Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 9 - Evidence - October 5, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, October 5, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:01 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: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. My name is Colin Kenny and I chair the committee. Before we begin, I want to introduce the members of the committee.
We have Senator Rod Zimmer from Winnipeg. He has a long and distinguished career in philanthropy. He has been a member of the Senate since August 2005 and also sits on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
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. He served five consecutive terms, retiring from the legislature in 1992. Active in community affairs, he is currently the vice-chair of the board of governors of Yukon College. Senator Lang is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Senator Wilfred Moore was called to the Senate in September 1996. He represents the senatorial division of Stanhope Street/South Shore in Nova Scotia. He has been active at the city level in Halifax-Dartmouth and has served as member of the board of governors at Saint Mary's University. He is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce and the Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin is a lawyer and was called to the Senate in June 1993. He is currently Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and is a member of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.
Senator Pamela Wallin is from Saskatchewan. She was appointed to the Senate in 2009. After a long career in journalism, Senator Wallin served as Consul General of Canada in New York. She also served on the special Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. She is deputy chair of the committee and is also a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Senator Fabian Manning has dedicated his career to serving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at all three levels of government. He was appointed to the Senate in January 2009. He chairs the Conservative government's Atlantic caucus, and is a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Joseph Day is from New Brunswick, where he is a well-known private practice attorney and engineer. He has served in the Senate of Canada since October 2001. Senator Day sits on the board of governors of the Royal Military College of Canada. He currently chairs the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Honourable senators, we have before us David McAusland, Chair of the RCMP Reform Implementation Council. He is a senior executive with extensive experience and expertise in corporate governance. Among his career milestones, he has represented the worldwide corporate development interests of Alcan Incorporated and practiced corporate securities law and mergers and acquisitions.
We also have former Commissioner of the RCMP, Beverley Busson. She served as the first female Commissioner of the RCMP from December 2006 until July 2007. Among her many career achievements, Commissioner Busson is the recipient of a honourary doctorate of laws from the University of the Fraser Valley along with title, Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces and the Order of British Columbia.
Peter D. Martin is Deputy Commissioner, Chief Human Resources Officer of the RCMP. Since joining the RCMP in 1969, Deputy Commissioner Martin has held a number of diverse positions across the country. These include working on the 1988 G7 summit in Toronto. He represented the RCMP on emergency communications for southwestern British Columbia and served as Deputy Commissioner of National Police Services.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all three of you for coming this afternoon. The purpose of you being here is to assist us in preparing for a report on the transition of the RCMP.
Senator Wallin: We appreciate you coming on such short notice.
I will start with Mr. McAusland and Ms. Busson. I want to talk about their work. Then, I will come back to the deputy commissioner if I can.
I know you have been here before, Mr. McAusland. For the record, please tell us the status of the RCMP Reform Implementation Council. You were to deliver a report to the minister by September 30, according to your mandate. We do not know what you can share with us from that report or its general intentions. A status report of the council would be appreciated.
David McAusland, Chair, RCMP Reform Implementation Council: To put this council into historical context, you will recall that our first mandate commenced in March 2008. We had a preliminary report in September 2008. In March 2009, depending on your point of view, we either had a stay of execution or our mandate was extended. Putting it in positive terms, the mandate was extended. Certainly, we saw it as positive, as did the RCMP, I believe.
We have continued our work. We have tabled to the minister our anticipated September report, which took place last week. The minister has not had a chance to take full knowledge of the report but I am sure that in the days to come he will do so and the report will find its way into the public place. We will continue our work until March 2010, when we will see whether we expire or complete our work.
I highlight that our mandate can be looked at in a number of ways. Some 49-plus recommendations form the basis for our mandate, and we will oversee their implementation. From the outset, we interpreted our mandate to maintain a view of the big picture. The kind of change sought is durable change and not specific or narrow change. We have pursued, with the RCMP and the government, implementing change with respect to those specific elements. We have also pursued change to attitudinal, cultural and infrastructure issues that will equip the force to deal with those specific recommendations, but will equip the force to be able to change and adjust over time as required by the circumstances in society. The goal is to make the force a more modern, adaptive and self-adjusting organization, which is not necessarily easy for a police force.
We have had a great deal of cooperation from the RCMP. I emphasize that point and say that view is the absolute unanimous and enthusiastic view of all members of the committee. The RCMP has been extraordinarily receptive to our involvement. We have never met with anything in the form of resistance either in terms of actual cooperation or, intellectually, in terms of open mindedness. It is one thing to cooperate in facilitating process but it is another thing to cooperate in being intellectually accepting. I would say that the cooperation has extended to the point of being intellectually open. That openness does not mean that all discussions have been easy because we have had rigorous and vigorous debate, which has taken us forward not only with respect to the narrow item but with respect to the big picture.
Currently, we have been knocking off big-bucket issues one at a time. We have focused over the last number of months on human resources and leadership issues and structures. We have hammered away at communications structures and culture, which are big issues. In the coming months, we will head into the issue of the governance structure of the RCMP, which is extremely important to the success of all this process. The issue is complicated so we will address it at the tail end of the process.
Senator Wallin: You talked about the supportive response and receptive nature of the RCMP to your presence, questions and suggestions. This process is occurring in real time, so this discussion is not about recommending transformation. Is that right?
Mr. McAusland: That is correct. That is a leading question, but it is correct.
Senator Wallin: Yes, I wanted to condense it.
Mr. McAusland: That is the way we are working. It is live and absolutely in real time in the extreme.
Senator Wallin: Can you give us an example or two? Then I would like to hear from Ms. Busson on that topic. Has something changed? Has anything gone from A to B that has made the RCMP more effective?
Mr. McAusland: It is difficult to pinpoint one success because we are dealing with a whole menu of issues. I would say it is more attitudinal. The best example would be one for which we have not reached our goal yet: communications, which is undeniably profoundly difficult.
It is trite to say that we live in a society of transparency because everyone knows everything quickly, and people are used to that transperancy. It is difficult for any organization to succeed or thrive without some kind of philosophy of transparency. Frankly, police forces and other such organizations are not accustomed to openness, so they have a lot of catching up to do. Initially, our discussions in that area were difficult, not in the sense of being confrontational but in the sense of being on the same wavelength. We have made absolutely remarkable progress in recognizing how critically important a communications strategy for high quality communications is to the success of the RCMP.
There is great consensus and acceptance around that recognition. We are not yet where we need to be, but we have made tremendous progress on the issue of its importance. I use that example, although we are not there yet.
Beverley A. Busson, Member, RCMP Reform Implementation Council: I echo my colleague's comments vis-à-vis the issues around communications, if you want my opinion about some of the challenges and what has changed.
Given the life that I led for 33 years before I retired, most recently as the former Commissioner of the RCMP for seven months, my perspective is that the communication piece and the force's willingness to try to set the balance between the privacy of the people that we serve and the public's right to know continue to be a huge challenge.
Attitudinally, members spend their careers concerned about privacy and being careful about what conversations they have, even with their families and neighbours as they live their lives. Now, we are now asking them to be more open and transparent. That change is definitely an attitudinal change.
The other issue that I notice is on the leadership side. People feel safer taking more risks, again, specifically around communication, but more risks around the way we work with people and move forward. I can see those changes.
Interestingly enough, from my own perspective, when we look at the 49 recommendations and the changes that the force is endeavouring to make, the force has had most of those things on a wish list for a long time. From that perspective, people are looking for this wow moment, but the issue is one that the force has struggled with for a long time.
Senator Wallin: You said at one point that the transformation process was 7 out of 10. Is it better than that now? Is that process on track? How would you characterize it?
Ms. Busson: In using that kind of pendulum, it is 7 out of 10 and moving in the right direction.
Senator Wallin: Is it moving quickly?
Ms. Busson: I would say every day there are changes. As we move forward over the next six or eight months, momentum will grow on some of these issues because of leadership and communication. Even now, I sense the benefit of some of the communication strategies with regard to transparency taking place.
Mr. McAusland: I will throw in a follow-up comment for the purposes of clarity. We have to put where we are now in terms of expectations, time and whatnot. In terms of expectations relative to today, right now, three quarters of the way through our term as we now see it, I believe we are doing well. I want to re-emphasize this point, and Ms. Busson suggested it. We are at an important phase now of entering this tricky subject of the governance model, which is delicate for the RCMP and the machinery of government. Call it the "machinery of government issue." That issue will be important to follow because it will be something that may determine the ability of the RCMP to be that kind of adaptive, change-friendly, transition-friendly organization that people want to see.
Senator Wallin: Chair, can we come back and talk with Deputy Commissioner Martin on separate issues because the issues are unrelated, but I want to give all my colleagues a chance to deal with the reform implementation council.
The Chair: You are the only one on the list.
Senator Wallin: I think there are others that did not know that.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on the recommendations and their implementation. You said you have gone beyond the recommendations attitudinally and culturally in some aspects. Can we expect to see, within the 49 recommendations, how many are implemented, and will we be able to speak about how they are implemented and the success of that implementation?
Mr. McAusland: The answer is yes. In our first two reports, in an annex in each case there was a list of those recommendations and where we were at in their implementation and why. In jumping the gun, we have not included that list in our current report because, frankly, our view is that we want to make sure that the smaller, narrow-picture things at this point are put in the background. There was a report on the progress of those individual items in our first two reports, and there will be one in the future. We can go into that subject with anyone at any time.
Absolutely, progress is being made and it is being followed up with box ticking, matrices and all sorts of things to pursue diligently each one of those recommendations. We are definitely in both forest and tree mode; there is no question about that.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up in another area, and then go to human resources as well, later. The area of recruitment has been a question mark with the RCMP for some time. The changes that have been made look positive. I see that you have more recruits than you had last year, and are expecting more this coming year. Are you satisfied with the numbers? Do you see the numbers going up or staying the same as we recruit in the years coming?
Mr. McAusland: There are different ways to answer that question.
Deputy Commissioner Martin's comment on that issue will be particularly important, but undeniably, there has been significant and positive progress with the recruiting drive. The alterations in the cadet pay philosophy were helpful. Frankly, that issue is demonstrative of the general subject that no one likes to hear, especially when we say to the government that the success of the RCMP and recruitment in the future will cost money; let us not forget that point. Part of the answer is, how much money are people willing to invest in recruitment in the future? I think that answer will affect future recruiting.
In recent months and over the past year or so, the force has distinguished itself in terms of a much healthier approach to recruiting. I am not normally a cynical person but let me be slightly cynical for a moment to completely answer your question. Let us not forget that we are in a severe economic downturn, to say the least. Of course, that situation helps recruiting within the RCMP. No one will deny that fact and we should not. In answering your question, I do not want to sweep that detail under the carpet.
Part of the answer — and I do not want to take anything away from the positive progress that has been made — is the reality that is out there. As with many other things we are working through here with the RCMP, it will be interesting to see over time whether the financial resources will be sustained to enable this success to continue. When recruiting for talent becomes even more competitive, what will the dynamic be? It will be interesting, but a tremendous groundwork has been laid and we have had great success.
Ms. Busson: Mr. McAusland answered the question quite well. My understanding from the briefing with Deputy Commissioner Martin is that the targets have been met and the vacancies are now up to the expectations of the contract partners and the budgetary allocations.
Senator Zimmer: My question is supplementary to Senator Lang's question. Is the recruiting following the guidelines from the Brown report of concentrating on women, Aboriginals and minority groups? Is RCMP recruitment following that direction?
Mr. McAusland: The straightforward answer is yes, absolutely. Have all the specific numeric objectives been achieved: no. Is the trend in the right direction; yes. Are special programs and innovations being put in place to allow for that recruitment, and facilitate it; yes. I have material with me on that subject, but I think the right person to respond in detail is Deputy Martin.
We believe, as the reform implementation council, that progress is being made in the right direction.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. McAusland. I would like to continue our discussion where we left off. One of the important recommendations has to do with this famous principle of separate entity and separate employer status.
I would like to go back to the answer you gave last time. For those listening and for neophytes such as me, could you please explain what is meant by "separate employer status"?
Mr. McAusland: I am not so sure that our discussion was interrupted last time.
Senator Nolin: Let me say that I wanted to learn more.
Mr. McAusland: If I recall correctly, we gave a comprehensive answer to that question.
It is a complex question. The term "separate employer" means different things to different people. At first, we noticed a certain amount of confusion with regard to this term. The Council resolved from the outset, intellectually and not formally, to look at the concept of separate employer from a non-technical point of view. The technical sense of the term is that all employees are employees of this entity rather than of the government in general.
That is the simple way to answer your question. However, I will repeat that in terms of our work and our discussions with the RCMP, that is not how we view it.
In our analysis of the RCMP governance structure, we opted for common sense and we asked ourselves the following question: with respect to government relations, how could we attain our objectives without necessarily being obsessed with a narrow and technical concept?
[English]
Senator Nolin: Deputy Commissioner Martin, do you see advantages or disadvantages in that proposal? The proposal is a major one. I am sure it will affect the way you look at the future.
Peter D. Martin, Deputy Commissioner, Chief Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: When it comes to the whole notion of separate employer status or separate entity, the government can provide authority to the RCMP in a number of ways. Authority can be provided through a formal structural change; it can be provided through an extension of the authorities. That dialogue is ongoing right now.
From an operational point of view in the day-to-day management of the RCMP, it is important to have the ability to do those things. Whether the authority comes through a change in structure or through extended authorities is part of the dialogue that is taking place with the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, the commissioner's office and the government right now.
Senator Nolin: Ms. Busson, can you explain to us how the promotion system works in the RCMP, both for civilians and members?
Ms. Busson: For members of the RCMP, promotion is based on a combination of performance, skills and competencies. A member with a certain amount of service will have a list of competencies to meet. Then members put together a profile, jobs are listed and posted, and members compete for these positions with their profiles.
For civilian members, I believe much the same process takes place. With respect to each position in the force, you can appreciate, of course, that there are varying skills and issues for each position within the force. A member on drug squad may have a different set of skills from a person who is asked to manage a traffic unit or something to that effect.
Senator Wallin: As a supplementary question, there has been discussion about a requirement for a post-secondary degree as a basis for acceptance into recruitment. There is a lot of controversy about that topic. We will have you answer that question, but we might hear from others. Is that too much off topic?
Senator Nolin: No.
Ms. Busson: That issue has been a topic of much conversation in our council, and it was part of the Brown task force report. From the discussion we had as we went forward, the Brown task force came at a time when the force was undertaking a lot of intense recruiting, and was definitely behind the eight ball.
The other comment around that issue is that there are a lot of skills and abilities to become an excellent police officer. If a young person perhaps with a high school background in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan or British Columbia has an amazing ability with people and an amazing ability for potential within the force, the force will take on the responsibility to develop them after they join the RCMP. I obtained a law degree after I joined the RCMP, and was sponsored by the RCMP to take that education.
The Chair: Is that policy still in effect, Commissioner Busson?
Ms. Busson: Yes, it is, to my knowledge. I am not sure about law degrees.
The Chair: I meant law degrees.
Mr. Martin: There is no policy in place right now that mandates the requirement for post-secondary education to enter the RCMP. If we were to include that requirement, we would potentially disadvantage some target groups that we have right now.
The Chair: That is not my question. My question is: Does the force still support people who take post-graduate degrees?
Mr. Martin: Yes, they do.
Senator Lang: I will follow up on that question. If there was a requirement for a post-secondary degree for the purpose of recruitment, would that requirement not curtail your ability to recruit for the RCMP to the point that we would be in dire straits if we were to implement a policy like that?
Ms. Busson: It is difficult to project, but we believe that recommendation not only disadvantages the force, it disadvantages specifically some target groups, as Mr. Martin said. At the end of the day, in a lot of cases, a person's education is not necessarily the best determinant of what kind of police officer that person would be. As people move forward, training and learning programs are definitely encouraged and supported for people to take up the things that they feel they need, and that the force thinks they need, to move forward.
Mr. McAusland: I agree. If I can be direct in responding to the question with respect to the post-secondary degree or diploma requirement, from the point of view of the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, we have approached that recommendation on an extremely mitigated basis. Our view on that issue is mitigated. In other words, we would not pursue, and have discouraged the RCMP from pursuing, that approach in a categorical way. I think you can rest assured, assuming that is your view, that there is no tendency in terms of being obsessed with that recommendation as an unmitigated requirement that would impair, frankly, the recruitment and some of the other objectives that you referred to in your earlier question.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. McAusland, I am certain that you are familiar with the promotion system and that you have examined it thoroughly.
Take the example of a member who complains or who claims that they should have been promoted but were not. Does the current process address your concerns or do you believe that much more transparent and fair mechanisms should be put in place or that their implementation should be recommended?
Mr. McAusland: We are satisfied with the RCMP's current approach. I would add, because it is ongoing, that we have seen a great deal of progress in RCMP practices—in terms of complaints, problems, and controversies involving RCMP members—, which have improved significantly over the past year and a bit. A great deal of work has been carried out to simplify the process, remove obstacles, resolve those cases that are easy to resolve and avoid bottlenecks in employee relations, which occurred previously. An enormous amount of progress has been made in this area.
Senator Nolin: I would like to believe you but what about dispute resolution? The person who claims that they were not well treated or that they were not treated in the way that they should have been would like the dispute to be resolved in a transparent manner and at arm's length from those who made the decision in the first place.
Can you assure us that you are satisfied, as a legal practitioner, that this system is fair, efficient and acceptable to the parties involved in the dispute?
Mr. McAusland: I am here as the Chair of the Council and not as a lawyer. Therefore, my opinion will not be a legal opinion.
Senator Nolin: I understand. However, once a lawyer always a lawyer. It is impossible to forget our principles of natural justice and the importance placed on fairness.
Mr. McAusland: We are on the right track in terms of progress currently being made with the RCMP. In practical terms, in the current context, is there a perfect solution in every case? I cannot comment on that.
Has there been progress and significant change in our approach to practices, structures, the culture, the philosophy with respect to employees? Yes. Do I believe there has been significant improvement? Yes. Are we on the right track? Yes. Are we where we should be? I am not in a position to comment on individual cases. I would wager that there is definitely the occasional case that is not perfect. The RCMP is a big machine and, by definition, things are not perfect. That will continue to be the case but we must try to limit the imperfections.
Senator Nolin: We will definitely have the opportunity to continue with this conversation.
Mr. McAusland: I hope so and I certainly would like to.
Senator Nolin: I would also!
[English]
Senator Mitchell: I want to pursue one particular issue, and that is the level of participation of women in the force; not in the RCMP generally but in the constable stream of the force. I think the number is about 20 per cent overall in the senior ranks. That number is not particularly good, and it is a testimony to your profound competence that you rose to that level, Commissioner Busson. Of the top 75 people, only 6 are women.
Intriguing information has been provided to this committee by the RCMP on recruitment for 2008-09 and 2009-10: Whereas the force has about 20 per cent women, the target set for recruitment in those years was 17 per cent.
Please tell me that the force is not trying to reduce the number of women. What explains that anomaly?
Ms. Busson: I was not part of setting the goals for the year. Work that I have seen around that issue is about the availabilities generally in the workforce, and what one might expect. I think goals are set at those levels.
I can tell you what I know about recruiting females in the RCMP generally and over time. My daughter is in the force. I was in the first troop of women in the force. I know that the force is putting forward interesting and amazing initiatives to attract women to the RCMP.
It is the kind of career that not every little girl aspires to, as you might imagine, in this day and age, although I think more girls now than ever before aspire to it. I smile when I meet young children and young women who have that career as an aspiration, and naturally so.
I defer to my friend, Deputy Commissioner Martin, around how those goals were set and why. From my own experience, I can attest to the fact that there are huge efforts to attract more women, and more competent women, to the force.
Mr. Martin: About 18 months ago, the whole notion of recruiting was a large problem. We were not meeting our numbers. I was one of the people around the senior executive committee that used to beat on human resources for not making the quotas that we had each year. Unfortunately for me, I think the commissioner wanted me to put action where my mouth was, and asked me to take on the Human Resources portfolio, which I did.
The first thing we had to do was stop the bleeding, because we had too many vacancies in the field. These vacancies placed far too much work on the officers that we already had in place, and it was also a safety issue in terms of back- up, particularly for small detachments.
We had to make our numbers. In making those numbers, we at least wanted to achieve the labour-market availability numbers, and 17 per cent is the labour-market availability number for women in the police discipline.
We are now entering a stage where we are working on a five-year plan. Labour-market availability numbers are based on figures from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and Statistics Canada in 2001. We are working with those departments to update the numbers right now. I expect the numbers will increase. However, even if we have a number of 17 per cent, we should definitely attempt to meet that number.
For the first time — for as far as I can remember in the force — in the past two years, we have met our targets. Not only that, we have exceeded them. Our capacity to train people in Regina has moved to 72 troops a year. There are 32 cadets in a troop. That capacity was an enormous build on infrastructure. The thing to focus on is not the fact that we met our numbers but the fact that we now have the capacity. We can turn the tap on and off so that we can meet the provincial, contract, territorial and federal requirements in terms of new police officers in the street.
Last year, we put 57 troops through Depot. Our target was 55 troops. Every one of those troops was full, with 32 cadets in each troop. It is the first time I can ever remember that we did not have people that decided not to go in on day one.
We lost a couple of cadets at the outset but we did not lose a seat in the troop. We implemented a flex cadet program to bring cadets in over and above the 32, and if we lost one in the first one or two weeks we could put that flex cadet into the troop and not lose the space.
The whole training scenario has been a big program. I am not satisfied with 17 per cent. We need to do much better than that number. My own accountability problem is that I have five sisters, I have a daughter in the RCMP and my wife is a civilian member in the RCMP. If I fall down on this goal, I will get it at home as well.
Senator Mitchell: That information is excellent. To follow up, there are two sides to this issue. One is recruitment and the other is maintenance of women in the force. Commissioner Elliott was intense and passionate about this issue, invoking his three daughters and saying we are not doing enough.
I will quote one of the points he made: "I know that we lost quite a few . . . female officers . . . when they left the force when they had young children. We have to find better ways to support them through those years."
Someone said about the problem that maybe we need to let people go home at 4:30 under special circumstances for a period of their lives because if they are not given that flexibility, they have to leave. He is saying we need to support people better through those years.
Is there a concerted, specific, widespread program beyond the B.C. pilot project that he mentioned in this regard? Is there a cultural change to contemplate how we can give women flexibility so that they can stay?
Mr. Martin: Yes, senator, but at 100 per cent, I would have to say no. People are managing the organization. A lot of people are in remote areas. I find that across the force, some regions and some people are more flexible than others.
We have now created four employment equity committees to deal with employment equity across the organization. There is an employment equity committee for women. The champion for that committee is an assistant commissioner, who is our chief intelligence officer in the RCMP. She is championing, with the committee, a lot of the types of things that you are speaking about.
The committees have been in place for approximately a year. They have settled on their mandates. Now they are looking at all these issues. The committees will come forward to management with specific targets so that we can be more flexible and open.
Once we receive those targets, we will be embracing it in our policy. When Mr. McAusland talked about the question of how culture ischanging, previously a committee like these three might put in a report, the report might go up the line, and it could be suppressed, if the next officer in line did not necessarily agree with it.
In this particular case, these committees have direct reporting access to the senior executive committee, and they will be listened to. This reporting access is a change for us, and it is a new way of thinking in the RCMP.
Senator Moore: Mr. McAusland, I want to ask you about the governance issue, which you have said is key to the success of your work. You said it was a complicated and tricky area.
Do you sense that there is reluctance within the force to have civilian oversight?
Mr. McAusland: We have to respond to that question in three categories of issues. There is the oversight in the disciplinary sense, in terms of inquiry into the behaviour of the RCMP and complaints, and then there is oversight in terms of management. Then there is oversight in terms of public policy.
I will answer your question in those three buckets. Perhaps I will start with the last one, recognizing that the policy side of the RCMP — in terms of the prioritization of what it does and the kinds of criminality or bad behaviour it needs to go after and emphasize — is a matter clearly unto the RCMP and the government directly. That category is fundamental policy to be decided by the government.
If we were to prioritize, for instance, a major initiative on child pornography, or whatever it might be at the time, that matter is something for the government and the RCMP directly. That example is an illustration of the first category of issues.
The other end of the spectrum, the first one I mentioned, is the disciplinary or complaints process, which is something unto itself. As you know, it is a matter that is being examined as we speak: What sort of mechanisms and what sort of independent body named by who will oversee the conduct of the RCMP?
The RCMP has demonstrated a great openness to that concept, although there is devil in the detail, like anything else. As far as we can tell in our discussions with the RCMP, there has been openness to that concept and there is a live dialogue going on between the RCMP, the federal government, and the provinces on that matter.
Progress is being made on that matter independent of our council, not because we are being excluded, but the way we saw that issue proceeding, our involvement would have complicated it, frankly, because progress was and is being made, and the government is showing significant initiative in that area.
The other area, which I call management, is policies relating to budgets, human resources and many of the issues that we have discussed in the questioning. Most of the preoccupations that have been illustrated by your questions this afternoon are in this other area, which is more general governance; what we would call good management. That specific area is the one I am referring to that we are moving into now in this final phase: the set-up and the structures that will establish the relationship between the RCMP and the government in that particular area.
I have had detailed discussions in the last weeks and months with the RCMP leadership, and the commissioner himself, in that period of time. The RCMP is open to the idea of a board of management for the RCMP. Our view, and the RCMP will certainly agree, is that a board of management, if that is what we call civilian oversight in that area, goes hand in hand with other governance modifications that will succeed without falling into, pardon the expression, the trap of the separate employer. I do not want to get into that issue because it is a trap to step into it and we do not need to.
However, the concept of any board of management must go hand-in-hand with something that extracts and de- complicates the relationship that the RCMP has with the government. It must tidy up the relationship and download more authority to the RCMP with a greater level of accountability. It will flow through the oversight that we refer to as the board of management. We think that structure will be a more sanitized, efficient governance structure or accountability structure. I have every reason to believe the RCMP is supportive of that approach.
Senator Moore: With regard to this "management" label, as you have described it, and the complaints structure, do you see civilians taking part in those roles?
Mr. McAusland: Absolutely but I am hesitant to answer that question because I am not sure I like the expression, "civilian." It is not because it is not correct, but I have never seen these questions put in that context as we have debated them with the RCMP and others.
Senator Moore: Let us say, non-RCMP officers or personnel. Does that help you?
Mr. McAusland: Yes; I do not want to leave any connotation of confrontation or adversarial situation. Success for the future of the RCMP will be with structures where right-thinking people are able to work together with common vision and common sense.
Senator Moore: Agreed.
Mr. McAusland: It will be done without creating structures that are inherently adversarial in nature. On the contrary, the RCMP must be governed by accountability and common sense by people with a common vision. The structure does not mean people are subservient one to another, but they are able to work together openly and constructively with respect for one another.
Senator Banks: I will plough Senator Moore's ground a little more.
We are working on a report currently on the RCMP, its restructuring and all the questions you have addressed. We are in the final stages of addressing that report. We have drafts before us, and we are coming down to the wire. For that reason, I want to be completely up-to-date in these regards, if I can.
With respect to the last subject you addressed in responding to Senator Moore's question, we have heard from many others — including Paul Kennedy — about the question of what I characterize as policing the police. Everyone will agree that the iconic image of the RCMP is fundamentally important to its capacity to carry out its duties in this country. It has always been the case when there was a dispute, the default view of the public was always in favour of the RCMP on the assumption that the RCMP was right.
We have been told that view is no longer the case. We hope that the absolute — if I can use that word — and unquestioned trust in the RCMP, which used to be there if it is not any more, will be restored.
One aspect of that trust relates to policing the police. I ask you each to respond to the proposition — I am not necessarily subscribing to it — that in investigating situations such as some of those before us, the "investigation" — not the oversight — ought not to be conducted by members of the RCMP, or police officers, period. The investigation should include a significant representation of people who are not peace officers.
Ms. Busson: That question is a question on everyone's minds, especially recently with things in the news.
In my opinion, and from what I see through my work on the council with my colleagues to move forward, I do not see any reluctance in the force to be governed by, or work with, civilians and any other oversight body. We are past the point in time when we can continue to expect the public to trust us.
It is a new world. People are inundated with all kinds of conspiracy theories. At the end of the day, the force is not a perfect organization. Bad things happen to good people all the time.
As you say, we need to rebuild that trust and transparency. Having an independent body conducting those kinds of investigations is one way to assure people that the organization is as anxious as everyone else to get to the bottom of the matter. The conundrum — and I think you sense it as you ask the question — is that someone with an investigative ability must perform the investigation.
In my past life, we had success in asking people from the community to work with investigators hand-in-hand, and to offer some level of trust to communities as issues unfolded. That approach goes with coaxing the force to be more transparent in answering questions and in working with people on issues as they unfold. The explanation of "it is before the courts" is no longer enough for people. We need to work harder at finding ways to inform people as we move forward.
Senator Banks: What is the nature and extent of resistance in the force to moving in that direction?
Ms. Busson: I believe there is little, if any, resistance at this point in time.
Mr. Martin: As the HR guru in the forces, this question is out of my area.
Senator Banks: Yes, but you are a policemen, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin: Yes, that is why I will continue with my answer.
The force is open to external review. It is something the force has embraced warmly. Where we have oversight, there is no question; people recognize the independence.
However, care needs to be exercised in remembering that the RCMP is located in many remote areas of the country. Wherever that oversight body may be located, it will need the capacity to go in when and as required. A practical challenge exists in how to apply these things. The commissioner and others are struggling with this challenge currently.
Mr. McAusland: I will echo what has been said by the two other witnesses. I will add one nuance and reinforce a generalization.
The nuance is that the force is clearly supportive of external review, as Deputy Commissioner Martin and Ms. Busson have said. However, we must look at the detail and some of the things that have been recommended under the broad heading of "independent oversight." I will not affirm that the force, or even the reform implementation council supports — as a sweeping statement — what has been recommended in terms of independent oversight. Certain things give me pause. For example, the notion that an independent oversight group would have the power to issue various binding recommendations for the future on the behaviour of the force.
Such a notion gives me great pause and reminds me that the devil is in the details. Extreme care needs to be taken not to unleash some sort of mechanism that will be regretted later.
In conceptual terms, which is the way you posed the question, the answer is, absolutely yes.
In terms of generalization, I want to reinforce something said by Ms. Busson that is extremely important: The RCMP and the council are trying to ensure that it transitions to a new kind of organization that more readily recognizes its mistakes.
Senator Banks: That is a way to gain trust, is it not?
Mr. McAusland: Exactly; you will find that point embedded in our report. We have made progress on the point that more and more in today's world of extreme transparency, people and organizations are judged as much on how they handle their mistakes as on what they do well. Everyone Canadian knows that the RCMP is an extremely large and complicated organization with a difficult mandate. No right-thinking person will say that there will not be mistakes, because there will be mistakes. We must recognize and minimize those mistakes. The force will be judged more and more by how it responds to those mistakes.
Senator Banks: I want to assure you and everyone that we will never go into the minutia of how that oversight ought to be set up because we do not know enough about it. However, you agree with the principle of involving some police officers, some investigators and others.
Mr. McAusland: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to explore contract policing. I come from Saskatchewan, where the RCMP is our rural police force. Is contract policing essential to the RCMP?
Ms. Busson: I would love to respond first to that question. I come from a contract background in the force. I grew up in Nova Scotia, which was policed provincially by the RCMP. I started my career in British Columbia, where the RCMP is the provincial police force as well as the municipal police force in many small and large communities. I worked in uniform in a number of those areas. I was fortunate enough to be in contract policing in Saskatchewan as the Criminal Operations Officer and as the Commanding Officer of Saskatchewan. I have a firm belief that contract policing is a key to the success of the RCMP over the years and will continue to be a key in the future. To me, contract policing serves a number of purposes for the RCMP. It is the face of the country in small places. It brings Canada to small town Canada. Through contract policing, young members learn how to behave around people, how to handle conflict, how to talk to both good and not so good people; how to think on their feet; how to wear the uniform with pride; and how to build their image as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That learning happens in small-town Canada every day. It is the training ground for all the incredible police officers that go on to work in federal policing in national security and drug investigations, et cetera. I believe that the force's strength lies in its ability to police at the municipal, provincial and federal levels in many areas across Canada.
Having been the commanding officer of the biggest division in the force, I think that it offers a great opportunity for sharing information, instantaneous integration and cooperation as we move through the levels of policing, and work to serve Canadians. Yes, I believe that contract policing is important.
Senator Tkachuk: Are there other comments?
Mr. McAusland: I agree with Ms. Busson. By way of emphasis and reassurance, the RCMP Reform Implementation Council has spent a great deal of time examining and discussing this issue in terms of the future of the RCMP, its relationships and how to manage the challenging relationships with the contract jurisdictions or contract counterparties. I say "challenging" not because the relationships are acrimonious or confrontational but because they are complicated. As a group, we have a great deal of talent, diligence and good communication to manage. Under the heading "Distinct Progress" in our report, we have noted serious improvement in how those relationships are managed. Are we to the point of perfection? Like anything else, the answer is, no. However, there have been dedicated, well-structured resources with clear mandates acting against those issues. We have noted clearly some performance, and we have met with contracting parties. I am hopeful that there will be healthy progress. I agree with Ms. Busson that the contract work across the country is important to what we know the RCMP to be.
Senator Tkachuk: What are the comparisons of recruitment numbers by population for contract policing and non- contract policing, for example, in Ontario or Quebec versus British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan?
Mr. Martin: We try to match the percentage of population in the contract provinces to that representation in the force. The number of recruits drawn from the provinces equate to a percentage of the population of the respective province.
Over the last two years, as we have driven ahead, some provinces have been unable to meet those quotas. Ironically, one of the largest areas of success has been in the central region, which is where we do federal work: Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, Quebec. We have had a significant degree of success in federal recruiting, which was a bit of a surprise. However, the next largest group has been the Maritimes, where we have met with much success. We have been recruiting at exceptionally high levels. You asked about contract work versus federal work. I have served in the A Division, which is Ottawa; the O Division, which is Toronto; and in Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia. Contract work allows the officers to develop investigational skills. If they are working on a large, federal file, they might work for one or two years before they end up in court. In contract work, members can be in court every day and develop their skills around testifying and taking statements. That work is a good grounding for basic policing skills, not to mention the contacts they pick up when we talk about criminal intelligence and how crime sees no boundaries.
In the world today, given the Internet and general mobility, the criminal element is extremely mobile. Mr. McAusland mentioned the abuse of children. We do not say "child pornography" because children do not go into pornography; they are abused. A case involving one pedophile will reach out to a number of provinces and, at times, will reach out internationally. All these contacts allow us to be much more effective in stopping this kind of activity and rescuing children from abusive situations.
I do not know if you have ever gone into this area or seen some of the pictures, but I used to be responsible for the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. It is not abuse; it is actual torture. Some of the images around it are horrendous. There are a lot of sick people out there.
This contract work pays in terms of benefits to public safety and how we can work in the communities and with other policing agencies that we support in some of these roles. The National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre provides technical and investigational assistance to all law enforcement across Canada.
Senator Tkachuk: Will recruitment suffer if contract policing is phased out?
Mr. Martin: Senator, who is able to answer that question? It probably will, but that opinion is a personal one and not based on anything I can back it up with.
Senator Tkachuk: Does the province decide how many police officers it wants? How does that work? Let us take my province of Saskatchewan.
Ms. Busson: If I can answer that question, the decision is based on a conversation that takes place between the senior people who are responsible for policing in that province and the senior personnel in the policing division of the province.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that the Department of Justice?
Ms. Busson: Yes it is, and the public safety department, depending on the nomenclature and how that responsibility is structured in the province. It is a complicated process in this day and age. With more and more need for the force to be responsive to the priorities in those provinces, a great deal of care is taken in setting numbers. A lot of the process is a function of the policing budget for each province and the issues that are taking place in that province for the year.
Yes, the provinces are the ones that set the numbers in consultation with the force, and vice versa.
Senator Tkachuk: I am sure there are disagreements. Are there disagreements such as that number is too many, or that number is not enough?
Ms. Busson: It is never too many. I wish I could remember a fight like that.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you have problems meeting the request, or is it usually the other way around?
Ms. Busson: There were problems in the past. There were issues meeting the numbers that the province asked for. In those cases, we came up with, and continue to come up with, innovative things, until the last year or so — and now we do have the numbers. We looked at ways of retaining members and returning members that had retired. We hired temporary civilian employees to fill as many of the non-gun-toting positions as possible, lowering some of the budgetary numbers. A lot of discussion took place back and forth on priorities such as which positions would be cut if budgets were tight. The enterprise is very much a cooperative one in each of the provinces that I have had the pleasure to work in.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chair, I want to ask a question on diversity, women and Aboriginals. This subject has been discussed by the committee before.
How does the RCMP compare with the Ontario and Quebec police forces or, say, city police forces like Toronto or Saskatoon, for example? Do you have those comparative numbers?
Mr. Martin: I cannot answer that question today, but I am more than happy to have someone look at it and send the information to the committee.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not want you to go through every city in the country but a comparison, say, of Vancouver, Montreal, Ontario and Quebec police forces would be helpful. I appreciate that. If you can send that information to the clerk, that would be great.
The Chair: I am sorry, but some people have been waiting all day, and Senator Day is one of them.
Senator Tkachuk: I waited an hour and a half.
Senator Wallin: My question is a follow-up.
The Chair: This is your second follow-up question, Senator Wallin. You did have 12 minutes at the start.
Senator Wallin: Just on that —
The Chair: Senator Day.
Senator Wallin: This is specific to this question.
Senator Tkachuk: We have had supplementary questions before, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We have, but some people have not had a chance to speak yet.
Senator Tkachuk: We have lots of time. It is only 5:25. We have an hour and a half.
The Chair: The committee will decide on that.
Senator Tkachuk: Well, I am part of the committee, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Senator Day.
Senator Day: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will take you back to a discussion we had earlier. First, I will make a comment in relation to pensionable time. We recently handled a piece of legislation in the Senate where we provided for pensionable time for a municipal police force member, for example, who transfers into the RCMP and has a shorter training period. We provided for that training time at Depot in Regina to be pensionable time. I asked the question, why would a recruit who comes into the force at 21 or 20 years of age and who was not a member of another force somewhere — the recruit will stay in the force longer — not be paid and have that time as pensionable time? Why do we have two classes of new members in the RCMP?
Mr. Martin: I am aware of your letter. As a matter of fact, it has come to my office.
Senator Day: Good; that is excellent.
Mr. Martin: I have a group of people looking at that issue. We take cadets into the RCMP. They are not employees of the force; they are cadets who are paid an allowance. Because of their nonemployee status, they do not fall, as I understand it, under the Superannuation Act and there are challenges to affording them the opportunity for pensionable time at Depot.
Given that we have a culture of change, in the past we probably would have said, we cannot do it because of these reasons. We are taking a look at that issue now to see if there is anyway of approaching that question in a positive way. That is the reason it has taken time to answer your question. A research team and some actuaries are looking at that. We will provide you with a written response as soon as we have the information.
Senator Day: I am pleased you are looking into this issue. It is a question of fairness. It also deals with the issue of recruiting, I would think. I will not spend any more time on that issue at this stage because our time is running down.
Am I correct that the rules have remained the same; namely that everyone who enters the RCMP must start at the bottom, go to training Depot and work their way along? There is no direct entry into the commissioned-officer level at inspector?
Mr. Martin: That situation is not exactly true. It has been true in the past but one thing has changed it. Because we are looking to be a different organization, we are now considering what we call lateral entries. If a police officer in another agency was interested in coming to the RCMP, and given that we now have pension portability, it is possible for those police officers to come into the ranks of the RCMP and have their service in the other force and their pensionable time recognized. This situation applies to all ranks. There is no barrier to that entry. That is the only change.
The other benefit is that there have been some figures around how young the force is, and how much experience our members have. This entry is one way to buy that experience and bring it into the RCMP. The other benefit is to foster positive relationships with other police departments due to the connections that we achieve through those transitions. The program is working extremely well.
The flip side is we tend sometimes to lose people. Again, there are positive results for the organization. As I said before, criminal activities know no boundaries. It is possible to leverage those contacts and make good use in terms of ongoing investigations, public safety, and so on.
Senator Day: Can I refer to inspectors, various levels of superintendents and commissioners as commissioned officers within the RCMP? This discussion goes back to one we had earlier of why you feel it might not be a good idea to require all entry-level members to have at least a baccalaureate level of formal education. Is there any discussion of having a requirement at that commissioned-officer level to have formal education?
Mr. Martin: The approach on that question was that we did not want that requirement to become a barrier. That does not mean we do not encourage people with post-secondary education; quite the opposite. We recruit at universities and educational institutions. In the past, the RCMP tended to sit back and wait for people to walk through the door and tell us, we want to join the RCMP. In my opinion, that attitude is a bit elitist. There is a job market now where much of the population is aging and there are many job opportunities for people. The RCMP has been proactive, which is a huge change in the way we recruit. We are going out into the communities to draw on the types of individuals that bring the skill sets.
When you talk about significant investigations that involve complex commercial- crime-types of things, we are definitely extremely interested in recruiting from the higher-learning facilities. We also have, as we talked about earlier, sponsorship programs where we sponsor some of our employees at training.
Senator Day: There is no appetite for a policy requirement at this stage?
Mr. Martin: No.
Senator Day: Thank you. That is fine. I heard the rest of your answer.
I want to back now to the point you made, Deputy Commissioner, that in the past, reports have come in and could have been stopped, and not acted upon, at the next level or two levels above. That comment is taken with Mr. McAusland's comment about trying to move towards a self-adjusting force, and Commissioner Busson's comment that all these initiatives taking place now are being implementing nicely. Things have changed from the previous force. We are not there yet, and there is recognition that this effort is long term. Hopefully, the steady state will be to be able to adjust to mistakes in the future.
Have you given any thought as to whether having a non-career person as a commissioner of the RCMP has assisted in this adopting this change? If it has, is there any thought as to whether that situation should continue, keeping in mind that it is a disincentive to the aspiring regular members of the force who hope ultimately to become commissioner?
Mr. Martin: Let me answer your last question first. I do not think it subverts aspirations for that job. Remember that in the RCMP, we have more than uniformed members; we have civilian members and public servants. The message we give to employees is that anyone can be commissioner. A civilian member can become commissioner, and so can a public servant.
One aspect of our old culture is that if they wore a uniform, they had it made. If they were a civilian, they were a second-class citizen. I think that step forward is huge in terms of the direction of the force today.
When Commissioner Elliott approached me to go into the HR sector, I asked him if he was crazy. I did. Maybe it was risky. It would have been risky in the old culture, but maybe not this one.
Senior managers deal with HR all the time, but I have never been an HR practitioner. His response to that point was: Peter, you do not have any biases, you are not bound by the boxes and you do not own any of the RCMP HR practices, so you will go in there with an unobscured, clean mind, and I expect that you will make some changes.
I think I agree with that view.
I believe Senator Wallin asked Mr. McAusland to provide examples of RCMP Reform Implementation Council and how the culture is changing and how the RCMP is working with the council. I attend as many council meetings as I can. You implied that change is going well. If you think change is going well, it is not. Because this is change, the blood is probably a foot deep on the floor, getting people to move. Human beings do not like change. It is a reality of life. Much of this change has not been easy, but we are working along.
In the past, if I wanted to talk to an outside group about anything, particularly something controversial, I probably needed permission from the commissioner and maybe the senior executive committee. I have complete and unfettered ability to talk to the RCMP Reform Implementation Council about anything. We have had meetings in camera for those issues that may have been unsettling to employees, and we had to resolve things before we went public with them. I have been allowed to give my opinions and views to the council. The only thing that the commissioner has asked is that I inform him when I am doing that so that he is aware of the issue and what is happening. However, I have not had my hands tied on anything. As a matter of fact, it is the opposite. That would not have happened a few years ago.
Senator Day: You want that situation to continue after the council expires in the next six months. That issue is the governance issue, is it not?
Mr. Martin: I do not think I agree with that. I think the world and life changes. I think when the time comes, the government should look at all the options. What we are seeing today is that a civilian individual can be successful as commissioner. In selecting the next commissioner, the government should look at all their options and pick the best one.
Senator Day: This is the first time we have had a civilian commissioner, is it not?
Mr. Martin: I think it is the second time. In our early history, I think the Prime Minister appointed someone for a few days to look after the commissioner, who was a civilian.
Senator Day: Mr. McAusland, do you want to comment on that issue? Do you understand the issue? Does the board of management achieve this open-mindedness that we are looking for?
Mr. McAusland: I am happy you asked this question because you are going right into the heart of the issue. When I made the distinction before about the forest and the trees, your question is about the forest.
Senator Day: I am a New Brunswick man; we know all about forests.
Mr. McAusland: You know a lot about that kind of thing. I am sure Ms. Busson will confirm that this issue has been central to our discussions because it goes to the heart of the culture, and how people are viewed, controlled or not controlled, managed and guided. It is all there.
I can tell you unequivocally that the situation is not perfect and there is a lot of mileage that is yet needed. However, I am tempted to say that some of the change we have seen has been almost amusing. With respect to my own experience from the start, as we moved through our initial meetings and created an atmosphere of real openness and dialogue, we could see the whole atmosphere, the interaction with people and the way they dealt with us changing before our eyes, frankly.
I do not want to suggest the situation is perfect, but when we have our council meetings, some of which must necessarily take place without the commissioner there because he goes all over the place, the council goes all over the place and we have to move on. Sometimes he cannot be there. However, those who attend, report and discuss do so in a live and unfettered manner. I think things are going well.
On the issue of regular member versus civilian, more specifically, that question is an interesting one. Frankly, I do not know what the answer is. I am sure the experience of having a civilian commissioner has been healthy for a number of reasons for the RCMP at this point in time. I think it is healthy for the change process simply because of the symbolism, putting aside the qualities of the individual involved.
Having said that, I think time will tell us the durability of the healthy and necessary change that is under way to have stronger recognition of civilian leadership within the RCMP. I am not referring to the commissioner but to senior civilians.
In one of our reports from the first mandate — I cannot remember which one — we refer to a concept we call "functional excellence." That concept is intended to emphasize the need for the force to recognize, apart from the leadership element, that there are specialized management areas, HR not necessarily being one of them, where professional training is attached to certain functions and roles, just as there is in front-line policing.
For instance, we talked earlier about the communications area. The communications mandate within the RCMP is profoundly difficult and complex, arguably one of the most difficult corporate communications roles in this country. When one defines the leadership of the communications function, what sort of person does one have? I am not criticizing the people who are there now. I am criticizing the ideology behind that definition from a management perspective. I also single out the finance area. The question is one of management professionalism, which might not go hand in hand with the training of a regular member, or it might, but these two concepts are different.
We will see with time, but your question goes to the heart of what we are doing and where there is significant progress, I would say.
The Chair: Colleagues, I need advice. We have passed the normal hour and a half by more than 12 minutes. Senator Manning has not had an opportunity to ask a question yet. I have a request for a second round from Senator Wallin, Senator Lang, Senator Zimmer and Senator Tkachuk. Can I please have some guidance? I know Senator Day would like to put a motion forward to move in camera and discuss the report. I want to know the will of the committee.
Senator Zimmer: Mr. Chair, you can take my name off the list. Senator Day asked the question I had in mind.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Zimmer.
Senator Wallin: I have several questions to ask.
Senator Day: I suppose, Mr. Chair, we asked these witnesses to be here for an hour and a half and we have now held them longer than that. Our plan was to move into a discussion of the report, but I hate to cut off honourable senators at the same time.
Senator Wallin: We are hearing information relevant to the report. I think that is why we are here asking questions.
Senator Day: Our witnesses may have other engagements.
Senator Tkachuk: Let us ask them.
Senator Wallin: Do you have time for more questions?
Mr. McAusland: I suspected there was a risk of going over the time, so I planned accordingly.
Senator Banks: I move, then, that we extend this part of the meeting for 15 minutes to allow for more questions.
Senator Day: Are members okay with 15 more minutes, to 6 p.m.?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Manning: I have a couple of quick questions and I guess the answers will take care of themselves.
On the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, my understanding is that the report was presented to the minister in September. Is that correct? Is your stay of execution to the end of March?
Mr. McAusland: That is correct.
Senator Manning: Can you explain what the council will do over the next six months? Will you present another report at the end of March?
Mr. McAusland: Yes, we will. Our mandate this year, the second year, was basically a carbon copy of the first one, where we were asked to issue a report in September and one in March. We will see what happens in March. There will be a report from us in March. It is mandated, as one was mandated last year.
The mandate was based on that report and where we were. We were asked to continue our work for another year, and I would like to think it was because of the quality of the report. We will deliver our report and what happens will happen, I suppose.
I think part of your question was the last six months. As we go into this last six months, we will revisit, of course, as we always do, and keep up to date on progress in general and we will go back over many things, like the leadership question, communications, et cetera. The tough subject we are dealing with now, and the one we will be grinding away on, is governance.
Senator Manning: Maybe my next question follows from subject. Listening to Deputy Commissioner Martin on a couple of occasions talking about the change and the culture of today versus the culture of years ago, is there any point — day on the calendar — when reform is complete? One would think that reform would be ongoing, especially with the changes that have come forward in the past decade.
That question may be tough to answer, Mr. McAusland, but do you see a mandate beyond March in regard to the reform council?
Mr. McAusland: You have asked a number of questions, and I guess your last question is kind of the cherry on the cake.
The first part of your question goes to the heart of what we are doing, much like Senator Day's question. As a council, we made a point from the beginning of indicating that no one should expect a big bang here. This is the wrong way to look at reform. A perfect way to guarantee failure is to say reform is a finite, circumscribable concept based on those specific recommendations, and if we as a council oversee those specific recommendations, reform will be complete and the world will be wonderful.
As I said, that approach is a recipe for failure. We stated at the beginning of our mandate, that approach would be a recipe for failure, and we have not approached the mandate in that way. Yes, we have tried to achieve the implementation — a careful and judgment-based implementation — of those recommendations, but under an all-important umbrella of cultural, institutional change.
As we have said before, the organization becomes adaptive, self-adjusting, open, and transparent. The next time someone puts up their hands to think about reform, it is probably not necessary because the RCMP will have thought about reforming itself.
In an ideal world, an organization, with its leaders, is able to recognize the need for change before other people need to tell it to change. That is where we are trying to move the organization. The objective is laudable. I think it is largely achievable. The organization will never be perfect but it is the way to go.
As for our mandate, which was your second question, we will see what happens. That situation may end up being linked to how and when the government sees a board of management coming in, and how all those mechanics are dealt with.
Senator Manning: Maybe one of our other witnesses can answer my next question.
I know for years there has been division between the provincial police and city police versus the RCMP. In my observations over the past couple of years, I have seen a tremendous amount of cooperation between levels of police in regard to addressing the drug concerns in the provinces. Almost every time we see a major drug bust now, there is a complement of RCMP officers and local police.
I am wondering about the cooperation that you see from your side in regard to taking away the divisions that, in some cases, used to exist. Newfoundland and Labrador, as an example, draws on the Newfoundland Constabulary and the RCMP. For a while, we always heard how the province moved from one to the other. Now there seems to be a cooperation that we have not seen in years, and it seems to be reaping great benefits.
Across the country, how do you see that cooperation? Are bones of contention still out there, or do you see much more of a spirit of cooperation?
Ms. Busson: From my perspective, and I understand this situation has continued from the time I was in the force, in the last ten years policing in Canada has evolved and matured to a point that you describe, where people work well together. Criminals came together way earlier than the police, but we finally figured it out.
I believe that cooperation is excellent. It is a testament to leadership, I think, at all levels, both within the RCMP and within other police departments across this country. We participate with other police forces in the chiefs of police councils in that work. As well, there is the realization that there are no boundaries. We have to work closely together.
Your observation is correct. I believe that cooperation has served Canadians well — that we stopped being territorial and learned to work collegially and together.
Senator Manning: Maybe the Deputy Commissioner can answer my last question. Again I refer back to my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In regard to recruitment, there seemed to be a lot of concern with younger police officers at the time of joining the force that they, the greenhorns, would be sent to isolated communities. Now concern has been raised by the isolated communities in some cases at the lack of experience.
The situation seems to have improved somewhat, because I do not hear about it as much now. I know there has been a lot of discussion with Aboriginal and other isolated communities. I will use my own example in Newfoundland and the northern parts of Labrador. How do you see that situation as being addressed? Is the situation different than it was a few years ago?
Mr. Martin: I have served in Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, I spoke three weeks ago with a member of the Musical Ride who is one of the non-commissioned officers there, a corporal from Nain. He is moving on to a new post, a very competent individual. He is going back to one of the communities. He wants to go there.
We find that while we are saying X recruits have less than five years of service, and those numbers are growing, we have been recruiting from an older segment of society. We have people in training who have come to the RCMP as a second career. It is not unusual to have someone in training who is 40 years old. These individuals bring mature life skills to their police work. I think they also bring a new, mature outlook on policing. I think the mix is changing, but the balance is still there.
Senator Manning: As a closing comment, coming from a small, rural community in Newfoundland and Labrador, the only police force we have ever known is the RCMP. While there are always concerns in many groups and organizations, I believe that your organization has a lot to be proud of. We definitely are proud of the work you do, and we are here to assist in any way we can.
Mr. Martin: It was a pleasure to serve in Newfoundland. With regard to the ethics in Newfoundland, I can count on one hand the number of staff problems I had there. It was a pleasure to be there.
Senator Wallin: I have three supplementary questions, so I will try to squeeze them in, although they are on different topics.
I, too, like my colleague, come from small-town Saskatchewan, where the RCMP is important and still well respected and loved despite all the incidents that occur from time to time that generate a lot of headlines and drive-by smears. In follow up to Senator Banks' question, is there any evidence that the default position is now anti-RCMP? I see it in headlines from time to time, but I do not have that sense. Other than individual problems, is the situation now that people will take the bad guy's word over the police officer's word?
Mr. Martin: I will not quote the numbers from the surveys that are done about public opinion because if we were a private company, they would probably say the numbers were good. However, I do not think we should ever be satisfied with the survey results. I think we always need to strive to do better.
If we were at 80 per cent, for example, I think we should be more concerned about the 20 per cent than the 80 per cent. We can never rest on our laurels here. It is something we need to work on. We need to move the trends in a positive direction and continue to improve. The challenge is an ongoing one.
Mr. McAusland: This perspective is particularly personal as chairman of the committee. As we started to work, one thing I said to the RCMP was: For crying out loud, lighten up, in the sense that you, as an institution, are not the only institution in this world that has this particularly difficult challenge right now. It is only that the RCMP is in the public eye and subject to great scrutiny.
The number of organizations out there with whom I have contact in the private sector and elsewhere that are burdened by an extreme change-management imperative is enormous.
Related to that situation, this lack of confidence, default attitude, personally I suggest you have to put that question in a relative context; relative to the world we live in now.
My own view is that we live in a world, unfortunately, in which we see a tremendous erosion of confidence in our institutions. Earlier on in my testimony, I used the word "cynicism." I think we now, for whatever reason, live in a society that has become tremendously cynical because of whatever reason; perhaps the transparency and openness, and the way communications are now.
I see the cynicism in many aspects of my work. Personally, from the beginning, I have put the RCMP's situation in a relative context. The organization is not the only important institution, public or private — we do not need to segue into a great discussion about what has happened in the financial sector, corporate sector and corporate leadership — in terms of erosion of confidence. Cynicism is everywhere.
In that relative context, frankly, I do not think the RCMP is that bad.
Ms. Busson: If I can add to my colleague's comments, over the last number of years the force has suffered from bad communication — difficulties with any number of issues, and we have not addressed them to the best of our abilities.
I believe also — as was expressed by Senator Manning, you and others — that Canadians still believe in the RCMP and want to believe in the RCMP. I spend time with young members whenever I can — I am still invited to events — and remind them that those stories do not define who they are and what they stand for. We only have to go to Depot or spend time in any detachment to see how amazingly brilliant, brave, courageous and dedicated the membership is. I think we have to work harder to communication that good story to people. As a number of your colleagues have said, people will start to trust again.
Senator Wallin: Do I have time?
The Chair: If the answer is quick.
Senator Wallin: Deputy Commissioner, you talked about the 17 per cent target in recruitment being a private sector or Statistics Canada number.
Mr. Martin: That number is labour market availability.
Senator Wallin: Is 17 per cent the number nationwide?
Mr. Martin: It is a Canadian number. For example, they must be 18-years-old to apply to the RCMP. Anyone under 18 is not included in that figure.
Senator Wallin: That number of 17 per cent is what is available in the marketplace regardless of whether women choose to sign up; that issue is separate.
Mr. Martin: That is right.
I have one caution, senator: The number is a 2001 figure. We are in the process of re-examining the number, which will affect it, no doubt.
Senator Wallin: I have other questions, but I will ask you off-line.
Senator Tkachuk: I have one question, chair.
The Chair: I am sorry, but we agreed to stop at 6 p.m.
Senator Tkachuk: I have one question to follow up on. I was not able to finish because of your disagreement with Senator Wallin on a supplementary question.
The Chair: Everyone has one more. You would like one more, too?
Senator Wallin: It does not say anything here.
Senator Tkachuk: It does not say in the agenda that we end at six o'clock.
The Chair: It does not have to.
We have a motion. You can move your motion, Senator Day.
I have recognized Senator Day.
Senator Day: Mr. Chair, I move that this committee now proceed in camera —
Senator Lang: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
The Chair: You are out of order.
Senator Tkachuk: He is not out of order.
The Chair: He is out of order. Senator Day has the floor.
Senator Day: — to begin a study of our interim report on the RCMP.
Senator Tkachuk: That is not a good way to conduct a study, Senator Day.
Senator Day: There are two other aspects of motions when we go in camera, which I assume apply in this instance. The advisers to the committee may stay, notwithstanding that we are in camera and that one copy of the transcript be maintained by the Clerk.
The Chair: Those in favour of that motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Tkachuk: I am not in favour of that motion. You must have time for discussion on a motion, Mr. Chair. You cannot simply rush to a vote.
Do you not think we have a right to say something while we are having this discussion?
The Chair: I have heard you, senator.
Those opposed?
Senator Tkachuk: I am opposed.
Senator Lang: I am opposed.
Senator Wallin: We want debate on this motion. There was no rule that said we had to stop at six o'clock.
Senator Tkachuk: I want debate on this motion.
Senator Wallin: We are taking testimony that we hope will be reflected in the report. It is worthy of taking a few minutes to have that discussion.
The Chair: We understand that point, Senator Wallin. We discussed this matter earlier; we went past our regular time. There was a discussion, and Senator Banks moved a motion that we extend to accommodate you. You were accommodated. It is now five minutes past the time we agreed to cease work.
Senator Tkachuk: I want to thank the witnesses for coming. Please do not take us as an example of how to behave when you are managing the RCMP.
Senator Wallin: Other Senate committees function in a more amicable way.
Senator Tkachuk: They function in a civilized way.
The Chair: On behalf of the rest of the committee, I thank you as well for coming. Your comments are appreciated.
We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)