Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of December 12, 2011
OTTAWA, Monday, December 12, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 3:56 p.m. to examine and report on Canada's national security and defence policies, practices, circumstances and capabilities.
Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Today, we will be looking at the RCMP, which has been through some very difficult times in recent years. I want to do just a quick little recap of history.
There have been several major inquiries during the last decade or so: the Brown Task Force Report on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP; the follow-up McAusland reports regarding the RCMP Reform Implementation Council; the Braidwood Inquiry into Taser use; the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182; and the inquiry into the case of Maher Arar. In addition, we have had investigations into deaths in custody, and most recently there were allegations of sexual harassment by women members of the RCMP. It is a very complicated landscape.
Today, we welcome the new Commissioner of the RCMP, Rob Paulson, who was sworn in officially four days ago. He is a 25-year member of the force and, before that, he was seven years with the Canadian Forces. He has done many things but most recently he was Director General Major, Organized Crime Intelligence Branch; Director General, National Security Criminal Operations; Assistant Commissioner, National Security Criminal Investigations; and Assistant Commissioner, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services. Last year he was appointed Deputy Commissioner Federal Policing and now, Commissioner of the RCMP.
Commissioner, you have been public during the last couple of weeks about your role and some of your plans. You have talked about the need to deal with, as you described, some of the dark-hearted behaviour that you have seen inside the RCMP. We would like to hear from you. Before beginning our questions, do you have an opening statement or comments to make?
Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I do not have any opening comments and I am pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: As someone who grew up in a small community, I feel strongly about the fact that every day, thousands of RCMP officers, who are highly professional, moral and ethical, go to work and protect our communities and us as individuals. Yet, the bad actors get the spotlight. When that happens, they do shine the light on some of the weaknesses in the system. You have looked at this not only as a long-time serving member but also from your new vantage point. I know you have many priorities, but what is the first big thing that you have to tackle?
Mr. Paulson: When I was first introduced to Canadians in the House of Commons, I mentioned that the harassment controversy and issue is number one on my plate. I have refined my position somewhat on that because fundamentally my priorities are leadership and accountability. I have to deploy some systems in the near term that are able to demonstrate to Canadians that we are accountable to them and to each other and that we have the leadership capacity to overcome some of these challenges.
The Chair: When you say "accountable," do you mean a formal system or through you?
Mr. Paulson: In every sense of the word, I mean "accountable" to Canadians through a number of processes that already exist and perhaps some that may come to exist; I mean "accountable" upwards in the chain of command; I mean "accountable" downward to employees; and I mean "accountable" laterally to colleagues for our behaviour and conduct.
One of the things I have said frequently is that while we all get that the work we do is important to Canadians, how we do it is, perhaps, more important. That is really what I am trying to focus on.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Welcome, Commissioner. Congratulations on your appointment. My questions concern your new duties.
I attended a regimental dinner in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia recently, where there were also several hundred veterans. The feeling was that the troops were not particularly happy with their situation, with the image that Canadians have of them and the image they have of themselves, as if they felt that their insignia had been somewhat tarnished. And this affected them.
During the 1990s, the Canadian Forces experienced numerous problems, among others with operations in Somalia.
At a certain point, a new ethos had to be developed. The corps of officers had to be reformed, as well as the upper ranks.
Do you believe that reforming the executive will prove as beneficial in order to restore confidence among the troops?
Mr. Paulson: Thank you, senator. That is exactly right. I believe that our officers want to see change within the RCMP. We must work on the idea that we are ensuring leadership, and what this means for executive officers.
We have already commenced providing leadership training with Canadian Forces members and General Natynczyk has generously invited our officers to train alongside Canadian armed forces officers. I fully agree with you that rapid change in the ethos of our leading officers is essential.
[English]
Senator Dallaire: Intelligence-based policing has a new doctrine of being proactive and preventive. Has that become a formal teaching or methodology in policing by the RCMP and promulgated through other forces in Canada, or are we still in the reactive mode versus the intelligence-based proactive mode?
Mr. Paulson: I think it has taken hold. Intelligence-based and intelligence-led policing means different things to different people, unfortunately. We do not have a consistent understanding of exactly what it means. There is the classic sense that we want to be led by intelligence and tactical intelligence that brings us to the targets that we need to pursue. There is also a component to strategy development that requires some intelligence. I do not mean "intelligence" in the sense of "smart" but in being well informed as to how we get the best bang for our buck in these days of restricted finances.
The best way it has been explained to me and the best way I practice it is that if we are going after a particularly troublesome organized crime group, we cannot get them all in jail. Ideally, perhaps, we would get all the criminals in jail, but reality tells us something different. We put the 10 most influential targets within an organized crime group up on the wall and ask, for reasons of available resources and vulnerability of the targets, who would have the greatest impact on that organized crime group's ability to affect the lives of Canadians if we took them out. That, in my mind, is the biggest chunk. That has taken hold in our strategy development and in our major case management training. There continues to be a misunderstanding throughout our operations as to what that concept means exactly.
Senator Dallaire: I hope that gets clarified because it seems to me to be a fundamental doctrine for determining concepts of operations, training and tactics, organization and even equipment.
Mr. Paulson: Agreed.
Senator Dallaire: My next question is on National Police Services, which you provide. You sat on the advisory board and chaired it for a while. You always seemed to be hurting for resources to meet the complex challenges from DNA testing to a whole series of other capabilities, including undercover systems, laboratory requirements, et cetera. Could that not be a national asset that everyone would participate in instead of having a few exchange police attached to the RCMP? Could the RCMP spread that capability around and demand that it be more participatory?
Mr. Paulson: You are right — I think it can be. Recently, we took significant steps to accomplish just that end. You may be aware that we changed the governance model with respect to how we bring partners from across Canada into our National Police Services oversight body, recognizing that the premise of your question is the basis for that change. We have people who are representative of the police outside the RCMP from all of the provinces and territories to discuss priorities, given the lack of money to go around, the many services to be delivered, how to prioritize the delivery of those services, and how we can get additional resourcing. We have done that over the last couple of months. We will see that bear fruit as we go into the next year or so.
Senator Lang: I congratulate you on your appointment. I speak for many Canadians when I say that your appointment has made Canadians feel comfortable in that you are a member of the RCMP and, obviously, you have worked your way up through the force.
I also want to make the point that most Canadians trust in the RCMP. Over the last number of years, in certain cases, that trust has been shaken. Of course, that is in part why you have the job that you have: to make it a better place for those who work in the RCMP and for all Canadians. I would like to echo what the chair had to say about rural Canada and the fact that the RCMP serve as an integral part of those communities 24-hours a day, seven days a week. They hold a certain moral trust as they go about their business when on and off duty.
I was pleased to read in a news report about you:
When `outrageous' incidents occur, he promised swifter discipline, including much speedier suspensions than the type the force has seen in the recent past.
I would like you to expand on that what I think is an important statement. It is a statement on both philosophy and action, and I think Canadians are looking for that. Perhaps you could expand further.
Mr. Paulson: Thank you for your nice comments about my appointment. I also agree with your view. I do think that the RCMP plays such an important role and generally, by and large, accomplishes that role day in and day out for Canadians, so thank you for that.
What I was talking about was what the chair has referred to as the dark-hearted behaviour that people cannot fundamentally reconcile as coming from a police officer. What I was pointing out last week was we have the ability in our existing authorities and in my existing authorities to do just that, which is in cases of outrageous conduct —and it is plainly laid out in our disciplinary system — to suspend members, to seek their dismissal, but in awaiting the disciplinary process for the decision around dismissal, to suspend their pay and allowances. That is something that I think would go a long way.
That possibility exists in some of the authorities particularly in cases where the integrity of the organization is put at risk by continuing to be aligned with the individual who is accused of outrageous conduct. It makes perfect sense that we would take those authorities and apply them in those cases.
I met last week with all the commanding officers across the country. They came in at my direction for a special meeting on this topic, to align how we administer discipline within the RCMP. I think everyone went away with the clear understanding of how we have to behave.
There will be incidences where people make mistakes. We want to be supportive of officers who make mistakes or well-intentioned mistakes, but there are some cases in recent history that we can all point to which outrage us both in the nature of the conduct and the fact that it is a police officer alleged to have committed it. I think Canadians rightly expect better from us.
Senator Lang: I appreciate you clarifying that. We are looking forward to you exercising that responsibility, along with those in your command as well.
I would like to move on to one other area and perhaps you could expand on it — the question of the financial review that, not unlike other departments, your department has to go through given the financial situation that Canada faces. Perhaps you could expand further with respect to how you see the process working within the RCMP, and where you will find the ability to cut in some areas while maintaining support for the rank-and-file who are on the front lines.
Mr. Paulson: That process is underway. Nothing has been decided, but we provided, along with colleagues from other departments, various options on how we might reduce our spending. Of course, the RCMP is a different beast in the first place because of the contract arrangements with the provinces. It is a revenue-type situation, so it is all a little different.
In terms of looking for efficiencies, we had two guiding principles. They were the principles that the government put forward to say look for opportunities to become efficient and effective at headquarters rather than in the field, with a view to not impacting our operations. When looking at individual situations, we would look at executives rather than service providers.
That is essentially how we organized ourselves — to look at our back office, our administrative services. In fact, Mr. McAusland and the Reform Implementation Council and I think Mr. Brown were very critical of how we ran our back office operations in terms of supporting our members on the front line. A number of studies have been completed already about where efficiencies may be found.
That is essentially the sort of strategy; those options have been developed and put forward to the government. We will not know what the ultimate decision is until the budget of next year, but we have found a number of areas where we can be a bit smarter in how we manage our back office
So far, we have not impacted on our front-line operations and have not touched the contracts, obviously.
Senator Day: I will try to keep my questions to items that you would be familiar with as an RCMP officer, as opposed to the commissioner.
The first one I would like you to talk to me about and to tell my colleagues about is the reserve force within the RCMP and what the plans are to expand that. I have seen auxiliary RCMP, but I understand in British Columbia there was an initiative that might be expanded.
Mr. Paulson: To set the stage a bit, we have a long-standing auxiliary program where community members support us as we do police work in the community. They do that without remuneration; they do it with some training. It is an effective way of having officers familiarize themselves with the community and know the people. It has been a tremendous success.
The reserve is a strategy to take officers who may have retired and possess a great deal of corporate knowledge, skill and experience, because we are becoming rapidly a very junior police force. I think some staggering numbers like about 60 per cent of our force will have under four years' service in a short while. That is a very real concern for us.
We will hire members who have left the force back as full duty officers, performing roles as full officers. Effectively, they are peace officers on a part-time basis, but continuing on and supporting our operations. It is a big help to the force.
Senator Day: Are you expanding that thrust across Canada?
Mr. Paulson: In terms of the authority for commanding officers to do that, but now it turns to the jurisdictions. Predominantly, these reserves — although not necessarily — can often be helpful in the contract environment or the front-line policing.
When I spoke to you last, I was the deputy of federal policing. There is an opportunity there as well. We will be expanding the authority to do that, and I think our policies are already in place. The question is whether we have the funds and the planning to be able to deploy that service more broadly. However, I certainly support it as the commissioner.
Senator Day: The other area I would like you to explore a bit with us is training. I have been concerned that the training in Regina might not be long enough for the new recruits to develop the ethos and the feeling of being an RCMP officer to the degree that should take place.
I know that you say a lot of the training takes place in the field; and when they are sent off to a particular posting, they get a lot of the training from the senior officers who are there. However, compare that to the military, which recognizes at the officer level that they all should have a degree. There are some from the military colleges that go to the RCMP afterwards.
Have you contemplated a longer training period that includes some more extensive formal training, as well as the training and indoctrination that seem to be lacking a bit in some of the stories that we see these days?
Mr. Paulson: I think the direct and simple answer is we are not contemplating expanding the length of time that officers spend at Depot. I was out at Depot the week before last and was impressed with the state of our training there in terms of the modern approach to scenario-based training. The volume and the tempo of training that goes on at Depot is very impressive. It is a great experience to get the opportunity to go and get briefed on Depot. I encourage you to contact my office; I would be happy to arrange your visit.
However, I think you have a point. Even though I disagree with you, I think you are right. We have concentrated on training opportunities at the supervisory, managerial and executive levels because I think we need to focus on that area. We deployed recently a supervisory development program that provides internal training to supervisors, but also encourages self-development outside of the organization. The management development program similarly is targeted at mid-level managers, and we have an executive development program, which I mentioned to Senator Dallaire.
General Natynczyk was generous to offer opportunities within the military college to develop our executives — not in terms of military issues, but leadership and large-scale management. I am cognizant of the need to continually train our officers. It is something that we need to instill from cradle to grave.
Senator Day: To clarify for the record, could you tell us how long the intake remains at Depot before they are out wearing an RCMP uniform?
Mr. Paulson: It is 26 weeks, but then they are under close supervision with a trainer for another 26 weeks in the field. They are wearing a uniform, but we recognize that police work has gotten very complex in recent years.
We are careful to maintain that training in the field for six months. However, in some cases — I do not think we should couch this — officers find themselves alone on patrol quickly after their arrival in the field. It continues to be a challenge for us.
Senator Manning: Welcome, commissioner. Congratulations on your appointment. I wish you all the best in the future.
As a quick note, I was in Belgium a few years ago at the ceremony at Menin Gate, honouring our war dead. A couple of RCMP officers were with us at the time, and the line-up of people around the world who wanted to get a picture with someone in the RCMP uniform was amazing. There is no doubt you are held in high esteem, and we look forward to your work in the next little while.
When I was growing up in Newfoundland and Labrador and we saw the RCMP car coming down the road, we usually ran. We were young at the time and we did not have to do anything wrong, but the relationship was slightly different from what it is today. My daughter is nine years of age, and once a month the local RCMP officers visit her school to participate in the Dare program and community policing. The kids go for a ride in the police car and it creates a different atmosphere in relation to community policing.
I know that is an effort that has been put forward by the RCMP over a few years now. Has that become accepted policy throughout the country? Are you looking at expanding or improving on that kind of outreach? Personally, I think it is a great step forward for the RCMP within the community.
Mr. Paulson: Yes, we are looking to build on that.
I like to describe the RCMP as a frontier police force. We go into many different frontiers now. Many of them are figurative, as opposed to literal, but we do bring these Canadian values through policing in our contact with citizens.
We have a crime reduction program, which has taken hold across Canada; it basically features community policing on steroids. In other words, dedicated officers bring together all of our community groups — like health, the courts and other people who have a responsibility in the criminal justice setting — to start problem solving issues around some of these prolific offenders.
About 90 per cent of our crime is committed by about 20 per cent of our offenders. If we can focus on getting to the root cause of these offences, then we reduce our crime. The best measure of effective policing is a crime rate going down and a clearance rate going up. We are expanding that aggressively across the country.
New Brunswick has recently shown some staggering success in the ability to reduce crime stats. Various places in Alberta and British Columbia are doing that, where we get together and we exercise a leadership role within the community to bring folks together, to bring mental health officials, drug councillors and community groups together and to target smart strategies against some of the problems that we face in the hope of solving them, as opposed to just locking them up and keeping the revolving door going.
That is how I understand community policing, when people roll up their sleeves, dive in and start to participate in the process. I really think that is the future in terms of front-line policing.
Senator Manning: With regard to recruitment, how are the numbers at the present time? To some young person in the country today looking at a career in the RCMP, what would you suggest with respect to numbers?
Mr. Paulson: I stand to be corrected because I have a lot of information going through my head in the last week, but we were looking at these numbers the other day. You may have heard that we have decided to increase the number of female cadets going through Depot to 35 per cent, when the labour market availability — although that is a 2006 census statistic — was 20 per cent or so.
I think we have about 1,200 applicants in the churn at any one time. The number of applicants has gone down. I was counseled by my recruiting folks when I decided to raise that figure to 35 per cent, that although we can do that in the short term and it may accomplish our immediate need, it is not sustainable. We need to target our employment equity groups, women in particular, around being attracted to the force.
Admittedly, some of the recent critical issues that have surfaced about how we manage and react to women's complaints do not make for the best way of attracting women to the force. However, I think we need to focus on our successes and the fact that 98 per cent of our officers are doing the right thing every day. The numbers are still significant; we have a lot of people trying to get into the organization.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Paulson, thank you for having accepted our invitation. First, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating you on your appointment. It is not easy to be the RCMP Commissioner. As the chair said, you have significant challenges ahead of you.
One of those challenges concerns the modernization of labour relations within the RCMP. You must know that the Ontario courts handed down a decision calling into question the constitutionality of various sections of the RCMP Act.
Slightly more than a year ago, the government tabled a bill to modernize labour relations within the RCMP.
I do not know whether you have been adequately briefed, but I will ask the question nonetheless; is it your intention to ask the government to introduce Bill C-43 again?
Mr. Paulson: Yes. I am prepared to do what needs to be done to ensure that labour relations with our officers remain positive. However, honestly, it is not my responsibility to make such decisions. However, if the government is prepared to make such decisions, I am prepared to enforce them.
Senator Nolin: I am trying to understand your answer. You are telling me that if the government wants to change the relationship between the commissioner and the RCMP employees, it will be a political decision, which is not yours to make. In the meantime, you are enforcing the RCMP Act, including section 96 which prohibits members from forming a union, a section that was found unconstitutional by the courts, or at least by the Ontario Superior Court. You are telling me that until the government changes its position, you will continue to —
Mr. Paulson: I will continue to manage the force as I have been. But it is not over, the decision has not yet been handed down. So we will have to wait. However, it is quite clear that our employees must have the freedom to negotiate with the government. I am not their employer, rather the Treasury Board is. Under the authority currently vested in me, I shall continue to keep my eyes open to ensure that employees are represented and free to seek a way to be represented as they see fit.
Senator Nolin: I am somewhat intrigued by the last part of your answer. Could you repeat your answer in English so I can be certain I clearly understand your opinion? Because the consequences are significant.
I am going to tell you in French what I have understood. You are telling us that RCMP members are free to choose the way in which they want to deal with their employer.
[English]
Mr. Paulson: I know what I am saying now.
Senator Nolin: I would understand if you say you do not want to commit yourself because the matter is before the courts.
Mr. Paulson: I do not want to commit myself, but I think we have to be clear and say that the fundamental principle of employees to be able to gather and represent themselves is something to defend. I think it is an important principle for employees to be able to do that. I do absolutely, and I make no bones about that.
I just say that once the means of representing them is identified, I am happy to work with whoever will facilitate that. At the heart of this is the need to have fully engaged, happy and satisfied employees. Without that, I have a big challenge.
[Translation]
Is it clearer in English?
Senator Nolin: It is quite clear. I quite like your answer.
If I may, Madam Chair, I will conclude with a sub-question that is somewhat of a bridge with what Senator Lang raised earlier.
You spoke about discipline and the meeting you had with your commanding officers last week, I believe, those who are responsible for enforcing discipline. That is what I understood you to say.
I am trying to clarify something you said to a journalist who recently asked you a question and to whom you responded that the RCMP was a paramilitary organization but was not acting as such.
I am trying to connect it all together, that is your answers to my questions on labour relations and your answers on discipline and the paramilitary forces. I would like to hear your comments on that subject.
Mr. Paulson: I can only say that when I spoke about a paramilitary organization, I was talking about a means by which to make everyone accountable. I am in charge of everyone.
Senator Nolin: You are the boss.
Mr. Paulson: We have deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners and so on. In my mind, it is quite easy to communicate with everyone simply and clearly. I want my officers to be accountable to me and to Canadians. That is what I meant.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: I would like to come back to the harassment issue. I know that it may only happen once in a while, but it has been going on for a long time. It starts to suggest that there is something about the culture. It does not happen everywhere. I know there are wonderful people out there. I have a father in the military, and I believe in that kind of organization.
However, there is something that requires addressing at a cultural level. The fact that so many women have come forward; I wonder what about the ones who have not? The fact is some women do not feel safe in that organization — not all of them. Where is the culture that says that people are standing up to defend them and to make them feel they can come forward?
You said you have had the meeting. That is great. You have had an offer from the military to work on training officers, but you have not said you have accepted that as a problem. Have you got a program in place, or are you developing an ongoing program where there is someone at a senior level to support you every day in working on that issue and refining that program? Is it perhaps worth considering a public inquiry where people can give their stories and a message can be sent to your forces that Canadians are not happy with this situation? This is an icon of Canada, and it goes beyond just policing; it is what we feel about ourselves as a people.
Do you feel that you are doing enough? Have you got a program in place that will be ongoing and consistent?
Mr. Paulson: Yes, I do. I do think I have a program that is ongoing and consistent, which is in the form of our professional integrity officer and some of the work he has been doing in the last little while. I am happy to go through that. I have also directed that additional work be done with respect to harassment.
I think it is important that we take a second. I think one case of harassment is too much, but we have to recognize that harassment is a function of most workplaces in Canada. I am not trying to minimize the problem that attaches to the RCMP.
To me, how I have addressed understanding this and formulating a response, I think there is something culturally different about the RCMP that has aggravated or perhaps made the situation difficult for Canadians to understand. We were just talking about the paramilitary structure of the organization, although we were not talking about this angle. One of my theories and how I am formulating my response is that what is wrong is how power has been misunderstood for authority. The peace officer world is one where there is authority and power over citizens. Consequently, officers are not always able to manage that power in how they manage their colleagues. That is the theory according to Bob.
What I think will fix that is how we manage our leadership program, how we manage our officers and how we hold officers to account. That is my accountability piece.
I will not deny that we have a problem with harassment, but there are a number of things that we are doing with respect to harassment, including the deployment in the near term of a supervisor accountability framework and the foreseeability consideration. We have many vehicles and venues for officers to complain about harassment and to seek remediation of that condition. I am not trying to minimize anything, but some of these instant cases are quite historical in nature. It does not make them right, as some of the allegations are outrageous.
With respect to the current process that I have just centralized, I had meetings this morning. I have been telling Canadians for a week that I have centralized the harassment oversight process. It better be true and it better mean something. This morning, that is exactly what we did; we went over that. What does that mean? Does that mean we are investigating them out of Ottawa? No, it does not. It means I have a vehicle and my senior officers have a means by which we can inform ourselves at the drop of a hat of where the cases are in the chain, where the time frames are, whether they are being respected, whether the complainants are being attended to and all of the things that are giving people pause and doubt now.
I realize this is a bit of a shotgun answer, but I need people to be assured that we are seized of this issue. I have gotten at least four personal emails today from people outside of the force who say, "I have heard you talk, that is nice. Here is my story; what will you do about that?" We are bringing it together and looking at it.
Some cases, I will tell you frankly, do not merit a harassment response. Some of them merit criminal or code of conduct proceedings, but some of them merit getting back to work and smartening up. There are a wide range of responses.
Senator Mitchell: That is reassuring. If you want to assure us that you mean it, certainly I take you at your word. Absolutely. However, I want to assure you that Canadians are really unsettled by this and that this is not right in an institution. One harassment case, as you say, is too many.
Years ago, I met with the then Police Chief of the City of Edmonton, Doug McNally, a fine man. He had set out to change the culture of the Edmonton Police Service. Great police force, but it was militaristic and he wanted to change it to a community police force. He said he had hundreds of meetings with one person, two people and three people explaining what he was doing and what he had to do to change the culture. He said he would not promote people who did not get it and he would fire people who really did not get it. He was absolutely adamant day to day and minute to minute in order to change that culture.
I think it is not enough just to say, perhaps, we have to work with or adjust to the senior officers and the chain of command. It is much deeper than that. It means training. Undoubtedly, it would mean hiring more women at senior levels. Do you have anything in mind about that point? There are very few women.
Mr. Paulson: I announced the appointment of Deputy Commissioner Line Carbonneau to answer the question by the end of the fiscal year: What do I have to do to get more women in the senior executive ranks? I will tell you something interesting. I lay awake at 3 a.m. sending pins to my deputy commissioners about how we could fix this. Ms. Carbonneau had pulled me aside and told me to be careful to ensure that the women who are appointed merit their appointments. There are many women who have worked hard to get to these executive ranks, and we do not want to see colleagues come up simply on the basis of their sex. I said: "Roger that. That is your job now, Line, to sort out, but thank you for the advice." That is how I thought; and that is how some people think.
The answer is to get more credible, experienced women; and we have lots of them, believe me. I know them across the country. They are all ready to step up. Everyone's job is to step up and fix this organization. I will lead it, but I cannot do it alone.
Senator Mitchell: Maybe I am putting you on the spot, and I understand, but you said: "Just locking them up does not work; we need to get to the root of the problem." Do you want to comment on the current crime agenda that will put many more people in jail or would you rather not comment?
Mr. Paulson: I would say to lock up as many as you can; but locking them up does not fix them. I have a quick story. I was in Richmond detachment on day two of my appointment. I sat in on a watch briefing. One of the officers, a female sergeant, raised the fact that a young man at one of the high schools was acting up — taking drugs, busting windows and fighting. She talked about how to fix this problem. She wondered who they would bring in: human resources or welfare people or psychological help. The police were trying to figure out how to fix the problem with the young man at a high school rather than just take him away.
Senator Lang: I will follow up on Senator Mitchell's question with respect to the sexual harassment situation that the RCMP currently faces. Mr. Paulson, I appreciate some of the comments you made about it, but I think there are two aspects, one being the question of time frame. What do you see as the time frame for dealing with the immediate situation you face? Some of the issues are historical, as I saw on a television program last night.
The second area that I would like to refer to is looking ahead on the question of the process within the RCMP to deal with such a difficult situation as sexual harassment. You are dealing with some cases that might entail criminal charges and some that might have no grounds at all. You have to deal with the broadest area. Are you looking at a third party to deal with this situation within the RCMP so that, in this case, the women who feel that they have a sexual harassment charge can be comfortable with putting forward their story to bring the necessary charges or whatever has to be done to ensure it is done in a way that provides comfort?
Mr. Paulson: The short answer is yes, but I need to describe that. I am not looking at a third party to manage all of that. I am looking at a third party investigative group to reassure people about the independence of some inquiries. I am making available to commanding officers the hiring of investigators on harassment workplace conflict matters. The moment we get into a code of conduct violation or a criminal matter, we need to jump on that with both feet. In instances where it attracts our independent investigation policy, we will go to the agencies, if they exist in the jurisdictions, or to fellow police forces to assist us in garnering that independence. I do not want to give the impression that I am turning the harassment files over to a third party. Some of these cases can be done much more quickly, which I think is in the interests of both the complainants and the accused.
The Chair: One of the things Senator Lang was getting at here was: When a woman on the force does do not think she can go to anyone in her detachment, what should she do?
Mr. Paulson: I see. Before he left the force, former Commissioner Elliott reassured everyone with a comprehensive broadcast on how to behave and whom to reach out to, including people in Ottawa, people outside the force, sub-representatives and a whole raft of other folks. We will reassure folks that there are avenues to go outside the chain of command.
The Chair: Has that information been disseminated? Are you comfortable with that?
Mr. Paulson: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Mr. Paulson, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your appointment. I would say to you that, given the chair's presentation, I cannot understand why you accepted this position. But you did and I wish you good luck. You have much work to do and you can count on the committee to assist you.
My first comment follows on that made by Senator Nolin. You said that other institutions are experiencing a great deal of harassment. You are correct; however, the other institutions have a union that defends those employees. And, in your case, since the officers are not legally entitled to form a union, they lose a means by which to file harassment complaints.
So, since they do not have this power, you have the supreme responsibility for ensuring that they have other ways in which to be heard.
Mr. Paulson: Yes, that is what we just explained. In my opinion, there are other ways to file complaints.
Senator Dawson: But forming a union could also be an option for them?
Mr. Paulson: That is their responsibility.
Senator Dawson: My other question concerns the government's hard on crime approach. It has been said that there is a cost to the courts of justice, that there is a significant cost for prisons. The government is telling you that you must make cuts. Just like all the other departments in Ottawa, you are being told to implement cuts because times are difficult. However, at the same time, the government is increasing the amount of work you do in enforcing legislation on marijuana possession and the amount of work you do to monitor parolees, et cetera.
How can you compensate for the fact that you are being asked to make cuts on the one hand, and on the other, do more work?
Mr. Paulson: That was true each day I arrived at the office over the past 25 years. It is always easy to spend more money. It is up to the manager to determine priorities and make decisions in the population's best interest. That is what I do each day.
Senator Dawson: I encourage you to continue and I would repeat that the committee will assist you if it is ever in a position to do so.
[English]
The Chair: I want to add my voice on recruitment and promotion: I hope that you continue to promote on merit and ability.
I believe you touched on the issue of a commission for complaints and oversight. There was such legislation. I know there are some legal court cases. Is that a good structure, as far as you are concerned?
Mr. Paulson: Do you mean as it was proposed previously?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Paulson: I must confess that I do not know all the nuances of that proposal, but oversight and review is something that the force is open to. I just met with colleagues at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to try to facilitate the systemic review that is under way in terms of how we manage harassment. I am very open to review and, wherever I can, I encourage opening the books.
My experience is that when more people share the complexity and the challenge I face, the wider the sympathy I get.
The Chair: One thing discussed in the past is the idea of using other police forces because you simply do not have time for a big committee meet in Ottawa every week. For example, the Alberta local policing authorities could look into a situation. Do you have the authority to do that?
Mr. Paulson: I think we have it. There is the response to the independent investigation of serious matters, which I wrote when I was involved in that area. It goes to the heart of reassuring Canadians that the review and oversight is being done independently, and that the findings are reliable and somehow helpful to maintaining and preserving the trust that we absolutely need in order to be an effective police service.
I think there are plenty of opportunities for our fellow police forces and other experts to come in and review how we do things. Frankly, I am open to doing anything better.
The Chair: I am just wondering that if a situation occurs, do you think you have the authority, as it stands right now, to say I will ask the following five people to look at this; they know the community and they understand?
Mr. Paulson: Yes. Absolutely.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: During the reform of National Defence in the 1990s, the minister had five advisory boards. It was not necessarily what was proposed but it did lead to a great deal of information that was useful to restoring the credibility of the armed forces.
Are you encouraging the minister to consult external organizations? We looked at everything to do with operations, women in the armed forces, officer development and so on. Have you considered consulting external organizations in order to implement reforms?
I am using the word reform here to define your desire to rectify the situation for your members.
Still with regard to reforms, we are asking more and more officers to deploy overseas, take part in missions, for example, we do not necessarily seem to be opening the doors to those who are psychologically injured. We do not seem to be wanting to make them eligible under the New Veterans Charter.
Should we not review the situation and update those definitions in order to meet the needs of your officers?
Mr. Paulson: Perhaps, but it seems that our current system is sufficient for the health needs of our officers.
I agree that, after having worked abroad, it is sometimes difficult to return to Canada and work in remote regions. They do have psychological needs. I am always open to advice from others in order to assist me in improving the current system.
Senator Dallaire: That is something we often hear. I think that it could be useful to you to have the advice of an external consultant on reforms to your organization.
Mr. Paulson: Any assistance would be welcome.
[English]
Senator Finley: I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in congratulating you and sympathizing with you to some extent.
The things we have heard recently, there is no question it sounds as though the RCMP sky is falling in. However, I think there have been much worse, more egregious cases of this in other prominent police organizations. I think particularly of the Metropolitan Police in the United Kingdom, London, during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, where corruption, harassment and witness fixing were pretty extensive. They appear to have cleaned their case up quite considerably.
Have you looked at how they did that, how they changed the culture? Are you in some form of communication or process with these folks? There were other police forces, of course, in the U.K. — Manchester, for example, also had a problem. Have you been in touch with those forces?
Mr. Paulson: I have not. I have been in touch with them often in other areas in my previous responsibilities, but I have not been in touch with them on that specific point. Certainly, I will interest myself and inform myself of those efforts.
I liked how you introduced the question — not pointing elsewhere and saying, it could be worse, but I think we need to maintain some degree of context. I think everyone has acknowledged that today, so I am probably talking to the converted.
The enormous majority of effort is excellent; my speech at my change of command ceremony was purposeful in recognizing that day in and day out, our officers do tremendous work to keep Canadians safe. While we have significant changes to make and significant improvements to demonstrate to Canadians, I think we need to keep that in balance. However, I will definitely inform myself on that background.
Senator Day: Commissioner, when you were inducted into your current position, you commented on the size of the headquarters. I am wondering if maybe we have not caused you some problems in that regard with all the laws we are passing to require you to have oversight, checking and reporting.
You have a force of 31,000 approximately. Can you realistically, with the laws in place and the things required of you, reduce the headquarters here in any significant manner? Have you considered moving your headquarters out of Ottawa so you become less bureaucratic? Perhaps the previous commissioner might have led you in the wrong direction in that regard — unwittingly, of course.
Mr. Paulson: I cannot allow that to stand, senator. The previous commissioner was also attuned to the need to draw down the size of headquarters.
I think there is some truth to what you say in terms of the accountabilities and the processes that we try to deploy to provide support to various concerns about how we behave. I also said in that same discussion that while we have a headquarters in the area of 4,000 people, that is somewhat misleading in the sense that many of them are operational people that work here in our A Division doing a number of important investigations; some of our lab people across the country are represented at headquarters as well. Therefore, although I agree the numbers could be a lot better, they are not as bad as they are held out to be.
I will say this around the administrative support we have in Ottawa. We need to point to our leaders to ensure that we are preparing and prioritizing the right way. That is a lot of people and there is a lot of information and work being generated. I do not know that we need all of that, frankly. If we do, we will figure out a way of getting it in the short term.
I am not saying people are sitting around in lawn chairs or anything; everyone is working hard. However, I do not know that they are working hard doing what we really need to be doing, which is driving out accountability and leadership in this organization and making sure that people are reassured that the core business of the RCMP is being delivered.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Your experience within the RCMP has led you to closely investigate antiterrorist activities in Canada.
Mr. Paulson: Yes.
Senator Nolin: Could you indicate to us whether there are any tools or powers, now that you are the boss, that you believe essential to adequately continue this work, work that is not easy?
Mr. Paulson: No, it is not easy, that is true. In my opinion, we do not need any additional powers or authorities. What our managers need is the courage to manage their employees efficiently in order to ensure that we can quickly find the evidence needed.
Senator Nolin: And for that evidence to be legal, so that it meets the harsh reality of the courts. That is what I have understood from your answer. It takes officers who know how to do their job.
[English]
The Chair: Commissioner Paulson, I think we all appreciate your frankness, your directness and your willingness to take this on. You have our support and, through us, we want to extend to you that sense of hope that Canadians have that you will give them the RCMP that they know and love.
Thank you for your time today. We look forward to a conversation in a few months, maybe a year on how things are going.
(The committee continued in camera.)