Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 10 - Evidence - November 16, 2009
OTTAWA, Monday, November 16, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1:41 p.m., in public and in camera, for the consideration of a draft report on the national security policy of Canada.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, SenatorBanks will be late; he will be here in 15 minutes. I am told SenatorZimmer is in the building, but I am in favour of getting on with our meeting. If you are agreeable, I will call the meeting to order.
Senator Tkachuk: I wanted—
Senator Wallin: I want to report as well.
Senator Tkachuk: On the Tuesday prior to the break week, there was a motion passed in the Senate regarding our steering committee. I understand from the clerk that it does not require a motion in committee to recognize the Senate motion. I simply wanted to report on that and get the agreement of all senators that what happened in the Senate is what will happen in the committee. The committee will follow the instructions of the Senate motion as far as the steering committee is concerned.
The Chair: That goes without saying.
Senator Tkachuk: I know, but I only wanted it on the record that we recognize the motion.
Senator Wallin: I want to report to the committee that, pursuant to the decision agreed to at the committee meeting held May25,2009, to split funds in the budgetary category for promotion of reports, meetings, other matters related to committee business, et cetera, between both parties, approximately $4,000 was expended by the deputy chair on a trip to Regina from October 29 to November 1 to visit RCMP Depot, and that the amount be certified as payable from the committee's budget.
Second, pursuant to the same specification I just said, approximately $17,000 in funds was expended by the deputy chair for a trip to Afghanistan from November 9 to November 14 for the purpose of visiting troops on Remembrance Day, and that the amount be certified as payable from the committee's budget.
The Chair: I think that is a report to the steering committee, but this is fine.
Senator Wallin: Just do it here. Is there anything else I need to do, clerk, based on that? Okay.
Senator Tkachuk: To be clear, my understanding was that when it is reported that either the chair or the deputy chair goes somewhere, it is to be reported to the committee. Are there instructions that it is to be reported to the steering committee, or are we only assuming that?
The Chair: The instructions were to report it to the steering committee. I have no problems having it reported to the full committee.
Senator Tkachuk: If I remember correctly, you reported it to the steering committee meeting we had at 170 or 168.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Tkachuk: It was a steering committee meeting, not a committee meeting?
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: During that steering committee meeting, are the reasons for the trip also to be reported? If I remember correctly, I asked you about that and you did not wish to answer that question.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: I think that is important.
The Chair: I will be reporting to the steering committee today, which is the prescribed procedure. I am indicating in general terms what I am doing as,Senator Wallin has — generically where I have gone and with whom I met.
Senator Tkachuk: If I remember correctly, in the last steering committee meeting, you reported the costs of your trip.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: I enquired about the purpose the trip and you said it was none of my business.
The Chair: Correct.
Senator Tkachuk: Will that be the tenor of future reports to the steering committee?
The Chair: No. What I did was to look up how ministers were declaring publicly and followed that.
Senator Tkachuk: We are not ministers.
The Chair: I understand that, but that is the model I am using, and it is as detailed as what Senator Wallin has provided to us.
Senator Tkachuk: I think Senator Wallin is willing to answer questions.
Senator Wallin: Yes, that is the next thing I wanted to address after Senator Tkachuk's speech.
Particularly in the case of the trip to Depot, it is obviously relevant in terms of discussions we are having on an ongoing basis. Second, I would be happy to answer any questions from anyone about what I saw, heard and learned in Afghanistan, either for anyone's personal interest or because it is relevant to decisions we might make here.
The Chair: With respect, if we could keep those to the end of meeting.
Senator Wallin: I will not be here at the end of meeting.
The Chair: With respect, if we could keep them to the next meeting.
Senator Tkachuk: Could we ask a question on Depot? What were your impressions from the tour you had there? That is relevant to what we will be discussing.
Senator Wallin: I will try to be brief. I understand the chair's concern.
I found it most interesting. I had a complete tour of the facility, and I had not been there before. We had a complete run-through of their training program, including going to the locations they have on site where they do real training— a drug house, a store, a back alley, et cetera— to look at how they have revamped the entire training process there. It is an ongoing work in progress. I found that most interesting, because I think they really have started to figure out the complexities of today's world, and they are trying to teach that in the best possible way they can. Most of it is hands- on.
I guess I was really quite taken aback by the level of recruiting and the nature of the recruits. I met two women recruits, in particular, whom I thought were fascinating. One is a young woman who is probably in her mid-twenties and who has a four-year degree in criminology. She said she walked into her temple to see an RCMP recruiting poster. As she described, it "the penny dropped,'' and she said, "This is what I want to do.'' She went home to her East Indian family, and she laughed and said, "You can imagine how that went over'' in the cultural context of her family. Her folks and her family were there. They now think it is terrific. She is being posted to Northern Canada and has become a beacon, even in her own community.
The second startling one was a middle-aged woman with three grown children. She had secretly done all her initial contacts with the RCMP, and when she was accepted, she sat down and talked to her husband, who said, "This is fabulous. Why did you not tell me? I am with you; we will move wherever you need to go.''
You really see a lot of the things we heard in testimony about a very different kind of recruit and the difference it makes when recruits come to the table with years of real-life experience as opposed to coming in at 18 or 19. You really see the changing face. I talked to them specifically about the recruitment of women. They think it is proceeding very well and pointed out that you actually cannot force women to join; those who do join are joining willingly and becoming serious role models. The East Indian woman talked about that, particularly.
It was good to see how this put the meat on the bones for a lot of stuff we have been hearing about: the changing mentality, the changing teaching and learning experience, what they get in six months, the changing recruitment, and the changing nature of recruits. There may be things that I would like to see based on some of that reflected in our report and our discussion here, because I think some of the issues go right to point on that.
Those were my overall impressions. You see quite a wide variety of creeds and colours in the young recruits. I spoke to a graduating class. You have everything from Asian males who are four feet nine inches to white middle-aged females who are five feet ten. The kind of formalized standards have changed, so I think you really have a force there that is reflecting a lot of the reality of this country, and I think that is a very positive thing.
As we get to points of discussion on that, I may just make some comments at that point.
The Chair: I would prefer it if you did. I, too, have spent two days at Depot and came to very different conclusions.
Senator Wallin: When were you there?
The Chair: About a month ago.
Senator Wallin: What did you not see?
The Chair: I did not see minorities, and I did not see women.
Senator Wallin: You did not see minorities and women?
The Chair: That is right, and I have the figures to support it. It was a white-bread operation.
Senator Wallin: Was this a graduating class?
The Chair: Yes, I spoke to the graduating class and the whole nine yards. I spend two full days there.
Senator Wallin: And you did not see any minorities?
The Chair: Very few, and they are reflected by the figures that Depot has given us here, which are very low. We will have a discussion of it when we get to that point of the report.
Senator Wallin: I was quite astounded by what I saw.
The Chair: My troop was Troop 49. I saw all of the students— every one of them— parading. They gave me the picture of me inspecting, as they gave you.
Senator Wallin: I am astounded.
The Chair: You are astounded that I should go to Depot?
Senator Wallin: No, that you did not see minorities. I cannot believe that I was the only one who saw them. I saw beyond the class, as well.
The Chair: The figures we have contradict that there are a whole lot of minorities there. There are not. The same is true with the number of women.
Senator Wallin: I think 20 per cent women is pretty impressive. The women will tell you themselves that the thought that we might somehow get to 51 per cent because women want to sign up for the RCMP in the same ratio men do is just not a reality.
The Chair: That is your opinion.
Senator Wallin: It is the opinion of women who say that will not likely be reality in the short term. That is not a first choice.
The Chair: I hope you can support it.
Senator Tkachuk: Just as easily as the other opinion.
The Chair: It was being put to me as a fact.
If we could, perhaps we can go ahead with Chapter 3 of the report, page 31. I will point out that this has not been changed. It has typos and misspellings in it and things like that, and we agreed not to change the report. It has not been changed since September25.
Senator Wallin: I think everybody has had a chance to look at the revised first 10 pages that we sent away for a rewrite. I think some of the things we agreed to as a committee are not reflected in the rewrite.
The Chair: When we get to go through the rewrite, it would be a good time to comment on it. We agreed today to go ahead and finish going through the remaining chapters.
Senator Wallin: I think the issue is that a lot of these things were agreed to by both sides, and when we send things back for a rewrite that we have agreed to— both parties, all sides— and they are not reflected, then it is hard to go ahead with the next stage.
The Chair: Senator Wallin, you are talking about something that has not been circulated and has not been translated. I do not know where —
Senator Wallin: You sent it back out.
The Chair: What you got was the introduction only of the first version.
Senator Wallin: The first 10 pages. You brought that back and gave it to the committee.
The Chair: Right.
Senator Wallin: It does not reflect the discussions we had as a committee, so I am a bit concerned about moving ahead and agreeing to certain changes when we do not see them reflected when they are sent back with that kind of instruction.
The Chair: The committee will decide that, I guess, as we go through it.
Senator Tkachuk: What is the point of us going through the report if the stuff that we have already gone through has not been taken into consideration? You have not taken the consideration of the committee for the first 10 pages. What would be the point of continuing this charade? We will either make changes that are reflected in the rewrite, or there is no point in continuing.
The Chair: I think we have made changes.
Senator Tkachuk: When the committee agrees to something, it agrees to something. It does not agree to something and then you get to change it back.
The Chair: With respect, there were —
Senator Tkachuk: I am trying to argue a point.
The Chair: With respect, in many cases, we did not come up with the exact words. We said we will leave that to the author to work out.
Senator Wallin: We agree with that, but let us take the Mr.Palango thing, which is a specific example that was not just about rewriting and leaving that to the drafters. As I recall, it was agreed by both sides that he would be removed in references. Now it has moved from page 10-11 of the original to page 4 of the first draft. He is being referenced again in this document as an expert on the RCMP.
The Chair: My recollection is that he is not in the report at all.
Senator Wallin: I know we agreed, but the draft we got back —
The Chair: Fine. I do not know anything about Mr.Palango's being in it.
Senator Wallin: But you distributed the document.
The Chair: I am sorry. I do not know what document you got, but I had Palango taken out of the report, and I do not know what you were looking at.
Senator Wallin: The redraft of the first 10 pages that we discussed was sent back and I believe at our last meeting, which would have been two weeks ago, was distributed. I think it was October 26, but I do not remember.
The Chair: All I can say is that you must have received the wrong piece of paper. I do not know where Palango is.
Senator Meighen: It is on page 4.
Senator Moore: Clear this up so we can get moving on here, would you?
Dan Turner, writer/editor: If I could be of assistance, a couple of redrafts was the process. The first redraft moved Palango to just a reference in passing. It was then made clear to me that the committee did not want Palango in at all. Palango has been removed and there is no Palango. This is a Palango-free report as of now. I am sorry if something got distributed that was in the process of being redrafted, because in the final draft, there is no Palango.
The Chair: I said take it out.
Senator Wallin: Okay, fine.
Senator Tkachuk: Where is that report, then?
Mr. Turner: A copy has been sent to the clerk. My understanding was that the redraft of the introduction in the first chapter was going to be considered by the committee after you went through Chapters 2, 3, 4 — but that is not up to me.
The Chair: What happened was that the notes that were done up went back; Mr. Turner did a redraft; I went through it and said "No, that is not what the committee said,'' and that was taken out.
Senator Tkachuk: Here is the problem though, Mr.Chair. We get this. This comes to us by email. We do not know what is going on in your head or in Mr.Turner's head, so we do not know that mistakes were made and that you gave him instructions and that there is a new copy. We do not know that. We are working off this copy, which now you tell us, 10 days later, is not the right copy.
The Chair: Right. All I can do is apologize.
Senator Tkachuk: All the work we did was for nothing.
The Chair: I am sorry; I apologize. I do not know how or why this got out without that change.
Senator Moore: We should not be doing piecemeal revisions and then sending them out. Let us go through this thing like we always do, and then we will have the redraft presented to us and we will go through that. We have our notes from the first go-through. We will get the redraft, whatever it is.
I do not want these things coming at me; every day or two, we are getting a little piece of this and a piece of that. I want to sit down at the committee, look at the whole thing, look at our notes on things we agreed to and then be done with it.
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Moore, I agree with you. My point is that we received this. The email came to us as a redraft. We then looked at it and said this does not reflect the intentions of the committee.
Senator Moore: Okay, we have heard that. I do not have it.
Senator Wallin: No, it was handed out at a committee meeting.
Senator Tkachuk: It was handed out at a committee meeting. We think this is the redraft, so we are working from this redraft, and now we are told that it was not the redraft, that there were intentions and mistakes made and it was redone again, but we have not received a copy of the redraft. We will see it today for the first time.
The Chair: No, you will not see it today, Senator Tkachuk, because we have not gone through these three chapters.
Senator Tkachuk: Okay.
The Chair: Okay?
Senator Wallin: You just want to move on.
Senator Tkachuk: As far as this is concerned, this is just garbage, right?
The Chair: Yes, and I apologize. When you said that Palango is still in, I was as surprised as anyone.
Senator Moore: Me, too.
Senator Wallin: It is really hard when we are given these documents to work from. There are not enough hours in the day as it is, and we go back —
The Chair: I do not know how many times I have to say I am sorry, but I have said it twice.
Senator Moore: Let us not rehash this. Let us get going here.
Senator Mitchell: Not to belabour this, but I absolutely appreciate the members' concerns if they felt that something untoward had occurred. However, I want to reassure them that this is not a conspiracy. I am a member of this committee; the Liberal members of this committee will not tolerate a draft that comes back that does not reflect what this committee agreed to. I assure you that we feel the same way about that as you do.
My concern would be that if we could just accept that we are in this together and we are not going to be manipulated by anyone. I do not think that is a factor at all in any event, but it will be what we agreed to. I would just like to get through it, so that we can get the second full draft and go back through that and not fight this each step of the way. I appreciate your concerns, but let me reassure you that you are not in this alone.
Senator Wallin: Part of the concern was — and I have tried to raise this at a couple of our previous meetings. I understand your point, too, and Senator Moore's point about kind of let us go through it and then come back to it, but the concern we have had right from the beginning is that we are uncomfortable with the tone of the entire report. Everyone and their dog are studying some aspect of the RCMP or its behaviour or its future; and the most recent report, as we know, was the latest one from the McAusland group.
It feels like we are the last ones at the table, and there is not a whole lot that we are saying in this document that is new or different or revelatory or instructive. It is, in general, a rehash which, as I say, has been done by many other groups.
We are starting from a faulty premise, which is what gives us some discomfort in addition to things like this happening, which I know the chair has apologized for. However, I think we have to wrestle with this basic issue about tenor and tone, because it is kind of fundamental to the report, the reason for the report, what the notion is. Is it supposed to be prescriptive? Is it just descriptive? Are we just looking at all the bad things that used to happen? Are we trying to move it forward? Is there any place for the reflection of the changes that have occurred and are in train right now?
Can we just go back for a moment, because some of us were not in on the initial discussion about what this report would look like. I think it happened at the East Coast base trip. If we could just have a basic understanding of what we are trying to do here, that would help, because rehashing this stuff is not getting us anywhere.
The Chair: I am sorry, but you are asking us to rehash and we have not hashed Chapter 3 on.
Senator Wallin: No, but I am not talking about Chapter 3 on; I am talking about the report.
The Chair: Just a minute, Senator Wallin. I am, too. Last time, we were thrown badly off base with the figures you presented to us, suggesting that everyone thought that the RCMP was running smoothly. In fact, —
Senator Wallin: What figures?
The Chair: You came forward with a report and you talked about 98 per cent of Canadians being happy with —
Senator Wallin: Well, there was a poll and there was certainly testimony taken by this committee.
The Chair: Right, and the testimony was very self-serving.
Senator Wallin: But that is your view.
The Chair: Just —
Senator Wallin: If there is not testimony to counter it.
The Chair: If you want the floor, Senator Wallin, go ahead.
Senator Wallin: What I am trying to raise here as an issue is that I do not think it meets the standard to simply say, "We took testimony, but we do not agree with it.'' If you do not agree with it and if you think for some reason that they are misrepresenting the changes or that the polls are inaccurate or that they lied in testimony or did not say, then you should present something to us, whether additional testimony or additional facts, that counters it. You and I cannot just sit here and say, "I think this and therefore it is going in the report,'' or you say "I think this and I think those people did not tell the truth so I will not put that in the report.'' We have to have a better standard than that for the information that makes the cut and goes into a document.
Senator Moore: Mr.Chair, look, we will get to that.
The Chair: Order.
Senator Moore: Let us get through this draft report, okay? Every editorial in the country talks about the lack of trust in the RCMP. We are going to try to write a paper here that will give some direction toward restoring that trust. That is what we are up to.
The Chair: That is correct. If I may have my turn now, Senator Wallin?
Senator Wallin: Sure.
The Chair: We have produced surveys that do not agree with your surveys, and we did produce surveys that showed that members of the RCMP did not agree with the process and they had very little confidence that the process that was being undertaken would move forward. The percentages were alarmingly high, 49 per cent, if I recall correctly.
I think Senator Moore is correct. By going back, if you do not like the tone, as we move through, you have opportunities to comment on it. You made several comments, adjusting the tone as we went through during the first part of it. You changed a whole lot of parts of the report, and if the committee agrees, we will incorporate those into the report.
Again, I am sorry that a document was circulated in error, but the correction, the fundamental correction, is in the existing copy. I do not know whether it has been translated or it is going to translation, but it is in the process.
Senator Wallin: What stage is it at?
Senator Moore: It does not matter.
Ms. Anwar: I have one version with the introduction and chapter 1 revised and translated.
Senator Wallin: You have that now?
Ms. Anwar: I received the translation this morning.
The Chair: We have chapter 3 in front of us. We have a translation of it and all the other chapters. I believe we should go ahead and move on with the report. We will take careful note of any concerns that you have.
Senator Moore: Do you want a motion to go in camera?
The Chair: If we could, please.
Senator Moore: I move that the committee proceed in camera pursuant to rule 92(2)(f), for the consideration of a draft report; that the senators' staff be permitted to remain in the room during the in camera portions of today's meeting, subject to all electronic instruments, except that of the Clerk of the Committee, being turned off; that the committee allow the transcription of this in camera meeting and that only one copy of the unedited transcript be kept for consultation by committee members in the committee clerk's office; and that the transcript be destroyed by the clerk at the end of this parliamentary session.
The Chair: Comments? Questions? Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
(The committee continued in camera.)