaster, he is concerned about the reaction to the weapons seizures.

“I am quite concerned by the sharp criticism that has arisen in the media with respect to the gun seizures from evacuated homes,” he wrote.

“Naturally this is quite troubling to me, and I am sure to you, as indeed it must be to many Canadians who wonder what was going on in High River.

“I am writing today therefore, to ask if you would consider a ‘chair-initiated complaint’ to permit you to investigate our actions in High River to assess if they were well founded, reasonably executed and in accordance with our policies.”

He said the Mounties will co-operate fully with an investigation.


Top Mountie asks watchdog to investigate seizures of guns from flooded homes

  1. It seems like a sensible approach… though after the PMO comments, I have to wonder if Toews was standing over his shoulder to make sure he wrote / sent it…

    • Yes, this is a very sensible approach. One citizen has gone on record as saying his gun was not in plain site. In fact, he claims he had “hidden it after removing it from locked storage in the basement”. He further claims that his locked, evacuated home NEVER took on any water. It was apparently in a part of town that wasn’t under water. This makes the RCMP’s official story of rescuing pets and humans from drowning in the floods a little less credible. Further, does the fact that this practice of entering locked homes was repeated in no other jurisdiction, including other small towns that evacuated due to flooding like like Canmore, Turner Valley and Black Diamond, all of which are also policed by the RCMP. The really interesting thing is that Canmore is populated by vacation properties of wealthy Calgarians that spend weekends in the mountain town. That means that likely 1/2 of the town’s homes are empty during the work week. Yet, it seems there weren’t the same fears regarding looting and access to guns.

      • Wow. One citizen complained!

        They said they looked in closets for people or pets who may have been hiding. So none of this is any surprise. And of course you continue to insist they should have treated HR the same way they treated different places despite the fact they are totally different situations.

        They got the guns back. I fail to understand the point of this big conspiracy of yours.

        • Gayle, you fail to understand a lot of things. You also failed to read the comment correctly. I wrote “one citizen went on record as saying his gun was not in plain site but hidden…” Unlike yourself, I do not know how many citizens complained but I understand it was many given the reports that have come out. Carry on though with your ridiculous blathering at me. It is of NO consequence to me, I assure you. However, I will point that, I have stated several times that I NEVER suggested there was any kind of conspiracy at play, rather it was poor decision making to enter people’s homes without their consent to search for and remove something that never was causing any risk in the first place given the inability of anyone to enter their homes. Maybe you should read the first-hand account of the Macleans staff writer whose own family lives in the town instead of harassing me.

          By the way, aren’t you the person who was trying to convince everyone that Justin Trudeau was making due on $40K per year interest on inheritance as an excuse for him taking money to speak at charity benefits while MP? No wonder you are sooo hell bent on making me out to be a partisan…..

          Now, if you want to run along and stump for your party, why don’t you do that. Meanwhile, we had more flooding in an parts of Calgary last night and so I will see about doing some volunteering.

          • Right. No conspiracy. Just a suggestion the RCMP are lying about why they took the guns they later gave back, and a clumsy comparison to different locations that had different issues. Repeated relentlessly as some excuse for the PMO’s demand for the return of the guns…

            And the claim that the PMO was just trying to let everyone know that Harper did not have anything to do with the seizure of the guns when the PMO released a statement demanding the guns be returned (in case you wonder why I suggest you are more partisan than you try to come across).

            In any event, you are wrong about tying me to this claim about Trudeau, whatever it is you are trying to say I said. I do not hide the fact I support Trudeau and the LPC. I do not pretend to be non-partisan and then make partisan shots or partisan excuses. I did not, however, claim that Trudeau was paid as a speaker for any reason other than the fact that charities were willing to pay him to do so.

          • Bye, Gayle.

          • Oh don’t worry, you;ll see me again. The fact you are not willing to defend your positions does not mean I am going to stop critiquing it.

          • Great! Go forth to the page on gardening and critique my positions on that too.
            If you spend any time here on this site, you will come to know that I truly enjoy when people share their differing opinions, I just don’t particularly enjoy when people ATTACK a person because they don’t share the same opinion especially when it comes to political issues. I find it pretentious and ridiculous given that most of our political parties have been involved in a major scandal within the last 10 years. Therefore, to have some person “critique” another person’s point of view when their own is so politically biased and is geared toward intimidating free speech makes my skin crawl. I will remind you and all of the partisan attackers on here that you and the parties that you are defending are trying to attract voters from their support for other parties not demean said voters into swearing they would NEVER vote for anyone who would have people such as yourself as supporters.
            Now Gayle, feel free to “critique” and when you are personally rude to me and accusing me of things I never did or said, I will feel free to ignore you. Until then, I am very happy to converse civilly. As for worrying, you can assured that is something I will never do in regard to yourself.

          • Pointing out the flaws in your position is not a personal attack. Try not to be so sensitive.

            You are being inconsistent. You are making allegations about the motivation of the RCMP, who are just trying to keep people safe, based on nothing but supposition and innuendo, and you are ignoring the facts that do not support your position.

            In short, your argument is weak. Sorry if you do not like to hear that, but it is. The fact that you are as partisan as the rest of us is quite apparent, though you seem to think your opinion would be given more weight if it were non-partisan, so you try to hide that. Personally I think it is much more honest to be open about that stuff, and that people who prefer one party over another can still be intellectually honest with their analysis. I am sorry you do not feel that way but that is your cross to bear.

            i will not be chasing you around the gardening boards – however when you take a position on a story I am following, and when your position is flawed, I will point it out. That is part of the purpose of allowing people to comment – so they can debate different positions. Again, try not to take it so personally.

            good luck!

    • You must have a real shitty taste in your mouth………seeing as your full of it.

      Just recently you were defending the members actions, nothing to see here folks.

      Useless leftist tool.

      • Yes I did defend them. I think the inquiry is a good way to clear them if my beliefs are correct. If it turns out I’m wrong… well, then I am wrong. Won’t be the first time. Unlike you I am not so blindly partisan that I will ignore clear evidence of wrongdoing just because the perpetrators are on “my team” or say it is okay because my opponents did something similar.

        I have my opinion and you have yours. Neither of us knows which is correct. The difference is, my opinion is open to change based on evidence.

        Whereas you are willing to let your party use you as a mouthpiece regardless of facts.

        And we all know that tools are used – even the dull ones like you. But someone should point out to your owners that you seem to be spinning in reverse.

  2. Sounds good. I hope they move this quickly next time there is a possibility fo wrongdoing.

  3. With the Mounties, what they do and what they say are quite different.