THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 24, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I wish to welcome all of the senators, as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest, Gulf division, Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good morning. Clément Gignac, Kennebec division, Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Good morning. Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator Smith: Good morning. Larry Smith, Montreal.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
Today, we will resume our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, which was referred to this committee on March 19, 2024, by the Senate of Canada.
Today, we are pleased to welcome senior officials from Correctional Service Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Public Safety Canada. Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear. I understand that one official from each department will make a presentation and the others will help answer questions.
We have three presenters today: Tony Matson, Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Correctional Service Canada; Bryan Larkin, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Security Officer, Public Safety Canada.
I give you the floor, starting with Mr. Matson.
[English]
Tony Matson, Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Correctional Service Canada: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be with you all today to speak to the Correctional Service of Canada’s Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
My name is Tony Matson, and I am the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer for the Correctional Service of Canada.
[Translation]
I am pleased to be joined here today by France Gratton, who is the Acting Senior Deputy Commissioner. This morning, I will provide a brief overview of the funding sought in the Main Estimates for 2024-25.
[English]
I will then be happy to answer questions from committee members about these figures.
The Main Estimates were tabled in Parliament on February 29, 2024. Contained within the Main Estimates was a request for total funding for the Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, amounting to $3.17 billion. Compared to the 2023-24 Main Estimates, this is an increase of 3.9% from the previous year.
The main factors contributing to the increases in funding levels include the following: $106.1 million related to compensation for the funded portion of collective agreement increases; $56.3 million to maintain and repair correctional facilities; $54.9 million to stabilize operations related to workplace injuries; $42 million to cover expenditures due to changes in offender population volumes and price fluctuations; $15.5 million for equipment and licences to maintain a hybrid workplace; and, $14.6 million to reduce suspension points in correctional facilities.
Chair and members of this committee, you will see that these investments are essential for the Correctional Service of Canada to continue the work required to uphold our important mandate.
Investments aimed at repairing correctional facilities and reducing suspension points are about making our institutions safer for those who live and work in them.
Funding pertaining to collective agreement increases and worker compensation are intended to support our employees, who often work in very complex and challenging situations.
[Translation]
And I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank all of our employees who work tirelessly each and every day to protect our institutions and our communities.
[English]
The other funding investments I highlighted, such as hybrid work and offender population, are in recognition that circumstances often change, and the CSC is required to adapt to them.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to speak further to these investments. Thank you.
[Translation]
Bryan Larkin, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. On behalf of Commissioner Mike Duheme, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the RCMP’s Main Estimates for the 2024-25 fiscal year. My name is Bryan Larkin, and I am joined by Samantha Hazen, the Chief Financial Officer for the RCMP.
The RCMP appeared before this committee last year, so I would like to take a few minutes to provide background on the RCMP and our financial structure, which will help situate the Main Estimates before you today.
[English]
The RCMP is Canada’s national police service. We are a complex organization that practises law enforcement at the community, provincial, territorial, federal and international levels. We also carry out significant international obligations across the world, from peacekeeping missions to building relationships with partners abroad, including specifically our Five Eyes partners in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
The RCMP’s workforce is made up of approximately 32,000 employees. Two thirds are sworn police officers, who serve not only in Canada but across the world; the other third is a collection of civilian professionals and public servants.
We provide frontline policing through 165 contractual agreements with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and we provide service delivery to more than 600 Indigenous communities across our great nation.
We are responsible for addressing increasingly serious and complex criminal threats to Canada in areas such as terrorism, violent extremism, drugs, serious organized crime, national security, protective policing and border integrity — to name a few.
[Translation]
We provide specialized operational policing services to our law enforcement partners, including advanced training, firearms licensing, and investigative and forensic services.
I would note that our work in 2024-25 will build on the significant progress already made to modernize policing services that respond to a constantly evolving threat landscape, and to transform the organization’s culture to strengthen trust and confidence.
[English]
The RCMP fulfills its mandate with the funding being sought through the Estimates and $2.1 billion voted net revenues, primarily from contract policing partners.
These Main Estimates represent an increase of $681.1 million, or 16.3% from the previous year, which I would like to explain.
The change in these Main Estimates is primarily related to incremental funding of $572.4 million to compensate members of the RCMP for injuries received in the performance of duty, and $18.9 million for RCMP members’ Occupational Health Services and Supplemental Health Care Benefits.
With that, I would like to recognize the 32,000 employers who keep our country safe. They are professionals with the greatest intent, albeit imperfect, but we strive to continue to do better work for our country’s safety.
Ms. Hazen and I look forward to the opportunity to continue our discussion, and we are pleased to take any questions. Thank you very much.
Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Security Officer, Public Safety Canada: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to join you today to share an overview of the 2024‑25 Main Estimates for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, also known simply as Public Safety.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that I come before you this morning on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
[Translation]
Public Safety Canada provides national leadership to ensure the safety and security of Canada and Canadians. Its mission is to build a safe and resilient Canada. The department contributes to our country’s resiliency through the development and implementation of innovative policies and programs and the concrete engagement of domestic and international partners.
The department plays a role in three areas for Canadians: community safety, emergency management and national security.
As has already been mentioned, my name is Patrick Amyot. I’m here as the Chief Financial Officer for the department.
This morning, a few colleagues are joining me to talk more about their respective areas.
Public Safety Canada’s Main Estimates reflect its mandate to make Canadian communities strong, safe and resilient.
[English]
The total Public Safety funding included in the 2024-25 Main Estimates is $1.6 billion. This represents a $1 billion decrease, or 39.4%, from the previous year.
The most significant item included in the Main Estimates is $550 million for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or DFAA, contribution program. This amount represents a $1.2 billion decrease from previous years in Vote 5, grants and contributions funding for the DFAA program.
I would like to take a moment to recognize that communities across Canada are experiencing extreme weather events and natural disasters more than ever before. Climate change is accelerating the frequency and severity of events like wildfires, flooding and winter storms, which continue to disrupt lives, cause damage to critical infrastructure and impact our supply chains.
This past July, 25,000 people were safely evacuated from Jasper. The largest wildfire of the century in that area burned through over 80,000 acres, and 358 of the 1,113 structures within the Jasper town site were damaged by the wildfire.
The longstanding DFAA program provides financial assistance to provincial and territorial governments when response and recovery costs from natural disasters exceed what they could be expected to bear on their own. Since the launch of the DFAA program in 1970, over $9 billion has been contributed to the provinces and territories, 66% of which was paid out in the last 10 years. The current DFAA liability is $5.2 billion for 72 past events. In other words, this is what is booked in the fiscal framework for future Public Safety Main Estimates. Now, the amount I just mentioned, $5.2 billion in liabilities, does not include the recent Jasper wildfire event.
The increase in the frequency and cost of natural disasters in recent years has led to the growing cost of the DFAA program. As a result, a program review was launched in March 2022 to ensure that an updated, sustainable system continues to be available to provinces and territories for disaster recovery.
[Translation]
The second most significant item included in Public Safety Canada’s Main Estimates is $343.5 million in funding for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, FNIPP. This program addresses the priority of providing police services that are professional, dedicated and responsive to these communities.
[English]
It is important to note that the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program supports the provision of policing services via tripartite agreements among the federal, provincial or territorial governments and First Nation or Inuit communities.
Honourable senators, with this brief overview, my colleagues and I look forward to discussing these estimates with committee members. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll begin the first round of questions with Senator Forest.
Senator Forest: Thank you for your presentations this morning. My first question is for Mr. Larkin. Recently and this year, we’ve heard a lot about the fight against car theft. Are you in a position to give a provisional report on the progress made?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. We’re still working with the Sûreté du Québec, the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal and the Ontario Provincial Police, since the problem of auto theft is mainly in Ontario, Quebec and the Port of Montreal. We work closely with those organizations.
[English]
We continue to closely engage with our municipal partners. As I alluded to, most of the function has been in the Toronto to Montréal corridor. We’ve seen a significant amount of work, including a 17% reduction over the last 12 months.
[Translation]
Operations are running smoothly, we’re working a lot with the City of Montreal [Technical difficulties].
[English]
Furthermore, the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, or CISC, continues to steward criminal threat assessments. As many of you know, recently we launched successful integrated data through the Canadian Police Information Centre, commonly known as CPIC, with Interpol, which has a stolen motor vehicle database that allows us to share stolen vehicle information across international borders. Since that time, we have seen a significant number of hits, which allows us to do significant work.
There are a few key projects, such as le project RECHERCHER, which is a partnership with Sûreté du Québec; Project Vector, which is with the Ontario Provincial Police, or OPP, via Quebec; and Project Emission, which is with the Ontario Provincial Police in areas within the Greater Toronto Area. We’ve seen significant progress. There is work to be done.
[Translation]
We’re doing a lot of work in Quebec and Ontario, and now in British Columbia; problems are being noted there.
[English]
Crime often moves as we do suppression, so we’re starting to see some shift into Western Canada. Now we’re focusing efforts in the West, as well as in Atlantic Canada, where we’re staring to see some problems and challenges in Nova Scotia. It’s a significant amount of work, including the launch of a five-day course for policing across the country at the Canadian Police College. To date, we have trained 24 Canadian police officers in enhanced vehicle theft investigation. Recently, in the city of Montréal, we hosted Interpol for a stolen motor vehicle five-day workshop, which brought together Canadian police leaders and investigators from across the country.
[Translation]
It’s not perfect, but it works. We’re doing a lot of work on it.
Senator Forest: Thank you. My second question concerns the RCMP, which provides contract policing services, as you mentioned, in eight provinces — except Ontario and Quebec, which have their own service — and in three territories, which have about 155 municipalities. All of this is done on a cost‑sharing basis, with 70% of the costs covered by the municipality and 30% by the federal government for municipalities with up to 15,000 inhabitants. From time to time, do you compare your service costs with municipal and provincial police services to see if you are competitive in this service offering?
Mr. Larkin: I’ll start, Mr. Chair, and if Ms. Hazen has any further information, she can continue. We look at the cost per person. Many communities have done work in the North.
[English]
With much of our work in Northern Canada, we provide policing to about 20% of the population but more than 70% of the country. The economics of policing for us is a little bit different in the sense that we have limited duration postings. We are providing policing in areas where large urbanized police services are not. Where we can bring support and economic efficiencies, the cost efficiency is in the ability to be coast to coast to coast.
When we look at economies of scale around air services, specialized policing and specialized equipment procurement, because we’re doing it on a national perspective, often we are able to find that cost per capita. We have seen that, for example, in the body-worn camera project, where we are bringing that across the country. Our ability to deliver the service economically is one that is significantly beneficial. It is very difficult to compare Montréal to La Ronge, Saskatchewan, or Fredericton, New Brunswick, to the Waterloo region in Ontario because of the urban and rural areas that we police. Ms. Hazen may have more information on the specifics of the economic cost.
Samantha Hazen, Chief Financial Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: The cost of policing provided by the RCMP is mainly driven by the labour force and the services that we provide through our front-line members. Our members are part of a collective agreement, and so the rates of pay are driven through that collective bargaining process. That also ensures we are providing service in alignment with other police agencies across Canada and across the world.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to all the witnesses. My first question is for Mr. Amyot, from Public Safety Canada. New transfer payments to the provinces are a major item in your budget requests this year. You are asking for $550 million for this fiscal year. Last year at this time, you requested $1.7 billion. If we go back two years, actual spending on contributions to the provinces as financial assistance totalled $2.4 billion. That’s a pretty big figure. You’ll tell me that $550 million is five times less than what we saw two years ago. Climate change, the severity and frequency of natural disasters, which seem to be on the rise…. Unless I’m mistaken, this must not include what happened in Jasper, since your request was made before the incidents there. Can you explain how you determine these amounts?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. It’s a very good question because it concerns accounting. I’ll give you a bit of background. When an event occurs, the provinces and territories assess the situation and determine how much it’s going to cost them. If it exceeds what they can reasonably spend, they can apply to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program. Currently, 72 events are receiving financial assistance, and there is $5.2 billion in contingent liabilities. That’s what’s in the fiscal framework — $5.2 billion — and the amount is increasing, as events are occurring more and more frequently.
The annual request for funds is what the provinces or territories plan to ask us for this year. Normally, when an event occurs, they have five years to receive the money they need. Most of the time, it’s towards the end that they will have accounted for all the amounts and will be able to claim the funds. This year, despite the fact that there is $5.2 billion in contingent liabilities, the provinces and territories have said they will claim $550 million. We’re depending on what they’re going to claim from us this year.
Senator Gignac: Can they change their minds during the year? Before the end of the fiscal year, can they say that it is actually $2 billion instead of $550 million? If so, will this have a $1.5 billion impact on the budget deficit? The $5.2 billion is a provision, a contingent account. What will appear in government spending this year will be $550 million.
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely.
Senator Gignac: Does this mean that the Minister of Finance may have a surprise in store?
Mr. Amyot: This is something that has happened in recent years. For the past 10 years or so, we’ve had controls in place, and we ask that the chief officer of each province certify that they’re going to claim this amount for the year. Does that mean they can’t change their minds? They can.
Senator Gignac: I have one last question, and then I will give my colleagues a chance. Right now, we are talking about the provinces. But when it comes to flooding, it’s the municipalities and towns that are affected. It’s not the provincial government. They are the first to be hit, because citizens go to see their municipality. There is infrastructure work to be done and other things to organize. How can we be sure that the money will actually go to the municipalities and towns? How exactly does that work?
Mr. Amyot: Very good question. I will ask my colleague Mr. May to give you an answer on the policy.
[English]
Douglas May, A/Director General, Programs, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much. With respect to our disaster financial arrangements, these are arrangements with the provinces and territories, as they are the first line in terms of response and recovery. They develop their own programs, be it responses and recovery to natural events, be they wildfires and flooding, as you have mentioned.
The arrangements, we actually work closely with the provinces in order to ensure that they have the correct estimates, et cetera, to provide those funds that are necessary for response and recovery to those municipalities. We within Public Safety Canada and this program, do not work directly with municipalities, but certainly we are there to answer questions with respect to eligibility, but our funding goes to the province.
Senator Smith: Mr. Amyot, if I could stay with you for a question. A core function of your department is emergency preparedness. One of your performance indicators tracks the percentage of Canadians who have taken measures to respond to risks facing their households. Your target is greater than 50%. Your most recent result was 29%.
First, could you explain how you measure this performance indicator, and, also, what is being done to increase the number of Canadian households that take measures to mitigate risk?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I will ask my colleague Doug May to respond to that question.
Mr. May: Senator, while I do not have the specifics with respect to how that indicator is measured at this time, what I can do is provide you with what we are doing with respect to helping households mitigate against future events.
With respect to our DFAA program and what it offers provinces and territories, and incentives with respect to mitigation and “build back better” with respect to future events, we have also invested $15.3 million to create publicly accessible online portals where Canadians can access information on their exposure to flooding, as well as resources and suggestions as to how best to protect their homes and communities.
Further to that, we are creating a low-cost flood insurance program aimed at protecting households at high risk of flooding, that don’t have access to adequate insurance at this time. We are also doing an expansion of our flood hazard mapping programs to help Canadians and planners identify those areas where flooding is most vulnerable.
Senator Smith: Where are these programs now? Are they implemented, or are they going to be implemented?
Mr. May: With respect to the online portal, I believe it will soon be operational. The same with the flood insurance. With respect to mapping, this is more under the bailiwick of Natural Resources Canada. I apologize, I can’t speak to the status of that particular element.
Senator Smith: In these estimates, your department is requesting $1.2 million for payments to the provinces, territories, and public and private bodies in support of activities complementary to those of your department. Could you explain where this funding is going and what sort of activities are supported? Is it related at all to increasing engagement with Canadian households on emergency preparedness?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. Yes, we have contribution programs that go directly to the provinces and territories. The first one we talked about is $550 million for the DFAA. We have other programs that we can elaborate on, but the Guns and Gang Violence program is directed to provinces and territories to help them develop programs to reduce and manage guns and gangs within the province.
There is $86 million for the Building Safer Communities, which is basically a similar program but destined to municipalities within the provinces.
There are a number of other programs that we are providing that the recipients are provinces and territories.
Senator Smith: If you have a top three, what are your top three programs? You have so many programs. What do you prioritize?
Mr. Amyot: Every program has a different objective. The first one is, again, the DFAA, $550 million. There is, as I said, Guns and Gang Violence program, which is $80 million. The Building Safer Communities Fund, or BSCF, for municipalities is at $80 million. Then — not going directly to provinces and territories but to communities — $343 million is going to the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, or FNIPP.
Senator Smith: Do you have a review process so that you can track exactly at which point each of these programs is in order to determine the success of the program? How do you do that?
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely. We look at the financial situation regularly during the year. We have a committee within our organization to determine where money is spent on our grants and contributions, and if there are any opportunities to increase somewhere else, discussions happen.
To answer your question, the results would be included in our Departmental Results Report, which will be tabled very soon.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you very much to all the representatives of the organizations who are here today.
My question is for the Department of Public Safety. You said earlier that $550 million will be claimed this year by the provinces, based on their assessment. You say that they have an obligation to claim the funds within five years.
You talked about $5.2 billion, which you counted as potential claims, meaning there would still be $4.5 billion to come, or $7 million to get to $5.2 billion. Do some provinces ultimately lose their right to claim the funds within five years, or can it last seven years when there are justifications?
Mr. Amyot: When I said five years, that’s what’s normal. There are certain events where the provinces have had difficulty accounting for everything within the five-year period, and we have extended the deadline. I don’t know if my colleague has anything else to add on the subject?
[English]
Mr. May: You’re correct. Five years is the normal period, but provinces often request an extension, based on capacities with respect to putting their audited claim together. There is flexibility within the program for provinces to request extensions on their final claims. Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: So, there is a possibility that claims will arrive at some point. Will the government have to pay certain amounts that may go back six or seven years?
Mr. Amyot: That’s why we have a contingent liability in the tax framework that determines $5.2 billion for future years.
For future years, it’s not clear when we will be obliged to dispense these funds.
Senator Dalphond: There are several programs with similar titles. I would like some explanations. We have a Building Safer Communities Fund, BSCF, and a Pathways to Safe Indigenous Communities Fund, which seem similar at first glance.
There is an Aboriginal Community Safety Development Contribution Program. Each of these programs consists of tens of millions of dollars. What are the distinctions?
Mr. Amyot: We have different programs. There are prevention programs where we help municipalities and organizations develop crime prevention initiatives for children, First Nations, people at risk of joining gangs, and so on.
We also have programs to fight serious crime. We have the Expanded Security Infrastructure Program, ESIP. We have programs concerning the sexual exploitation of children.
Senator Dalphond: Why do we have three separate programs? Is it because we are targeting different groups or different police forces?
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely. I’ll ask my colleague in charge of the community policies program to come forward. We have a number of overlapping programs, you’re right, but they all have different objectives.
[English]
Craig Oldham, Director General, Program Development and Intergovernmental Affairs, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, senator. The programs are designed to address different issues and different communities. I know that it can be confusing with the number of programs that are in place. For example, the Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence, or ITAAGGV, program is an amount of money which is designed to go directly to municipalities and to communities, whereas the Building Safer Community Fund, which also has the objective of addressing gun and gang violence, goes directly to the provinces. So they have different target audiences with different objectives.
The same thing happens with our Indigenous crime prevention programs. For example, our Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative, or ICCI, costs $12.7 million annually, and it’s designed to help with the reintegration of offenders into their own communities. Additionally, we also have the Aboriginal Community Safety Planning Initiative, which is about how we address community safety itself.
So there are a multitude of programs with different objectives aimed at different audiences.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for the RCMP. Good morning and welcome to our committee. We all know, appreciate and admire the work of the RCMP in keeping Canadians safe. Beyond being active on the ground and protecting our communities, you also do important work in preventing, detecting and investigating national security, cybercrime and transnational and serious organized crime, including financial crime.
As I perused your departmental plan in preparation for today’s meeting, I came across one of your performance indicators under the federal policing heading that caught my attention. The indicator is the percentage of policing partners and stakeholders who agree that the RCMP is effectively responding to the various crimes I just referred to, and your target is 75%. The results are on a downward trend, going from 62% to 59%, and now to 57%, in the last reported year. Who are these relevant policing partners and stakeholders? Are they both domestic and international? There are a number of international criminal organizations at this point operating in Canada — I think it’s close to 100. I was told that number, but I didn’t verify the source; maybe you can confirm that. What measures are being taken to address this trend? How are you measuring the level of satisfaction from your partners and meeting these challenges?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question about financial crime, which continues to be a complex transnational problem comprised of challenging pieces. As we live in a borderless society, that’s one of the challenges we’re facing with financial crime when we look at the impact of technology and digital transition of crime. Some of our challenges regarding addressing financial crime in our country in a federal policing perspective has been the diversion of resources. Over the past 24 to 36 months, a number of resources have been diverted due to the impact of national security, especially most recently — within the last several months — with some significant high-profile investigations into national security.
When we look at federal resources across the country, a large portion of those are centred out of our national headquarters in the Ottawa area, but we have federal policing landscapes in every province, around the country and across the world, touching approximately 73 countries. In particular, the domestic partners are provincial and municipal police services, so we continue to have a series of ongoing pieces. We no longer have integrated financial crime teams, although we work significantly in partnership with our provincial and municipal partners, because much of the work is across the country, particularly in large urban centres where we work with 20 large police services across the country, including significant work with La Sûreté du Québec and Ontario Provincial Police. One of Commissioner Duheme’s focuses is on how we realign resources to deal with ongoing transnational crime, because we’re seeing the erosion of barriers. People used to focus on serious organized crime, and now it’s actually blending into all areas. We see those who would perpetrate harm on communities and focus on drug trafficking are now into human trafficking, the laundering of money, and national security and/or criminally violent extremist activity. We’re seeing a blending of all of those challenges, and that requires us to be much more agile.
As we see the decline in this, partially a large portion has been the diversion of resources and the amount of effort it takes for national security investigations. We have some significant work happening across the country in relation to a specific foreign interference, which includes not only electoral interference but also targeting Canadians in our country based on other foreign entities.
With the amount of resources we have, we have to be agile, and we have to actually allocate and triage them through priority investigations. Hence, we’re seeing a decline on the financial side, which is a focus of internal discussion as well as dialogue with Public Safety on how to address this.
Senator Loffreda: Do you see getting closer to that 75% target eventually? I have a question for the second round, but maybe you can elaborate on your target. Is the downward trend we have seen a concern?
Mr. Larkin: The downward trend is a concern because, obviously, the money that is derived through financial crime is often used to fund other nefarious activities in our country and abroad. Absolutely it is a concern. When you see downward trends or non-success in meeting targets, that has to be a focus of our organization because, as I alluded to, we have serious organized crime. You mentioned there are about 100 serious organized crime groups operating within our country, which ties across international boundaries. We have to remain focused on that because the money they actually render from that activity is financing other activities within our country and abroad. That’s something we need to be focused on.
As I alluded to, it is one of the priorities for Commissioner Duheme and Deputy Commissioner Flynn, who oversee our federal policing initiatives. Again, some of it is capacity and our ability to meet the demands of a complex, evolving threat to our country.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: Thank you all for being here. I have questions for everyone, but I would like to have this round with Correctional Service Canada. I believe that’s Mr. Matson.
Mr. Matson: Yes.
Senator Kingston: I’m looking at your assessments for health needs when someone comes into a federal institution. Unfortunately, people with serious mental health challenges often find themselves on the wrong side of the law, and sometimes it leads them to a federal institution.
You seem to be providing more services now than you were in the past to people with mental health challenges. I’m just wondering, what percentage of people whom you assess for health needs in general have mental health needs that are identified at that time?
Mr. Matson: Thank you for that question. In terms of the specifics on the percentages, I don’t have those in front of me, but we can certainly get them to you. I can say we’ve invested resources in the past number of years focusing on the assessment of mental health, to help improve the quality of care that we’re able to provide for inmates. Investments have been made, and I think we’re showing positive results, but I’ll get you those specific percentages.
Senator Kingston: That would be great. Thank you.
According to your departmental plan, you have an increased number of people who are receiving mental health services. I’m just wondering, when people are planning for release, I worked in a situation where I saw people coming out of the correctional system, both at the federal and provincial levels, who don’t seem to have a plan in place in order to successfully reintegrate into the community, which is an issue for everyone, of course. We don’t want people reoffending, and sometimes they seem to be set up to do exactly that.
I’d just like to know, with the progress that you’ve made with improved mental health services within your institutions, how are you planning to — and I refer to another part of your plan where it says the percentage of offenders with a completed review of their health care needs prior to release is actually lower than the other percentages that you report on providing services. Could you just comment on that, please?
Mr. Matson: A complete assessment of all of our offenders is a key priority for us because it helps both with their time in our institutions, their rehabilitation, and then ultimately their reintegration into the community, so it’s of prime importance.
In terms of the number of assessments that have been done, I’m not familiar with those statistics. Ms. Gratton, I don’t know if you’re familiar with those.
France Gratton, A/Senior Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada: Those numbers, no.
Mr. Matson: We can get back to you with those numbers specifically and perhaps why. I can assure you that assessment of offenders when we receive them, during their time with us and before they get reintegrated into the community is of prime importance. It’s all about successful reintegration, but we can get back to you on that.
Senator Kingston: If I could have those numbers. I’d like to turn to the RCMP and Mr. Larkin.
When I was reading your departmental plan again, I was looking at contract policing, particularly because that’s important in my province. I was a little bit concerned that when you talk about key risks, you give two examples that are within 200 kilometres of where I live. You speak about the renewal and modernization of the RCMP’s mission critical front-line policing services in the wake of a number of incidents where shortcomings have been identified after the fact — for example, in the 2014 Moncton shootings and the 2020 Nova Scotia mass casualty incident.
I am looking at how mental health plays into some of this because in both of those cases, I think the perpetrators — in my estimation, at least — had severe mental health challenges leading up to the tragedies. I’d just like you to comment on where you’re going with community policing and how you’re planning to improve some of those services, particularly in the wake of these tragedies that affect rural Canada, if you will.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you very much, Senator Kingston, for the question. Contract Indigenous policing is a large part of our organization. It’s one of our largest pillars, with a large number of deployments. As you alluded to, New Brunswick is one of our larger deployments in the country.
When you look at the impact of the calls for service, annually we respond to about 3 million calls for service across our country, and in those particular cases, a large portion of them, when you actually look at the data and see the numbers, many of them are addressing social disorder, not necessarily criminal challenges.
Across the country, we’re working closely with our Public Safety partners and with our provincial partners on models to actually better respond. What you’re starting to see in many provinces is intervention, and it’s much more difficult in rural Canada, including rural New Brunswick, because of service levels and accessibility.
When we are launching crisis intervention teams, where a police officer is paired and partnered with a mental health expert, the response is much more responsive and much more culturally competent as well as sensitive to the needs of the individuals whom we come in contact with. We continue to work around that process.
We’re also looking at other service delivery models as to whether the best response is a police officer. In some of our contract communities, for example, a crisis intervention or mental health worker is being embedded in the communications centre, so the call for service is triaged. We’re very much promoting 9-9-8, which is a public health and public safety partnership across the country that provides Canadians an alternative. In many communities, often the only alternative is 9-1-1, and in some of our communities that don’t have 9-1-1, it’s a call to the local RCMP detachment or local police service.
I can tell you that our commissioner is actually bringing police leaders together nationally in January 2025 to have a larger discussion on how we can enhance and improve. We’re looking at various models from across the world because our goal is to actually provide better service for those who are in need and don’t necessarily need policing services; what they need is health services.
Senator Ross: I have a question for Mr. Amyot. Part of the Public Safety departmental plan is talking about continuing to steer Bill C-26 through the legislative process. It’s now at second reading in the Senate.
What kinds of resources are you dedicating to steering this through? What does that look like?
Mr. Amyot: I will ask a colleague to help me out on this one here, but in terms of steering our mandate is policy development and developmental programs. We have a team on this one here. It’s probably a very small team on policy. Thank you.
Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Assistant Deputy Minister, National Security and Cyber Security, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question. We’re leveraging existing resources within the Cyber Security unit. We have about four or five people working on this, supporting the whole process, so it’s quite a small team.
Senator Ross: I have another question for Public Safety. As my colleagues, I’m interested in the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program. Being from New Brunswick, what kinds of payments have been made in New Brunswick, and for what types of disasters at this point?
Mr. Amyot: That is a question for my colleague Doug May, who has a list of everything.
Mr. May: Right now in New Brunswick, there are 13 active DFAA events. Those are events where we have yet to pay out based on a final claim payment. Predominantly, these are flooding events that date back over five years. The most recent, I believe, was in 2021.
Senator Ross: How does it work for claims that would be cross-border, if it were a claim that would impact, let’s say, both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? For example, we’ve heard a lot about the Chignecto Isthmus. If there were a flood, how would a claim of this kind be handled?
Mr. May: There’s a threshold to seek federal support under the DFAA. If there was one event that crossed multiple provinces — I’ll use Hurricane Dorian — or Hurricane Fiona most recently in the Atlantic, each of those provinces submitted a claim under the DFAA because that one event met the threshold for federal assistance under the program. Even though it may have been cross border, each province would submit a claim.
Senator Ross: They would submit their own claim. Thank you.
I also have a question for the RCMP. You mentioned an $18.9 million increase in funds related to health programs. Could you provide a sense of what those programs are, the nature of the increase and what is included in that?
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question. The RCMP provides health benefits, and supplementary occupational health to our members directly, similar to how it is done by Treasury Board Secretariat for public servants. These cover things such as Worker’s Compensation and health and dental benefits. More specifically, there are four components associated with these benefits: Occupational health care, which is administered by our department and provided to members on a case-by-case basis, to minimize limitations and restrictions that impact their fitness to duty.
The second and largest part is the supplementary health and dental care. That is administered by Blue Cross on behalf of the RCMP.
There is also a third, the disability pensioners’ health treatment benefits, for members who are in receipt of a disability pension.
The last component is basic health and dental benefits. This is only in instances where members are not covered by their own provincial or territorial plans due to international postings.
Senator Ross: Could you give me some sense of whether there’s any preventative programming being done to lower the cost of those types of claims and programs?
Ms. Hazen: Yes, for sure there are. Within our human resources branch, we have a wellness program. The program also extends into each of the divisions across the country. A fair bit of resources is invested internally in order to prevent, as you mentioned, situations whereby our members would be in need, particularly in health and wellness types of benefits.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Pate: I have a question for each of you, but I will start with you, Mr. Matson.
As you know, I’ve been interested in how the funding has been spent that was allocated at the time that Bill C-83 passed to contract external mental health beds within the provinces and territories.
In February of this year, Marie Doyle, when she was appearing before the Senate Human Rights Committee, indicated:
Since 2019, we’ve had the opportunity of an additional $74 million annually to support strength and care, including mental health care.
She went on to say, “Part of the $74 million allowed us to connect with external psychiatric supports and services, approximately $9.2 million.”
We’ve since heard that, in fact, the money did not result in any new contracts but resulted in the renegotiation or renewal of existing contracts. We’ve also heard from the Pinel institute that the number of beds has not been increased, even though some years back there was an approach to contract additional beds.
Could you please clarify how this $9.2 million annually has been spent? If not on access to new external mental health beds, then what has it been spent on? Also, which provinces and territories have CSC contacted for purposes of contracting external beds, and what has the responses been?
Also, with whom is CSC negotiating regarding the Warren order? You’re, no doubt, aware that earlier this year, Justice Pomerance ordered that Mr. Warren be sentenced not to a federal penitentiary but to a provincial mental health bed. My understanding is he’s being housed, at this point, in the structured intervention unit in Millhaven. I know CSC has appealed that decision, but what’s the plan going forward if that appeal is not successful?
Shall I ask all of my questions? I suspect we will have to get this in writing.
The Chair: Usually there is one question, but I know you have many questions. Maybe we could take the time to answer a couple.
Mr. Matson: I’ll start at the beginning, and I will have to get back to you on some of these details, but in terms of mental health, we have been allocating additional resources to our mental health programs overall. The $9.2, I will get back to you on if that did, indeed, provide more mental health bed capacity. I’ll follow up on that.
With respect to the gentleman you referred to under the Warren order in Millhaven, I don’t know, Ms. Frazen, if you’re familiar with that case? We’ll have to get back to you on that as well, if that’s okay.
Senator Pate: That would be great. And the provisions as to which provinces and territories and what their responses have been, this would be useful.
Mr. Matson: Absolutely.
Senator Pate: Thank you. For the RCMP, you’ve indicated that you’re working on additional resources to address some of the issues with Indigenous people. In particular, I’m interested in what progress has been with respect to the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry. As you, no doubt, are aware, although Indigenous women and girls represent about 5% of the population, they now represent 50% of those who are incarcerated, and the numbers of missing and murdered continues to be an issue.
The strategic plan indicates progress on your target with respect to addressing missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls is not available. I’m interested in when it will be available, why it’s not available, and what we can expect to see in terms of progress.
Similarly, I’m interested in progress on the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia, and if you can elaborate on that in the time we have left, or if you need to do it in writing.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Senator Pate. First on the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, for a complete progress, I know that it’s not in our federal plan. I will commit in writing to have our Indigenous policing unit get back to you on the progress of all the various recommendations. I can say that we’ve enhanced our resources within the national Indigenous policing unit, so we’ve added a layer of leadership to bring more structure.
The commissioner has actually mandated that every province now has an Indigenous Advisory Committee to the commanding officer to ensure that progress around those recommendations are advancing. Because many of them are specific to geographical locations as well, a one-sized approach doesn’t fit all. We need to look at this from a culturally competent perspective with respect to the more than 600 Indigenous communities that we support and provide policing services to.
We have also launched a National Office of Investigative Standards and Practices that will provide expertise and oversight to those investigations, which will also allow, for example, a province to request an independent review of those investigations.
I am aware that we have updated a series of policies and procedures that relate to missing person investigations, which is designed to improve the quality and enhancement of those investigations. We have strength and cultural awareness training across the organization, including at Depot, and we have a significant Indigenous educational process there. There are a number of pieces, but specifically with the targets, we will get back to you in writing.
This year, we’re celebrating our thirtieth anniversary of Indigenous cadet training, which is a significant milestone. I can tell you also from a recruitment perspective, which is tied to this so that we can provide culturally responsive policing services, we’re currently sitting at 8% of our regular members who are Indigenous across the organization. That is through self‑identification.
Where we see some really exciting movement is in recruiting. In the year from 2023 to 2024, there was a 54.5% increase in Indigenous applicants. We’re doing significant work because that will obviously enhance our investigations.
Very quickly, moving to the Mass Casualty Commission, last week we launched our progress. You can go to the RCMP website, and you will see our progress on all of the Mass Casualty Commission recommendations and the work that is ongoing. That’s in partnership with Public Safety and the Progress Monitoring Committee. To assist you with that, because a lot of work has been done, we will respond to you in writing as well as provide a link to the public reporting. We are very much committed to the transparency around those recommendations, and you will see significant progress in the vast number of recommendations that the RCMP is responsible for.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a question for the three presenters. I looked at the budgets, but over a longer period, from 2021‑2022. There are increases in your three departments. If we look from 2021-2022 onwards, there are substantial increases.
At the RCMP, the budget is going from $3.4 billion to $4.8 billion this year. At Public Safety Canada, the increase is from $1 billion to $1.6 billion. There was a peak of around $2 billion, which you explained, but despite this drop, the budget still at $1.6 billion compared with $1 billion in 2021-2022. At Correctional Service Canada, the increase is from $2.7 billion to $3.2 billion, or more than 25%.
We’re talking about increases of approximately 40% for the RCMP, 50% for Public Safety Canada and 25% for Correctional Service Canada. Aside from the change of minister, I can’t think of anything else that explains this. If you gave these figures to a comedian, he’d say that your budget is increasing faster than the crime rate, but that it’s still pretty close. What explains these increases in your respective departments? Is it a change in philosophy? It’s quite striking to see increases of this nature in your three departments, particularly since 2021-2022.
Mr. Amyot: With regard to the budget for the Department of Public Safety, you are right, it has increased. I explained at the beginning that, in terms of Vote 5 — grants and contributions — there is a lot of fluctuation with the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program. From one year to the next, it can increase from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. There have been a few programs where there has been more money….
The Chair: Before, it was stable. It was still in the same order of magnitude, then all three increased.
Mr. Amyot: A few new programs have been created. First, since 2021, there has been an increase in contributions to the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. Each year, there is a 2.75% increase to cover salary increases. That’s concerning Vote 5; we have had a few new programs.
As for Vote 1, in terms of our operations, things have been relatively stable since 2021. We had to hire people to work on a major project called the Firearms Buyback Program. So there has been an increase in staff numbers. In 2021, we had about 1,300 employees at Public Safety Canada; now we’re up to about 1,500, depending on the day. Our budget has risen from around $200 million to $229 million in recent years. Yes, there has been an increase, but in terms of our operations, it’s a gradual increase, not an exponential one. It’s really our grants and contributions that fluctuate and explain this difference for Public Safety Canada alone.
The Chair: And the RCMP?
[English]
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question. For the RCMP, there are two specific events that I can think of that could explain the variation that you mentioned to the committee. Within the Main Estimates themselves, you can see one of them.
In our expenditures from fiscal year 2022-23, we incurred an extraordinary event. We had to book a $1.1 billion expenditure as a pension adjustment. Every three years, there is a pension actuarial report that is prepared for the RCMP with regard to our pension plan. It is completed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, OSFI. In fiscal year 2022-23, the amount that was recorded was $1.2 billion. That’s part of the explanation for the increase.
The second event that I can think of that happened in previous years was the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement with our members. That happened two fiscal years ago. As a result, there was a significant amount of retroactive compensation that needed to be paid out to members. That increased the salary expenditures in that given fiscal year.
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question. I’ve made a quick list of some items that account for the increases, which are significant, absolutely. Primarily, collective bargaining accounts for a large part of our increases. Inflation has gone up incredibly over the last number of years, and we receive funding through a funding formula for inflation for maintenance of offenders in the institutions.
Litigation has gone up in the last number of years. We’re talking about administrative segregation dealing with infrastructure changes related to that.
Workers’ compensation costs have gone up. Dealing with suspension points in institutions accounts for part of the increase. We did receive funding in Budget 2022, I believe, for infrastructure renewal. Our facilities are way behind on their maintenance schedules — I will put it like that. In order to reduce maintenance costs, we have to invest in bringing our institutions up to a basic standard. We received funding for infrastructure renewal.
Those would be, off the top of my head, the primary reasons for the increase, but I would say they are all absolutely required and justified. I would even go further and say we still need more, but those are the things I can think of.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: My first question is for Public Safety Canada and it concerns the firearms buyback program. The licence buyback program is highly controversial. Even PolySeSouvient issued a statement in early September denouncing the program as a waste of public funds. This may lead to a situation where the government will buy back AR-15s, and the sellers will then be able to turn around and purchase military-style weapons still freely sold in the country. I understand that this is a political issue. However, do you have any authority to recommend a ban on other military-style weapons designed to circumvent the legislation?
Mr. Amyot: I’ll turn to my colleague, Greg Kenney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Firearms Program. He can answer your question.
Greg Kenney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Firearms Program, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, the issue directly concerns the government’s decision on the number of firearms banned in May 2020.
[English]
Unfortunately, I can’t speak to that. I can speak to the program itself and the scope of firearms that have been included in the program that reflects the order-in-council in May 2020 and the eligibility of what are now a little over 2,070 different makes and models of firearms, including the AR-15 which has been mentioned.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Regarding the Correctional Service of Canada, the correctional investigator has repeatedly highlighted the overrepresentation of Indigenous people. The system seems to perpetuate the conditions of disadvantage and discrimination for Indigenous communities. Can you talk about your organization’s difficulties and challenges when it comes to managing Indigenous inmates?
Ms. Gratton: Thank you for the question. I’ll focus on the range of initiatives in place to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in institutions. We’re talking about intake, the intake assessment, services for elders and the services of Indigenous liaison officers who work directly with the offenders. We also have initiatives that provide the opportunity to follow a cultural path. The official name is Pathways. There are Pathways programs and then healing centres. Indeed, a range of initiatives support Indigenous offenders and facilitate their return to the community, in order to lower the number of Indigenous offenders in institutions.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: I’ll continue my conversation with Mr. Amyot. I want to discuss the $5.2 billion. How did you calculate that? The Canadian Climate Institute estimated in 2022 that the annual cost of climate change over the next five years would amount to $25 billion. Obviously, we aren’t talking strictly about the federal government, but also about insurance companies. I have two questions. First, did you come up with the $5.2 billion just by talking to the provinces, or did you consult other independent experts? Shouldn’t conditions then be imposed at some point? Does the federal government pay, or do we consult the provinces to understand the municipal budgets for adapting to climate change? Otherwise, you’ll be paying continuously, and then suddenly the $5 billion will become $25 billion. I want to get a feel for the situation and to find out whether any consultations and coordination are taking place with organizations other than just the provinces.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. You’re right. The $5.2 billion doesn’t include all the other payments. It’s the federal contribution to help the provinces pay for disaster management. It doesn’t cover reconstruction. As explained by my colleague, Mr. May, the province is responsible up to a certain point and then the federal government takes over. I’ll ask my colleague to elaborate on the policy aspects.
[English]
Mr. May: Yes. Thank you very much. As you mentioned, climate change is accelerating the frequency and severity of events like wildfires, flooding and winter storms, which continue to disrupt lives and cause damages to critical infrastructure and to impact supply chains. In the event of these large-scale natural disasters, the DFAA is the main instrument for the Government of Canada to provide financial assistance to provincial and territorial programs.
A review of the DFAA program was launched back in 2022, and this has been completed. It was to ensure that an updated and sustainable source of support continues to be available for provinces and territories. Part of that review was an external advisory panel which was tasked to review and make recommendations on how to improve the sustainability and long‑term viability of the program. It was an eight-member panel that released their report in 2023. In addition to this report, the Government of Canada’s approach to modernizing the DFAA included extensive engagements with provinces and territories on how to effectively achieve the program’s objectives.
We hope to be launching this new DFAA program soon. It’s set to launch in April 2025. Again, it’s designed to better target federal funding to building resilience and reducing risk in recognition of the increasing cost impacts of climate-related disasters in Canada.
This will include some elements associated with expanding mental health supports, expanding and ensuring deliverable mechanisms and streamlining administration of the program, so that payments can go to the provinces and territories in a much more timely fashion.
I also want to speak to some other elements and what Canada is doing to reduce the impact of extreme weather events in Canadian communities. In addition to modernizing the DFAA, and as mentioned earlier, we are investing an additional $15.3 million to create a publicly accessible online portal where Canadians can access information on their exposure to flooding as well as resources and suggestions on how to protect their homes and communities best, as well as creating a low-cost insurance program aimed at protecting households at high risk of flooding which are currently without adequate insurance.
These are a couple of the measures that we are currently putting in place to help mitigate against these future costs of what we see as increasing disaster events.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Smith: Mr. Matson, could I ask you another question? One of the key risks identified in your departmental plan is the CSC’s ability to implement its mandate as well as ensure financial sustainability and modernization of the organization. Having said that, you are seeking $263 million in capital expenditure authorities in these estimates. Question: Can you talk a little bit about why this is a key risk to your operations currently? What will your organization do to mitigate it?
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question. Absolutely, infrastructure for our organization is fundamental to providing facilities for the number of inmates whom we have to maintain on a day-to-day basis. The $263 million represents funding that is required basically to maintain our current infrastructure of over 40 institutions. It talks to building new facilities as required, as parts of the institutions get too old to be useable. We spend money on our IT infrastructure. Information technology is becoming a much more important part of our delivery mechanism of services to our clients.
The infrastructure that we do get every year, I would say, is enough to barely keep us to the level of operational sustainability in some places. It’s something that we do to get the best use out of every dollar. We have a very rigorous, multi-year planning process. We set priorities by institution, where investments need to be made to have the best impact. We use this funding very frugally. I would say that, to date, we have been relatively successful, but I have concerns about the future.
I do note that we’re having problems with parts of our organization. Some facilities are just wearing out. Some of them are very old, over 100 years old. At the end of the day, those things break down. The money we have right now is enough to keep us going at a current level, which I would say is not adequate, in my opinion, but I hope that answers your question. For the $263 million a year, if you look at other standards for infrastructure renewal, the amount we spend does not allow us to do required building maintenance and recapitalization.
Senator Smith: You talked a little bit about the challenges that the correctional facilities are facing in terms of population and population growth. Is there an upward trend in prison populations across the country, and do you have a breakdown by region? What’s causing this?
Mr. Matson: That’s a very complex question, and I can say that the population is increasing. We are up to some 23,000 inmates that we manage on an annual basis. It is causing pressure on our infrastructure, for one thing, but also, in terms of our day‑to‑day operations, it causes management issues with respect to the population. The populations are also changing. That adds additional complexities to day-to-day routines.
Senator Smith: Did you mention that you have 40 institutions?
Mr. Matson: The numbers are going up, and it varies by population, security levels and the category. Ms. Gratton, do you have more details?
Ms. Gratton: I can speak to the issue of population management. We have different levels of security for institutions: maximum, medium and minimum. There are approximately 13,800 inmates incarcerated, for a total of 22 offenders, including the community. When looking at the population management, we can use different tools. It is either transfers or reviewing of security classification. But we also have to take into consideration whether there are any security threat group affiliations. Sometimes we have to manage inmate populations in smaller groups. Those are different measures that we are taking to manage our population.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for the RCMP again. One thing I appreciated from reviewing your departmental plan, but that left me uneasy, is the list of key risks you have enumerated. It is great that the RCMP has identified several risks, challenges and opportunities to address in the upcoming years, but it is a bit concerning when you review it. It says that there is a:
Risk that the RCMP may not have the technology to sufficiently combat the changing nature of crime.
Risk that a lack of clear, timely and reliable intelligence and information sharing across jurisdictions will impede the RCMP’s ability to effectively investigate crime and take appropriate actions.
Other risks address issues related to resource constraints, legal, jurisdictional and diplomatic complexities, retention and recruitment of national security personal — this is also a challenge. In your assessment, what is the biggest risk or challenge facing the RCMP at this time, and if resources can help, where and how would you invest them?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. It is an excellent question with many different layers. You heard from my colleague, Mr. Matson, who indicated that even within their framework, technology is a significant area of concern for us. We look at digital policing, cybercrime and how technology touches everything. When you look at how Canadians are living their lives, technology is a part of every single aspect. It significantly affects the investigation of crime, and the way we access technology. You can see this by looking at the recent Supreme Court decision of R. v. Bykovets, which imposed significant restrictions on accessing IP addresses and open‑source data and how we need to be agile.
We are working in partnership with the CFO on a large technology implementation plan; we are looking at all the different structures. We have internal technology that ensures the infrastructure of our organization, records management systems, computer-aided dispatch, et cetera.
In the new year, through the criminal intelligence service of Canada, we are launching a new criminal intelligence database that will bring all 194 police services together, and all 36 Indigenous self-administered police services into a centralized piece, partnering with the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. That will be a replacement of a current database. We are also launching a significant internal intelligence technology, which is ongoing.
We are investing in those processes, but the reality is that technology is changing at a faster pace than we can maintain or finance. Those are the realities that we are facing. That’s a key piece. How we share information with other police services, how we share information with our diplomatic partners, when we look at the nature of information that we come into, there is a clear need to work with all police services to enhance our ability to share potentially top secret and enhanced information.
Some of those processes don’t currently exist. We are slightly constrained by some of those pieces. I want to talk about resourcing and retention. One of the positives that we’re seeing is a massive investment in our recruiting processes across the country. As I alluded to earlier, we are seeing 82% increase in individuals who want to join the RCMP. We currently have 8,200 active ongoing applications into our organization. We’ve been able to advance full troop loading at Depot. From a federal policing perspective, we are looking at direct entry and a different style of training for federal policing, which is around those key mandates of national security, protective policing and serious organized crime.
In the past 12 months, we have recruited and onboarded 187 experienced police officers from other police services. A large number of them are already working in joint tasks forces that transition into our organization. We are addressing those risks we have identified. Your particular question about where we need to invest resources would be on the federal policing mandate. The reality is that with regard to national security, protective policing, border integrity and serious organized crime, the actual growth in crime severity is increasing. The complexity of that nature is increasing. One of the challenges is that we are divesting and diverting resources from other areas of federal policing, which is leaving gaps in other areas, particularly with regard to organized crime, cybercrime, cybersecurity and investing resources in protective policing. When we look at our governors who are experiencing increasing risk and threat to their safety, there has been a significant impact.
We are focused on investment, alignment and how we “fence fund” and ring-fence the funding of federal policing. For the most part, our provinces and territories are investing in provincial and municipal policing. We are seeing growth in those areas, but not in federal and specialized policing. Those are two unique mandates, which provide support not only to internal contract and Indigenous policing within the RCMP, but to all 194 police services in Canada, and to all 36 stand-alone Indigenous police services. Our priority is aligning and ensuring appropriate resources in federal and specialized policing.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My question is for Public Safety Canada. I am particularly interested in your departmental plan on planning pan-Canadian flood resilience. It says that you are working with provinces and territories to enhance that resilience, including developing and implementing the 2003 commitments to set up a low-cost flood insurance program. You talked about federal reinsurance products, and an affordability subsidy aimed at protecting households at high risk of flooding.
I live near Fredericton, where flooding has gone on forever. However, as Mr. May pointed out, the frequency seems to be increasing. I was very young in 1972, when there was a huge flood that reoccurred in 2009 and 2018. I am interested in this program, where it is at, how you’re developing it and what caused you to enter into this part of the business?
Mr. May: It was the realization that individuals and households don’t have this insurance, and that it was backstopped by the federal government and by the DFAA program. The best way, in terms of ensuring fairness and transparency with respect to insurance products, was to ensure that people had available and affordable insurance to them. But in certain high-risk areas, as you mentioned, this is not available. Working with insurance stakeholders, we are working toward the creation of a national flood insurance program specifically designed with those objectives in mind. Progress is being made. I do not have any time lines — I apologize — for the implementation of such a program, but we are striving toward it and hope to put in place sooner rather than later, recognizing that many Canadians don’t have affordable flood insurance.
Senator Kingston: Could I be provided with an update about your progress? For Fredericton, this would be a very welcome program, and although you have to work with the provinces, it would be interesting to know what the development has been thus far.
Mr. May: Certainly. We can provide that.
Senator Kingston: Thank you.
Senator Ross: Thank you. My question is for Correctional Service Canada. In the Departmental Plan, you say that you will ensure ongoing consultation with the National Indigenous Advisory Committee, or NIAC, to improve correctional results for Indigenous offenders. Can you elaborate on what this consultation looks like, how often you’re in contact, and what are the outcomes?
Ms. Gratton: Thank you for your question. There’s an ongoing discussion with the National Indigenous Advisory Committee. Commissioner Kelly meets with all members of the NIAC, and our new Deputy Commissioner for Indigenous Corrections, she works closely with the national advisory committee. The consultations are on different topics, including initiatives that are being put in place, ways of increasing our results, and ways of better supporting Indigenous offenders throughout their journey with Correctional Service Canada. I would say it’s ongoing consultation, and it takes different forms, either formal or informal consultation.
Senator Ross: I want to circle back to Mr. Larkin or Ms. Hazen with regard to the wellness program that you mentioned. Do you sense that the money has shifted to a mental health wellness program, or is there still a significant effort on physical health, which, of course, continues to support mental health as well morale?
Ms. Hazen: Thank you very much for the question. I would say that it’s both areas. There is a large emphasis being placed on mental health, and wellness from a physical perspective, of our members. We recently introduced a champion for fitness throughout the department. So the commanding officer in the province of Saskatchewan is now our fitness champion. So there are programs under way for both mental health as well as the physical well-being of all of our members.
Senator Ross: Thanks very much.
Senator Pate: Mr. Matson, the last written response to my series of questions in this area included a reference to $9.2 million being spent in accordance with six priorities that CSC has identified. I’d like to know who made those decisions and what progress has been made on the priorities. When you send your written response, this is one of the things I’d like to see included.
My other question, I think, is mostly for Public Safety, although it may be that CRC want to weigh in. My ears perked up when you started talking about the consultations around alternatives with Indigenous communities as part of the measures used, and I noticed Senator Ross just asked some questions about that as well. I’ve been in discussions with many Indigenous communities, First Nations communities across this country who are extremely frustrated with the lack of response to the request to engage in section 81 and section 84 agreements and the limitations that corrections policy has placed on those. In light of that, what kind of oversight and what kind of review are you doing to those measures from a Public Safety perspective? When I hear from communities that they’ve applied specifically that they want to have individuals from their community back in their community but that they need resources, but that the resources will cost less than a quarter, in many instances, of what it’s currently costing to keep those folks incarcerated. Plus it will mean that they are closer to home. Consistent with the research that your department as well as Correctional Service Canada has done is that if you have a place to live, a community of support, some way to support yourself, you are more likely to be successful.
What is being done to ensure that some of those policies and practices that have become unduly restrictive are being addressed, and what kind of oversight function does the department have in terms of those issues, because it’s supposed to be, ultimately, the sign-off of the minister for those agreements.
Mr. Amyot: We do have a number of programs that address these questions, but my colleague Craig Oldham will be able to answer.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Mr. Oldham: Thank you for the question. This is principally our Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative that we’re running, a very popular program which at this point is very subscribed. We’re in the process now. We’ve already gone through initial screening for completeness of each of the applicants. We’ve done external reviews, and that external review also includes our partners at Correctional Service so that we can look for opportunities between the two organizations where we can be most efficient.
Absolutely, we believe that getting people back into their home communities is one of the key pieces of our overall Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism. We do expect to launch a number of these projects this fall — fall having just started, so we have to get moving — but we have a number of these programs we expect to launch in this fiscal year. We will not be able to address all of the applications, but we will be able to address a number of those applications and get this program moving a bit faster than it has been.
Senator Pate: Will you be able to provide details as to applications, progress, resolution —
Mr. Oldham: Yes, absolutely. All of that will be public, and each of those applicants will receive feedback on the status of their application. Some of them simply weren’t applicable at all. Others will need more work on going forward, and others are more shovel-ready, if you like, and those will be the ones that will be moving on as quickly as possibly.
Mr. Amyot: I’ll just add that in the Main Estimates this year we have $12.7 million. It’s an increase of $7.4 million. Last year was a little lower, so we’re investing more in that this year.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My first question is for the Correctional Service of Canada. I’ll then put a second question to Public Safety Canada.
In the latest budget, we enacted provisions whereby special handling units will be built in prisons for people who, given the end of agreements with the provinces, have pending immigration cases.
Where do things stand in the development of these units, which must be separate from the prisons?
Ms. Gratton: As you know, changes have been made to the legislation. This will enable the Correctional Service of Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency to reach an agreement. This will lead to the development of protocols for managing the separate units set aside.
Senator Dalphond: I wanted to know where things stand with the construction of the separate units.
Ms. Gratton: We aren’t at the construction stage. Instead, we’re in the process of identifying a unit within one of our current institutions. We’re at the stage of drawing up memoranda of understanding for the operation of these units.
Senator Dalphond: I gather that, for the time being, nothing has been done and the people are still being held in provincial prisons?
Ms. Gratton: We would need to check with the Canada Border Services Agency. On the Correctional Service of Canada side, we’re starting to work on completing this agreement, which is now authorized under the legislation.
Senator Dalphond: My second question is for Public Safety Canada. When we reviewed the previous budgets two years ago, we authorized a 25% increase in the number of full-time employees, or 331 additional employees, to handle new programs. This included the firearms buyback program.
Two years later, where do things stand with the firearms buyback program? How many full-time employees are working on it? We haven’t actually seen any buybacks yet. When will this program be up and running?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I can tell you that, at this time, about 66 employees are working full-time on the firearms buyback program. This number doesn’t include employees who may be working part-time on the project.
I’ll ask my colleague, Greg Kenney, to provide more details.
Mr. Kenney: For two years, Public Safety Canada has been investing in moving forward with the firearms buyback program on a national level.
[English]
Some of the key milestones that have been produced by this investment is that a team was put in place to create a web portal and case management system, which will be the primary interface between clients and the program. There has been extensive engagement with provincial, territorial and municipal jurisdictions, Indigenous communities, stakeholders and different potential delivery partners. We are also working to establish a contact centre to support gun owners participating in the program and to respond to questions.
We’ve done public consultations on potential compensation amounts for eligible businesses, for different makes and models, and those have been affirmed by firearms industry representatives. A robust risk management framework has been advanced and will be in place to support the program.
Most recently — it closed in January 2024 — was an invitation to qualify with the private sector, which resulted in several bidders for our first phase of the program, which we’re expecting to launch this fall. It will be the government’s decision as to the timing.
Senator Dalphond: The first phase?
Mr. Kenney: The first phase with businesses this fall is what we’re targeting for launch.
Senator Dalphond: You have bidders that bid to do what?
Mr. Kenney: To provide support services for the program — destruction service providers as well as transportation providers, and for storage and processing of firearms that will be received from businesses.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I gather that Canada Post doesn’t want to provide the transportation?
Mr. Kenney: This is the case for phase 2 with the individuals. For the first phase with the —
Senator Dalphond: The inventories?
Mr. Kenney: — with the inventories, yes, they will be available. A total of 295 different firearms carriers are licenced to transport firearms, including Canada Post for the first phase.
Senator Dalphond: You said that the order in council listing the prohibited weapons for buyback was issued in 2020?
Mr. Kenney: By 2020, the list included just over 1,500 different makes and models. Since then, the RCMP has been continually reviewing different firearms and the list has grown.
At this point, just over 2,000 different makes and models have been banned since 2020.
Senator Dalphond: There were 1,500 under the order in council?
Mr. Kenney: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: Are these 1,500 weapons added automatically, or do they require another order in council?
Mr. Kenney: No. Certain features have been identified, and when the RCMP reviews firearms, these features are added.
Senator Dalphond: Are you saying that PolySeSouvient is wrong to claim that it doesn’t apply to all military-style weapons?
Mr. Kenney: We haven’t really talked about that. I would just say that a process is in place to add more firearms, in addition to the regular review conducted by the RCMP with the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, or CFAC. This committee advises the government on whether to add more firearms to the prohibited weapons list.
The Chair: How is the price of firearms determined for the buyback? I see variations. For the AR platform, it’s $1,337, but for SG-550s, it’s $6,209. It’s quite specific.
How do you determine the value or amount assigned to each weapon? Do we take into account the age of the weapon as well, in addition to the type and purchase price? If the person paid $10,000 for it the previous year, will they receive $6,500?
Mr. Kenney: It’s a complicated process. We worked closely with IBM to determine how much a company would have paid to a retailer, and how much an individual would have paid when the order was issued in 2020.
It involves an international search. The United States has a blue book to help with the discussion, but it takes a great deal of work.
We also opened the public consultation process with estimates in fall 2022. We received a great deal of feedback on this topic.
For the past year, we’ve been speaking directly with the Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association, or CSAAA, which represents retailers across the country. We worked with them to determine criteria for compensation. These criteria was confirmed by the CSAAA.
The amounts will be made public for the first phase with local companies. We’re aiming for the fall as a starting point.
The Chair: Regarding the buyback locations, we saw that the post offices didn’t want to get involved. I can understand the reluctance. I can’t see someone walking into the Jean Coutu drugstore near my place with a machine gun. Have you identified other more appropriate locations for receiving weapons?
Mr. Kenney: This is a key issue. At this time, individuals can transport their rifles using Canada Post. This doesn’t happen every day, but close to it.
The Chair: There aren’t any for the buyback because there aren’t any being bought back. So no one has taken their weapon to Canada Post for the buyback?
Mr. Kenney: No, not for the firearms buyback.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Kenney: Smaller retailers use Canada Post regularly to ship their products. For the first phase, it will be up to the retailers, the companies, to use their existing processes.
[English]
So this means the licensing shipping provider of their choice.
[Translation]
It could be Canada Post or other companies licenced to transport their firearms to our facilities for processing and destruction.
[English]
They’ll be using their existing processes or existing shipping companies to transport their firearms to the destruction company that I spoke of earlier that we’re in the final throes of awarding a contract to.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: There have been many discussions about health and mental health. It made me think of a project under way in southeastern New Brunswick. This project is the Correctional Service’s Health Centre of Excellence, or HCoE. It’s supposed to serve the four Atlantic provinces. I believe that the government announced this project a few years ago.
How much was budgeted for the project this year? Can you provide a timeline for the progress of the project? It was planned for the Dorchester area of New Brunswick.
Mr. Matson: Thank you for the question.
[English]
We’ve been working on the Health Centre of Excellence initiative for a number of years, starting in 2019, and we’ve been working very diligently with central agencies and our colleagues at Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, to develop proposals. We are getting to the point where we’ll have a final preliminary design proposal available very shortly, and at that time, we will be going to the Treasury Board to secure funding for the initiative. Presuming approval by ministers at that point, we’ll be continuing with the final design phase of the process and actual construction a little bit after that.
We’ve made good progress since the announcement in 2019. We’ve been engaging with industry through what they call a request for qualification to assess the capacity of industry in the area to deliver on such a project. We’ve been doing a lot of design work in terms of the operational delivery model, the mental health service delivery model that we’ve been trying to, I would say, modernize. Much of that good work has been accomplished.
Since the initiative was announced, we’ve worked to secure funding and central agency approval to proceed with the pre‑design and design phases. We’re almost at the point where we have a preliminary design. We’ll be seeking further approval from central agencies to continue with the project hopefully this fall, and we’ve been engaging with industry and the community in the area over the last, I would say, six months. There has been a lot of engagement with industry and the community.
Principally, that is where we’re at with the project.
[Translation]
I hope that this answers your question.
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Is there a target start date for construction that has been identified yet, an actual month and year?
Mr. Matson: Specifically, we’re hoping to get the construction contract hopefully awarded within the next year. That takes time. We’re going through a RFQ process, request for qualification of bidders. This is all being done by our colleagues at PSPC, who are experts in the procurement process. They’ve been doing an excellent job. Then there will be a request for proposal process after that and hopefully a contract awarded shortly thereafter, within a year.
Senator Boudreau: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have one last question. We talked about procurement. It made me think of the purchase of telecommunications equipment made in China, such as the antennas in the RCMP’s cellular towers. Have purchasing guidelines or parameters been changed to avoid security risks in terms of both the price and supplier security, regardless of the part? With regard to antennas in particular, we were told that there was no danger or risk. However, the information provided by experts says otherwise. I want to hear your thoughts on this.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[English]
The equipment that you’re speaking of is a radio frequency interrupter that is on telecommunications towers. As you’re aware, we did a series of manipulation tests on those. The actual product was procured in Ontario; however, it had holdings from a Chinese company. We ceased all relations with that particular company, and we continue to replace those radio frequency interrupters across the country. It’s a significant amount of work. We have towers across the country and also in very remote locations. That work is ongoing, as we continue to do that.
I do want to reaffirm, again, that we did a series of internal manipulation testing with external partners as well to ensure our communication systems are encrypted. That particular device is a frequency enhancement tool.
Again, I want to reassure this committee. I can turn to Ms. Hazen for some specifics around our procurement processes because we did initiate a series of other practices to ensure that from a foreign investment perspective we are procuring in good conscience as well as with national security at the forefront of that.
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question. I’ll reaffirm that my colleague Deputy Commissioner Larkin and I were in front of committee to speak to this particular topic, and at that time, I expressed my view that we did follow all procurement processes when we purchased this particular equipment.
That said, we asked our internal audit team to do an investigation on this specific procurement and the security requirements around it, and there were a number of recommendations that were brought forward in that report, some of which require consultation in communications and modifications with the central agency. There’s one that we’re working with our colleagues at the Treasury Board Secretariat in regard to a security checklist that is used for professional service providers and another with our colleagues at Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, in regard to how the integrity regime is used to verify ethical vendors before procurement activities are let.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it possible to obtain a copy of this report, please?
[English]
Ms. Hazen: Yes, absolutely. I think it might be available on our website, but if it’s not there, we can certainly present it to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Larkin: We’ll send you a copy, but it’s also available on our website.
The Chair: I’ll wait for the copy. It will then be official.
Mr. Larkin: No problem.
Senator Dalphond: With regard to the $3 million for the nation’s capital extraordinary policing costs program, I gather that the figure for 2022 was $86 million, given the illegal occupation of Wellington Street. What exactly is the $3 million special program for the nation’s capital?
Mr. Amyot: That’s a question for Public Safety Canada. We have a contribution program to help the City of Ottawa, since it’s the nation’s capital. A number of events are more national in scope, such as Canada Day, and they involve additional costs. In general, this program helps the City of Ottawa provide security and police services during these events.
Senator Dalphond: Is this a way to give the City of Ottawa some money for the police?
Mr. Amyot: To contribute, yes.
The Chair: This comes on top of the federal government’s compensation for federal buildings. It’s compensation in lieu of taxes.
Mr. Amyot: Excuse me?
The Chair: Does this come on top of the amounts paid in lieu of taxes?
Mr. Amyot: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Dalphond: Additional amounts.
The Chair: I think that the City of Ottawa would say that this isn’t necessarily a gift.
Thank you all. Our time is up. Thank you for appearing here.
I would like to remind the witnesses who committed to sending documents or written responses that they have until Tuesday, October 8, 2024, to do so.
Before adjourning, I would like to remind the senators that our next meeting will take place tomorrow, September 25, at 6:45 p.m. to continue our study on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
I want to thank the entire support team. Thank you to Mireille for surprising us by coming back for another week. We’re delighted by this surprise.
Thank you all and see you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)