Skip to Content
 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence

Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of February 28, 2011


OTTAWA, Monday, February 28, 2011

The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 4:03 p.m. to examine and report on the national security and defence policies of Canada (topic: the state and future of the Canadian Forces Reserves); and to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-13, An Act to implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America.

Senator Pamela Wallin (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we are continuing our discussion on the future state of the Canadian Reserve Force. Over the past several months, we have been weaving this issue in and out of our many other topics of discussion. Today, we are pleased to have with us Rear-Admiral Andrew Smith, Chief of Military Personnel. Our focus today is on the human resources side: administrative systems, policies, the differences in administration policies between reserves and regular forces, and the efforts under way to simplify things. Rear-Admiral Smith is a mechanical engineer and naval architect. Most recently, he is commanding officer of the Fleet Maintenance Facility as Director General Maritime Personnel and Readiness as well as Assistant Chief Military Personnel.

Joining him is Lieutenant-Colonel Patricia Henry, Director of Reserve Support Management. In 1999, she won the Commanders Commendation Award for her leadership and development of the army diversity training program. She has extensive experience in military human resources at National Defence Headquarters and was appointed an Officer of the Order of Military Merit last month. Congratulations, Lieutenant Colonel Henry. Rear-Admiral Smith, I gather that you have some opening comments. Welcome, and please go ahead.

Rear-Admiral Andrew Smith, Chief of Military Personnel, of National Defence: It is indeed a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon to discuss reserve force administration in the Canadian Forces. I thank you for your warm welcome. Notwithstanding that I have been trained, educated and employed as a marine systems engineer, I no longer call myself an engineer. I now call myself a personnel engineer.

The Chair: That is a good phrase. You might be able to market that one.

[Translation]

Rear-Admiral Smith: Before I begin, allow me to introduce Lieutenant-Colonel Patricia Henry, Director of Reserve Support Management. She is responsible for approximately 17,000 reserve force members, of which 1200 are primary reservists who work for the Canadian Forces on a full-time basis. The remainder of her responsibilities concern personnel in the supplementary reserve, a listing of individuals maintained until such time that the Canadian Forces have a requirement for them to serve.

[English]

My own area of responsibility relates to the policy and processes governing the personnel administration of the reserve component of the Canadian Forces. This responsibility includes personnel in both full and part-time positions.

My responsibilities relate to the development of personnel policies and much less so to force generation and employment of reserve force personnel.

As committee members well know, the Canadian Forces is a total force comprised of a regular component that is made up of personnel who have agreed to serve on a continuing basis, and a reserve component, made up of personnel who have agreed to serve on other than a continuing basis.

There are four subcomponents within the reserve force: the Primary Reserve, the Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service, previously known as the Cadet Instructor Cadre, the Canadian Rangers, and the Supplementary Reserve.

[Translation]

While I am responsible for the policies that govern personnel administration for all four sub-components, for ease of discussion, I will focus my remarks mainly on the primary reserve, those who deploy in support of Canadian Forces operations and who represent the Forces in local communities.

All policy in the Canadian Forces is written for the total force, with exceptions and/or differences specified only when applicable. This means that, when policy and associated administrative guidelines are published, consideration has been given to both the regular force and the reserve force.

[English]

Although policies are made to apply to the total force, there are differences in the administration of the regular forces and reserve forces. I will use pay as an example. As for the distribution of personnel wages, the regular forces use what I generically call a "push'' system and the reserve force a "pull'' system. Regular force pay is pushed continuously to the member twice per month until such time as it is actively stopped. The reserve system, by contrast, is a pull system through which pay is not automatically released. Reservist pay must be verified and certified in advance of every payday to ascertain that the member has worked and is entitled to pay.

[Translation]

This arrangement is seen as reasonable due to the nature of reserve force employment. Reserve force personnel are employed in many ways. The majority work part-time at a local primary reserve unit, others are hired to deploy on operations for durations that can exceed one year, still others work in headquarters for durations lasting from 13 days to three years (depending on the requirements of the job). It is because of these differences and fluctuations in employment that the reserve administration system is correctly maintained as a "pull'' system. In short, a difference in service between the two components results in a difference in the administration of the two components.

[English]

Not all administrative differences between the two components are as straightforward. The pay system that I have just described becomes inherently complex due to the fact that the push system applies to both regular force personnel and primary reservists who deploy internationally, whereas the pull system is used to manage full and part-time reservists domestically.

Moving reservists from one pay system to another has caused considerable administrative difficulties. The regular force and the primary reservists who deploy are paid at a different rate and on a monthly basis, whereas primary reservists on full and part-time service who are not deployed are paid a daily rate of pay at 85 per cent of regular forces rate of pay.

[Translation]

I am sure that you can appreciate the complexities involved in administering two completely different personnel systems.

This is one of the reasons that I have established the Military Personnel Management Capacity Team. This group has been tasked to review regular and reserve force administration, to eliminate inefficiencies, and to harmonize and simplify processes where possible.

[English]

If I had to do it over again, I might choose a more attractive title than Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation, but that is in the past.

Focusing again on pay as an example, one objective of the group is to arrange a single source for pay pricing and processing, or to establish a means by which all Canadian Forces personnel are paid from the same system.

While personnel policy and the associated administration are admittedly complex, I strive to ensure that we provide the best possible service to both regular and reserve forces. Indeed, the Canadian Forces are committed to ensuring that reserve force personnel are given the best possible support.

[Translation]

I want to thank this committee for studying this important matter and for your strong support and concern for our reserve force personnel.

We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That presentation is clear, and we have been wrestling with this issue.

I will ask something before we begin our formal questioning. Historically, what was the rationale? Have reservists always been paid with the regular force if they deploy internationally, and if so, then why did the other system even develop?

Rear-Admiral Smith: The people who deploy internationally are deployed on what we call class C service. The difference employment constructs are class A, class B and class C. Those who deploy internationally on class C service are considered to be regular force backfills; they are filling the same jobs as their regular force counterparts and are compensated at 100 per cent of the regular force rate.

The Chair: That has always been the case, has it not?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That has always been the case, yes; they have been administered through the central pay system for the regular force. There is a separate pay system for the rest of the reserves. As I mentioned, going back and forth between the two systems is complex and an administrative burden.

One of the big advantages coming out of this Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation project is having one pay system. This one pay system, by necessity, will still have a pull and a push component related to it, depending on class of service. However, we will have one pay system from which things are administered. There will be one administrative staff as opposed to having a system interpreted and administered separately.

The Chair: Will that change constitute savings in terms of administrative personnel, as well?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Certainly, it will.

The Chair: We will begin our formal questioning.

[Translation]

Senator Dallaire: It is a pleasure to see you again. There are several areas I could look at.

[English]

From the pay envelope, there are pensions; class B; recruitment; family support; injured personnel; once they are out of the units and not under class A; and unit administration.

Let me start by saying, I hope the long-term transformation, as you call your project, focuses on the administration of a reservist from recruitment to employment within the unit. I also hope the project focuses on the administrative burden within the unit of personnel requirements. Do those focuses then determine how many full-time people you need in the militia unit to respond to the needs of those serving in that unit?

Rear-Admiral Smith: It is a good question. I said up front that one pay system was one of the big bonuses of the project. The second benefit is having one service record, irrespective of whether personnel are employed in the regular or reserve force.

At the moment, service records depend on whether they are a regular force member or reservist. Having one service record will go a long way to facilitating the administration of service members literally from the day they enroll to the day they release. Personnel administration is complex today. Therefore, the second big benefit I see coming out of the project is a simplification of personnel management and administration, irrespective of where members serve.

With respect to your question about the determination of how many people are required, that determination remains a service call — army, navy or air force — and not so much a call from the Chief of Military Personnel.

Senator Dallaire: That is a great answer, because whatever national-level policies are established regarding how to manage personnel, the unit has to implement those policies. To give the force generators guidance in how to implement the policy, there should be a sense from your branch saying, "We will clean up this situation. To make it work, we think you will need probably so much.''

Rear-Admiral Smith: I see your question. Are you asking if potentially there will be efficiencies at the unit level in terms of administration; is that the gist of your question?

Senator Dallaire: As you know well, the units are part-time, yet we have imposed, in many cases, regular force criteria of personnel policies and administration. Will this methodology streamline that administration to the extent that we will be able either to reduce the number of full-time people or simply ensure that such paperwork is not oppressive to the extent that it affects recruitment, because it takes 100 years to recruit or transfer someone and so on.

Rear-Admiral Smith: It is my full expectation that this project will simplify the administrative and personnel management aspects associated, from recruitment through the various training and deployment phases of a person's career. In so doing, as personnel make the transition to regular force and back again, there will be full visibility, which necessarily will ease the administrative burden, irrespective of which unit personnel are employed in.

Senator Dallaire: Will they go on a version of PeopleSoft or something like that?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: Let us discuss the equivalencies of trades, qualifications and so on. To what extent are you able to influence the equivalencies within each military occupational code, MOC — trade qualifications — between regulars and reserves to make it more effective for reservists to be employed as a regular? There is also the issue of promotion, because reservists are part-time. In similar circumstances, we have them taking full-time regular force courses. Are you engaged in influencing force generators in that area?

Rear-Admiral Smith: "Influencing'' is a great term, senator. The short answer is "yes.'' There is also a longer answer. Interestingly, currently almost twice as many people are component-transferring, if I can use that term, from the reserves to the regular force as there are from regular force to reserve.

As people look to transfer components, one of the largest frustrations is ensuring the equivalencies you spoke of are well understood, captured and recognized. Ensuring equivalencies is one of the longest delays we have, as we are obliged to perform a prior learning assessment and qualification collection to ensure people justifiably receive the qualifications and competencies they deserve.

We continue to work closely with the environments, because the environments — army, navy and air force — are the managing authorities who ultimately make that call. However, we continue to work with them so we can have a bank or database of equivalencies, so we do not have to start over again at zero every day.

This project to have one service record from "cradle-to-grave,'' to use that term, will greatly facilitate that process.

Senator Plett: I want to touch on the employers of reservists. Clearly, an employer who has reservists on staff needs to give reservists time off when they are deployed and needs to keep their positions available for them when they return. What are your views on compensating civilian employers in some way for keeping these positions available? I understand that reservists do not necessarily have to tell their employer that they are reservists; so this need can come upon an employer unexpectedly. What are your views on compensating employers who lose an employee for a period of one year or whatever?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Respectfully, senator, that question has been bantered around for some time. It falls under the purview of the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, who has within their organization an organization called the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, chaired by John C. Eaton. It is through that body that questions of that nature are addressed. I have no contact at all with employers. I may hold a personal opinion, but I do not hold a professional opinion in that regard.

Senator Plett: I assume that you do not want to offer your personal opinion.

Rear-Admiral Smith: That is correct.

Senator Plett: To say the least, I am disappointed because I believe we should be able to have an answer. Fair enough: I will move to one more question.

How satisfied are you with the existing territorial, provincial and federal job protection legislation for reservists? Is it good legislation?

Rear-Admiral Smith: I was head of personnel for the navy in 2006, on or about when that legislation came into being. I worked closely with Mr. Eaton at the time to make sure there was a broader awareness of that legislation. I will limit my comments to saying that I am not convinced totally that the legislation has received a full airing across Canada. Awareness tends to be something that goes in fits and starts, in my view. Maybe that situation goes back to your first question, in some measure, in that it is not terribly well understood across the board.

The Chair: Is that issue being thought about by your committee? We have heard testimony from Mr. Eaton and we are looking at that situation; but is the issue on the agenda of the committee you have struck with the bad name?

Rear-Admiral Smith: No, it is not on the agenda. The whole issue of employer legislation is not part of my mandate.

The Chair: I understand the detail is not part of your mandate, but it must come up in conversation.

Rear-Admiral Smith: It does not arise really in the circles that I travel in.

The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Did I understand correctly that reservists can be assigned to headquarters for a maximum of three years?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Yes. The only clarification that I would make is that "assigned'' is perhaps not the best term. It is more like a term position.

Senator Nolin: Deployed?

Rear-Admiral Smith: "Deployed'' means on an operation. "Employed''Ð

Senator Nolin: Use whatever term you want; the important thing for me is the number. How many reservists work in the headquarters in Ottawa?

[English]

Lieutenant Colonel Henry might know the answer.

Rear-Admiral Smith: I do not know the number of class B reservists in Ottawa off the top of my head.

Senator Nolin: A ballpark figure is fine because I am interested in knowing the ratio of reservists.

Rear-Admiral Smith: I will qualify my answer. I do not control all the reserves because they are employed through the army, navy, air force, health services group and the information management group.

Senator Nolin: Is it one half or one third?

Rear-Admiral Smith: I do not think it is half. Lt.-Col. Henry, do you have an idea of that number?

Lieutenant-Colonel Patricia Henry, Director of Reserve Support Management, National Defence: The number is complex to count. I have 1,200 that belong to me. It depends where the reservist belongs. That is why the number is so complex. I manage 1,200 on the National Defence Headquarters primary reserve list who work for NDHQ organizations; but that does not mean they are located in Ottawa. For example, a reservist might belong to an assistant deputy minister's organization but located in Suffield. It is difficult to put boundaries around the number.

Rear-Admiral Smith: I am happy to take that question as notice.

Senator Nolin: Thank you. What is the total population at NDHQ?

Lt.-Col. Henry: Honestly, I cannot say. The minimum number is 1,200; but it is higher than that.

Rear-Admiral Smith: Several thousand reservists are working in Ottawa.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: I will tell you where my concern lies. I come from Montreal and I have always been interested in the activities of the Maisonneuve Regiment, as well as the other regiments in the Montreal area.

One of the concerns of the Maisonneuve Regiment is that people from headquarters come looking for administrative personnel from the regiment to take off to headquarters. It is raiding, in a way. It must be for financial reasons, I do not know, I am asking you the question. But, since reserve regiments have a role in society, reducing the numbers of senior people in order to serve the needs in headquarters seems to fly in the face of the reserve forces' community role. Is my question clear enough?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Yes, it is very clear.

Senator Nolin: Can you just help me to see the future little more brightly than I do when I hear that there are a number of reserve officers working at headquarters?

Rear-Admiral Smith: What you called raiding, we usually call poaching.

First, they are not assigned. They are offered a term position. At the end of the day, the reservist can choose whether to accept it or not. We cannot assign or transfer reservists against their will. If they are asked to come from Montreal to work in Ottawa, it is because there was an opening, they qualified for it, and the position was offered to them. That is not being "assigned'' as we use the term.

Is there a danger of adversely affecting the reservists' community role? That danger is always there. I can tell you that, recruitment-wise, we have no problem attracting reservists to join units across the country. In my opinion, there is no danger of undermining or diluting the reserve's presence in our communities.

Senator Nolin: I understand, that is the answer I was expecting. But if a person who has risen through the ranks in a reserve regiment and who plays a role in training new recruits is offered one of your term positions in Ottawa, recruitment alone is not going to fill the gap caused when the person moves. As I see it, that is what reserve regiments are afraid of: seeing their best senior people moving to other positions.

They accept the positions. You do not force them to.

Rear-Admiral Smith: No, we do not.

Senator Nolin: Their concerns are personal. Our concerns are for the institution. That is why we are doing a study on the reserve force.

Rear-Admiral Smith: It is always a question of balance. To this point, I have not shared the fears that others have expressed. The use of the reserve force is based on operational needs. If we see a reduction in skill levels in a reserve unit for a time, we accept it to an extent.

[English]

The Chair: There are lots of questions and our time is limited. We will go now to Senator Day.

Senator Day: Thank you for being here. Good to see you again, admiral. Our committee visited with you in Halifax some years ago, when you had other responsibilities at the time. I have a couple of questions.

First is the point raised by my colleague, Senator Nolin, when we talked about up to three years full-time. You indicated in your opening remarks that others work in headquarters. By using the term "headquarters,'' you were referring not only to Ottawa but to others as well?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That is correct. There are a series of headquarters across the country.

Senator Day: It could be any one of those headquarters and likely is all of them?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Absolutely.

Senator Day: Do those personnel, who are working full time at various headquarters across Canada, receive 85 per cent of the pay of a regular force person?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Yes, they do.

Senator Day: Has there been any complaint about that pay from the reservists?

Rear-Admiral Smith: No; there has not.

Senator Day: The 85 per cent is a number that has been accepted for some time?

Rear-Admiral Smith: It has been approved for some time by Treasury Board. I will qualify my statement. When we say there have been no complaints, I often worry about sailors when they are not complaining. There have been no complaints to me; there may have been people dissatisfied with their rate of pay.

In fairness, I think we have to look not simply at a question of pay. We have to look at the total compensation package, which includes base pay, benefits and allowance. If they were to deploy, they receive a certain deployment pay in addition to that pay. If reservists are posted, there are posting allowances and all types of educational benefits. A total compensation package is in play.

The Chair: Many have a second source of income in the community, too.

Rear-Admiral Smith: They certainly do. I think we have a competitive compensation system. If we look at both recruitment and attrition across the regular and reserve elements, we have historically low attrition at the moment, unseen in my 30-plus years in the Canadian Forces. That low attrition is partially a function of the compensation system we offer.

Senator Day: Our chair intervened and said that many have another source of income. We are talking about full- time employees working for you. What other types of income do you expect them to have, and what rules do you have to allow them to work at another source of income?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That clarification is important. Class B reservists are employed at something greater than 13 days a month. For those reservists who work less than that amount, they would have employment elsewhere. Class A reservists who are paid on a daily rate, not 85 per cent, would have another source of income in the community.

Senator Day: They are the typical reservists that we think of — those who may be at university, who are working in the community and who come out once a week and every other weekend.

Rear-Admiral Smith: Yes.

Senator Day: The committee that you struck is driven primarily, or perhaps exclusively, by a desire for efficiencies in the administration of personnel matters. Is that correct?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That is partially correct. There is also a long standing need to have a relook at the personnel policies that are in place. Some of them have been not been reviewed under the microscope for 30 years. There is a policy-updating piece in play. By hooking that review to information management and information technology enablers, both in terms of a purse administration and a pay system, efficiencies are in play as well. The approach is two-pronged.

Senator Day: You explained the pay system well in terms of push and pull; we understand that explanation. In terms of personnel policy, are you consulting outside the Armed Forces to upgrade the personnel policy?

Rear-Admiral Smith: No, we are not.

Senator Day: Consultation is all internal?

Rear-Admiral Smith: It is an internal policy review that is taking place along the lines of release, promotion policy and leave policy.

Senator Day: Is that internal review broad enough to cover pensions, health care for reservists and some of those other items that the regular force people receive that reservists may not receive to the same extent, as we have heard from various sources?

Rear-Admiral Smith: I submit, yes, it is.

Senator Day: When can we see what the military is thinking internally through this report?

Rear-Admiral Smith: We are in the nascent stages of that project. We probably will not deliver until the 2014-15 time frame. The policy piece is on the front end of that project, but it will be some time in 2012-13, given the need to amend personnel policy; to go through a complete legal review; to look at things like regular and reserve force — that is, the second and third order of consequences; and to ensure we have completed a holistic review.

Senator Day: In the meantime, from the point of view of health care and support for the reservists who come back from deployment and may be suffering some longer term physical or mental disabilities as a result, whether detected initially or not, other studies are taking place. Presumably your study will feed into studies taking place at Veterans Affairs Canada, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That is correct. As the Chief of Military Personnel, I am the primary portal into Veterans Affairs Canada for the Canadian Forces. I work closely with the department to ensure that as people transition out of uniform, for whatever reason, if they have a service-related need, injury or illness that they both know of and have confidence in, the whole-of-government approach — and that means Veterans Affairs Canada — is on the other side of the door to welcome them. I work closely with them, whether it is in terms of research or spectrum of care from a health provision perspective.

Senator Day: I am glad to hear that. Thank you.

The Chair: On that point, regarding the joint personnel support units that we see springing up everywhere, are you happy about the direction those units are taking in terms of the one-stop shopping?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Very happy: The joint personnel support units work for me. Following the announcement last week, I now have 24 units across the country. We have moved a long way in terms of having one-stop shopping, whether it involves return to work, financial services, recovery, rehabilitation, reintegration, or transition with Veterans Affairs Canada.

If you have the opportunity to visit one of those units across the country, I suggest that you can go into them and be hard pressed to ascertain whether the employees work for the Canadian Forces or for Veterans Affairs Canada. That is how integrated the units are.

The Chair: We recently went through the one in Edmonton and it was impressive.

Rear-Admiral Smith: That unit is probably the flagship.

Senator Duffy: Thank you both for being here. Colonel Henry, you were a trailblazer of sorts. You joined as a private while in university in 1982. The admiral told us that the retention rates currently in the military are strong.

Can you tell me what you have seen in terms of women, in particular, but also other university students on how that recruiting is taking place and the amount of interest there is? Do we know, for example, the percentage of women in the forces right now?

Lt.-Col. Henry: I cannot tell you the number off the top of my head right now, but we are well represented and performing better than we had hoped. When you ask about me, I am not clear on what you are looking for.

Senator Duffy: Were you the only female member?

Lt.-Col. Henry: I joined an infantry unit, so it was different there. There were four of us and the rest of them, so it was interesting. I will say that I loved my time there. I still go back to my highland unit every once in a while. I try to go back every couple of years to see people and say "hi;'' that kind of stuff. For me, it was good in terms of character building. I will tell you, I am not afraid of anyone or anything because of it.

Senator Duffy: I take it you would encourage other young people, both men and women, to have a look.

Lt.-Col. Henry: I would. To be clear, I did not join as an infanteer. I was an administration clerk and then switched to logistics officer. Yes, for me, it has been positive. I do not have anything negative to say. If it is something someone wants to do, go for it and enjoy.

Senator Duffy: Admiral, do you think the amount of positive coverage the Canadian Forces has received, and the positive feedback of Canadians about the heroic work of our military, has driven up the recruitment numbers?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Several factors are at play, frankly. Overall, about 15 per cent of the Canadian Forces today are women.

With respect to recruitment, that positive feedback helps. The positive light in which the Canadian Forces are viewed today by the Canadian public is unsurpassed in my 31-plus years in uniform. I think that view is partly due to the great work that has been done.

With respect to recruitment, during times of an economic downturn, irrespective of the country, military recruitment always picks up. There is a well-defined link between those two.

With that link aside, it is the way in which the Canadian Forces are viewed today. I am stopped in airports, on the sidewalk, on public transit, whenever I am in uniform, and people who have no idea what I do, other than the fact that I work for the Canadian Forces, come and thank me for what I do for my country. They have no idea what I do, but they feel a requirement to say that. That is sometimes not so much a Canadian virtue as it is to those who live directly south of us. Frankly, it is a nice thing to have happen.

Senator Duffy: I can remember a time in this town, admiral, when many people who went to work at NDHQ came in civilian clothes. I think there was a requirement to wear a uniform one day a week. Somewhere along the line, that practice was reversed. I must say that seeing a visible presence of the Canadian Forces here in the national capital has had a positive impact and, again, it has become a symbol that is important.

You create policy for the cadets, but do you have any direct role there? Is that branch now growing after a period of decline?

Rear-Admiral Smith: I do not have anything to do strictly with the cadets other than in the summertime during cadet camps, the health services group, which works for me, is often present to help from a provision-of-services perspective. I have nothing to do with the cadet program per se in terms of policy.

Senator Duffy: Or their numbers and what their findings are?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Or their numbers or findings.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: If I understood you correctly, you just told us that women represent 15 per cent of the regular forces.

Rear-Admiral Smith: About 15 per cent.

Senator Robichaud: Is the percentage the same in the reserves?

Rear-Admiral Smith: I think the percentage of women in the reserves is higher than 15 per cent. I can confirm that; it is 19 or 20 per cent.

Senator Robichaud: Are the forces content with a 15 per cent representation or are efforts being made to encourage women so as to get more of them into the reserves?

Rear-Admiral Smith: I see two questions there. First, we are not necessarily satisfied with that percentage. We would actually like to represent today's society itself, where women make up more or less 50 per cent of the population.

Senator Robichaud: I think it is 52 per cent.

Rear-Admiral Smith: There you go. We certainly have work to do. We are constantly working to attract women into the forces and to put policies in place to ensure that women and visible minorities across the country see the institution as a modern one Ð

[English]

They will see an institution that is productive and contemporary in nature.

[Translation]

We are constantly working to enhance our image along those lines.

Senator Robichaud: When you say "to enhance your image,'' the forces are open to all, but not necessarily set up to attract a certain group of people, correct?

Rear-Admiral Smith: We have no enlistment quotas as such, but we certainly have targets to meet. They are not quotas.

Senator Robichaud: What are your targets?

Rear-Admiral Smith: Our target for women in the regular force is around 23 per cent, I think. The target is realistic, but I will have to confirm the percentage.

Senator Robichaud: By when?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That has been our target for a long time. We look at it each year, but we have no fixed date.

[English]

The Chair: I find that concept odd when we have a volunteer military and people are free to sign up or not, as the colonel said. Is it not odd to have a target?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That question is an interesting one. You may have seen or heard that Jack Granatstein made a comment last week on diversity levels. Last week, I was at a conference talking to my counterparts in Australia, the U.K., the U.S. and New Zealand, and we had an interesting question of whether to have targets or let water find its own level and have programs in place to ensure the institution is attractive. We are caught between the two positions. We want to make sure we have targets. We need a critical mass at some point to ensure there are opportunities and the institution is seen to be inclusive. We want to move away from tokenism. At the same time, if people in an all-volunteer force elect not to join up at some point in time, we cannot complain. There is a sweet spot between those two positions.

Senator Dallaire: The total reserve force cash envelope of salary is part of the operations and maintenance budget. The amount of money is not fixed as we have with the regular force, with the number of person years and such.

Can we create a pay envelope for all the reserves that is identified to a target, and not have it part of the to and fro of O&M and even the capital program but tighter, as vote 1 is? Why do we not create a "push'' system?

In the army, we already say reservists normally should have 39 days a year paid at class A, which is a daily rate. Why do we not tell them when we recruit them that we will guarantee 39 days of pay over this year, and maybe three weeks of summer training or something, so they can target their pay towards that amount, and if they do not meet the number we cut the pay, but at least we guarantee them that number of days?

There is absolutely no guarantee now. As we have seen in the last few years, they can cut reservists off with a couple of months of notice, so the kids do not have a sense of security and ultimately go to McDonald's. Should we instil a "push'' system and work around that system, versus the current to and fro of the "pull'' system?

Rear-Admiral Smith: With respect to the pay envelope issue, that question is for the vice admiral, and I will explain why. Given the way reservists are force generated and force employed — they are employed differently, with different roles across the three services, and they all have their own individual needs and requirements, which drives the recruiting, depending on which service they are in — getting one's arms around that requirement for the reserves across the three services is not a trivial matter. To create a pay envelope to integrate all of that requirement, with our current construct, the way we are structured, is a wonderful goal; however, I am not sure it is realistic in the near term, frankly.

With respect to your second question about having a "push'' system, in the current environment in which we find ourselves, where there is financial accountability, and compliance is paramount, having a "push'' system and then having to comply at a later point in time is counter to the way things are at the moment. I am not saying we cannot go there. If reserve forces pay was easier to administer — and I think we will reach that goal when we have one pay system — payment and administration of reservists will be easier. I do not see us in the near term going to a "push'' system, particularly when the three environments generate and employ reservists in such a different manner.

Senator Dallaire: Supplemental to that question, we have deployed troops, reservists, who are class C. They return and they are back in the unit as class A. The reservists decide to leave the unit for one reason or another, but they are injured. There is no system right now inside the reserve units to take care of their injured veterans specifically. Reserve units are not funded for that situation and they have no internal structures for it, as the regular force units do, and they are not necessarily all captured by the Joint Personnel Support Unit if they leave the reserves suddenly but then find themselves injured.

How is it tracked so that those reservists who leave do not end up abandoned and in the streets, either by Veterans Affairs Canada not picking them up or our losing contact with them?

Rear-Admiral Smith: That question is a valid one. The Joint Personnel Support Unit, first, has a mandate to track people as they release. Everyone who releases from the Canadian Forces is invited, if not mandated, to have a transition interview with Veterans Affairs Canada, at which point in time they can identify any issues they may have.

On a go-forward basis, the Joint Personnel Support Units, notwithstanding that they may not be geographically in close proximity to a reserve unit, still have an outreach ability to track people and bring them under their wing from an administrative or provision-of-services perspective.

Going back to my first piece, we work closely with Veterans Affairs Canada to ensure that people know that when they leave, if downstream they have an illness or injury attributable to service, they know how and when to contact Veterans Affairs Canada. Recently, we have travelled around the country with Veterans Affairs Canada — I use the term "holding hands'' — on an outreach basis, to send the word out to people.

Senator Dallaire: Also to the units?

Rear-Admiral Smith: The units as well. The outreach town halls are for both reserve and regular force personnel to ensure that, first, people consider themselves a veteran — because a lot of people in uniform today do not consider themselves a veteran when they take the uniform off — and then how to plug into Veterans Affairs Canada.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Just now, you told us about an increase in recruitment in the reserves. How do you see the future of the primary reserve?

Rear-Admiral Smith: This will be a personal answer, not a professional one.

Senator Nolin: Go ahead.

Rear-Admiral Smith: Recently, with all the operations that we have been committed to, whether in Haiti or Afghanistan, we have had a total force, and I cannot believe that it will be less so in the future. We will always need reservists. They are an integral part of the total force. I feel that it always going to be essential. Does that answer your question, senator?

Senator Nolin: Yes. It is a pity that we do not have much time. I would have liked us to explore what we really want from a reserve. A reserve force is important, but do we just want a kind of recruitment pool when we have jobs to fill in the regular forces? If that is all, let us change the name. I see it as a tool with which to integrate your objectives and your philosophy in the various communities in Canada; that is what we have to work on, in my opinion.

In Montreal, Canadian military reality is not Longue-Pointe. The reality is the various regiments. That is the Canadian Forces' reality, but we do not have a lot of time to discuss it.

Rear-Admiral Smith: I just want to say that I believe that we can fulfill the two objectives at the same time.

Senator Nolin: Well, better yet!

[English]

The Chair: That is a good answer. Thank you, Rear-Admiral Andrew Smith, Chief of Military Personnel, and also Lieutenant Colonel Patricia Henry, Director of Reserve Support Management. We thank you both for your input into what we hope will be a complete and thoughtful report on this issue as we move forward.

Senator Dallaire: I wish to make a point regarding the admiral, who is the Chief of Military Personnel. He is a two- star general, which is equivalent to an EX3 director general. In other departments, there are assistant deputy ministers, which are at the level of EX5. That position used to be a three-star position and it is now a two-star position. That change is not conducive to moving the personnel side of the house. When the restructure or transformation is complete, we will see that the position should be at a three-star assistant deputy minister level and not at a director general level, and that applies in all the forces. The civilian is an assistant deputy minister.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will move now to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-13, An Act to Implement the Framework Agreement on Integrated Cross-Border Maritime Law Enforcement Operations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America. The bill also has a short title, and we will talk about that later, because we will deal with that item last.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: You all have a bill in front of you.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 4, the principles, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 5, under Central Authority for Canada, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 6, under Central Authority for Canada, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 7, again a central authority clause, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 11, Powers of Designated Officers, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 12, Detention of Persons, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 13, Seizure, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?

Senator Manning: I have a problem with clause 17. I move:

That Bill S-13, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 8 with the following:

45.88 who was appointed as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer under subsection 8(1) of the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.

The Chair: This amendment is in reference to a situation in which people might be designated or appointed maritime law enforcement officers under the subsection?

Senator Manning: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: Are you adding these lines?

The Chair: It is replacing line 15.

Senator Dallaire: So proposed section 50.1 stays and we are adding section 45.88?

The Chair: That is right.

Shall that clause now carry?

Senator Day: No: Are you sure you want section 45.88 in your amendment when it is section 45.48 in the act? Some confusion is being caused by all these different numbers, and we should have an explanation of what this amendment is intended to achieve and why it is necessary. There are two different points.

The Chair: Senator Day is asking whether section 45.88 is the right number.

Senator Day: I think it should be section 45.48.

The Chair: Yes, and that is on a different page. I think we have them mixed up. Is that correct?

The amendment that refers to clause 23 should actually refer to clause 17?

Senator Day: Let us not be confused about what is coming. Let us talk only about this amendment. Should it be section 45.48?

The Chair: Can a departmental official join us?

Senator Nolin: In French, it is perfectly okay.

The Chair: It is section 45.48. On this page, it is section 45.88.

Senator Day: Luckily I read the English version and found this mistake.

The Chair: Ms. Beecher and Mr. MacKillop have been here before. Do you see the problem in the English version?

Barry MacKillop, Director General, Law Enforcement and Border Strategies Directorate, Public Safety Canada: There is a difference in the English and the French. I believe it should read "45.88'' in both versions.

Sophie Beecher, Counsel, Legal Services, Public Safety Canada: Yes.

The Chair: We are adding to clause 17 the words, "who was appointed. . . .''

Senator Day: Look at line 15 on page 8. You are adding words after that section, as I understand, from this amendment. It should be section 45.48.

The Chair: I think they say the same thing. You are adding these words to two particular clauses. Is that correct? It is the same wording.

Senator Manning: The number is wrong, not the wording.

The Chair: Ms. Beecher and Mr. MacKillop, when you determine what you want added, we will have you read it.

Senator Patterson: Chair, maybe the mover of the amendment can explain its purpose.

The Chair: We will do that. Can we clarify this amendment first so that we are all on the same piece of paper? Can we have the words that you want added read aloud so we can settle that part?

Senator Day: I am not sure we have settled it.

The Chair: It is the same wording.

Ms. Beecher: It has 45.48 on one.

The Chair: It has 45.88 on the other.

Mr. MacKillop: It should read 45.88.

Ms. Beecher: I think so.

Senator Day: Maybe we need another amendment.

Senator Manning: It amends section 45.88.

Senator Day: It starts with "whom,'' which is underlined. Do you want to underline the other part, too?

Senator Manning: Move the pen back over 45.88.

The Chair: We have an answer.

Mr. MacKillop: It should read 45.88; and section 45.48 contains the definitions in Bill S-13 of "Central Authority,'' "designated officer'' and "integrated cross-border operation.'' That is fine.

The amendment is to deal with the public complaints side. To deal with that section, it is section 45.88 under the public complaints coordinating amendments. It should read 45.88. The purpose of that amendment essentially is to identify the Canada versus U.S. person involved in the Canada-U.S. Shiprider operations.

Moving to further amendments to self-initiated complaints, we see that they can initiate a joint investigation with any RCMP member and that they are not exempt from this investigation. The U.S. member is exempt from a self- initiated complaint, for instance, from the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, CPC.

The Chair: We cannot oblige them to come here; that is the law of the land.

Mr. MacKillop: We had to clarify that definition within the auspices of the public complaints area, which is section 45.88. I apologize if the French version reference is section 45.48; it should be section 45.88 in both versions.

The Chair: You have the right number on the French copy.

[Translation]

Mr. MacKillop: In French, it should be 45.88 as well.

Senator Nolin: Point eighty eight. That is right. That means the text must be amended.

Mr. MacKillop: In French, yes; I am sorry.

[English]

Senator Day: In English, can you explain what this amendment is all about? Why do you need this amendment? What does it achieve?

Ms. Beecher: As the bill stood, we placed all cross-designated officers in the same category. We were trying specifically to exempt U.S. cross-designated officers as being subject to the summons provision. Instead, we included all officers. We feel that a precision is necessary so that U.S. officers are exempted from summon, and not all officers. We still want our RCMP officers to be summoned before the CPC to give testimony and that kind of thing.

The Chair: My understanding in lay terms is that we can oblige a Canadian designated peace officer for the purposes of an operation to show up in a Canadian court; but we cannot oblige an American to show up in a Canadian court.

Mr. MacKillop: Correct.

Senator Duffy: Presumably the Americans cannot oblige Canadian officers to appear in their courts?

Mr. MacKillop: That is correct. The framework agreement provides that best efforts be made on both sides so they will both show up, presumably; in law we cannot oblige that.

Senator Dallaire: Their legislation does not exist yet.

The Chair: They have an overarching framework that covers this area and many other things.

Senator Dallaire: Do they need separate legislation for Canada-U.S Shiprider?

The Chair: Only we have to do it because they have embraced it already.

Senator Manning: Chair, I need to extend my amendment to include section 45.88 to make sure everything is right.

Senator Nolin: You have to read it in French now.

The Chair: Does anything have to be considered a subamendment or other: no; fine.

Senator Day: Chair, so I have this amendment correct, we are looking at clause 17 of this bill which talks about proposed section 50.1 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. At page 27 of the bill, we can see where section 50 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act appears. The amendment says: ". . . does not apply to a designated officer within the meaning of section 45.88. . . .''

Ms. Beecher: It would be more practical to have a copy of the bill. What we have is a bill separated with explanation sheets.

The Chair: We have a copy of the bill for Mr. MacKillop and Ms. Beecher to share.

Senator Day: This meeting would have been much easier if we had had time to review and consider the amendments before the meeting. We might not have had to ask these questions now.

The Chair: I think it is good that we have an opportunity to do this.

Senator Dallaire: The point that my colleague raises is that if we had received the amendments a couple of days ago instead of two minutes before we walked into the building, we could have reviewed them ahead of the meeting.

The Chair: Were they not sent out this afternoon?

Kevin Pittman, Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

The Chair: At what time?

Senator Dallaire: We received them 20 minutes before we met.

The Chair: I think I received them earlier than that, on my BlackBerry.

Senator Day: "Earlier than that'' being today, this afternoon?

The Chair: Yes, I think it was. I was in another committee.

Senator Day: This is 5:20 in the afternoon.

Mr. MacKillop: The actual amendment will be inserted in clause 17 of Bill S-13. It will apply to section 45.88, which is then further referenced in section 50. However, as you can see, it references back to section 45.88, which will be amended by clause 17.

The Chair: Hence the change to clause 17.

Mr. MacKillop: That is correct.

Senator Day: Is this the best way lawyers drafting this bill could find to achieve this result; that is, by taking us through all these various sections?

Mr. MacKillop: We had to make a certain amendment to address the policy intent, which was to keep it as broad as possible, and to cover all Canadian police officers. Given that Bill C-38 is not passed, we simply could not make a reference to Bill C-38 being amended consequentially.

Ms. Beecher: That is why we will have the same situation at clause 23. As you will recall, part of provisions are "ifs.''

Senator Day: Yes, I do recall that part.

The Chair: This was some of the complication that we had in testimony. I am also told that we now will need a subamendment because the French version says "45.88.''

Senator Nolin: No, it is the reverse.

The Chair: I am sorry, I am only receiving instruction here; I am not sure.

[Translation]

Senator Day: So 45.88 is what should be there?

Senator Nolin: Yes.

[English]

Senator Nolin: In French, 45.88.

The Chair: So it is what it is —

Senator Day: No: It has to be changed.

The Chair: You have 88 on your page, on the French version.

Senator Nolin: Yes, and it should be 48.

The Chair: All right: The English version does have 48, so that is correct.

Mr. MacKillop: It is actually section 45.88. The English version is correct; the French version inadvertently refers to section 45.48 and it should be section 45.88.

The Chair: All right. Does everyone see this now? We need a subamendment now for that section.

Senator Manning: Okay.

Senator Day: Why do you not withdraw the amendment and change it?

Senator Manning: I will withdraw that amendment and provide a whole new amendment. Can I do that?

The Chair: We do not have the paper copy for that. Okay, we will do that. Are we agreed on the subamendment?

Senator Manning: I move the subamendment to cover section 45.88 rather than section 45.48, in both official languages.

The Chair: Agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Now we move to the first amendment itself.

Senator Manning: I move that Bill S-13, in clause 17, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 8 with the following:

45.88 who was appointed as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer under subsection 8(1) of the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.

The Chair: Are we agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: That is a miracle. Clause 18, agreed?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 19?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 20?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 21.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Clause 22?

Senator Manning: Excuse me, chair.

The Chair: Go ahead, Senator Manning.

Senator Manning: I move an amendment to clause 22:

That Bill S-13, in clause 22, be amended by:

(a) adding after line 22 on page 12 the following:

May I dispense?

The Chair: Do you have the long page here? Do you have the long page, Senator Day?

Senator Day: No.

The Chair: Three pages were supposed to be handed out to you, with clause 17, then clause 22 and then clause 23. Yes: That is the one.

Senator Day: Great. I think I have too much paper.

The Chair: We all have too much paper; that is for sure. Senator Manning, ask your question again.

Senator Manning: I move that Bill S-13, in clause 22, be amended by:

(a) adding after line 22 on page 12 the following:

(10) If a complaint concerns the conduct of a designated officer —

May I dispense?

The Chair: Yes: Give everyone a moment to read the amendment.

Senator Day: The fact that you are dispensing does not mean that we should dispense with understanding it, correct?

The Chair: No: Do you want him to read it aloud?

Senator Day: No.

The Chair: The answer is no.

Senator Day: You need to have it translated anyway.

The Chair: Mr. MacKillop or Ms. Beecher, do you have your 15-second version of why this amendment matters?

Ms. Beecher: Essentially, we are incorporating explicitly the possibility for the CPC to be able to conduct joint investigations or hearings with an authority from another jurisdiction.

The Chair: This is continuing on from the complaints commission that will be dealt with either under existing law or, should Bill C-38 pass, under the new revised law. This amendment now adds the notion that we can work with another authority so that we might, in a way, have a joint investigation.

Ms. Beecher: That is right.

Senator Day: And this was necessary, why?

Mr. MacKillop: The original draft was not broad enough and could have been interpreted as not allowing joint investigations of other Canadian or U.S. law enforcement officers. We wanted to make sure that the complaints commission had the opportunity to do conduct those investigations.

The Chair: You can capture everything.

Mr. MacKillop: That was the policy intent.

The Chair: It might be a local law enforcement authority; it can be someone else they are working with, and that it is easier to investigate this matter together.

Mr. MacKillop: It can be the U.S. that asks.

The Chair: It can be a U.S. authority.

Mr. MacKillop: Yes, for a joint investigation.

Senator Dallaire: To confirm, am I to understand that the provincial governments have agreed to this process? That is, they will subject, for example, their provincial police to this process in totality? Has that legislation been amended already within their jurisdiction to do that?

Mr. MacKillop: With respect to Canada-U.S. Shiprider, it has not been dealt with directly, as we have used RCMP officers to date. The consultations that have occurred on Bill C-38 did talk about joint investigations when officers are working on joint task forces, so, yes, it is part of their participation in a joint task force.

Senator Dallaire: But the provinces have not been approached yet to do that?

Mr. MacKillop: Well, Bill C-38 is not yet —

The Chair: They have, but Bill C-38 is not law yet.

Senator Dallaire: Essentially, we have used RCMP until now, but I thought we were using municipal people in Welland, Windsor or wherever it was.

Mr. MacKillop: We may in the future. So far it has been all RCMP and Coast Guard with respect to the Canada- U.S. Shiprider operations themselves.

The Chair: When the three witnesses came before the committee, they testified that if the operation went on to the land, they were asked to extend.

Senator Dallaire: They were on the water, too. They are patroling on the waters. I am trying to confirm that this legislation here, pending Bill C-38, has been acknowledged by the provincial governments; that they will subject their police to this police complaints centre.

Mr. MacKillop: It would likely be a joint investigation with the provincial oversight body. They have indicated support for joint oversight writ large — not only Shiprider but any other operation.

Senator Dallaire: That exists?

Mr. MacKillop: It will. With Bill C-38 coming in, the investigations will be more formal. They investigate some things informally now with observers, et cetera, but if Bill C-38 passes, there will be the opportunity for more formal joint investigations with provincial oversight bodies. The provinces have expressed an interest in joint oversight.

Senator Dallaire: Forgive me but do you have that in writing?

The Chair: It is not compelled; it is allowed.

Mr. MacKillop: That is correct, and we have indications in consultations that they support that approach. We have heard from several provinces that they want the opportunity to have joint investigations with respect to the RCMP and joint operations that happen.

Senator Dallaire: They do not implement their legislation before ours is implemented. Is that correct?

Mr. MacKillop: That is correct.

Senator Dallaire: Is that the normal practice?

Mr. MacKillop: It depends on the province. Some provinces may not need further enabling legislation. Some that do, will.

Senator Day: Does this proposed subsection 10 give the power to the commission to allow a province or another hearing body that wants to participate to do so, or does it merely give the commission authority to have a joint hearing so that the authority to allow it comes from somewhere else?

Ms. Beecher: It is including the sections from Bill C-38 that talk about joint investigations in this bill. They were not included initially, and we are adding what is in Bill C-38 about joint investigations to apply specifically to this bill.

Senator Day: This amendment is enabling legislation to allow the commission the ability to have joint meetings but not the ability to allow for joint meetings.

The Chair: It is to allow for, but not force.

Mr. MacKillop: This amendment will allow Bill C-38 to apply in its entirety to Canada-U.S. Shiprider operations, as opposed to saying they can have joint investigations under Bill C-38, but not if it is Shiprider. This amendment is to allow Shiprider in there as well. An oversight on the initial drafting could have been interpreted that they cannot have joint investigations for Shiprider operations, and we did not want to exclude the RCMP or anyone from oversight. The amendment is to correct that oversight and ensure they have all their powers under Bill C-38 and that the bill applies to Shiprider as well.

Senator Day: If we are looking at Bill S-13 and not Bill C-38, it says the commission may conduct investigations jointly with another authority that normally conducts those investigations. If the other authority comes along and says, "We want to be in on this investigation,'' will the commission make the yes-or-no decision?

Ms. Beecher: I am not exactly certain how all that works out, but it is contemplated that if a cross-designated officer is not an RCMP member but a member of another police force under provincial jurisdiction, the two forces will come together and agree to conduct a joint investigation concerning the operation where those mixed officers were all involved.

Senator Day: Let us suppose the commission says, "We are not interested in having a joint hearing with you.'' Does this amendment give the authority to that other body to say, "we want,'' and "you must have''? It does not do that?

Ms. Beecher: No, it does not.

The Chair: You cannot oblige. You must ask them to do it.

Senator Day: Does the commission have the authority to say yes or no?

Ms. Beecher: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: That is a bit of a difference from where we were. If a formal complaint has been made against a Canadian municipal or provincial police officer, this joint complaints commission can call that police officer in front of it, even though the commission is essentially an RCMP-based entity, and not invite the provincial or municipal authority who owns this officer to come in also?

Mr. MacKillop: Technically, yes: The initial complaint would go to the public complaints commission or the new oversight body for the RCMP because of the central authority being the RCMP. If the complaint in reality went there, and it involved an officer of the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP, the commission would in all likelihood call their counterpart in Ontario and let them know they will investigate a complaint and they will investigate it jointly. The commission is not likely to investigate it alone. If they have the opportunity to investigate jointly, they will because it gives them access to more information on the provincial side. However, they are not necessarily obliged to, and if the initial review of the complaint is such that the complaint is frivolous and they will not investigate it, they would not necessarily call Ontario and invoke any joint investigation.

Senator Dallaire: That is acknowledged. I come from a place that has what is called a "chain of command,'' so if anyone fiddles with one of my people and brings them in front of any disciplinary process, I will ensure I am engaged and sitting there. Therefore, I do not understand why we do not insist that this complaints outfit call in these other levels to investigate jointly. If the complaint is within the RCMP, no problem, it is their job. However, if someone else owns the person complained about and that person is brought in front of a complaints commission that has punitive capabilities, it is inconceivable to me that the other organization would not be part of the complaints process.

Mr. MacKillop: I think if there were punitive dispositions available, you are correct. The commission would make recommendations on something that was found, and if the recommendations involved an Ontario police officer, for instance, they would be made in conjunction with the Ontario oversight body. It is not a punitive thing. It is a response to a public complaint as opposed to gross misconduct on the part of the officer that would go to the Ontario oversight commission that looks at the deontology. That would be different from a public complaints issue.

Senator Dallaire: It makes me uneasy that it is not formal for any type of complaint, but I will not fight it.

The Chair: I am not even sure we can oblige them.

Senator Manning: I want to ensure we are clear on the amendment, which adds after line 22 on page 12, paragraph (10), and then paragraph (11), which states:

The Minister may make regulations respecting investigations, reviews or hearings conducted jointly under subsection (10).

That is part of the amendment. I want to make sure that everybody is clear.

The Chair: The whole page is here.

Senator Day: We have dealt only with (a) of the amendment so far.

We understand what you have proposed.

Senator Manning: In (b) of the amendment, I move that Bill S-13, in clause 22, be amended by

(b) replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 12 with the following:

45.9 Sections 45.52 to 45.56, 45.63 to 45.67, 45.71 . . .

May I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Day: They have added section 45.72.

Senator Dallaire: Another section to explain.

Senator Day: We have to understand what you are adding.

Senator Dallaire: What are these things?

The Chair: Every clause that is referenced or touched by those changes then must be added. Is that right?

Ms. Beecher: Yes, essentially we are adding the provisions from Bill C-38 that deal with joint investigations.

Mr. MacKillop: The underlined ones are the ones being added, essentially, to the current bill.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: This is probably a very simple question, but section 45.52 in English lists several, but in French, only three or four are listed.

Ms. Beecher: I noticed the same thing. Since only the underlined part is being added, both languages say the same thing. I think that was an editorial choice. They chose not to include the entire list of sections in the French version.

Mr. MacKillop: Those are lines.

Senator Robichaud: I do not understand it at all.

Mr. MacKillop: I am not an editor either.

Senator Day: From 42.72 to 45.74.

[English]

Can you explain sections 42.72 and 45.74? Can we read it here somewhere?

Mr. MacKillop: Yes, in terms of what those sections are, as you go to the back of the bill, they are in the references to Bill C-38.

Senator Day: It is helpful if we can look at them.

The Chair: The information is not laid out in a way that is clear. Are the references on page 20?

Senator Day: No I do not see them on page 20.

The Chair: Page 19 is where they start; is that correct? Under proposed section 45.9, there are subsections (a), (b), and (c):

(a) a reference to the Commissioner is a reference to the Central Authority.''

(b) a reference to a member or other person whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint is a reference to a designated officer whose conduct is the subject matter . . .

The section carries over to the top of the next page, where there are more subsections:

(e) a reference to the Force is a reference to the person or persons designated for that purpose by the Central Authority.

Again, that subsection is where the Force referred to the RCMP but now the reference may include other bodies.

Senator Day: What we are adding to section 45.9 in the amendment is references to sections 45.72 and 45.74. That is all we are adding. What I am asking is, what are those sections?

The Chair: If you go back, then.

Senator Day: I have been going back and forth. What page are you on?

Ms. Beecher: I am on page 29 of Bill C-38.

Senator Day: We are not in Bill C-38.

Mr. MacKillop: No, but these references are references to subsections of Bill C-38 that we have to incorporate into Bill S-13 in the event that Bill S-13 comes in before Bill C-38. We have to make sure both acts are consistent.

Section 45.72, for instance, deals with suspension and joint proceedings. We have to ensure that Canada-U.S. Shiprider falls under the joint proceedings of suspension, as well as the reports, which are in section 45.74; that under Bill C-38, if there were a joint investigation and a report coming out, that it would also incorporate Shiprider.

Senator Day: And section 45.73?

Mr. MacKillop: That section again is under suspension and joint proceedings, but if it is referenced at section 45.72, then it is covered under section 45.73. Section 45.74 is another section that deals with reports.

Senator Day: That is clear. Thank you.

Mr. MacKillop: That is about as clear as I can be, as a non-lawyer and trying to pull everything in. The amendment to references tries to ensure that both acts are consistent throughout, so we have to incorporate a number of subsections throughout.

Senator Day: Can we wait until Bill C-38 is passed and then we will breeze right through this bill?

Mr. MacKillop: My preference is that we breeze through this bill.

The Chair: We are waiting for approval in the other place for that debate.

Senator Dallaire: Chair, the question comes back to why this initiative of launching a government bill through the Senate while a parallel bill is going through the House of Commons? Why did this bill not start at the House of Commons?

The Chair: It is because Bill C-38 references only one small part of this bill. The only part that is impacted is the complaint procedure.

Senator Dallaire: That was not my question. My question is, why is Bill S-13 not Bill C-13 instead? Why did the bill not start in the House of Commons, where committees were already looking at Bill C-38?

Senator Plett: This item is clause-by-clause consideration, chair. We are not debating why something happened.

The Chair: The bill is here before us, and that is what this committee does. It is a bill because it is a program, as you well know, that is under way and that has been endorsed by everyone.

Senator Dallaire: I acknowledge my colleague and chalk it up to that.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: Do I understand correctly that this is referring to the clauses of a bill that has not yet been passed?

Mr. MacKillop: Yes, because if the bill is passed, everything will have to be under this bill; but we do not need Bill C- 38 in order to proceed with Bill S-13. Bill S-13 can proceed perfectly well with the commission that already exists Ð

Senator Robichaud: Yes, but this is referring to the other bill, I think. Is it not?

[English]

The Chair: It contemplates the other one.

[Translation]

Mr. MacKillop: Ð it is just that, given that a bill has already been introduced, because it has been introduced, we have to refer to it on the assumption that it passes. But we do not need Bill C-38 in order to pass Bill S-13.

Senator Dallaire: So we would not have to come back to Bill S-13 after Bill C-38.

Senator Nolin: I understand that we are in the Senate stage and that the House will be looking at it too. But just imagine that this bill passes today and gets royal assent; it would be making reference to an act that does not exist. That is Senator Robichaud's problem.

Mr. MacKillop: Yes, although there are two sections.

Senator Nolin: We understand what you want to do.

Mr. MacKillop: There is a section that says that, if the other bill does not pass, one section still applies with the commission that is already in place.

[English]

The Chair: So both things are contemplated.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Both options are there.

Mr. MacKillop: Both options are there. That is why it is very complicated when you try to read it.

Senator Day: That is why it is complicated.

Mr. MacKillop: Yes, but both are there, otherwise we would have to come back and change everything.

Senator Nolin: It is unusual to refer in one act to another act that does not exist.

Senator Day: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

Senator Duffy: Chair, I think what we have seen in the news over the past six months shows us that Canadians expect us to hold our police and border officials accountable. It seems to me that if this measure is making those people more accountable to civilian authorities, we should deal with it now instead of debating whether it should have started in one chamber or another. I think people want this legislation in place. It seems to me to be non-controversial, and we should move on.

The Chair: The bill is complicated, I realize, because of the referencing. However, as Mr. MacKillop has said, the bill contemplates both. If Bill C-38 passes, great; we are ready for it. If it does not, it does not matter, because it still has direct access to the existing RCMP complaint structure. The bill works either way, but it anticipates.

Senator Day: I want to reply to my friend Senator Duffy by saying that our role is to ensure that this legislation achieves only what is intended, that there are no unintended consequences. That is why we are going through this bill to understand it.

Senator Duffy: I have no argument with that, Senator Day. My argument is the debate over whether legislation should be initiated here or in the other place.

Senator Dallaire: I already gave him this point.

The Chair: We are off topic.

Now that everyone understands that these numeric references are to a bill under discussion, that Bill S-13 will contemplate both situations, can we then go ahead and ask whether clause 22 should be amended? Senator Manning, you have to go to the bottom of the amendment. I am sorry. I have read all of part (b) already.

Senator Manning: Let us keep the focus on this progressive piece of legislation.

(c) adding after line 32 on page 19 the following:

(10) If a complaint concerns the conduct of a designated officer . . .''

May I dispense?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Manning: This part is similar to "adding after line 22'' above; adding paragraph (10) and paragraph (11) after line 32 on page 19, the same wording we used on page 12.

Senator Day: You are satisfied the wording is the same? I do not have to proofread that wording?

Senator Manning: I am satisfied. Take my word for it, glasses on and glasses off.

The Chair: He put his glasses on, yes.

Do you want to move to part (d) of the amendment?

Senator Day: I want to ask our people here for a quick explanation of why part (c) is necessary.

Mr. MacKillop: It is to maintain the consistency with the previous change to section 45.88.

Senator Day: We are amending section 45.89, right? What is the general thrust of section 45.89 that we have to add these additional sections?

Mr. MacKillop: It is the investigative body reference in Bill C-38, and it is to identify that the cross-border designated officer is Canadian and not American.

The Chair: That is the same clarification, Senator Day. We cannot obligate an American but we can obligate other Canadians.

Senator Day: That was the same one where the commission may have the authority to work with other people?

Mr. MacKillop: Correct.

Senator Day: Okay.

Senator Manning: I move:

That Bill S-13, in Clause 22, be amended by

(d) replacing lines 33 and 34 on page 19 with the following:

I will not get into the same trouble I did last time. The only ones we are worried about are the underlined parts; sections 45.72 and 45.74. We will dispense with the rest. We are making the same change as the one above to make sure the bills all line up properly. It is as straight as the line in the sand.

Senator Day: The heading on page 10 at section 45.89 is "Investigation, Review and Hearing of Complaints.'' Now at page 18 we have the same heading. Why do we have the same heading at two different places?

Ms. Beecher: The separations are not obvious, but at page 9 we have the division of parts. Under "Coordinating Amendments'':

22(1) Subsections (2) to (7) apply if Bill C-38, introduced in the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament. . .receives royal assent.

Senator Day: Is subsection (7) under section 22?

Ms. Beecher: That is the way it should work.

Mr. MacKillop: It applies to everything from there. If it does not receive Royal Assent before Bill S-13, we have the other provisions, which is why we have a repetition of subheadings.

Ms. Beecher: The separation is on page 16.

Senator Day: That is what I am looking for.

It is tough to follow this bill. We are relying heavily on you; you know that.

Mr. MacKillop: It is well-placed reliance.

The Chair: We will pass a motion to that effect, I am sure, as soon as we are finished this study.

Senator Manning: I move:

That Bill S-13, in clause 22, be amended by

(e) replacing line 26 on page 24 with the following:

45.88 who was appointed as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer under subsection 8(1) of the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.

The Chair: Is everyone happy? We will move along.

Senator Manning: I move:

That Bill S-13, in clause 22, be amended by

(f) replacing line 28 on page 25 with the following:

45.88 who was appointed as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer under subsection 8(1) of the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.

Senator Day: Can you help us with why that amendment is necessary?

Ms. Beecher: If Bill C-38 does not come into force, we have to revert back to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP scheme. Because designated cross-border law enforcement officers are a new concept, we have to integrate the concept into the existing CPC scheme.

Senator Robichaud: You do not try to explain how you bring someone before the commission, in this bill?

Ms. Beecher: No: hopefully it all falls into place with the respective acts and we can show up with that.

The Chair: Shall the endless clause 22 carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Day: On division. I do not understand the clause well enough to vote for it. It is a sad comment to make, but I do not understand all this clause to the extent that I feel I should, to vote on it.

The Chair: Do you mean that we are trying to anticipate a piece of legislation that may not pass?

Senator Day: I am concerned about looking at all this legislation and trying to follow these sections with such a short time to review it.

The Chair: It would have been worse if we had had two different and complete documents that we had to read and try to find the provisions. This amendment highlights the places where changes have been made. Otherwise, we would have had to write everything out as if Bill C-38 existed, and then in the present circumstances, and then try to find it.

Senator Day: My comment was no complaint about whoever wrote these amendments. I can understand this situation. It is only that I have to be able to go back to all the sections, subsections and sub-subsections referred to and understand the impact, and I do not at this moment. If I had more time, I might be able to. I will let it pass on division, and you will be happy.

Senator Manning: Before proposing an amendment to clause 23, the English version is section 45.48. I want to make sure that is taken care of, because the French version is section 45.88.

The Chair: The issue is the same as before. You will propose an amendment and a subamendment?

Senator Manning: Yes, which will take care of the change.

I move:

That Bill S-13, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 27 with the following:

45.88, who was appointed as a cross-border maritime law enforcement officer under subsection 8(1) of the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.

Senator Nolin: This time it is in English.

Senator Manning: It is the same issue as before; we have to move only the numbers again.

The Chair: Are there any questions on that amendment?

Senator Day: We are changing the English to section 45.88?

Senator Manning: Yes.

Senator Day: So you should extend the line in the amendment to include 45.88?

Senator Manning: I extended mine. You can extend your own.

Senator Day: You are proposing the amendment, sir.

Senator Manning: Yes: I read it out.

Senator Nolin: In French it is okay this time.

The Chair: Shall clause 23, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Day: I thought that was the same motion we just had. This is another amendment to clause 23?

The Chair: It was only the 45.88.

Senator Day: We voted and we agreed, on division, on clause 23.

The Chair: No, that was clause 22.

Senator Day: I feel a lot better now.

The Chair: Good: Clause 23, as amended, is carried.

Shall clause 24 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Senator Dallaire: Chair, I am not sure when in the procedure one can raise an observation. Can I make an observation now?

The Chair: We have to deal with the titles first.

Shall clause one, which contains the short title, carry?

Senator Day: May I speak to that clause before we vote?

The Chair: Yes.

Senator Day: I have concern about the short title. I want to talk to honourable senators about this title. Every witness who appeared here, including the RCMP, referred to this bill as the Shiprider Act. The bill refers to it as the "Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act.'' The title does not refer to maritime borders; it simply says "Protecting Borders.'' The short title in a table of contents would be misleading for not referring to maritime borders or maritime operations. I have been thinking about this issue since I learned at the end of last week that you wanted to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration today. I was looking for wording to add. Perhaps it could read " (Protecting Maritime Borders)'' or "(Protecting Maritime Law Enforcement Operations).''

The Chair: Is that wording to be included within the brackets?

Senator Day: We need wording to indicate that the bill has nothing to do with land borders. Everyone else is calling the bill, Shiprider, including you a little earlier. That title I understand. When I first heard it, I did not understand it but I am comfortable with it now. We have other amendments before the committee, so an amendment to the short title will not delay the bill. I wonder whether there is any appetite for a friendly amendment to indicate maritime in the short title to make the title more helpful.

The Chair: "Maritime'' is in the long title.

Senator Day: Yes, it is.

The Chair: It is covered.

Senator Day: However, the short title is the reference used by everyone. The short title implies land borders. We should not imply that the bill is something it is not. A short title is chosen to convey the content of the bill.

The Chair: I would not want "Shiprider,'' which is "Inside the Beltway'' talk. We all understand that word but it would not be suitable in public.

Mr. MacKillop: While the operations are maritime, the protection is our borders — anything heading to our lands is intercepted in the water. We are protecting our borders through this bill. Some of these operations may extend to land. There is always an interest in working with the people on the land, whether it is our Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, IBETs, or teams in the U.S. Protecting the borders is the goal and intent of the bill. We are allowing the operations to occur in a maritime environment, which is why maritime is in the long title. The short title of "Protecting Borders'' addresses and reflects our policy intent, which is to protect our borders through operations in the maritime environment.

Senator Day: It is to protect maritime borders so you would not have any difficulty with adding "Maritime'' between "Protecting'' and "Borders''?

The Chair: He said the opposite.

Mr. MacKillop: It protects our land borders by interdicting things in the water. That is why the long title says "Maritime . . . Operations.'' The protection is to the borders and to stop things from coming into either country.

When they go over water, they hit the land at some point. The idea is to allow these operations to occur in shared waterways so that we can interdict before they reach land. If they reach land, these operations may continue. We would not want an interpretation to indicate that operations were limited to the water. Some operations may continue on land.

Senator Day: That operation is no longer at the border but is either in the United States or Canada.

Mr. MacKillop: It could be at a border crossing.

Senator Day: It could not be a border crossing because this bill relates to maritime only.

Mr. MacKillop: It depends where the landing is. At a port of entry, it would be a border operation.

Senator Day: You are saying that this bill applies to land borders.

Mr. MacKillop: This bill allows the maritime environment to be covered by joint operations to interdict things coming to the land either through a port of entry or otherwise.

Senator Day: They would land in either Canada or the U.S, divided by a maritime border. I do not have anything in writing on this issue but I think that "Protecting Maritime Borders'' in the short title would explain what this bill is about. I move:

That line 5 at page 1 be amended by adding the word "Maritime'' between "Protecting'' and Borders.''

The Chair: As we have heard, there is good reason not to make that change. That was a good explanation.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Senator Day, why not wait until third reading? You have no amendment in writing. The best thing to do would be to pass it as it is here before us. When we get to third reading, you will have had the time to draft the amendment, and we will be able to discuss it.

Senator Day: I thought of that alternative and I decided to discuss it here. That is why I am making the proposal now. It is not a complicated amendment. It just adds the word "maritime.''

Senator Nolin: I understand.

Senator Day: At third reading, perhaps my amendment would not be the same. I do not like all the "keeping Canada safe, keeping Canadians safe.''

Senator Nolin: That is your decision.

Senator Day: It is, and it could get a lot more complicated.

[English]

The Chair: Senator Day, you heard the explanation.

Senator Day: I did not accept it.

The Chair: You did not accept it but you understand the argument for not adding "Maritime.''

Senator Day: There is land on either side of the maritime border; and the maritime border is in the water. This bill does not apply to IBETs or to land crossings. This bill applies to maritime borders. Interdiction might end up on the land in the U.S. or in Canada.

The Chair: Shall we call the question on the amendment?

An Hon. Senator: Call the question.

The Chair: All in favour of the amendment moved by Senator Day? All opposed? The amendment was defeated.

Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Day: As unamended.

The Chair: I do not think we will put that in. Shall the title carry? We are back to the long title.

Senator Day: The long title refers to "Integrated Cross-border Maritime Law Enforcement.''

The Chair: You have to be in favour of this one. Carried?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Day: On division.

The Chair: Is there an observation for discussion?

Senator Dallaire: I have distributed the observation to all members.

Senator Nolin: Chair, do you want to know if you can report the bill?

The Chair: We are talking about going in camera because I have not seen this observation.

Senator Day: That did not harm us when we were discussing the amendments, which we had not seen before. Let us carry on.

Senator Plett: I ask that we go in camera, chair.

Senator Day: For what reason?

Senator Plett: When we want to discuss an observation, it should always be discussed in camera.

Senator Day: I do not think it should be.

Senator Plett: I do, and I ask to go in camera.

Senator Day: It is not our tradition to do that.

Senator Plett: A few of the committees that I have been on have done exactly that.

The Chair: We will suspend for a moment.

Senator Dallaire: Have we agreed to go in camera?

The Chair: I do not think we need a vote to go in camera, do we? Do you want a vote?

Senator Day: Yes.

The Chair: Do I have a motion?

Senator Plett: I move that the committee go in camera for discussions on observations.

Senator Day: I vote against that motion. We went through all these amendments without an opportunity to review them first. We made our point on that and moved ahead with the amendments. Why should we go in camera to deal with a proposed observation?

The Chair: I have not seen anything.

Senator Dallaire: Was this observation given to the clerk? It was given to the clerk but not distributed.

The Chair: Let us take a vote on going in camera. All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. We will go in camera.

Senator Day: I move that we adjourn to have an opportunity to review the proposed observation.

The Chair: Let us take five minutes before going in camera.

(The committee continued in camera).