Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 6 - Evidence - June 1, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, June 1, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:33 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy of Canada (topic: RCMP in transition).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny. I am the chair of the committee.
Before we begin, I would like to briefly introduce the members of the committee. We have Senator Rod Zimmer from Winnipeg, Manitoba. He has had a long career in business and philanthropy. He has been a member of the Senate since August 2005 and also sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
[Translation]
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, from Quebec, is a lawyer and was appointed to the Senate in June, 1993. Senator Nolin is presently Vice-Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and he is also a member of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
[English]
Senator Wilfred Moore was called to the Senate in September 1996. He represents the senatorial division of Stanhope St./South Shore in Nova Scotia. He has been active at the city level in Halifax-Dartmouth and has served as a member of the board of governors of Saint Mary's University. He is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations.
Senator Joseph Day is from New Brunswick. He is a well-known private practice attorney and engineer. He has served in the Senate since October 2001 and sits on the board of governors of the Royal Military College of Canada. He currently chairs the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Senator Tommy Banks is from Alberta. He was called to the Senate in April 2000. He is known to many Canadians as an accomplished and versatile musician and entertainer. He is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Senator Pamela Wallin is from Saskatchewan. She was appointed in January 2009. After a long career in journalism, Senator Wallin served as Consul General of Canada in New York and also served at the request of Prime Minister Harper on the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. She is the deputy chair of this committee and also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Senator Hector Daniel Lang has made the Yukon his home for more than 50 years. Senator Lang, I was a head of myself. Senator Tkachuk is here.
Senator David Tkachuk was appointed to the Senate in June 1993. Over the years he has been a businessman, public servant and teacher. He is the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and is a member of the selection committee. He has a terrific picture in this week's Hill Times.
Senator Tkachuk: Hence the mental block.
The Chair: Hence, I did not have the slip.
Senator Hector Daniel Lang has made the Yukon his home for more than 50 years. He was first elected to the Yukon Legislative Assembly in 1974 and served five consecutive terms retiring from the legislature in 1992. He is active in community affairs and is currently the vice-chair of the board of governors for Yukon College. He is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Senator Grant Mitchell appointed to the Senate in March 2005. He is from Edmonton, Alberta and has had careers in the Alberta public service, the financial industry and politics. He is the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators, we have before us today William Elliott, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Elliott practiced law in Ottawa before joining the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada in 1988. During his career in the public service, Mr. Elliott served as Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, at Transport Canada. He was appointed Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Security and Intelligence, in 2003. He was National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister from April 2005 to May 2006, when he became Associate Deputy Minister of Public Safety. He became the twenty-second commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on July 16, 2007.
We are pleased to have you before us. We understand you have a statement and we look forward to hearing from you.
William J.S. Elliott, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to speak further about the RCMP's transformation initiative.
[Translation]
I regret I was not able to be here on May 11, as had been planned.
[English]
As you know, I was attending the regimental funeral for Constable James Lundblad, who was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident on May 5 while on duty in Alberta. I trust the comments of Senior Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney and Assistant Commissioner Keith Clark, both of whom appeared on my behalf, were helpful to the committee.
I know you also heard from the head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Mr. Paul Kennedy, and Mr. David McAusland, the Chair of the RCMP Reform Implementation Council.
[Translation]
As Senior Deputy Commissioner Sweeney indicated, and as confirmed by the two reports to date by the reform implementation council, change in the RCMP is both real and ongoing.
[English]
Change in the RCMP is both real and ongoing. It is critically important for the RCMP, for the communities we serve and for all Canadians that we are successful in our transformation efforts.
I believe the vision for change that we have established for the RCMP to be an adaptive, accountable, trusted organization of fully engaged employees demonstrating outstanding leadership and providing world-class police services is broadly supported both inside and outside of the force.
[Translation]
As the Minister of Public Safety recently indicated to the RCMP's senior management team, Canadians want us to succeed.
[English]
I believe we have at hand the ingredients for success, but the challenges we face should not be underestimated. Transformational change is not easy; in fact, it is very difficult. It will continue to require a concerted and sustained effort.
I believe we are off to a good start. People throughout the organization are committed to our vision and are prepared to do what it takes to achieve it.
You are, no doubt, familiar with a number of our challenges, including as a result of what you heard on May 11. In reviewing the transcripts from that day, I noted that my colleague, Deputy Sweeney, as well as Mr. McAusland, repeated what I have often said, that there is far more right than wrong with the RCMP.
I say this fully cognizant of the fact that we have significant challenges, and we make mistakes. We must strive to acknowledge our weaknesses and our mistakes, to address our weaknesses and to learn from our mistakes.
There is perhaps no more striking an example of the need for the RCMP to make improvements and to be responsive to the concerns of Canadians than in relation to our policies and practices relating to conductive energy weapons.
While we await the recommendations from the ongoing Braidwood Inquiry in British Columbia, we have already undertaken many improvements to our policies and practices. Our commitment is to provide for the safety and security of Canadians, and we must do all we can to ensure we do so as effectively, as safely and as appropriately as possible.
Senior Deputy Commissioner Sweeney spoke for me and for the RCMP in relation to this matter when he was before the committee. I repeat and endorse what he said. We are very sorry for Mr. Dziekanski's death, and we are committed to learning as much as possible from this terrible event.
[Translation]
We must continuously strive to learn and to improve. Canadians rely on the essential services the RCMP provides.
[English]
We must work every day to earn the trust and respect of Canadians for without their support, the RCMP cannot succeed. Canadians want the men and women of today's RCMP to uphold the proud history and traditions of the force and to live up to the highest standards. They also expect us — as they should — to live and live up to our values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect and accountability in all that we do.
It is a heavy responsibility and a great privilege to be the commissioner of the RCMP. In many ways, I have a unique experience and perspective, having joined the ranks of the RCMP almost two years ago as both a new recruit and as the most senior-ranking officer. It is hard to summarize all that I have seen and all that I have learned and continue to learn as commissioner.
Let me end my introductory remarks by repeating what I said to the employees of the RCMP several months ago about some of the experiences and impressions to date that lead me to be incredibly proud of the RCMP and incredibly optimistic about the future.
Since becoming commissioner, I have travelled to every province and territory in Canada and met with employees, community leaders, partners and stakeholders from across Canada and around the world. The more I have seen of the RCMP, the more impressed I have been. I am impressed by the breadth and importance of our mandate. I am impressed by the strength of our relationships with the communities we serve, and with other police and public safety partners. I am impressed with the diversity and the depth of expertise within our organization. Most of all, I am impressed by the women and men I have met who, day in and day out, work tirelessly to serve our country and their communities. I am impressed by their hard work, their dedication and their willingness to go the extra mile. I am impressed by their adaptability and readiness to not only accept change but to work to bring it about. I am impressed by their support for one another and their commitment to service.
[Translation]
Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to be here today.
[English]
I would be happy to respond to your questions.
Senator Wallin: Welcome and congratulations on your almost-2-year anniversary. I trust that, throughout the course of the hour or so, we will be able to get at what I will talk about from other issues. However, as you may know, I grew up in a small town in Saskatchewan where RCMP was our police; it is our police still today. We have seen the nature of the issues and the workload for these folks. It used to be one-person detachments and then two-person detachments; it increased dramatically, both in complexity and its hours.
Please describe the process at headquarters, inside your system, as to how you go about deciding how many police officers you need in a given area, whether the detachments are big enough, whether they work, how far their tentacles reach, how you come to that conclusion, what type of — for lack of a better word — "surge capacity'' you have when there is a problem, how far people would have to come, the new backup rules and what that means and whether you are re-evaluating the basic size of a detachment as you go forward, given all of those changes in structure that are there.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you very much, senator. A number of aspects apply to the determination of what an appropriate level of staffing is with respect to a detachment. I believe you have heard a little about it, and we will follow up on it because I know my colleagues undertook to provide you further information in some areas on May 11, and that information should come to you very shortly.
We have adopted the police resourcing methodology that measures a number of things, including the number and type of calls, and takes into account considerations with respect to geography. There is ongoing discussion with our contract partners who pay the lion's share of the direct costs associated with municipal policing and provincial and territorial policing. Certainly, new requirements, as they are added, also need to be taken into consideration.
As you mentioned, we adopted a national policy requiring more than one member to respond to certain types of calls, calls where it is reasonable to expect that there may be violence. That is certainly requiring us to make new arrangements with respect to staffing. In some instances, the answer will be to add people to detachments; in some, it is to "hub'' detachments so that people from one detachment can provide backup to another.
We will have to ask some fundamental questions about what is the minimum size of detachments. You are right, senator, at one point, we had a number of locations where an officer was there by themselves — usually with their families. We have gone to a minimum of two-person detachments in most places. It may be that the time for two- person detachments is coming to an end.
Senator Wallin: Would the backup rules almost force that? I know about your hub activity, but if the nearest point is Yorkton, for example, an hour and a half down the road, you cannot be dealing with an event in progress.
Mr. Elliott: The backup requirements will accelerate the consideration of issues around the minimum complement. In some places in the North, we are in a situation where officers go in for a set number of days — four is the example that comes to mind. They work four days in the community, where they are basically working or on call 24 hours a day. Then they come out of the community and four other officers go in. That sort of system has both advantages and disadvantages.
Senator Wallin: I will take that answer in the context of something that the assistant commissioner told us on May 11. He said to this committee that
Culturally, we have a difficult time saying no to anything. We also have a difficult time letting go of things that traditionally we have been doing.
Is this a case in point?
Mr. Elliott: I would agree with the comments that the RCMP has often had a tendency, sometimes against our better judgment, to say yes when we should have said no. There are many positive things about the RCMP culture, but I think we need to be more realistic with respect to what we can expect of the organization and its officers.
Certainly, there is broad support for the national backup policy. There are many concerns about its implementation and costs associated with that. All those things have to be factored in as we figure out the best way to move forward.
Senator Wallin: Can you imagine in this context that you would have to say to some provinces or some areas that you just cannot do this?
Mr. Elliott: I think we will have to say that we cannot do this without adequate resources. In some areas, it may well be that we, our contract partners and the federal government will have to look at whether we are best placed to do some of the things the RCMP currently does. A whole set of issues exists. Does it take a fully trained and equipped regular member of the RCMP to do duties, or can the duties be more effectively and efficiently done by others?
Senator Banks: Commissioner, it is good to see you again. We, and I guess you, have had the advantage of having met previously in different incarnations — yours not ours. We welcome you back again in this one.
What you have said about Canadians wanting the RCMP to be what it once was is no truer in any place in the country than in my province of Alberta. Some towns and cities in Alberta exist because the RCMP said that they will build it there — Fort McLeod, Fort Saskatchewan and Calgary, where I was born. They were RCMP establishments.
You have talked about the difficulty of the transformation that you have undertaken — I know you can probably recite the Brown report — which is posed by the fact that the RCMP is traditionally, by convention, and also in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act a paramilitary organization. I suspect you have been coming up against that fact in the process of transformation.
Can you tell us whether you need to be able to transform the RCMP from a paramilitary organization to something else? In the same general line, is the fact that it is — by necessity, I think — a paramilitary organization an impediment to the transformation you are undertaking?
Mr. Elliott: The world is more complicated and complex than it once was. For some purposes, it is a real advantage to the RCMP that we are a paramilitary organization where there is clear rank. There is the concept of the giving, receiving and carrying out of orders. For some things, that will continue to be a necessity.
One of the things we have had some success in, but are certainly not where we need to be, is to generate more dialogue, discussion and debate within the organization — and outside of the organization as well. I will focus, for a moment, on internally. There is certainly a time for discussion, dialogue and debate, but there is also a time for the giving and carrying out of orders. I have often talked with employees about the need for us to talk about our issues, to find solutions and to work jointly on implementation. However, if the commander of an Emergency Response Team, for example, gives the order "go,'' members of the RCMP have to go. Then is not the time for discussion and debate. If people do not act promptly in carrying out orders and instructions, lives are in danger.
It is a challenge in a way that we grew out of the military tradition, but the RCMP is not unique in this. We live in a complicated world, and we cannot have one-size-fits-all approaches. Our culture has, to some extent, stifled debate both inside and outside of the force, and we have to work to overcome that. However, I do not think the structure of the organization and our paramilitary nature needs to be an impediment.
Senator Banks: Will we be looking at having an RCMP in the future, when transformation is complete — if that ever happens — that is partly paramilitary and partly not?
Mr. Elliott: That is what we have now, and I expect that would continue. However, I think that we already have more open discussion and dialogue in the organization, and that is a trend that needs to continue.
Senator Banks: My second question is one that I hope the commissioner will be able to answer yes or no to, which I know is asking a lot. I am ploughing Senator Wallin's ground again in terms of staffing. We are used to people saying that they are doing the best they can with what they have, in terms of the number of RCMP members you have. However, is it not the case, given what you have just said and given the needs as opposed to what is available, that you would be better able to answer those questions positively if you had more officers? I ask the question because this committee is on record as having recommended an increase in the number of members of the RCMP. Would you be happy if you had more?
Mr. Elliott: Yes.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Commissioner, thank you for having accepted our invitation to appear before the committee. Many Canadians who are listening to us tonight have heard for the first time in December 2007 the phrase "separate employer'' in the context of the RCMP.
First of all, could you explain what would be involved for the RCMP to become a separate employer, when comparing the existing situation with the scenario where the RCMP would become a separate employer?
[English]
Mr. Elliott: The English version of the task force report recommends separate employer status for the RCMP. There are examples within the federal family of entities that are separate employers, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, for example. They have authorities vested in the organization that for the public service are vested in other entities, notably the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
With respect to the current status of the RCMP, we have a great deal of latitude under the RCMP Act with respect to the staffing and promotion of regular members and civilian members. We also have public service employees. To further complicate things, some municipalities hire detachment clerks, for example, who are municipal employees.
We are more restricted with respect to the public service. If you went whole hog, if I can use that impression, toward separate employer status, we would take over the roles and responsibilities currently carried out by others, including, for example, negotiations with our unionized employees with respect to wages and all the other things included in collective agreements. We have none of that responsibility now.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: You are seeing some advantages to it, but there are certainly some disadvantages as well?
Mr. Elliott: There are certainly some advantages and disadvantages.
[English]
We have a somewhat complicated makeup of employees. As I indicated, we have three or four categories of employees. To say that things work fairly well with respect to our human resource management of regular and civilian members would be an overstatement because there is lots of room for improvement in that area. Certainly, I would not want to see further restrictions placed on us with respect to our authorities, and I am supportive of us getting more authorities. Among other things, I would be concerned about our capacity if we were asked to take on all of the responsibilities. My assessment to date is that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of us becoming a separate employer.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: But in the case of a separate employer, how would control be exercised? Still, as an organization, you are part of the federal system. There must be control mechanisms that apply to you as a separate employer. What mechanisms would be appropriate to your situation?
Mr. Elliott: The existing controls are applied following all Treasury Board and Public Service Commission rules.
[English]
To some extent, the rules and regulations are not our rules and regulations but their rules and regulations. As well, the functions of an employer are not carried out by the RCMP. A fair amount of discussion and debate has taken place, for example, with respect to decisions that have been made on the wages of regular members of the RCMP. Those decisions were made not by the management of the RCMP but by their employer, who is the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: When you talk about the wages of RCMP members, are you referring to what is called the pay council, which is a committee that examines the pay situation and make recommendations to you as an employer?
[English]
Mr. Elliott: They do not make recommendations to me as the employer, because I and we are not the employer. We have a pay council that is a joint management employee committee comprised of staff relations representatives and a representative of management. It has a somewhat independent chair. They make recommendations to me; I make recommendations to the minister; the minister makes recommendations to the Treasury Board; the Treasury Board makes decisions.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: In the new system, the recommendation would be made to you and the buck would stop there?
Mr. Elliott: According to the Brown committee, yes.
Senator Nolin: The same pay council would still exist, but the recommendation would be made to you and the buck would stop there?
Mr. Elliott: The Brown committee recommendations on this issue were not very detailed.
Senator Nolin: That is why I am asking you the question. Perhaps you have asked questions to the various stakeholders in order to better understand how this would work.
[English]
Mr. Elliott: CSIS, is an example of a separate employer that is responsible for dealing with wage issues. A variety of examples can be found within the federal public service. It is fair to say that, directly or indirectly, the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance have roles to play, and they exert considerable influence, even in situations where they are not the decision makers. It is ultimately Parliament and the Treasury Board, including the advice of the department and the Minister of Finance, who make decisions about budgets.
The Chair: On the subject of pay, I have the impression that the RCMP are not well paid. Have you compared their pay to that of the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP, or the Toronto Police Service?
Mr. Elliott: The answer is, yes. We are providing the committee with details on that, following the appearance on May 11. Certainly, the work of the pay council that I just referred to significantly involves a comparison of the various police forces and their remuneration, not only salary but also other elements of remuneration including pension and other benefits.
The general objective advanced by the pay council, which I have supported, is that the RCMP's remuneration would be within the average of the top three comparative forces in the country.
The Chair: Are they there now?
Mr. Elliott: I believe they may not be with the most recent decision of Treasury Board with respect to pay. I can give you some representative examples. Our officers make more than many other forces and less than some others. For example, effective January 1, 2009, an RCMP constable's salary is $75,657; in Edmonton, constables earn $74,586; in Halifax, $76,500; and in Montreal, $66,577.
The Chair: In all of the examples given, those folks could stay at home and get three hugs from mom, whereas an RCMP constable is likely to be posted to the other side of the continent and be moved to a number of different cities in the first 10 years of his or her career.
Mr. Elliott: That is certainly true — there are puts and takes.
Prior to the Treasury Board decision to which I have referred, the only time the subject of wages were ever raised with me was in a meeting with representatives of the staff relations program in "E'' Division in Vancouver, British Columbia. One of them said, "Commissioner, I just want to talk to you about wages.'' I thought, "This should be interesting.'' He said, "I just want to tell you, the current system works well; we are well paid; we have no complaints.''
The Chair: When he went through depot, he got paid full salary.
Mr. Elliott: When he went through depot, he probably got paid full salary.
The Chair: There is a decade of people who went through depot who got paid nothing.
Mr. Elliott: Yes.
The Chair: Now we have people in depot being paid $500.
Mr. Elliott: Yes, $500 per week.
The Chair: That does not compare to what you would get with the OPP or with metro police. People are being recruited out of depot as we speak to go elsewhere because of pay issues.
Mr. Elliott: That may be true, but I do not believe there are a significant number of them. There are questions of affordability. It depends through which lens you look at things. When I arrived as commissioner and was first engaged in conversations about paying cadets at depot, my first reaction, to be candid was — I had three daughters in university at the time — six months free room and board, free training, a good job with a guaranteed salary at the end sounds like a pretty good deal to me, significantly less than the amount of money being paid to other institutions.
I quickly came to understand that that was not a relevant comparator. Currently we are doing well on both recruiting and retention, but you make a fair point that our remuneration, including remuneration of people in training, is not as generous as some other forces.
The Chair: I can introduce you to constables, or some who you have met, with two kids, who go to depot and find themselves in debt for a number of years after that because they had to support a family and were not getting paid.
Mr. Elliott: I would certainly agree that $500 per week in this day and age is not much money.
Senator Day: Mr. Commissioner, thank you for appearing. During your remarks, you referred to a conducted energy weapon. For those of us who have heard the term Taser frequently used, is that the same idea?
Mr. Elliott: Taser is a brand name the same as Kleenex is a brand name. Yes, they are one and the same thing, at least currently since the only supplier of such devices, at least to the RCMP, is the corporation known as Taser.
Senator Day: Some problems exist with respect to the rating on Tasers. There are other manufacturers. Have you looked into other manufacturers of conducted energy weapons?
Mr. Elliott: I cannot speak on a very informed basis about that. I know some discussions have taken place, but I think the RCMP and other law enforcement services in the country using conducted energy weapons, to my knowledge, are using Tasers. Certainly issues exist with respect to the performance of the weapons. In fact, a development is underway now as a result of some further testing, and we will be removing further Taser models from service until they are tested.
Senator Day: I would assume you test all of the weapons you have to ensure their ratings are correct.
Mr. Elliott: Certainly our objective is to test all of the weapons we have. I cannot tell you that we have currently completed that test.
Senator Day: Commissioner, you indicated, and it does not seem possible, that almost two years have passed since you were appointed as commissioner. You sort of broke the mould at that time as being someone from the outside. You were both a recruit and the most senior-ranking officer when you came to the RCMP. We had heard some of the difficulties were morale and the hiring of new personnel within the RCMP at the time that you came in. There are indications that situation is improving.
Before the Senate at this time is Bill C-18, an amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act providing for portability of pension rights. We are asked to consider this. Someone coming into the RCMP who has worked in another police force or public service can bring that pension time into the RCMP or vice versa. Presumably, that would have a profound effect on recruiting.
I read in my briefing note that the RCMP Superannuation Act was amended in 1999 to allow for pension portability. Someone finally got around to drafting the regulations. Parliament said that you can have this. Typically the regulations would be developed by the department, by the RCMP, and we would have a chance to review them — we being parliamentarians — to ensure those regulations reflect what we passed in the bill. The regulations were being drafted in 2005; six years after Parliament had spoken. Is that an indication or an example of what the problem was within the RCMP at that time, that it took six years to develop regulations that would help you with recruiting?
Mr. Elliott: I do not really know where the problems were that resulted in that delay. I would certainly agree that is an unacceptable delay. A number of parties are involved, including Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice Canada. I am afraid I really cannot explain why it took as long as it did to get around to the drafting of regulations.
Senator Day: If you are able to go back to the RCMP and find a reason for that, it would be very helpful for us to understand if that is an example of things not happening that would have helped you. That is all before your time, so I understand that. It would be helpful for us to understand what you inherited.
My other question is with respect to the fact that you did break the mould. Is this a one-off because there were many things that had to be done and you had great experience in the machinery of government, or are we likely to see the RCMP return to that model of a peace officer working his or her way up through the ranks and be appointed, or are we likely to see more a civil servant-type hid of the RCMP in the future?
Mr. Elliott: Thank you for those questions. I would like to think I have a number of abilities; being clairvoyant is not necessarily one of them.
I do not know what the future will bring. I certainly think one of my objectives should be and is to ensure that we develop officers in the force who can take on senior roles, including the role of commissioner. In my own case, I would suggest that there have been both advantages and disadvantages to the fact I came from outside of the force.
An interesting suggestion was made to me relatively recently by a constable who suggested that he thought the next commissioner of the RCMP should be an officer appointed from within the force but the one after that should come from the outside because it was good to shake things up and generate new thinking and ideas. It will be a decision for the government of the day to decide what specific qualities and qualifications they will look for in my replacement, but I would certainly hope that among the qualified candidates would be regular members of the RCMP.
Senator Day: You have a growing civilian population within the RCMP, and there is a recommendation I think in the Brown report to ensure that uniformed officers are actually policing, while any of the activities that can be done by someone who has not gone through that very specialized training be done by the civilian side. Is there any discussion of a model such as that that has developed within the Armed Forces of the operations being run by a military person and the civilian personnel side being run by a non-uniformed person?
Mr. Elliott: It has come up in discussions, but we have not spent much time on that. The current makeup of the senior executive committee works fairly well. I am fortunate to have, as my second in command, my associate, Senior Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney, who brings a lot of policing and operational experience to bear.
We are examining our workforce with a view to moving forward on that task force recommendation. I believe the expertise of non-police officers should be brought to bear more than it has been in the past with respect to the overall management and running of the RCMP.
The Chair: On this point, commissioner, how much distance should the commissioner have from the government? How separate can you be, as a civilian commissioner, compared to someone in uniform?
Mr. Elliott: It depends on the subject matter. With respect to some things, I and the RCMP must be absolutely independent. We must be absolutely independent in our decisions about who we should investigate and how we should investigate, for example. However, in many other things, we should be more engaged with the government and decision makers, because we are not independent with respect to many things.
I talked earlier about our budgets. Decisions about our budgets are made by Parliament and the government of the day. We need to be more effectively engaged with them than we have been in the past.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a couple of questions on the Brown report.
One of the Brown report recommendations was that there be an independent commission for complaints and oversight of the RCMP with extended power and enhanced authority. What is your personal view of that? Is the RCMP considering adopting that format?
Mr. Elliott: I am personally very supportive of enhanced oversight and review of the RCMP. The more credible the review process can be, the more credible the RCMP can be. I look forward to the government coming forward with proposals in that regard.
I said that there must be independence in some areas. Decisions about the independent review and oversight of the RCMP are not and should not be decisions for the RCMP. However, we certainly have an interest, and I would like to see an enhanced regime in place as soon as possible.
Senator Tkachuk: How do you propose that an ethics-in-practice approach will be integrated into the RCMP, and what changes to the training regime would this entail?
Mr. Elliott: We have already taken a number of steps. I am not quite sure when the Office of the Ethics Advisor was created, but I inherited a situation where there is an ethics advisor, as a member of our senior executive committee, reporting directly to me. The committee has led work to include and embed ethics training at all levels, from depot right up through to the training of commissioned officers and the process for the qualification of senior officers.
We all recognize that ethics training is important. It is an opportunity for ethical considerations to be highlighted and talked about, but ethical considerations have to be part and parcel of what we do every day.
Senator Tkachuk: The disciplinary authority system is more centralized and newly formed. How is it different from the previous system on discipline, and what are the step-by-step actions followed by the administration in order to create a workable discipline review at every level?
Mr. Elliott: I can provide you with some information on that, but I cannot speak to the specifics. I will make my remarks with the caveat that we are trying to make the current legislative and regulatory regime work as well as possible. However, we believe there should be amendments to our regulatory and legislative regime as it relates to discipline.
We do have a more centralized approach and better tracking of discipline cases. We are bringing an increased emphasis to the speedier resolution of cases, but we have a long way to go. It is the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied, and too often with discipline cases in the RCMP, justice is considerably delayed.
Senator Tkachuk: Briefly, what is the process that you currently use, and how would the new situation expedite the process? What is happening on the ground from the time an incident happens until it reaches the level at which it is dealt with? How much time are we saving?
Mr. Elliott: In simple and general terms, if there is an allegation of misconduct and a complaint is made or it otherwise comes to the attention of a supervisor, a code of conduct process is launched. The act prescribes timelines and regulations with respect to the institution of a code of conduct process. The limitation period is six months. Discussion has taken place as to whether that limitation period is appropriate. I believe that in most circumstances it is. Inappropriate action or allegations of inappropriate action should be dealt with expeditiously.
A process of investigation then begins. An appropriate officer is appointed to manage the disciplinary process. Representatives of the employee are also appointed. There are provisions for hearings and decisions, and to mete out sanctions. As well, the RCMP External Review Committee, an independent body, looks at matters.
With the centralized directorate, we have, first, assigned more resources to the area; and, second, we have embarked on training and education to make people, including all employees and particularly potential appropriate officers, aware of their obligations and things such as the limitation periods. We had a number of unhappy situations in which that limitation period was missed, which is unsatisfactory regardless of how you look at it. We are doing better at tracking and reporting on discipline cases, the number and nature of cases and the progress through the system.
Senator Tkachuk: Is the External Review Committee made up of RCMP officers?
Mr. Elliott: No.
Senator Tkachuk: Where do you draw them from?
Mr. Elliott: We have two extraordinary, if I can put it that way, review committees: the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and the RCMP External Review Committee, in which an individual is appointed by order-in-council.
Senator Tkachuk: I will refer to an incident happening in a town in Saskatchewan.
Allegations are made; the local detachment sets up the process to handle the investigation; the investigation takes place, and the complainant is told that the officer handled the situation well. Is there now another process for that person or that complainant to go to? Is there a formalized process? How does he or she get to the next level, or is there an appeal at all?
Mr. Elliott: A number of mechanisms are in place to have the matter reviewed. Ultimately, if there are appeals of sanctioned decisions, they come to me as commissioner.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that different from the way it was before?
Mr. Elliott: That is the same as it was before. All we are trying to do is speed up and make the current regime more efficient. We have not made substantive changes to the regime because the regime is set out in the RCMP Act and regulations, including the RCMP Code of Conduct.
Senator Lang: In your opening remarks you quoted the Minister of Public Safety, who recently stated that Canadians want you to succeed, and I would say that that is good for across the country. However, there are concerns across the country, as you well know.
I come from the Yukon, and one of the recommendations of the Brown report has to do with what I believe is called the "northern allowance.'' I understand all those aspects are under review as far as isolated postings and such things are concerned. When do you expect recommendations to be put forward?
Mr. Elliott: I do not have a specific time frame with respect to that. A number of factors relate to all of the conditions under which our members work. Some of those we touched on earlier: the number of officers and the ability to call for backup. We also have a number of outstanding issues around remuneration relating to that. I would hope we will see some adjustments soon with respect to that particular aspect.
We are a considerable time away from any significant changes with respect to more comprehensive amendments to policies around the northern allowance. I would not think it realistic that we will have major revamping of provisions relating to the northern allowance in advance of the renewal of our current contracts with the jurisdictions, which is 2012.
Senator Lang: This leads me to another area Senator Wallin's question touched on. What happens in a situation where there are maybe two officers in a smaller posting and one gets sick or is gone so that when the weekend comes, only one is on duty? Has the RCMP examined the possibility of a broader concept of the "auxiliary constable'' in these small areas; someone who can help out in case an immediate, perhaps violent situation arises that must be dealt with, yet the corresponding backup is new in the community? Have you looked at the concept of trying to use, for example, provincial-territorial conservation officers or maybe the rangers who are in the area with some training to try to help the RCMP in question when something such as that arises? Here, I am thinking of the Yukon again, and I think it applies to the Northwest Territories, maybe Nunavut and the Northern provinces. Have you investigated that?
Mr. Elliott: Certainly, our policy requires that backup be available. If a situation arose where only one officer was on duty and backup was not available to him or her, it would be contrary to our policy, and we work very hard not to allow that to happen.
We are looking at expanding the sorts of individuals that we can utilize, not only with respect to backup but also for other duties. You mentioned auxiliary constables; we recently sought and obtained approval to expand our reservist program, where we can hire retired officers back to provide assistance.
We are also looking at developing community safety officers and Aboriginal constables, trying to provide a broader suite of individuals and training to provide for services and improve the working conditions and environment for our officers.
Although 2012 sounds like a long way off, and I do not want to overly raise expectations, I also do not want to be overly gloomy. We are looking at doing things incrementally to improve the working conditions of our officers, including looking at innovative ways to provide for backup.
We also think that a large amount of work can be done with the bargain we make with our officers, for example, with them going to limited-duration, remote locations. Instead of telling constables that we want to send them to community X and that they will be there for two or three years, after which we will find them a nice posting, we think that people want and deserve more predictability. We are looking at developing a means where we can tell constables that the arrangement is to go to a community, do their limited-duration posting, and then we will find them a position in this province or territory or jurisdiction.
Senator Lang: You talked about a program and looking at innovative ways of trying to ensure that in smaller and isolated areas they have adequate auxiliary staff or staff. Where are you with that? When will you have a program for that?
Mr. Elliott: I hope that we will see, before the end of this fiscal year, the implementation of at least a couple of programs to provide a more diverse suite of the type of officers that we have in communities. Certainly, Aboriginal constables are one of them. That is a matter of priority. I should point out that under our current arrangements, auxiliary constables are not authorized to use force. They are not actually there to provide backup. I do not anticipate that changing. "Auxiliary constable'' is a technical term. We have them now, but they do not carry firearms; their job is not to provide backup.
We are looking at new categories of employees, including Aboriginal constables who would be armed and able to provide that backup in communities, and that is a program that I hope we will get off the ground this year.
Senator Lang: I want to be clear: Are we talking about increasing the number of staff members in these particular isolated communities to meet that backup policy? Am I reading this right?
Mr. Elliott: That is an option, and that will happen in some places. In other places, we might increase the number of employees. However, they might not be regular members of the RCMP; they might be a new category of employee. In still other places, we will rely on bringing people in from other detachments to provide that backup.
Senator Lang: I want to express the concern raised by Senator Wallin especially in regard to the northern parts of the provinces, the Yukon and smaller communities. If we are consolidating and, all of a sudden, there is not a full-time detachment in one of the smaller communities and we are expected to service it from 50 miles away, that will be a major concern to the community and to the communities-at-large in the area. I want to register that with you.
Mr. Elliott: I understand that very well. However, we also need to consider and balance the realities of modern day policing and the impossibility of having a situation where, over a sustained period of time, an RCMP member is either on duty or on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It simply is not sustainable.
Senator Lang: I understand that. That is why I raised the question about program innovation and taking people within the community and train them accordingly. This would be similar to a volunteer fire-fighter service in these small communities, where it is not sustainable to have a full-time fire fighter, but we need protection. If you buy into the community, maybe that will resolve some of your problems as opposed to taking your two officers, posting them 50 or 100 miles away and expecting them to deal with the situation in the community.
Mr. Elliott: We agree with that and are working on options to do just that.
Senator Lang: As a senator from the northern part of the country, I would like to see what those options will be.
Mr. Elliott: We are not, and I do not think that we will be, examining options to call on volunteers to be involved in operational response in dangerous situations.
Senator Wallin: You referred to the auxiliary constables who carry no firearms. Can you explain the differences? Who are they?
Mr. Elliott: We currently have community volunteers.
Senator Wallin: They are volunteers?
Mr. Elliott: Yes. They are uniformed, but they do not carry arms and their duties are restricted.
Senator Wallin: Are they deputized? In what situation would they be able to step up to the plate?
Mr. Elliott: I would have to clarify this, but I do not think they are peace officers.
The Chair: They drive cars; they secure a door; guard a room, et cetera.
Mr. Elliott: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: Commissioner Elliott, I would like to go back to the transformational change idea that is predominant in some of this debate. I see two elements to transformational change: first, technical policy changes that might be required to deal with Tasers or backup, et cetera; and, second — and much more difficult — attitudes in organizations, which are the heartland of culture and involve destructive and outdated attitudes, biases and resistance to change. That is much more difficult to solve than policy changes, which can be directed in a way. However, if you do not change at that attitude level, you can make all the policy change you want and will end up back where you were.
I am reminded that almost 20 years ago now, I had a meeting with the former Edmonton Police Chief Doug McNally who did a remarkable job transforming the Edmonton police from an older organization to a very successful community-based police force. I know Senator Banks would agree with me on this. At the time, I was leader of an organization in the Liberal Party that needed cultural change too. I asked him how he did that. He told me that he had undertaken literally hundreds of small group meetings in the police force in which he was involved. He would not promote people who did not get it, and in some cases, they let people go who did not get it.
You made the point that we probably need more debate within the RCMP about these matters. Is that sufficient debate within the RCMP? If it is, what are you doing to encourage that? If it is not, what other program elements do you have to deal directly, specifically, aggressively and persistently with the changing of attitudes within the RCMP?
Mr. Elliott: The example you describe of the Edmonton police chief is a good one. I would agree that attitudinal or cultural change is essential if you are really to transform an organization. I personally spend much of my time meeting with employees. On the day I became the commissioner, I sent out communication to all employees of the force the day I started. I undertook to get out of my office at least twice a month to visit employees where they lived and worked.
I do not have an up-to-date count — I lost track — but in the 22 weeks between the date of my appointment and Christmas of that year, I travelled somewhere to meet with employees 20 of those 22 weeks. We are encouraging senior officers and others to do the same. You heard from Assistant Commissioner Keith Clark, who is the head of our change management team. One of things they do is to help organize meetings with employees, including town hall meetings.
We do not do as good a job of communications in any of the many things that communications includes. However, we are more active than we have been. We have in place the ability for employees to provide input directly to the change management team.
I believe that I am the first commissioner in the history of the RCMP that has my email address on my business card. Whenever I meet with employees, I say, "I am not suggesting the only or best way to raise issues within the RCMP is to communicate directly with the commissioner. However, you should know that if you have something that you think should be raised with me, you can email me. I am not a hard person to find. I have an email address just like everyone else.'' I do get many emails directly from employees. I undertake to read their email. In the beginning, I undertook to respond to all of them. I modified that commitment and now say they will more than likely get a response except where I am being asked to intervene in a formal process, such as discipline, that will ultimately end up on my desk.
I received hundreds of messages, if not more. They are important not only for those communications themselves, but I hope they are seen as an indication that I and senior leadership of the force are serious about creating an environment where employees are encouraged and, if anything, rewarded for speaking up, for identifying problems and for contributing to solutions.
That is the philosophy and approach of our transformation initiative.
Senator Mitchell: That is great. However, there are two sides to this process. It is one thing to listen, to be open and to hear what the problems are. However, when you have your senior staff and others, as you mentioned, who you are encouraging to have meetings, what is the structure that they are talking about? Have you made some determinations about what the strengths are that you want communicated back to your police force and what the weaknesses are that you want to deal with and excise from the culture of the RCMP?
Have you got a structured communications, a message, a cultural paradigm that you want to communicate to the members of the force? What are the strengths you would promote within that paradigm, and what are the weaknesses? You mentioned weaknesses and mistakes. Mistakes are unfortunately obvious and I know you live with them in the press. However, what are the weaknesses that you talk of and that should be dealt with in this process?
Mr. Elliott: First, there are a few components with respect to the messaging and the framework for that messaging. Much of this is built around the recommendations of the task force, our transformation plan and our identification of priority areas for work. You may have heard about the latter from Assistant Commissioner Clark.
Part of the message really is that we are in this together, that we have a unique opportunity to make a positive difference and that they have, as individuals and collectively, the ability to actually bring about positive change.
The culture of the RCMP, as I found it, has many strengths and weaknesses. We talked about the "can do'' attitude. I talked in my opening remarks about the real dedication that our employees have: They recognize that the job they do is important, that it matters to the safety and security of Canadians, and they are very dedicated to carrying out that well.
We do have a tendency, at times, to be more inward-looking than outward-looking — to sometimes overplay our independence card. As I answered in response to a comment or question from the chair, in some things we must be independent. However, I think that we sometimes mistakenly have tried to be independent when, in fact, we should have been reaching out and engaging our partners and stakeholders.
The tendency has been, in the past, for the RCMP to not want to wash its dirty linen in public, and also, on the part of some individuals and the organization, not to want to ask for help. We are trying to convey the notion that asking for help is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength.
We are sort of a schizophrenic organization. In some things, we are so good, so adaptable and so nimble. Operationally, the RCMP is an organization of excellence. In other ways, we are mired in bureaucracy. As the chair outlined, I have had a variety of jobs in the private and public sector. I have never worked in an organization that loves to complain more about bureaucracy, and I have never worked in a more bureaucratic organization.
We are certainly encouraging employees to reduce that bureaucracy and to try to get the same type of attitude that makes us so good operationally and bring that to bear on the problems of the force, specifically on the administrative side. We have notable successes: Our turn around with respect to recruiting has been phenomenal. We have said that this is a priority. We must invest resources and effort. It is no longer good enough to do everything that we did the same but try to do it faster. We have to change the process. That is what we have done, and that is why we are sending record numbers of cadets to depot and are actually turning around our vacancy issues.
Senator Mitchell: It is my observation that the way that an organization treats, hires and promotes women is often a litmus test of whether they are an older, outdated organization or a more modern organization at a deep cultural level.
At the constable level, I think it is quite good to have 20 per cent women. However, when I look at the senior-most levels of the RCMP, I think out of 75 of the top 3 ranking sections of the RCMP, only 6 are women. That is fewer than 10 per cent; it is 6 per cent or 7 per cent.
What are you doing to encourage more women to find a career in the RCMP, to ensure the RCMP is a place where they would want to stay and to create a culture that is comfortable with them being promoted?
Mr. Elliott: We certainly have a long way to go. It flabbergasts me, to tell you the truth — I mentioned my three daughters — to realize that just over 35 years ago, we would have said to them, "You cannot be RCMP officers because you are the wrong gender.'' We have a long way to go.
However, I think it is notable that my predecessor, Commissioner Busson, was in the first class of female recruits at depot. I am a little discouraged with the figures you sited with respect to the most senior ranks. I am more encouraged when I see the quality of our officers, junior commissioned officers and senior non-commissioned officers. We are making a concerted effort to recruit more cadets at the entry level and, certainly, put an emphasis on developing and promoting female officers and other employees.
An exciting project that is underway — which was employee-initiated in "E'' Division in British Columbia, by the way — is work to support and encourage part-time work and job sharing. That is particularly beneficial to the parents of young children, both men and women. However, I think it might really pay off for us in retaining more female officers.
I know that we lost quite a few of Beverly Busson's class, and the female officers who have followed in her footsteps, when they left the force at the point that they had young children. We have to find better ways to support them through those years.
Senator Zimmer: Commissioner, thank you for your appearance today. Most of my questions have been asked and answered, but I do have one more. I want to follow up on Senator Mitchell's question.
It is one thing to talk about the change, but the key element at the end is whether the force bought into the culture. Has the force bought into the program?
Mr. Elliott: I would say that reviews on that are mixed. I indicated in my opening remarks that I thought we were off to a good start. However, there is a combination of sentiment out there.
One of the cultural aspects that we need to overcome is the saying people have that there are three ways to do things in the world: the right way, the wrong way and the Mountie way. Too many of our employees are of the view the Mountie way will not change and that this is a short-term flavour of the month sort of thing. I do not think they are listening hard if they believe that. It sounds as though I am faulting employees; I do not mean to do that.
We need to convince people by our actions that we are serious about change and that we are in it for the long haul. We need to move to being able to speak more about what we have done as opposed to what we hope to do or what we are in the process of doing. I think we have actually created a situation where the majority of our employees see that real changes have already occurred and that more are coming. I would not say that we are anywhere near a position where we can declare victory on that. We need to not only to continue but to do a better job at communications and delivering results. The other thing we need to do is ensure that we are promoting individuals who will actually do what it is that is required of them.
All of the senior managers including the commanding officers from across the force spent three days last week talking about how we can work more effectively, including with the engagement of our employees.
Members of the RCMP are smart, experienced people. They really want to see action. It is a nice problem to have, but we do have a bit of a problem in that people are frustrated that more things are not happening faster.
Senator Zimmer: Steven Seagal is in a movie called Above the Law. He plays a police officer. I am sure there are times that they are frustrated because some of the laws do not go far enough, or the law may go far enough but the implementation by the judge is not severe enough. Is there an element in the force where they feel they can be above the law?
Mr. Elliott: I do not believe that is a common sentiment. Certainly, frustration is felt with the criminal justice system and the extra burden placed on officers that unnecessarily, in my view, complicates much of the work that they do.
I referred to the values of the force. I would say that almost without exception, the men and women of the RCMP believe very strongly in those values. I can tell you from personal experience that no one is more offended or more concerned by wrongdoing on the part of members of the RCMP than other members of the RCMP.
Senator Zimmer: On the recommendation of the Brown report, the RCMP should become a separate entity with separate employee status and full authority to manage its own financial affairs. Do you agree and why? Proper implementation is the key. In a change such as this, it is important to have all levels of authority on board in order for such a change to be successful.
The RCMP Reform Implementation Council stresses the need for support of its employees. Therefore, have RCMP employees been consulted? What is the feel of officers at varying ranks on becoming a separate entity?
Mr. Elliott: RCMP employees have been consulted. We have been actively engaged in consultations with employees during the course of the task force's work and in everything we have done since then.
As I believe I indicated in response to an earlier question, I am not personally keen on us moving forward with separate employer status. I am concerned about our capacity to do that, and I am concerned that the costs of doing that would outweigh the benefits.
Having said that, I am supportive of increased authorities, both with respect to human resources management and financial management. We have had significant successes in having our financial authorities increased, but not to the level that the task force would be satisfied with. I believe that further authorities would be appropriately invested in the RCMP.
I should point out that the questions ultimately about our status and our authorities rest on decisions to be taken by the government as a whole. However, we are working, including with the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, to develop proposals for the government's consideration.
Senator Moore: Senator Day was asking you about the certified standards conducted on energy weapons, commonly called Tasers. I would like to ask you a bit about their use.
The latest RCMP policy on the use of Tasers was issued in February 2009. In it, a line that was in the previous policy informing officers not to use a Taser repeatedly had been deleted. When you appeared before the House Of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on April 21 of this year, you said that the new policy made the use of Tasers more restrictive. Could you explain that?
Mr. Elliott: With respect to it being more restrictive?
Senator Moore: Yes. Before, it said not to do it repeatedly, but the new policy took that out, which means they can do it repeatedly. You say that that is more restrictive. I do not understand that.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you for that question. I would say that, first, you cannot just look at one line in the policy; you need to look at the entire policy. In addition to the policy, you need to look at all that supports the policy, including our training and our training standard, as well as our intervention model.
Certainly, the new policy is more restrictive than the previous policy, including, importantly, the restriction of the use of the weapon to situations that involve risks to officers or public safety. It sets out very clearly that the force used must be reasonable and necessary in the circumstance.
Senator Moore: In the judgment of the apprehending officer?
Mr. Elliott: Certainly in the judgment of the officer and, ultimately, courts will be called upon to rule on that. They can also be the subject of discipline proceedings. However, the reasonable use of force, as authorized by the Criminal Code, is a standard that judges and courts are used to applying.
Senator Moore: I do not know if I can accept that the new policy is more restrictive. I do not think that is what it says.
Anyway, I want to move on.
Mr. Elliott: If I may, can I volunteer that there has been a fair amount of concern raised about what our intent was in changing the wording in the policy. I do not think there is any confusion on the part of our officers, but there is concern. Our intent was not to suggest to officers that they should be more liberal with the use of the Taser — quite the opposite. That is probably an area where we should further refine our policy.
The other thing I should tell you is that the Province of British Columbia moments ago announced that they are requiring the Taser model M26 to be removed from service in the province. The RCMP is also taking steps, not only in British Columbia but across the country, to remove those models from service until they can all be tested.
Senator Moore: Thank you for that intervention. You said that you may have to further look at this policy. Are you thinking of rewording it or reinserting the provision that was taken out? What is your thinking there?
Mr. Elliott: We need to continue to review our policy. I made reference to the ongoing Braidwood Inquiry. I suspect recommendations will come out of that. I signalled when I was before the committee, as you referred to, that we had looked at other policies, including a policy in the United Kingdom that has a more expansive approach to laying out risks and deals specifically with this. I think we will be making further changes to our policy.
Senator Moore: I want to ask a little about the death of Robert Dziekanski in October 2007, which occurred after you took office as commissioner.
Senior Deputy Commissioner Sweeney was here. As you say, he spoke on behalf of the force, and you concur with his remarks. He said that there is far more right than wrong with the RCMP. I think we all agree with that.
The RCMP is often the first face of Canada that people encounter when they arrive in our country. With respect to the Dziekanski incident, I was embarrassed and ashamed of what happened as a Canadian. A man was coming to live in our country and to make a life for himself, and he never got the chance.
I think what disturbs me most about it was where was the Canadian hand reaching out to help? Members of the RCMP were there. You say in your comments today that you are committed to learning as much as possible from this terrible event. Regardless of the testimony from the Braidwood Inquiry, if you had that day to live over, what would you do? What would the officers do?
Mr. Elliott: I cannot respond to the specifics of that question but, certainly, we have amended our policies. We have highlighted the risks to all of our employees with respect to the conducted energy weapon, or Taser. I believe that Deputy Commissioner Sweeney commented on de-escalation, and we are putting an increased emphasis on that throughout our training. I cannot comment specifically on the actions of our officers. We will see where the inquiry takes us.
Senator Moore: Do you prefer to not make a further statement in view of the ongoing commission?
Mr. Elliott: As I said, with respect to our policy and training, we have made significant changes.
Senator Moore: What would those changes do? How would they have helped Robert Dziekanski? Tell me about that.
Mr. Elliott: I will not speculate on that, senator.
Senator Moore: Thank you.
Senator Wallin: I am looking for something relatively modest. You have talked on several occasions about the record number of cadets and the pressures to keep your numbers up, as we have discussed. Are you satisfied that your training is keeping pace with that pressure to put more people through faster?
Mr. Elliott: Our training is very good. Certainly, senior officers comment very positively about the quality of the new graduates who are arriving at their detachments and divisions. We have invested a great deal of time and money. I would encourage the chair and members of the committee to visit depot. It truly is an example of leading-edge training and continuous improvement. I am not suggesting that we should stand still or are standing still, but the quality of training is world class.
Senator Wallin: Have you had to sacrifice in order to speed up the training?
Mr. Elliott: No. Our training remains at 24 weeks. It used to be longer than that, but we used to teach people how to ride. At last year's veterans association, I was told that we used to send new recruits out West to help with the haying.
It is 24 weeks of intensive training. We do more from a field-coaching perspective as well. With our universal objective, we ensure that every cadet will have a field coach throughout the prescribed period, which is three months. We are recruiting cadets that bring considerable life experience with an average age of 27 years. As was referenced earlier, many of them have families and have had previous jobs. In some instances, we hire individuals directly out of high school, but they are very talented, dedicated and well-trained individuals.
Senator Wallin: That is a good figure.
The Chair: On the question of training, the Brown report made the point that a significant number of field coaches or mentors had not gone through mentor training. Have you made progress in that regard?
Mr. Elliott: Yes, we have more than 1,000 additional fully qualified field coaches.
The Chair: Does that mean every cadet coming out of depot has a mentor who has had mentor training? Are they likely to have a mentor that has been in the force for more than three years?
Mr. Elliott: The answer to your first question is, yes; and the answer to your second question is, not necessarily.
The Chair: Thank you. This has been very comprehensive, commissioner. We have covered many questions. I sense that we could continue for another hour. On behalf of the committee, thank you for appearing to share your views. It is greatly appreciated. We look forward to staying in regular touch with you and hearing of further developments as the evolution of the force continues.
For members of the public viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our website at www.sen-sec.ca, where we post witness testimony, committee reports and confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise, you may contact the clerk of the Defence Committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information or assistance in contacting members of the committee.
(The committee adjourned.)