Metropolis attack: a hidden report with conclusions written in advance

The report submitted to the minister after the Metropolis attack was signed by a senior officer of the SQ who admitted to having no expertise in the matter, was it revealed to the court, where the judge also noted that the conclusions had been decided in advance.

• Read also: The Métropolis had been abandoned by the police on the evening of the attack

• Read also: Léo Bureau-Blouin testifies at the trial against the police

“I relied on the expertise of the author of the report, I do not remember having questioned the content”, candidly confessed the retiree of the Sûreté du Québec Denis Rioux, this Thursday at the Montreal courthouse.

And just after, the former director of the directorate for the protection of people and infrastructures admitted that the conclusions had been dictated to him in advance, when he was mandated to produce a report, four months after the attack. .

“I had no expertise in that,” he confessed.

Mr. Rioux was on the witness stand at the civil trial of four stage technicians traumatized by the drama of the election night of September 4, 2012. That evening, Richard Henry Bain had burst into the meeting place of the leader of the Party Quebecer Pauline Marois and had opened fire in front of the rear entrance of the building, causing one death and one injury. He then started a fire.

For the technicians present on site, the police failed in their task of protecting the public and they are claiming $600,000 for the damage they suffered.

Confidential report

It is therefore in this context that Me Virginie Dufresne-Lemire, who represents the stage technicians, learned of the existence of an “executive report” concerning the Metropolis attack.

Initially, the SQ denied the existence of such a report according to the lawyer. Then, faced with reality, the provincial police claimed that they did not know who had written it since it was not signed.

Backed up against the wall, the lawyer representing the SQ, Me Julien Bernard, then struggled like hell in holy water to ensure that this report was not filed in evidence, which would ensure that it would be public.

Judge Philippe Bélanger took his decision under advisement on this question.

No formal interview

But even if the report has still not been filed, the person in charge of collecting the information for its drafting testified.

And Louis Bergeron, who at the time was the captain in charge of the personality protection division at the time of the attack, admitted that he had not carried out any formal interviews as part of his job.

“I had in mind the information I needed,” he said.

He claimed to have relied on informal conversations he had had with police officers four months earlier. And just like Denis Rioux, he admitted that his experience in protecting personalities was quite limited.

“I had the basics,” said the self-described manager who has been in field operations for just over a year to understand his job.

Six threats against Ms. Marois

We also learned that at the time, the Sûreté du Québec had noted six threats which directly targeted the leader of the PQ, Pauline Marois, on September 4, 2012. However, no one was able to name them, nor even to say where this information came from. But obviously, the police did not see fit to send a lot of personnel to his place of assembly, since according to the witnesses heard during the civil trial, there were no patrolmen at the back of the Metropolis. when Richard Henry Bain carried out his attack.

On the other hand, witnesses were more specific about general threats related to the elections. Among them were the student demonstrations, the Plan Nord of outgoing Liberal Premier Jean Charest and the “radical separatists”.

Nothing was about lone wolves like Bain.

According to the testimony heard in court, the SQ had however concluded that it was clear that Bain wanted to target the sovereignty movement and that it was, according to them, a political attack.

The trial continues this afternoon, with the continuation of the testimony of the author of the report to the Minister.

Leave a Comment