THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 3, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 1 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 10 and 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.
Senator Gwen Boniface (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon. I’d like to start by asking senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I’m Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec. Good morning.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: André Pratte from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: I’m Gwen Boniface from Ontario. Today we study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 10 and 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.
We begin today with officials. We have from Public Safety Canada, Randall Koops, Director General, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program. Welcome back. From the Department of Justice, Jacques Talbot, Legal Counsel. And from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Philip McLinton, Acting Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Government Affairs.
Mr. Koops?
Randall Koops, Director General, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program, Public Safety Canada: Honourable senators, we are pleased to appear before you today to assist the committee in its examination of Division 10 of Part 4 of Bill C-97. This bill would make amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to establish in law a new management advisory board to advise the Commissioner of the RCMP on the administration and management of the force.
The bill sets out the board’s mandate, composition, administration and other requirements. The creation of this board is one of the government’s steps to making foundational changes to help point the force towards better long-term results. In January 2019, the government accepted the recommendations contained in two reports on harassment at the RCMP, one by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, the CRCC, and one by the former Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Sheila Fraser. These reviews concluded, like other reviews have before them, that governance change is a necessary part of stamping out harassment within the ranks of the RCMP.
The establishment of a management advisory board will help guide the required foundational changes within the force and it will orient it towards achieving the outcomes established by the commissioner’s transformation agenda.
[Translation]
This proposed management board would support the Commissioner of the RCMP in accomplishing her mandate commitment to lead the force through a period of transformation, to modernize it, and to reform its culture; in ensuring the sound overall management of the RCMP; in protecting the health and safety of RCMP employees; and in making sure the RCMP delivers high-quality police services, based on appropriate priorities, to keep Canadians safe, and to protect their civil liberties.
[English]
In addition to helping Commissioner Lucki create a healthy and sustainable workforce, the board will provide her with systemic support, so the force is well aligned to successfully achieve the outcomes put in place by Parliament in Bill C-65 to combat harassment.
The mandate of the management advisory board will be to advise the commissioner of the RCMP on the force’s administration and management, including its human resources, management controls, corporate planning and budgets.
The composition of the management advisory board would be of up to 13 members, including a chairperson and vice-chairperson, appointed by the Governor-in-Council on a part-time basis for a period of not more than four years. In selecting these members the government has indicated it will consider regional and gender diversity, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and executive management skills, experiences and competencies, for example, human resources and labour relations, information technology, change management and innovation.
The bill would permit the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to consult provincial and territorial governments that have contracted the services of the RCMP about these appointments, and the bill sets out the grounds of ineligibility for appointments, most importantly to avoid real, potential or apparent conflict of interest for board members.
The house is considering two amendments, which are currently at the report stage. First, that the board would be required to consider the impact of its advice on women, men and gender-diverse people and, second, that the minister considers diversity and merit in recommending appointments.
[Translation]
Regarding its operations, the Management Advisory Board would be able to set its own priorities, work plans and procedures. At a minimum, the board will meet in person at least once each fiscal quarter. The Deputy Minister of Public Safety and the Commissioner of the RCMP may attend all board meetings as observers. To make certain the board is able to advise on anything in its mandate, the law will oblige the RCMP to provide the board with the information the board considers necessary, and the board would be enabled to share with the minister any advice given to the commissioner.
[English]
Importantly, under this legislation, the establishment of the management advisory board would not change the existing roles, responsibilities or accountabilities of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who will remain accountable to Parliament for the RCMP and retain the authority to direct the commissioner and to establish strategic priorities for the RCMP; or of the Commissioner of the RCMP, who will retain control and management of the force.
The management advisory board is not a review body and it will not provide oversight of the RCMP. It will not replace or curtail the minister’s oversight powers, nor will it change the existing mandates, roles, responsibilities or accountabilities of the existing review bodies — that is, of the external review committee or the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Similarly, it will not change the authorities of the national security review bodies, including the existing National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, established by Parliament in 2017, and the national security and intelligence review agency, NSIRA, proposed in Bill C-59 and recently considered at this committee.
In addition, the creation of the management advisory board does not affect the RCMP’s relationship with its employer, the Treasury Board. Bill C-7, assented to in 2017, provided for unionization of RCMP members and reservists, a process that is now under way. In C-7, Parliament reaffirmed the Treasury Board as the force’s employer and nothing in these amendments revisits Parliament’s decision or disrupts those relationships.
The proposed legislation fully respects a fundamental principle of Canadian policing, which is that police independence underpins the rule of law. The board will not in any way impinge upon the independence of RCMP policing operations. It will not be authorized to ask for information that might hinder or compromise an investigation or prosecution, and personal information and cabinet confidences will be out of bounds.
Assuming the bill receives Royal Assent, the amendments will become effective on a date prescribed by the Governor-in-Council.
If the government, in the meantime, creates an interim board using existing authorities under the Public Service Employment Act then a transitional provision in Bill C-97 would continue the tenure of those appointments under the new permanent provisions in the RCMP Act.
In conclusion, the Commissioner of the RCMP has said the creation of a management advisory board is a critical step to help modernize and support a diverse, healthy and effective RCMP. Bill C-97 would make that role permanent to support the current commissioner in her mandate commitment to lead the RCMP through a period of transformation and to support future commissioners in maintaining a force that is trusted by Canadians for its policing excellence.
We’re happy to respond to the committee’s questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now move to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our guests. My first question is for Mr. McLinton. I would like to know what the budget will be for the 13-member Management Advisory Board that will be put in place to advise the RCMP Commissioner. How often will it meet? Will the nature of the work of this group be confidential?
Philip McLinton, Acting Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Government Affairs, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you for your question. I will answer in English in order to be clear and precise.
[English]
The estimated cost is $1.6 million ongoing so approximately $7 million over five years and $1.6 million ongoing.
As to the frequency of the meetings, the proposed legislation indicates that at a minimum the board would meet in person four times a year, one per fiscal quarter. Then in terms of your third question with respect to the meetings themselves and the sharing of information, if I understood you correctly, that will be confidential insofar as those meetings will be held within government, but there is a provision in the legislation that would allow for the advice or information to be provided to the commissioner and may be provided to the minister as well.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I fully understand that there are provisions in the law that protect the confidentiality of the content of these meetings. However, don’t you think that, with the events we have experienced in the past, this requires a little more transparency? Taxpayers will still pay $7 million over five years. Don’t you think they could at least know the content of the meetings of this board?
[English]
Mr. McLinton: Well, I can say that the commissioner has been very public in her statements in support of the creation of this board. She views this as a critical step in helping her to advance her modernization agenda that she’s termed vision 150. So for the next five years into 2023, the commissioner has developed a plan that she wants to advance. A big part of that plan is communication with employees. She’s made very many efforts to engage across Canada all the detachments and all of our employees and communities we serve.
I would expect advice that’s provided to the commissioner and any decisions that are taken with respect to those plans will be communicated regularly with the public.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Will the $7 million come from a supplementary budget for the RCMP or from the funds available to the RCMP?
[English]
Mr. McLinton: That money will be from our existing reference levels.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
My second question is for Mr. Koops. Mr. Koops, would the fact that the advisory board will communicate its views to the minister not be likely to create political interference and put pressure on RCMP operations?
[English]
Mr. Koops: Nothing than what’s been foreseen in the provisions of the bill would allow the management advisory board to intervene in the commissioner’s authority to direct the operations of the RCMP. The board would be expressly forbidden from having access to information related to investigations or to prosecutions.
In the day-to-day, the board’s principal communication as foreseen in the bill would be with the commissioner. The board would decide, under the broader rubric of its own ability to set its own procedures, when it wanted to bring a matter to the attention of the minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I fully understand that this is not about interfering with RCMP investigations, but even if the creation of an advisory board does not lead the minister to interfere in investigations, could it not at a minimum lead to interference in the administration of the RCMP?
[English]
Mr. Koops: The management advisory board would only give advice to the commissioner. It does not get between the commissioner and the minister in the minister’s role to direct the commissioner or her responsibility to the commissioner for the decisions she makes about the management of the RCMP.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Let me insist. When we give advice to the RCMP Commissioner, is that not a bit of political interference?
[English]
Mr. Koops: I’m afraid that’s a question as an official I couldn’t offer an answer for you, sir. But the bill, as drafted, provides to the greatest extent possible that the management advisory board has no role or space in the two great principles that Parliament has put in place around the RCMP and its relation to the government and its relation to Parliament. The first that the minister alone is responsible for directing the commissioner. The second that the direction of the government does not extend to the independence of the policing function of the RCMP.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Griffin: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Currently, who is advising the commissioner related to the matters we’re discussing here?
Mr. McLinton: If you could just clarify in terms of what you are referring to regarding “the matters here.”
Senator Griffin: Harassment, diversity, inclusiveness, the items under discussion in Bill C-97.
Mr. McLinton: The commissioner has, as deputies have, a senior executive committee that includes representatives for various business areas. There are ADM-level equivalents in the fields of HR, harassment, finance, as well as our operational areas involving federal policing and other areas. She does have a senior executive that provides her with that advice.
Senator Griffin: So it’s basically an internal mechanism rather than an external one. This will be an external one. What’s interesting I find in the bill compared to — I think it says in the briefing note that the composition of the board would be up to 13 members appointed by Governor-in-Council and in selecting these members, the government has indicated it will consider. But the House of Commons is nailing it down further in saying that the minister considers diversity and merit in recommending appointments. I think that’s a good thing, to make it stronger, mandatory.
Why wasn’t the proposed board in Bill C-97 not given an explicit mandate to address issues of harassment, diversity and inclusiveness in the RCMP? Do you know?
Mr. Koops: The mandate that’s set out for the board is very broad and it relates to, if we look at the first element of the mandate at 45.18(2), the development and implementation of transformation and modernization plans. The minister in issuing his mandate letter to the commissioner has instructed her to consider two issues as a matter of priority in relation to transformation and modernization plans, and they are the well-being of the members of the RCMP, including their mental health and protection from harassment in the workplace; the second being reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
So I think we would suggest that by extension, it forms an important part of the mandate of the management advisory board. The board in practice would be expected to support the commissioner in developing HR practises that build a healthy, diverse and effective workforce. In the short term may choose to provide the commissioner with guidance on the implementation of the obligations Parliament has put in place on Bill C-65 and, in effect, also offer the commissioner a broader set of expertise on leading cultural transformation in an organization as large, diverse and complex as the RCMP.
Senator Griffin: Okay. I suppose one of the positive benefits of this is that there may be a more positive public perception of the RCMP in how it’s being managed. There’s been a lot of negative publicity about harassment, especially of the female members. I see this as positive. I’m hoping it will be perceived as positive by the public. I’m sure that’s your objective also.
Mr. Koops: I think that’s the government’s objective, yes.
Senator Griffin: It should be everybody’s objective, I hope.
Mr. Koops: It’s one we share.
Senator McIntyre: My question is addressed to the three of you.
Do most large police forces in other Canadian jurisdictions, such as the Ontario Provincial Police and the Sûreté du Québec or in other countries, have management advisory boards? If not, why not? If so, in what ways have these boards improved the functioning of the police forces?
[Translation]
Jacques Talbot, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: We have not tried here to replicate what is done at the provincial level, either in Quebec or Ontario. It must be understood that the RCMP has its own history. The laws have evolved in their own way. We have developed a specific solution for the RCMP. There is no real equivalent abroad for what we have tried to do here. So it’s quite difficult to compare; it would be like comparing apples and oranges.
Senator McIntyre: What about other countries?
Mr. Talbot: No, nor other countries. For example, in Ontario, we have police commissions, but we are not trying to create a police commission in this case.
The sharing of responsibilities and accountability is not the same. As Mr. Koops explained, we have respected existing responsibilities; the minister remains accountable to Parliament for the RCMP, the Treasury Board is still the employer, existing internal structures within the RCMP remain in place, oversight bodies retain their responsibilities to the RCMP. So, this is an advisory committee with a very specific mandate, which is the one described in the bill.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: The bill does not contain operations for a secretariat to assist the proposed board in fulfilling its mandate. Would a secretariat be established to assist the board in fulfilling its mandate? What levels of staffing and resources for such a secretariat would be needed?
Mr. McLinton: Yes, a secretariat will be established within the RCMP in the area that I work in. Of course, this is subject to the will of Parliament if this should pass, but we are making preparations for the creation of a board. We do have an idea as to the number of resources that would be required. We imagine that there would be a secretary that would be in charge of this secretariat and would have a complement of policy and administrative support.
I should say that, as proposed in the legislation, the work of the board, its priorities, will be determined by the board. We expect that once the government should make a decision in terms of announcing the names of board members, the secretariat would then begin to engage with the board members to plan with them a work plan and other priorities that they’ll want to undertake.
Senator McIntyre: As I understand, if Bill C-59, the proposed National Security Act, 2017 and Bill C-97 come into force, there will be four civilian bodies or agencies with the power to review the activities or provide advice to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness regarding the functioning of the RCMP. How would these bodies or agencies work together and avoid unnecessarily duplicating efforts and resources?
Mr. Koops: I think, senator, the statutes Parliament will put in place defining their mandates will, by design, avoid duplication. The Management Advisory Board would not be assigned any responsibilities for review. Review bodies are not assigned any responsibilities to advise the commissioner in terms of the management of the RCMP as a $5 billion enterprise.
The Management Advisory Board will not be in a position to receive information about specific policing operations, which is very different from the mandate that is given to the existing review bodies or the new national security review body, where Parliament would put in place a regime that allows that body to have access to certain types of policing information to support a review of RCMP activities in their policing function as opposed to in their corporate enterprise management function.
Senator McIntyre: If these bodies or agencies provide contradictory recommendations, how would the Minister of Public Safety choose the recommendations that should be implemented?
Mr. Koops: I think that comes down to the nature of the mandate that Parliament has conferred on the minister; that ultimately the minister makes the decision when he has to choose between conflicting sources of advice. Although, in this case, again, we would point to that the Management Advisory Board would not be in the space of giving advice on specifics of policing operations.
Senator Pratte: I’d like to follow up on Senator McIntyre’s questions about the risks of overlap between the mandates of different review bodies.
You did say that the board is not a review body and will not provide oversight of the RCMP, so that’s understood. However, when we look at the mandate, for instance, at 45.18(1)(b) is the “effective and efficient use of resources.” I suppose you could say that the committee of parliamentarians or NSIRA would possibly have recommendations concerning the efficient use of resources for the RCMP. That’s just one example.
There is nothing in the bill regarding the possible relationship in Bill C-59, for instance, if I’m not mistaken. There are provisions for how the different bodies will intersect with each other, but there’s nothing at all in here to provide for this. Has that been considered? Are you absolutely convinced that no overlap is possible?
Mr. Koops: It was very much considered in the design that as the government was bringing forward sequential legislation related to the RCMP, that those were very carefully thought through and, in the case of the Management Advisory Board, that its mandate is in a place that is unique in its role of advising the commissioner and that it not touch on any of the other review mandates of either existing or proposed bodies.
You cited element B of the mandate, the effective and efficient use of resources, which is really, I would suggest, to be interpreted with the first part of that paragraph that relates to the role of the board to give advice, information, reports on the administration and management of the force as opposed to sitting in review of investigations or decisions that are made by the force in relation to its policing operations.
Senator Pratte: Thank you. That’s very useful. The bill provides that the board “may” provide the minister with a copy or summary of any advice. Was there any consideration given to using “shall” rather than “may?”
Mr. Koops: In fact, it was examined thoroughly in the other place, and the house declined to make an amendment to do that very thing.
The principle that the board is best able to decide, when it wants to furnish the minister with a copy of the advice it is giving the commissioner, is consistent with the principle that the board overall should set its own procedures. It’s also designed to avoid a situation where every interaction between the commissioner and the board, of which there may be many and they may be iterative, needs to be brought to the attention of the minister.
There is also, however, built into the regime assurance that what goes on at the board is not hidden from the view of the minister and nothing the board does would surprise the minister, in the sense that there’s a provision that the minister’s deputy minister, the deputy minister of public safety, the deputy head of the department, is an ex officio member of the board. In essence, the minister’s alter ego has a direct view into the operations of the board as well.
Senator Pratte: A final point, if I may. Has any consideration been given to the possibility of providing the board with the authority of making some of its recommendations public?
Mr. Koops: I think that is a question that the board could best determine in relation to how it chooses to exercise its mandate to set its own procedures. There will be, however, we would expect, instances where the board may have information that is not necessarily in the public domain. I think that would be a situation that the board and the commissioner would need to work out between themselves.
There would be a requirement under the bill that members of the board would be required to hold a security clearance. There is a provision that the board may be in a space related to, for example, capital procurement or something where they’re dealing with information that is not readily amenable to being in the public realm. As proposed here, the board would make those decisions.
Senator Oh: Witnesses, my question is following up on board members. It appears that, to date, no board member has been appointed. Am I correct?
Mr. Koops: That’s correct.
Senator Oh: What is the expected timeline for the appointment of members? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Koops: The minister said recently in the media that he expected it would be very soon. The government announced in January its intent to take immediate steps to introduce an interim board using an existing statutory authority, so, if you will, a temporary board arrangement. At the moment, cabinet has not made a decision to do that, so there have been no appointments.
The bill, as crafted, would allow that the government could use an interim temporary board first, which would transition into this board, or if the provisions of Bill C-97 pass before that, the board could be constituted ab initio using these provisions.
Senator Oh: What happens if Bill C-97 does not come into force? How long would an interim management advisory board stay on?
Mr. Koops: That would be a decision for the cabinet to make in crafting the order-in-council appointing interim members.
Senator Oh: Do we have any idea what the qualifications are, or is there any remuneration or pay for the board members?
Mr. Koops: The board members would be paid a per diem on the Governor-in-Council scale that’s established by the Privy Council Office. The decision of where they are on the scale forms part of the cabinet decision to make the appointment. I don’t know what their daily rate of pay would be.
Senator Oh: What are the qualifications to be a board member?
Mr. Koops: The minister has said publicly that they are looking at folks who would bring qualifications to the board in relation to management expertise, leading transformation in large organizations, anti-harassment expertise in leading large organizations and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, among whatever other factors cabinet chose to consider about what constitutes the necessary mix of skill sets in what is, in essence, a fairly small board in relation to quite a large organization.
Senator Oh: Will gender issues be considered a part of the board member selection?
Mr. Koops: The minister has said so, and the amendment that is before the house would oblige the minister to consider the diversity of Canadian society in making those recommendations to the Governor-in-Council.
Senator Oh: Good. Thank you.
Senator Richards: I don’t know if this question can be answered, but I’m going to ask it. Many appointed boards are infamous for internal disputes. How would these be resolved or could they be, and how might this affect RCMP morale if they couldn’t be?
Mr. Koops: That’s a question that would fall within the ability of the board to set its own procedures. The board would be free to decide, if it wished, to establish some sort of dispute resolution mechanism within its own procedures. We would hope that would not be necessary, but there is nothing in the bill that would prescribe how that were to be done. That would just fall within the general authority of the board to make its own decisions for how it organizes itself.
Senator Richards: But we know that in the last few years, certain boards in the public eye have come under scrutiny because of people resigning and in-fighting. It certainly does affect morale, not only within the board but within the people who are trying to deal with it and help. That’s why I ask the question.
Mr. Koops: Sir, I might point to 45.19(3), that the members serve during pleasure, and ultimately, the minister could have the authority to propose a change in membership, if that was required, to ensure that the board remained effective in supporting the commissioner in her mandate.
Senator Gold: In your opening remarks, Mr. Koops, you brought us up-to-date on what gave rise to this recommendation, the problem harassment identified in the RCMP and the reports that recommend and reflect that, that governance change is a necessary part of stamping out harassment. So we understand at least one of the issues is harassment and that at least part of the solution may be governance change.
Could you talk about what the governance problems that gave rise to the reports are? That is to say, why is governance the problem, and how do you think this advisory board or what are your hopes for how this advisory board will actually help change over time the culture that is starting with governance?
Mr. Koops: I think, senator, if we look back over at least 15 years and more of studies, investigations and examinations of the challenges facing an organization as large and complex as the RCMP, one of the recurring themes in those, has been that it will be impossible to change the culture of the RCMP without some change in the leadership structure of the RCMP. That is, of course, a particular challenge in the context of policing, but that is not unique to the context of policing. We see that in many other large organizations.
The idea that a board can be part of those governance changes is a recurring one, and there have been many recommendations over the years that present many different variations of what a board might be and what a board might do. The government has chosen a variation that would slot into the existing relationship that the commissioner has with the minister and that the minister, in turn, has with Parliament.
The hope is, as in any large, complex national organization, providing the head, or in this case deputy head, of the organization with the broadest possible support, advice and guidance on issues that are not necessarily within the normal remit of a policing organization. IT design, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, these are things that are often more complex than just the core business of policing, and giving the commissioner access to outside experts, including folks who have lived the experience of leading large organizations into unionization, members perhaps with a broad set of experience in the policing community in Canada, by bringing different perspectives to bear, the hope is that will be helpful to the commissioner.
It’s not alone, though. It’s not the only step that is being taken. The commission has signalled her intent to move on many other fronts that also contribute to conditions for success of leading cultural change within the organization, because just changing the mechanics at the top, it’s probably necessary but not a sufficient condition.
If we look at where the commissioner is going on the internal practices in relation to harassment, if we look at greater use of civilians with outside expertise in senior positions in the RCMP, these are all steps that, when taken as a whole, together contribute to a greater likelihood that structural changes, in turn, can lead cultural changes within the organization.
Senator Gold: You’re absolutely right in terms of the necessary sufficient condition. Governance change is a necessary condition, and though it may not be as hard as cultural change — we have all had that experience in our lives, both here and elsewhere — the question is whether this advisory committee, with its very broad mandate as you described, and notwithstanding the mandate letters, will really be laser-focused on governance, which in and of itself is a really big challenge and is a discipline in and of itself in an organization as diverse and dispersed in some ways as the RCMP is.
Will it be focused enough on governance to at least do that piece of the work, to accompany the commissioner’s and others’ work in all those other necessary and, we hope, sufficient ways?
Mr. Koops: If we look at the comments of the commissioner on the day the minister announced the intent to proceed with the creation of the board, she was very supportive and welcomed that. I think what happens next is very much going to be a conversation between the board and the commissioner about where they have the best advice to offer, and where she feels she has the most benefit to gain.
Philip, is there anything you want to add to that from the force’s perspective?
Mr. McLinton: I would just repeat that the commissioner has been very clear in that she is supportive of this board and sees it as an important step to helping her advance the modernization agenda that she has before her, which deals with things such as governance, and how we treat each other, and the culture. It’s a very ambitious agenda, and she sees an important role for the board to play in informing that. Governance is one of those things that the commissioner is seized with.
Senator Gold: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a question for Mr. McLinton.
There is a lot of talk about modernizing the RCMP, but I must tell you that it also involves unionizing its members. Will the board also advise the commissioner on this matter? If so, I would tell you that this confirms the fact that the project has not changed much since its approval.
[English]
Mr. McLinton: If I understood the question correctly, it was whether or not the board would be advising the commissioner on the matter of unionization? Is that a fair —
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: That’s right. We are talking about modernizing the RCMP; you know as well as I do, there is a bill that now allows RCMP members to join a union. I know that the file is not progressing much and that it is quite difficult.
Is the same board going to provide advice to the commissioner regarding the unionization of RCMP members?
We talk about modernization — you can correct me if I’m wrong — but I think it’s the only police force that is not yet unionized in Canada.
[English]
Mr. McLinton: I would say that in the proposed legislation, the board itself will have a broad and expansive mandate to look at a number of areas involving the management and administration of the organization, but it will ultimately be the board that decides what areas it chooses to look at. Certainly the commissioner will be a part of the discussion with the board to decide what things they would like to examine.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you.
I have a final question for Mr. Koops. We know that, under the current government, the minister remains responsible when he wants to. We also very often wonder why he stays that way when he wants to. Bill C-97 provides that the minister reserves the right to act, while with Bill C-71, he divests himself of this power, since it is the RCMP that will make decisions on the authorization and prohibition of certain firearms; don’t you find that somewhat inconsistent?
[English]
Mr. Koops: I would not want to offer you a view on the line where the minister’s power to direct the commissioner intersects with the policing independence of the RCMP in relation to those decisions. I’m afraid that’s not an area that I have the necessary skills to offer you a view on.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You will understand that, when the minister appeared before us as part of our study of Bill C-71, he did not necessarily want to be responsible, whereas today it is said that he reserves the right to act.
I don’t blame you for not answering me, but if you talk about perception, it seems a little strange to me that for some files he becomes responsible, while for others he is not and it gives the RCMP the right to make these decisions.
I put that question to the minister about two weeks ago and today, as they say, it’s neither here nor there.
[English]
Mr. Koops: I think I’d observe only that in both cases the minister is acting within the statutory framework that Parliament has given him to act within.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You’re doing well, Mr. Koops.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to ask a couple of questions, if I may, on the particular intention. I note that it’s an advisory board, and I assume that was intentional both in terms of design and how you would see it working from the advisory’s perspective.
I’m quite interested in how you see the board being able to draw the line between the operational role of the RCMP and their advisory role. Let me zero in on what my concern would be, and that is the question of resources.
When you have multiple resources with a huge mandate — the RCMP is correct and I think said that it’s unlike most others, although I could draw comparators to other countries. One of the issues is resource deployment. When we talk about the well-being of members, one of the issues that is being raised right now on policing in a lot of literature around the world is how the well-being of members is affected by the shortage of resources. Particularly on the issue of resource allocation, do you see that as something within the management advisory board if the commissioner brought that forward or if they decided to deal with it?
Mr. Koops: I think squarely within the mandate of the board to offer her advice on how best to do that, and I think squarely within the remit of the commissioner to make decisions about where and when to do that.
If you’ll permit me, Madam Chair, if we look at the evolution over the years of the notion of what a board for the RCMP would do that very question has been one of the most difficult ones. All the commentators and observers have wrestled with the extent to which a board should make financial decisions or have authority to direct the commissioner in those.
If we look back to the Brown report, or to the excellent work of the Reform Implementation Council of which your colleague, Senator Busson, was a member, there remained a sense that the board should have some authority, some oversight role in relation to the budget. That was in the context of an evolving idea of the RCMP becoming a separate employer, with the board becoming effectively a replacement for the authorities of Treasury Board. Neither the government of the day nor the current government has gone down that road. In the interim, one important element of that has been settled by Parliament through Bill C-7, in confirming the role of Treasury Board as the employer.
What the government has chosen to do in proposing this model is a model that very much gives the board maximum latitude to give advice and to inquire into an area that they believe the commissioner would benefit from their advice, but leaving the decisions for how to deploy resources squarely within the authority of the commissioner, under the direction of the minister.
The thinking there is that prevents the line from blurring between those two actors about who is ultimately responsible for making the decision, and then who is accountable for it.
The Chair: The other piece I’ll raise is in terms of issues of transparency. A number of people have raised this in terms of the level of openness of the advisory board. As you know, most police service boards, at least in the province I come from, are public meetings. There will be some in camera, but a lot of public meetings. What I heard here is this would all be done in camera, not necessarily in a public forum. I suspect you would say, well, that’s because it’s a different role and a different perspective.
Mr. Koops: And very much not a Police Services Board or a police commission, as we understand them in other jurisdictions in Canada.
The Chair: But I would still say — and I will ask it in the form of a question — that there is an element of transparency that this board will have to bring in order for the public and the RCMP members to have confidence that it’s bringing about the change you had anticipated. So I’ll ask the question: How do you see that transparency becoming evident to members of the public?
Mr. Koops: I think you have raised an important element, which is transparency to members of the public. I would suggest there is a second, which is transparency to members of the force as well.
The Chair: They are one and the same.
Mr. Koops: Yes, in that regard, very much. I think that would form the ground for early discussion and early understanding between a commissioner and her management advisory board about the times and places where the board will need to consider or give advice that is public by nature, and the times that the commissioner will need to seek advice on things that, because they are part of some other process, might require discussion in confidence.
The Chair: I’ll use an example. It’s helpful, I think, if you have some experience from the inspectorate in Ireland that looks into policies and makes recommendations, and what they would suggest the agency do. The inspectorate’s report has to be filed in the Dáil parliament within 30 days of the file being finalized. It’s a way for the public to have a sense of the extent of those recommendations to help the modernization process. My caution would be that to continue to operate in some form of secrecy or perception of secrecy will not be helpful to the future of the RCMP.
Senator Pratte: Mr. Koops, you mentioned a couple of times that the board will have to decide how it interacts with the public, whether or not it makes some reports or some of its advice public. But this possibility is not mentioned at all in the bill. Does the fact that it’s not mentioned in the bill prevent the board from going public from time to time? Should it not be in the bill that the board can or may make some of its work public?
Mr. Koops: The bill doesn’t foresee that the management advisory board would issue a public report per se in the sense of other organizations for two reasons. The board is not entrusted with the administration of a statute, which it needs to report back on, and it’s not conducting a review role in the sense of not purely part of the review in the exercise of accountabilities that have been designated by Parliament.
I think beyond that, it is foreseen that there may be cases where the board would need to do things in confidence, for example, in relation to certain human resources matters or, as we suggested before, capital planning or these sorts of things. But there is nothing that would prevent the board from making public certain portions of its advice.
Senator Pratte: That’s what I want to ensure. From a legal standpoint, the fact that it’s not mentioned and not covered in the bill would not prevent the board from eventually publishing something.
Mr. Koops: It would not. As my colleague Mr. Talbot has helpfully reminded me, the board would be subject to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act in any event. Like any public institution, it operates under the same rules of disclosure.
Senator Gold: It’s really just a follow-up on the same theme. It’s an unsolicited recommendation. I think I understand the advisory nature of the role. I think, as my colleague Senator Griffin said, this is a good thing.
But the commissioner has an important role in, obviously, explaining to the members of the RCMP but also to the public how the process of change is unfolding. I recommend that the commissioner should assume the role of sharing, wherever appropriate, the kind of advice that is being given and how it’s being taken into account. I think that would go some step independent of whether or not the committee releases some of its advice, so that the public understands how things are unfolding for the better, we hope. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Koops, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. McLinton, thank you very much for appearing before us. It has been very helpful. As you know, this is an issue of great interest to Canadians, so we thank you for being here.
Senators, for our second panel today, we’re happy to welcome from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, Michelaine Lahaie, Chairperson; and Laurent Solasse, Senior Investigator. Welcome to you both.
Ms. Lahaie, I understand you have some opening comments; please go ahead.
Michelaine Lahaie, Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP: Madam Chairperson, honourable senators, thank you for inviting me here today to speak to you regarding Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.
As chairperson of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, I welcome the opportunity to share my views on this proposed legislation. I will focus my comments today on Division 10 of Part 4 of the bill, which seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and establish a management advisory board.
Prior to getting into the CRCC’s limited role in the development of the proposed legislation that you have before you, I feel it is necessary to discuss our focused mandate. The commission is an independent agency, separate and distinct from the RCMP. Our role is to ensure that public complaints made about the conduct of RCMP members are examined fairly and impartially. Our scope is recommendations and findings with respect to the operation of the force and not its administration.
That being said, there is latitude within the RCMP Act for the chairperson of the commission to undertake a review of specified RCMP activities. The Minister of Public Safety can also request that the commission undertake investigations of RCMP systemic issues.
[Translation]
It is in this context that, in 2017, the Civilian Commission for the Review and Handling of Complaints about the RCMP submitted a report on workplace harassment in the RCMP and the RCMP’s inability to resolve this persistent problem.
[English]
However, this was not the first time the commission had examined this issue. In 2013, the commission released a report that made 11 reasons aimed at addressing harassment and fostering respectful workplaces in the RCMP.
Notably, in that 2013 report, the commission stopped short of making recommendations with respect to governance and the administration of the force. Rather, the report recommended the implementation of policies and procedures which would assist the RCMP in addressing workplace harassment within its existing structure.
As a follow-on, what the commission found in its 2017 review of the same issue was that the RCMP had only partially or not adequately implemented most of the recommendations made in our 2013 report. The 2017 report concluded that the force had been unable to effect the necessary changes to its workplace culture on its own.
The commission’s 2017 report contained 9 findings and 10 recommendations. Most germane to the legislation that you have before you today is finding number 3 from that report, which stated:
Given the RCMP’s poor track record of implementing change, strong civilian oversight and government leadership are required to ensure sustained reform.
And recommendation number 3, which stated:
The Minister of Public Safety take immediate steps to effect cultural change in the RCMP by modernizing its governance structure to enhance civilian governance and/or oversight and to enhance accountability.
[Translation]
This 2017 recommendation offers various options, including a civilian management board very similar to the proposal contained in the bill before us.
[English]
The 2017 report viewed a change in governance as a means of ensuring accountability in many areas, but specifically in the areas of prevention of workplace harassment, bullying and sexual harassment.
I must note that the commission’s recommendation echoed numerous previous calls for the creation of a civilian board of management that would provide stewardship and general direction to the RCMP, modernize the organization and enhance public accountability overall, given the right format.
The most comprehensive of these prior recommendations was those of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP issued in 2007. This report, commonly referred to as the Brown report, envisioned a board of management that would,
. . . have oversight (stewardship) of the organization and the administration of the RCMP and the oversight of the management of its resources, activities, services, property, personnel and contracts.
In response to the findings of the Brown report, the Reform Implementation Council was established in 2008 to provide leadership and guidance to an RCMP renewal process. From the beginning, the Reform Implementation Council saw the introduction of a management board as an essential aspect of successful and sustainable RCMP reform. In its last report in 2010, the council stated that the health and effectiveness of the RCMP cannot be taken for granted. Renewal is a top priority for the leadership of the force, but it also requires continuing support from the government and the public.
This position was once again repeated in 2017 by former Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, in a report that examined the cases of four women who had filed civil suits against the RCMP alleging workplace harassment. The Fraser report addressed harassment within the force and identified organizational culture as the barrier to change. Further, it quoted the Brown report recommendation calling for the formation of a board of management as a mechanism to bring about organizational change within the RCMP.
It is in the context of these reports that the commission developed its 2017 recommendation regarding a new governance model for the RCMP. In fact, the commission does not possess any specific subject matter expertise in governance. Further, the RCMP Act gives the commission the authority to make recommendations and findings with respect to the operation of the force, but not its administration.
However, I view Bill C-97 as a positive first step towards fundamental and necessary changes to the RCMP’s workplace culture.
[Translation]
Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our guests. Ms. Lahaie, first of all, I would like to address the issue of the advisory board, which will cost $1.6 million a year; what kind of support do you think you will receive from this committee, and do you think it will change something in the way you do things at the Civilian Review Commission?
Ms. Lahaie: Senator, I don’t think it’s going to change anything for our review committees, actually. I think the two mandates are really distinct. We will continue to review the policies and procedures for the operational activities of the force. In my view, the advisory board is more of an entity that provides advice to the commissioner. This does not preclude us from providing advice to the commissioner in our functions, but they are two separate entities. I don’t see how this could relate to our mandate at this time.
Senator Dagenais: Currently, when people file complaints against the police, they often feel that their cases can drag on. How many complaints do you review per year, and how long do you take to review each of them? You have already told me that the bill would not improve your ways of doing things, but let’s talk about the number of complaints you receive and the time you allow for each complaint.
Is it true that it can be long?
Ms. Lahaie: It can be long, certainly. The commission currently receives about 2,500 complaints per year. This number has increased this year. Usually, these 2,500 complaints we receive each year are sent to the RCMP, which will investigate them. If the person who filed the complaint is not satisfied with the RCMP’s response, they may ask us to review their case. So we receive 2,500 complaints a year, and we review about 200 or 300 of these. Of course, we have procedural standards. Once we receive the complaint, as most of them are submitted through our system, we have four days to send it to the RCMP. When we receive a request for a review, we ask the RCMP to send us all relevant documentation related to the file. Once we have received this documentation, our turnaround time is approximately 90 days. This is the norm.
However, we often exceed this deadline. A large part of the problem is that we have no control over how long it will take the RCMP to process a complaint, and we have to wait until it is finished before we take over. I think the RCMP is starting to put policies in place to try to solve this problem. Sometimes it can take a long time. Ideally, a complaint should be resolved in less than a year, but it has sometimes taken longer.
In addition, we conduct investigations that are in the public interest. These are more important cases that we investigate ourselves, and it may take even longer, because we have to meet with several witnesses.
Senator Dagenais: If I were to draw a parallel with what is happening in Quebec, I would say that you are a kind of ethics committee that transfers its complaints to the Sûreté du Québec, to the disciplinary committee. That’s a lot of people.
Ms. Lahaie: That’s it.
Senator Dagenais: We are talking about deadlines. I want to come back to the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP. Do we need another review on sexual harassment, when it is clear that many of the recommendations contained in studies that have already been published have not yet been implemented? A lot of recommendations have been made to the RCMP with regard to sexual harassment, and you yourself say that the file has not progressed much, not to mention that all this is sleeping on shelves. Is there a need for another harassment test?
Ms. Lahaie: I would say no. I think we have what it takes. I think what we have put in place recently with the RCMP will certainly help. Indeed, the RCMP has implemented Vision 150, a policy that attempts to renew the force. In addition, the Commissioner’s mandate letter was very clear, and it is clear that changes are underway. The RCMP has taken steps to modernize the force, so I don’t think another investigation and report on harassment in the RCMP will help. I think what we need is action, and I think that’s what we’re seeing right now.
Senator Dagenais: Don’t you find that the most difficult thing to change in the RCMP is the culture, which has been ingrained for several years? As a former police officer, I am familiar with the RCMP culture, and so are you. There are some striking examples. There is a bill on unionization that isn’t progressing; there is the sexual harassment issue, which isn’t progressing either. I understand all the goodwill of your committee, but everything comes back to the administration of the RCMP. It seems that when something falls into the hands of the RCMP administration, it’s lengthy, it’s difficult, it’s slow and it takes time. This is part of the RCMP culture that, in my opinion, hasn’t yet changed. Perhaps it shouldn’t just be modernized, but transformed altogether? You can’t change something that’s been around for 200 years. Do you agree?
Ms. Lahaie: I fully agree with you that there is nothing more difficult than changing the culture. I don’t know if you’ve noticed in my biographical notes, but I come from another uniformed force, the Canadian Armed Forces, and I understand very well what culture is and how difficult it can be to change it. I think we are witnessing something at the head of the RCMP; I’m not just talking about the Commissioner, but also about her assistant commissioners. I have had the opportunity to visit several constables and, on the leadership side—if I can use that word rather than the term “coaching”—what I have observed is a change. They are currently trying to open the doors to bring in air and light, and to bring about change. We know very well that a culture isn’t changed through policies. You can change a culture from the bottom up. It’s certainly difficult, but I think that right now the RCMP is really motivated to make changes, and there is a strong desire for modernization.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Lahaie.
Ms. Lahaie: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Ms. Lahaie, for your presentation.
[English]
You have made reference to at least three reports, the Brown report, the Fraser report and then, of course, the commission’s report. Numerous recommendations have been made in all the reports. Few recommendations have been implemented, but some have. Could you briefly elaborate on some of the recommendations that have been implemented by the RCMP?
Ms. Lahaie: Certainly. We have the 2017 report and I can talk to the ones that we’ve seen that have been partially implemented.
If you’re looking at our report, our first recommendation dealt with professionalizing elements of the RCMP organizational structure by recruiting civilian experts for non-operational roles, including at the senior levels in the areas of human resources and labour relations. Those efforts are ongoing. In fact, there are quite a few senior civilians within their organization that are working through those pieces.
Our recommendation 2 spoke about fostering a leadership culture that introduced promotional criteria, that recognized management skills and by instituting more rigorous and mandatory leadership-development programs for all existing and newly appointed supervisors, managers and executive officers, including appropriate university-level courses.
This is something that is ongoing. Commissioner Lucki takes this very seriously. I know she’s looked at other services as well as the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of what they do for leadership development.
Recommendation 3, which I mentioned in my remarks, was taking immediate steps to effect cultural change in the RCMP by modernizing its governance structure to introduce civilian governance and/or oversight to enhance accountability.
There’s no doubt that the bill before you, Bill C-97, speaks to this. It doesn’t get specifically to oversight but it does speak to an advisory capacity.
More importantly, a large signal was sent to the RCMP. When the commissioner was appointed into her role, she received a mandate letter that was very specific and it spoke to the importance of her modernizing the organization. At the commission, we are frequently in touch with the RCMP. I’m sure that is of no surprise to any of you. We’ve received several briefings from them in terms of how they are modernizing their culture. I’ve had the opportunity to travel out and spend some time at Depot, where they train their members. It’s very clear they are trying to take a more modernized approach to their training and looking at leadership.
In terms of their definition of harassment, which is our recommendation 4, I must admit that I am uncertain in terms of where they have gone with that. When we made our report in 2017, this was identified as something that was lacking. I’m not certain what they’ve done because we have not yet conducted an audit of the report on that piece.
The remainder of our recommendations spoke to their policies and procedures. In speaking with the commissioner, I understand that that work is ongoing. They’re still continuing to work through that. In an organization like the RCMP, which has multiple levels, sometimes those things aren’t as easy as you would think. So they are working through those pieces. I know that our final recommendation dealt with ongoing classroom-based training on decision-making, and I know they’ve also done some work on that area.
I would say the majority of our recommendations have been partially implemented but not totally. I think what is in fact required is a little bit of expertise. There’s no doubt this Management Advisory Board can play a significant role in providing some of that expertise.
Senator McIntyre: The Fraser report is dated March 2017. Your commission’s report is dated April 2017. Are the recommendations found in both reports basically the same, or are there recommendations in one report that we cannot find in the other report? I assume there’s a consensus there in the recommendations.
Ms. Lahaie: There’s definitely a consensus in the recommendations. I think the Fraser report takes a larger, broader look at the issue, so their recommendations are broader. Whereas the recommendations that are contained within the commission’s report are more specific and targeted. But in general, there is a common denominator of this recommendation of a greater governance model to assist in dealing with some of these issues.
Senator McIntyre: Would it be fair to say that for decades the RCMP has struggled with this problem of not only workplace harassment but bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment?
Ms. Lahaie: That would be fair to say, yes. That is exactly what our report found in 2017.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: I have a very quick question, Ms. Lahaie. At the end of your presentation, you said that considered the creation of an advisory board to be a good first step. What steps do you think should be taken next?
Ms. Lahaie: I think we really need to look at the impact that the board will have on the RCMP’s operations before we can know. We are not talking about a management committee in this case, but a board. It’s still a good first step.
I believe that, at the moment, with the leadership in place in the RCMP, there is a willingness to make changes. I therefore believe that we must take this first step before deciding what to do next. If we see that what the advisory board does is not enough, we should perhaps direct our efforts to a management committee or another organization.
Senator Pratte: Aren’t you concerned that, given the very broad nature of the board’s mandate—which is so broad that it includes resource allocation and management—you may be stepping on some toes a little?
Ms. Lahaie: This will obviously be a little difficult for the board. Her role is precisely to give advice to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner will really have to take advantage of that advice. This could create problems, but I still think it’s a good start. In addition, it will be necessary to see if more depth is needed in the board structure before making this decision.
I really believe that force wants to change the way it does things. This is a good first step, and I believe that at this time this advisory council will be better accepted by the RCMP than a management committee.
Senator Pratte: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Lahaie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Gold: The Management Advisory Board has an advisory role, and I appreciate your comments on that. What advice would you give to the Management Advisory Board, who in turn will be advising the commissioner, based upon your experience with the culture and the operations of the RCMP?
Ms. Lahaie: I think, first and foremost, they need to get to know the organization that they’re going to be advising. That means going out and talking to the constables who are out doing the work every day. It means talking to the leadership of the organization. It also means speaking to the provincial governments when you’re dealing with contract policing because contract policing in and of itself is a very specific thing. As I’ve discovered in my own role, it differs greatly from province to province.
The most important thing is to get to know that culture from the inside out. There’s no doubt there’s a long history of the RCMP in Canada. We all grew up knowing what the stetson and the Red Serge meant. We understand that. It’s part of Canadian culture. But I think it’s important to get to know the organization from the ground up.
Go and visit depots and talk to the recruits and understand why young Canadians want to join this organization. What is it that moves them to join this organization? Then go to some of the larger locales where we have the RCMP. But more importantly, go to the smaller locales. Go to the North. Go to Iqaluit. See what a two-man detachment looks like. Understand what their challenges are. Go to Surrey, while there’s still RCMP in Surrey, and see what their unique challenges are. Take the opportunity to go and visit every single province and sit down and talk to the leadership and understand what their specific challenges are. By doing that, they get to know the organization from the inside out.
I also think it’s important to talk to other police services. I would suggest talking to the Toronto Police Service, speaking with the SQ, the Ottawa Police Service and the Calgary Police Service. It could inform some of the recommendations they would make. There’s no doubt that policing across this country should be done in somewhat of a harmonized manner, and I think it’s important to get to know how other organizations are doing what they’re doing.
Senator Gold: That’s good advice. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions, senators?
Ms. Lahaie and Mr. Solasse, we thank you for joining us today and helping us in our study of Bill C-97. It’s greatly appreciated.
For the next panel, we welcome, from the National Women in Law Enforcement Association, Angelina Rivers, National Director; and Janet Merlo, former RCMP member.
I understand you both have some comments to make. I ask you to proceed.
Janet Merlo, Former RCMP member, National Women in Law Enforcement Association: Good afternoon. My name is Janet Merlo, and I am a retired RCMP member and the representative plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against the RCMP for gender-based harassment. I would like to start by thanking you today for the opportunity to speak about something that is dear to my heart.
In October, it will be three years since I sat at a press conference right next door and listened to then-Commissioner Bob Paulson. I watched him shed a tear and apologize to the women of the force for the treatment they had received. He said that the RCMP had failed us, and it had.
Part of the settlement that day was the creation of an independent oversight of the RCMP, and that was included and signed into the settlement. I sit in front of you today and remind you that in the end, 3,100 women came forward and made claims, triple what we were expecting, showing us the poison in the RCMP was worse than even we had anticipated.
I sit in front of you today for another reason: Since that time, nothing has changed, and people are dying. The independent oversight is not only necessary as soon as possible, but it has to be done right because there is no trust left in the RCMP.
What we have always asked for is independent oversight. Every study done in the RCMP has recommended independent oversight, and the key word in that is “independent.”
An advisory committee doesn’t have to be complicated. It has to have a strong mandate, dedicated people and absolutely no contact with the RCMP. They do not have to understand police work to determine that the actions of the harassers and bullies is not only unacceptable, sometimes it’s criminal.
There needs to be procedural fairness in an organization that operates on wilful blindness.
In our class action, we had to forfeit the possibility that any of the harassers would ever be investigated and charged. To us, that means that we are not equal in the law. Potentially, hundreds of sexually based charges will never be laid, and we got a pittance of our lost wages and a promise that has not been fulfilled.
The independent oversight committee must therefore have the ability to recommend investigations to outside police forces. The RCMP cannot be left to investigate themselves. They did that in my case, and it took two years. The person who delivered the final report full of untruths, saying that all of my claims were unfounded, was also named in many other cases as someone who played a role in trying to make these claims of harassment go away.
She was allowed to stay, and left the RCMP in good standing. She is now an ethics commissioner protecting whistle-blowers in Alberta, yet she did nothing to protect the whistle-blowers of the RCMP. For me, she was every whistle-blower’s worst nightmare. She should have been charged with dereliction of duty in all of our cases and fired.
The independent oversight must also protect civilian members as well as municipal employees who work for the RCMP. Yes, they often have a union to support them, but in many cases, the union is afraid to take on the RCMP because of the constant threat that if they kick up a fuss, in the next bargaining process, the RCMP will contract out and get rid of them. That’s an ever-standing threat that keeps municipal staff quiet.
As we have seen, the RCMP has shown that it’s not willing to begin investigating and charging these people. The decision to choose not to investigate should be taken from them when it comes to internal harassment, bullying and misconduct. They choose wilful blindness and pass it off under the premise of nepotism and that needs to end.
I would like to suggest that the independent oversight committee be comprised of a wide section of the community, probably teachers, parents, university students, people that represent the LGBTQ2S group, members of minority groups and Indigenous groups to bring insight and perspective. The law is made for the people, by the people, and all that is necessary is that a reasonable person would look at these cases and see that there is a serious problem.
Through this process, I have lost two dear friends, Krista Carle, who took her life last year; and Margie Lau, who passed away during the process because of complications arising from diminished physical health as a result of brutal harassment.
One harasser had been moved seven times within his workplace because of harassment complaints. Twenty-eight people said that they had been harassed by him, and the last time he was moved, it was because a member under his supervision hung himself.
The National Women in Law Enforcement will attempt to assist anyone who reaches out to us. There is no funding. We are doing it all on our own time, in a dedicated attempt to help others battling a system that hasn’t changed. I hear from a new person almost every week reaching out because they are still experiencing brutal harassment within the force.
Through the class action, we took our fight to the highest court, and we won, and now it’s your turn. Please appoint a strong group of people who can be the change that the RCMP needs. Give it the independence, power and the authority to recommend an outside criminal investigation when necessary. If you don’t give them power, we will be back here in the future, revisiting this again. You have to make it safe for members to reach out to them without fear of it destroying their career.
Please pass this bill and help those officers who are dedicating their lives daily to the safety of our country. In return for their service, they deserve better. Canadians deserve better because the stressed out officers working in these toxic, sometimes violent, workplaces cannot have their heads in the game when responding to calls for service if they are already falling apart because of criminal activity and misconduct in their workplaces.
We don’t want to lose any more friends or colleagues. The passing of this bill and the creation of an outside oversight will be a happy day for all of us who only ever wanted that right from the beginning. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Merlo.
Ms. Rivers?
Angelina Rivers, National Director, National Women in Law Enforcement Association: Thank you. First I would like to introduce the National Women in Law Enforcement Association to those who may not be familiar in the room. We are a grassroots organization that supports women in law enforcement across Canada and their struggles with harassment, inequality in the workplace.
First, I’m going to touch very briefly on Division 21, which amends the Veterans Well-being Act to expand the eligibility criteria for the education and training benefit in order to make members of the supplementary reserve eligible for that benefit. As people have sacrificed for their country and communities, they have earned the right to an easier transition and to civilian life. The knowledge, skills and abilities one must possess to be a police officer or military officer does not transfer well in most cases into the general workforce. For example, marksmanship and knowledge of the Criminal Code.
Officers often possess the work experience, but not the educational background required for appropriate civilian employment. For the sake of preventing mental illness, transitioning into something completely different from their service career may be necessary. Having that opportunity would improve the quality of life for our people in service.
I would like to go on to address Division 10, which amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to establish the management advisory board, which is to provide advice to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the administration and management of that police force.
The National Women in Law Enforcement Association calls for Bill C-97 to be passed with amendments to the mandate of the management advisory board. Such mandate should include a provision for individual officers to make reports directly to members of the board. The board should also be well trained in all aspects of police culture and oversee disciplinary and promotional processes.
The RCMP is the gold standard of policing in Canada and a source of national pride. However, the need for independent, external oversight in policing is long overdue.
To be effective, the management advisory board should be well versed in police culture, a topic that is just recently being researched nationally in Canada. We are now seeing current and former officers speaking out on injustices carried out internally. Although they are difficult to hear, the officers’ stories must be told, and most importantly, must be learned from. A variety of important issues have been identified such as gender discrimination, bullying, harassment and mental illness. Such issues and how they are mishandled create a toxic work environment, distrust and fear among members and inevitably leads to the erosion of public trust. With a board that understands police culture, meaningful and lasting change can be made.
There are two national studies of police culture being conducted currently, both in survey and interview form, by a PhD candidate and former police officer, Lesley Bikos, of Western University in London, Ontario. To date, she has interviewed over 115 police officers of all ranks from 31 different police forces at the federal, provincial and municipal levels across Canada. Academic publications featuring some of these results are currently under way.
The following is a quote from the research paper, I Took the Blue Pill, by Lesley Bikos:
Participants spoke about male officers who could get away with anything and still be chief merely based on the level of their popularity and gender.
This specific paper was based on women’s experiences in policing and included data from 15 female officers in Ontario. The results spurred Ms. Bikos on to further develop her research to include male officers and expand into the area of culture in policing. We very much look forward to the results of her findings.
In summation, our organization recommends that through the process changing police culture should be top of mind. We would like to see the board be gender equal and civilians only. We would like to see the board accepting reports directly from officers. Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now move to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you to our two guests. I would particularly like to thank them for the courage they’ve shown by coming to testify here.
I am very familiar with the culture of the RCMP. I was a police officer for a long time and I worked with several members of the RCMP. We are talking about modernization, but I would also like to talk about the unionization of RCMP officers. I am told that, at present, RCMP officers who are caught talking about unionization on RCMP premises are threatened with suspension by the superintendents. I understand that those who made these statements chose to do so anonymously, because they fear reprisals from their officers. This reality has existed for decades. Officers are involved in charities and are sometimes asked to wear their uniforms. The RCMP uniform is very well received in Canada. It is a brand image. However, they are told that they are not allowed to take part in a uniformed charity or risk being brought before a disciplinary board. Imagine where we are now! Moreover, this reality is not new.
So I see that modernization is needed, and the board structure must be rigid enough to change the culture. Do you have the impression that the advisory board will be something that will delay efforts to transform the RCMP and its culture, especially in terms of harassment? I would suggest that the board include at least one police officer who understands the culture well. Police forces form clans, and there is nothing better than a police officer to understand another police officer. Do you think this could be something that will delay things? You can both answer.
[English]
Ms. Merlo: I think more than an advisory board, there needs to be an independent entity that oversees what is happening. The RCMP won’t change if a group of community people are giving them recommendations. They need an outside entity that is going to monitor the internal poison that is going on within the force. And not only women; a lot of men are reaching out to us too, who are at their wits’ end, on the brink of suicide and have nowhere to go. They reach out to us because they have expired every avenue within the force.
This advisory committee is a great idea, but unless you give them some teeth or some ability to see what is going on internally and to go to the right people or be able to recommend criminal charges, I don’t think the RCMP will be receptive to it, and they are not going to listen to it.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I can understand that members of the public are board members, but at least one RCMP police representative should be appointed, and not a superintendent. We should appoint someone from the base, maybe even someone from the RCMP union. These are the people who really know the RCMP culture. I don’t want to take anything away from the civilian members who will be on the board of directors. In terms of culture in the RCMP, you have to appoint someone from the base, someone with experience in police stations, someone who understands the situation very well. I think you mentioned it at the beginning of your testimony. Incidents sometimes occur at isolated posts. We practice the culture of silence by thinking that if we repeat things, we will be transferred elsewhere and very far away. Often the senior officer is protected, and the base member may be threatened. I’ve heard “green and not ripe” for 30 years. I was in regular contact with them. Shouldn’t a police officer on the base be part of this board, since he knows the real problems?
[English]
Ms. Merlo: I represent a pool of about 3,100 current and retired police officers and trained investigators. We all lost our careers and our lives because they didn’t like women.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: You should be the first to be on the board because you understand people on the base. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Pratte: Thank you, Ms. Merlo, for sharing your story. I’m a little confused as to what exactly it is you would like from us. You are asking us to pass this bill and, therefore, to implement this advisory council. Yet the council or entity you describe that would help solve the problems you see within the RCMP is very different than this advisory council, which really is there to give advice on management, and that’s it. They are there to give advice; right?
Ms. Merlo: Yes, perhaps it is something totally different. When we signed our settlement, it was independent oversight that they promised. It has been three years, and there is nothing. So either this advisory board changes or is altered a little bit to give them recourse if they give the RCMP advice and they don’t listen, which I’m fully expecting. I’m kind of torn, because I think the independent people need the teeth to go after the RCMP. We’re currently dealing with women who are going through brutal harassment, and we have nobody to go to. I have sent Commissioner Lucki statements and information, and we were able to get one transfer out of the detachment, where she is experiencing horrible harassment issues. So you need to give an advisory committee some power.
Senator Pratte: Thank you. You may have been here for the testimony of the chairperson of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. Ms. Lahaie described leaders of the organization of the RCMP, of the force, as certainly having the intent to profoundly change the RCMP culture and apparently taking steps so this change in culture will happen. She seemed quite confident that changes would eventually happen.
You’re describing, to the contrary, a force where no change is happening at all, and maybe there is not even a will to change the organization’s culture.
How can you explain and account for this difference in perspective between you and Ms. Lahaie?
Ms. Merlo: I think because her organization might hear more complaints from the public about how the police performed at a call or what they gave as either good service or not to the public.
If I have a problem with harassment in the RCMP, I cannot go to that complaints — it’s not for me to go to. It’s all about the police officer responding to a call in the public. They are limited in terms of what they hear internally, and they don’t have any teeth to intervene and help anybody.
Right now, within the force, there is nothing. There is no member assistance program or collective agreement. I guess change comes slowly, but it’s glacially slow and people are losing everything.
Senator Pratte: Is it your impression that at least the leadership of the organization, starting with the commissioner, does have the will to change this culture of harassment that you’re describing?
Ms. Merlo: I think so. I have had contact with her and I do believe she fundamentally wants to change. I don’t think it will come fast enough unless there is some outside supervision that says you have to clean this up and clean it up now.
Ms. Rivers: If I can add: This is not just the RCMP; it’s many police services across Canada. I have not heard of any police service who has got it right or has the right system in place. If they are out there, I would really love to connect.
We’re seeing a big disconnect between the boots on the ground, the officers who are going to calls and working every day, and upper management. There is literally almost no communication between the junior ranks and the higher ranks, and that’s to do with the paramilitary and hierarchical structure. You are given a route to follow when you want to speak; and at every level, all the way up, it gets harder and harder. That’s why there is this big disconnect. It’s very discouraging, and most wouldn’t even try.
Senator Pratte: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you both for your presentations.
Thank you, Ms. Merlo, for sharing your story with us, as Senator Pratte has so well put it together. That said, I agree with you that there should be an independent oversight committee established to look into this matter.
As I understand, the RCMP has a total of a little more than 30,000 employees. It is comprised of three categories of employees: public servants, regular members and civilian members.
Would it be fair to say that over the years, all three categories of employees have been affected or are still affected by the problem of workplace harassment, bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment within the RCMP?
Ms. Merlo: Absolutely. I’d say 90 per cent of the people I worked with were great officers. The problem in the force is middle management and upper management that will not open their eyes to making the changes that are needed. I work with some wonderful, ethical, upstanding guys and girls. I don’t mean to come across as someone who generalizes and makes them all look bad.
There was one lady who was grabbed in the basement one night at the police station that I was in, handcuffed to the railing and left there for four hours because she refused to have sex with one of the officers while his wife was out of town. He left and went on a few calls and said he’d be back to get her, and there she sat chained to the railing for four hours, thinking what would happen if there had been an earthquake or a fire. How would somebody explain a body chained to the railing if the place burned down and she kept calling out and nobody could hear her? She was a municipal employee.
She has never gone anywhere with that because she’s scared to death that she will get fired, that they will somehow pull her security clearance and fire her. Prior to that happening to her, about two months, the same guy pepper sprayed her in the face at her desk in the office — because she turned him down — and the pepper spray went right through the building and everyone in there was coughing and hacking because it went through the venting system.
They knew there was a problem. That was an assault right there. Downstairs it was assault, unlawful confinement, threats. He was transferred because he threatened one of the 9-1-1 dispatchers. He threatened to kill her and he finally got transferred. He didn’t get fired. He didn’t get punished. He got transferred after threatening to shoot somebody. I won’t tell you the rest of it.
These things are going on within these buildings, and it is men and women who are being affected. We did what we could for the gender-based portion of what was going on in the RCMP. The guy who was taken out of his position the seventh time after a member committed suicide was found to have embezzled quite a lot of money, probably over the $3 million mark. He was never investigated. He was never charged. And the Sheila Fraser inquiry told the member not to go looking for the money, just leave it alone. Don’t go looking for it. During her harassment complaint, the negotiator came in and said it was the worst case of harassment he had ever seen. He was ex-military. That money was allegedly paid back by the RCMP to the corporation that the guy had taken it from. He was never investigated, charged or asked to bring the money back, return anything, and he got to stay until his 36-year mark and retire with a full pension.
The girl who took him to court for civil litigation has lost her job. She’s off on disability and she will probably never work again. There’s so much going on under the surface that people don’t see, that no advisory committee is going to be able to change.
My being here today is asking you whatever this advisory committee will look like, it needs to be independent of the RCMP. It needs to be an entity that these officers can go to because there’s nowhere for them to go right now.
Senator McIntyre: Perhaps a final question, Ms. Merlo. Keeping the three categories of employees in mind — public servants, regular members and civilian members — are some complaints in one category of employees higher than the others?
Ms. Merlo: I’m not totally sure. I know of one secretary who was so brutally harassed that it was ordered within the detachment that this one officer was not allowed to be alone with her in the building. Somebody had to stay all the time if he was in the building so he wasn’t left alone with her. She has also gone off on medical leave. They just pulled her benefits. She can’t pay her medication or her mortgage. We’re really worried about her.
I think sometimes the civil and municipal people take it a little more than even we do because of the hierarchy. They feel, well, we’re police officers and you’re just a secretary or caretaker or guard. That needs to be addressed too because everybody should be equal.
Senator McIntyre: What advice would you give to a young lady who today wishes to join the RCMP?
Ms. Merlo: It’s funny you should say that because I have a 26-year-old daughter who talks about it once in a while. First, I told her she’d better change her name because she’d probably never get in with my surname.
As it stands right now, I would never recommend anybody to join the force. I had coffee with a retired member last week whose son is talking about it, and he doesn’t want his son to join because he doesn’t want his son to become one of these people. He wants his son to be a good man and a good cop, and he would be, but he doesn’t want this toxic environment where if you don’t toe the company line, put up, shut up, smile and nod when you need to, then you’re going to have a really rough time in the force. He doesn’t want that for his son.
I would recommend that my daughter join policing. I loved my job. Loved it. But under the climate there today, no.
Senator Richards: I’m following up a little on Senator Pratte and Senator McIntyre because, in a way, I think you’ve come here in a bit of desperation because this is not the bill you need. This is an oversight for management, and you’re talking about criminal liability and criminal assault. I just don’t know if you can get it in this bill. I just don’t know if this bill goes far enough that you can get what you need from it unless it’s severely amended at some stage. Maybe another bill. I’m not sure.
The advisory committee — I’m not a lawyer — it seems there would have to be a legal oversight committee for the number of harassments and assaults that you’ve brought up here. I’m just wondering how you think about that.
Ms. Merlo: They signed the settlement saying that there would be an independent advisory committee. When I saw this occurring, I thought this was the beginning of that. I thought if you’re going to start something that will become this committee that they promised and that they swore in court that they would create, I thought this was the creation of that.
To see that it’s an advisory group that’s just going to give advice, I don’t really see it going very far, to be quite honest. They’re not at a point where they’re going to listen to outside advice.
Senator Richards: As Senator Dagenais said, if a person like you were on the advisory board — I’m not saying you in particular but someone who is experienced, an RCMP or police officer of some sort — perhaps they can give advice that would actually be valuable concerning these incidents.
Ms. Merlo: True. Very true.
Senator Gold: Thank you for being here and for sharing your stories, difficult and awful as it was and still is, I’m sure, for you and many in and out of the service.
I was going to give you a series of “Boy Scout-y” questions like, well, it is a management advisory committee and what advice would you give to it and what would it give to the commissioner, et cetera? All of that is true. I would never suggest that we don’t try, but in the face of what you’ve described, I really feel at a loss for rising to that level of enthusiasm.
However, I do want to say this. It is not the first time we or the public have heard this. It is just unacceptable in Canada. This committee and the Senate have roles to play in listening, in following up and in making recommendations. I don’t pretend for a moment that any one action or any one organization can fix this. Your calls for independent oversight and the commitment that was made apparently needs to be followed through. The government needs to be held to account. Parliament will rise very soon. There will be an election and there will be a new government and a new Parliament. This Senate will return and this committee will return.
I want to go on the record as saying it would be a good use of our time and our resources to take seriously the problem that you’ve raised and the problem that the RCMP has and which it’s trying to address. We could use our offices, however modest, to amplify the concerns, to follow up and perhaps to inquire into what structures would be appropriate to try to move this thing forward.
Previous witnesses here — we all know this and you know this better than we do — know how difficult and slow cultural change can be. That’s really what’s required. There’s a saying in the tradition I come from that says we’re not obligated to finish the work but we’re obligated to take the first steps and try.
I don’t have a question. My comment is to thank you for being here. You’ve opened my eyes somewhat and I’m sure those of others who are watching. Rest assured that members of this committee will not have forgotten your testimony when Parliament returns. We’ll do what we can in whatever small way to try to move this forward. Thank you.
The Chair: Before we close, I just wanted to catch one of your answers and maybe turn it into something you may want to think about. That was the question of getting through the chain of command.
As was said earlier, one of the roles that the advisory council will play — the priority — is on harassment issues. You may want to think about whether or not you make suggestions around the steps they could take in terms of ensuring that. I would perhaps ask if you could create a mechanism that allows you to step around the chain of command to an independent person? Would that be a good way to get that information dealt with in an expedited fashion, one, for safety for the victim but, also, two, bringing those things to the attention of the advisory board. Not in terms of an investigative perspective because they do not have that role but in terms of measuring. As you know, what is measured gets done.
It might be one of those mechanisms. I’m sure there are many more that I would need time to think about, but we need ways to start opening this up so the advisory board would be in a position to say, if you want to make this effective, certain steps need to be taken to ensure these matters are not buried at the lower level but, in fact, find their way to the level that’s blocking.
I think the research being done will be helpful in terms of establishing that. Certainly you have heard from people.
I would turn that into a question: Would that be something you would think about?
Ms. Merlo: Definitely. This has become a passion of mine, especially since my friend took her life. We joined up together. We were troop mates. We left the same day from the RCMP with the same issues. It’s personal to me to keep up what we started in this class action until we see some changes. We see people reaching out to us all the time from very dark places. They do not go to the RCMP in their dark times.
Ms. Rivers: No, they’re coming to us. Quite a few of them are at rock bottom. They’re suicidal and they have nowhere to go. Right now, where we are required and where we are permitted, we are that circumvention of the chain of command. We take that role. However, as Janet said, we are doing it on our own time and on our own dime. There’s only so much we can do, but we try.
The Chair: On behalf of all committee members, let me thank you for the work you have done. Thank you both for serving your country in your capacity as police officers. Please be assured that you have made a difference. You will continue to make a difference, not just for women but also for men in the service. We all salute the work that you’ve done and we wish you well.
Ms. Merlo: Can I just say one more thing? In 2007 I was at the brink of losing everything. My marriage was falling apart. My career was falling apart. So I went up the chain of command. In fact, I circumvented the chain of command because no one in my detachment was going to listen. I wrote to Commissioner Elliott and I told him what was going on. I asked, I begged, for someone to intervene.
Do you know how long it took to get a letter back from him? I did get a letter back telling me how seriously they took the issue of harassment within the RCMP and promising a prompt investigation. I got that letter back 25 months after I sent mine, telling me how serious it was.
Then there was a two-year investigation. They came back and said everything was unfounded. “Nobody substantiated anything. Thanks for coming out. See you later.” Then when we went outside, to the lawyers, they asked me to be a representative plaintiff and we came out of it successfully. That’s still what members have; that’s all they have. It’s not good enough because, like I said, people are dying. People are losing everything and they’re taking their lives and it has to stop.
This committee is probably not that entity. Either you give it the power to be that entity or something else needs to be done.
The Chair: I think your considered words have been well heard by this committee. Again, thank you very much for both your candour and your commitment to the future for both men and women in police services across Canada. Thank you very much.
Senators, for our final panel today, we welcome Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada.
Ms. McIntyre, I understand you have a few opening comments. Go ahead.
Faith McIntyre, Director General, Policy and Research Division, Strategic Policy and Commemoration, Veterans Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m going to read through the overview included in the Budget Implementation Act just to situate Part 4, Division 21, that I will be speaking about at this point in time.
In essence, this is an expansion to include supplementary reserve members into the Veterans Well-being Act as it pertains to the education and training benefit.
On April 1, 2018, the education and training benefit was introduced. This benefit is a taxable benefit that provides currently up to $40,960 in funding for veterans with at least six years of Canadian Armed Forces service, and up to $81,920 for veterans with at least 12 years of Canadian Armed Forces service to cover tuition, fees, supplies, and some incidental and living expenses for participants while they are attending school.
[Translation]
Currently, Regular Force and Reserve Force members, including members of the Supplementary Reserve Force, do not have access to the education and training allowance. However, due to the lack of education and training opportunities for Supplementary Reserve Force Veterans, Veterans Affairs Canada will expand access to the education and training allowance for these individuals. This approach will ensure that veterans who are members of the Supplementary Reserve do not have to choose between remaining in the Supplementary Reserve or receiving the Education and Training Allowance.
[English]
The expansion of the education and training benefit to supplementary reserve members will occur as of July 5, 2019.
I’m available to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Ms. McIntyre, if I understand correctly, the Reserve Force members will be able to continue to receive this allowance. Could you give us more details about this allowance they will still be able to receive?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much for your question, Senator. The education and training allowance was introduced on April 1, 2018, for veterans who have served in the Regular Force and in the Reserve Force for six to 12 years. Depending on the years of service, the allowances are $40,000 and $80,000 respectively. However, people who leave the Canadian Armed Forces, but decide to remain in the Supplementary Reserve, don’t currently have access to it.
The expansion proposed in the bill involves including members who leave the forces but remain in the Supplementary Reserve. Members of the Supplementary Reserve are not considered to be on active duty.
Since the program has been in place, people have had to make a choice between benefiting from the program of study or continuing their service as a member of the Supplementary Reserve. We don’t want to impose this choice on them. We want them to be able to benefit from both opportunities at the same time.
Senator Dagenais: Since we’re talking about money, if the bill is passed, will the allowance be retroactive?
Ms. McIntyre: That’s a good question, thank you. Since April 1, 2018, all applications to the program from Supplementary Reservists. All applications will be reviewed starting July 5, 2019, to determine their eligibility. We won’t want people to be penalized because we are considering expanding access to the program.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. McIntyre.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you for being here.
To follow up the same question, how many and what percentage of supplementary reservists do you expect would take the advantage of the education and training benefit?
Ms. McIntyre: The education and training benefit targets a new client group for Veterans Affairs Canada. It’s a client group that basically anyone releasing from the Canadian Armed Forces could potentially come to Veterans Affairs Canada and access the program. We cannot accurately forecast what those numbers will be, so we do know that there are about 98,000 veterans who have released since April 1, 2006, who could potentially access. Some of those individuals are certainly part of the supplementary reserves. We do know that we have had a considerable uptake to the program since its inception on April 1, 2018.
Just to give you an example, as of the end of the last fiscal year, March 31, 2019, we had received 4,540 applications to the education and training benefit program.
To answer your question, we cannot accurately forecast what that uptake would be or what any additional uptake would be to the program, because this is such a new client group for us at Veterans Affairs Canada.
Senator Oh: After 4,000 plus, how many have been approved or are on the way?
Ms. McIntyre: Of that 4,500 roughly received as of the end of March, there were 2,353 that were approved. For the majority of individuals who have not been approved, it is because they are still serving. They are applying while they are still serving, and, obviously, based on the way the program is, unless as of July they will be a supplementary reserve member, they would not be able to access the program, so that’s the number that has been approved to date.
Senator Oh: Do you think you are heading in a correct direction?
Ms. McIntyre: Senator, I do think this is very positive. We’re opening up eligibility to a very important benefit for veterans that being education and training. We are opening it up to a group of individuals under the supplementary reserves who do not have access to education and training while they are supplementary reserve members through the Canadian Armed Forces. There seems to be what we call a “gap group” — an unintended gap group to which we’re now going back to rectify the situation.
Senator Oh: Very good. Thank you.
Senator Griffin: Congratulations; I think it’s great. I think it’s a great program that is being opened up so that more people can take advantage of this, especially people to whom we as Canadians owe a great debt.
Moving to this step, who were consultations held with? I assume the Veterans Ombudsman would be a major player. But are there other groups or individuals that were particularly effective at putting their case forward?
Ms. McIntyre: Honourable senator, thank you very much for the question. Indeed, there were many individuals that we worked alongside with in order to bring this forward. The ombudsman, as you mentioned, is one of them.
Early on, it was recognized that this was a group for which we had to do something to include in the benefit. The Canadian Armed Forces, in particular, the reserves component of the Canadian Armed Forces, have been actively engaged in consultations. We have had discussions with some of our ministerial advisory groups. We have six ministerial advisory groups that are made up of various stakeholders, and on the periphery of those, certainly the key organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion and ANAVETS who are members of those advisory groups.
Senator Griffin: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Pratte: For people who are less familiar with the Canadian Armed Forces, could you please tell us who is meant when we talk about the “Supplementary Reserve”, as opposed to the “Non-Supplementary Reserve”?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for the question. The Reserve Force includes several parts: Class A, Class B and Class C, and there is also the Supplementary Reserve, which is the only part of the Reserve where members are not considered as being on active duty. For that reason, including them is logical.
In addition, they don’t have access to the various programs that other classes of reservists can benefit from. They have different access to the programs offered by the Canadian Armed Forces depending on the hours they give to the Reserve and whether they are in Class A, B or C.
The commitment was to provide an education and training program for veterans, and therefore, technically, for people leaving the Canadian Armed Forces. As I have just defined, the people who are part of the Supplementary Reserve are on a supplementary list and are not considered to be on active duty. So it was logical to include them, even if we want to keep the policy as it is.
Senator Pratte: You said earlier that people shouldn’t be forced to make a choice between being in the Supplementary Reserve and studying. Do you know if there are indeed people who have left the Supplementary Reserve for this reason?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your question, Senator. Indeed, colleagues in the Canadian Armed Forces have told me that some people have decided not to join the Supplementary Reserve because they wanted to be part in the education and training program.
Senator Pratte: I imagine this will have an impact on the armed forces if these people aren’t there.
Ms. McIntyre: Exactly.
Senator Pratte: You said that it was difficult to get an accurate picture of the clientele, but have you estimated the costs of expanding this program?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your question. As I mentioned earlier, the program costs can’t be estimated at this time. When it was created about a year ago, this group was included in the budget estimates we were using. Therefore, we don’t expect any additional costs.
If so, these costs will be minimal and will be included in the existing Veterans Affairs Canada budget.
Senator Pratte: What is the total cost of the program itself?
Ms. McIntyre: I don’t have that information with me, but I could get back to you on that.
Senator Pratte: Yes, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Senator Dagenais: Are programs of interest to veterans available across Canada, or do some have to travel or relocate to access these training programs?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for the question. The program operates as follows for those who qualify: there is a formal list of accredited institutions at Employment and Social Development Canada and Service Canada. For formal programs, the college, institute, university or other organization must be on this formal list of accredited institutions.
People also have access to a short program. This is an amount of approximately $5,100 to which the individual is entitled, and which comes from the overall budget. In the shorter program, people can take training in project management, for example. The objective of this program is to help people find an area of interest that is different from the formal program. So this component is a little broader.
Senator Dagenais: We know that there are study programs currently available online. Would it be possible to offer these training programs in this way in order to allow several users to take distance training?
What is the field of study of the people who mainly benefit from these programs?
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you for your questions. With regard to distance learning, yes, it is possible. For example, I know that the Université du Québec à Montréal offers many distance learning programs. It is a university accredited by Employment and Social Development Canada and Service Canada. If people enrol in these programs, they have access to distance learning without any problems.
The fields of study are quite varied. We have seen almost everything that exists. I would say that the most popular program is the business administration program. However, there are people who want to study theology, others who want to study medicine, while others are doing a master’s degree because they already have a bachelor’s degree. So it’s quite varied.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. McIntyre, we thank you very much for joining us today, again. We appreciate the contribution you have made to our study of Bill C-97. Thank you very much.
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon.
The Chair: Senators, we will now move in camera for the purpose of giving drafting instructions to our analysts.
(The committee continued in camera.)