THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 10, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: 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, senator from Québec, and chair of the Standing Senate Committee of National Finance.
Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Good morning and welcome. Éric Forest, Gulf division, Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Good morning. Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Good morning. Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec. Good morning.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: Good morning. Senator Tony Loffreda, from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Kingston: Good morning. Joan Kingston, New Brunswick.
Senator Pate: Good morning and welcome. My name is Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: Good morning. Pierre Moreau from Quebec, who broke ranks with his provincial colleagues. I represent the Laurentides division.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Good morning. Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Sorel, Quebec.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we resume our study on the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, which was referred to this committee on November 20, 2024, by the Senate of Canada.
We are pleased to welcome with us today senior officials from Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Public Safety Canada.
Thank you for accepting our invitation.
I understand that each official will make a short statement.
Let’s welcome Michael Hammond, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Services and Procurement Canada; Bryan Larkin, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch and Chief Financial Officer, Public Safety Canada.
On that note, I give the floor to Mr. Hammond, followed by Mr. Larkin and Mr. Amyot. Each of you will have five minutes.
Michael Hammond, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Services and Procurement Canada: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss Public Services and Procurement Canada’s (PSPC) Supplementary Estimates (B) for fiscal year 2024-25.
I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting today on the traditional, unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, honouring their deep connection to this land.
I’m joined today by Mark Quinlan, Assistant Deputy Minister for Real Property Services and Alain Lagacé, Director General, Budget Planning and Financial Management.
Honourable senators, PSPC has a wide-ranging mandate, steering government procurements, managing government buildings, administering pay and pensions for the public service, and more. In support of these activities, PSPC has requested $841.7 million in the Supplementary Estimates (B), which brings the available authorities from $4.8 billion to $5.7 billion net of revenues.
I will now outline some of the larger items in this request.
To continue delivery of critical infrastructure projects highlighted in Budget 2019, there is a request for $619.9 million. This amount covers a suite of projects that will ensure best value for Canadians, such as the Centre Block rehabilitation, the Energy Services Modernization Program for the District Energy System in the National Capital Region, the Place du Portage III Asset and Workplace Renewal project, and the Long Term Vision and Plan for the Parliamentary Precinct, to name a few.
The Government of Canada needs to transition to a more modern and sustainable human resource and pay capability to meet current and future HR and pay requirements, and to ensure accurate and timely compensation for its employees.
[English]
Therefore, $102.3 million is requested for the Government of Canada to shift to Dayforce, an HR and pay software, as a service capability to replace Phoenix. The NextGen HR and Pay initiative will assess the feasibility of adopting this new integrated HR and pay solution.
Budget 2024, provided $64 million for PSPC Vote 1 operating funding to successfully deliver on PSPC’s asset long-term strategy and plans. Vote 1 non-capital expenditures, such as pre-planning activities, are critical to ensure the efficient use of resources and the attainment of project timelines.
Pre-planning activities include feasibility studies, options analysis, investigations — for example, soil conditions — consulting support, pre-tender contracting work, statement of requirements and pre-design activities. An additional $7 million from a 2017 off-cycle funding decision will be used for non-capital expenditures related to the Long Term Vision and Plan, a multi-decade strategy to restore and modernize Canada’s Parliament buildings.
The Receiver General pays for debit and credit card acceptance fees incurred by federal departments and agencies as a result of the collection of revenues via debit and credit cards, including revenues collected for passports, citizenship services, entrance and visitor services for national parks. The allocation of $24.1 million relates to these debit and credit card acceptance fees as well as to compensate for the increase in postage fees to mail cheques to Canadians.
Smaller amounts are being sought in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the presidency of the G7 Summit in Canada, the Translation Bureau, employee benefit plan contributions, the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan and transfers to and from other organizations.
In addition to the above and other ongoing priorities, Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, will continue to support the government’s response to the housing crisis by accelerating the conversion of underused federal properties into affordable and accessible housing. As committed to in Budget 2024, PSPC is leading and already working on the new Public Lands for Homes Plan. The plan includes identifying underutilized public lands and leasing them out to ensure they are set aside for the building of affordable homes.
These are just some of the priorities that PSPC is working on. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
Bryan Larkin, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the RCMP’s Supplementary Estimates (B) for the 2024-25 fiscal year.
My name is Bryan Larkin, the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP, and I am pleased to be joined by Samantha Hazen, the Chief Financial Officer for the RCMP. I would also like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe peoples.
Today, I will provide some background information on the RCMP and our financial structure, which will help situate today’s discussion around Supplementary Estimates (B).
[Translation]
The RCMP is Canada’s national police force. It has approximately 32,000 employees. Two-thirds are sworn police officers, and the other third are unsworn civilian members and public servants. The RCMP is a complex organization that enforces the law at the community, provincial, territorial and federal levels. We also fulfill international obligations, whether it be peacekeeping missions or building relationships with partners abroad, including our Five Eyes partners, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
We provide front-line policing through 155 contractual agreements with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, as well as in 600 Indigenous communities across Canada.
We are responsible for dealing with increasingly serious and complex criminal threats in Canada in areas such as terrorism and extremism, drugs and organized crime, national security, protective policing, and border integrity.
[English]
As you are aware, border integrity has been top of mind in recent weeks. We want to assure members of this committee that we continue to work with our portfolio and law enforcement partners across the country and south of the border to ensure we are prepared to address any border concerns.
We are confident in the ability of Canadian enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, to work together to maintain the integrity of the Canada-U.S. border, as well as to ensure we enforce all Canadian laws.
The RCMP also provides specialized operational policing services to our law enforcement partners, including advanced training, firearms licencing, and investigative and forensic services.
[Translation]
The RCMP’s work in 2024-25 builds on significant progress already made to modernize police services to respond to an ever-changing threat landscape and transform the culture of the organization to build trust.
That means constantly finding ways to better care for our employees, treat all those we serve with dignity and respect, and do our policing work in a way that builds confidence in the RCMP.
Real and lasting change takes time, and we know there’s still work to be done.
[English]
Through the 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (B), the RCMP expects to access $721 million, mainly attributed to the following: $440.2 million for the Contract Policing program to address growth in the Contract Policing program, enabling the continuance of program and service delivery; $45.4 million in advance funding as Canada assumes the presidency of the G7 in 2025 to undertake site visits, initiate security planning and coordination, and begin advance procurement of security equipment; $26.2 million in support of providing protective services for public figures; $16.2 million to support foreign interference-related criminal investigations; $7.6 million to continue implementing activities that contribute to Canada’s Migrant Smuggling Prevention Strategy; and $2.4 million to support Canada’s continued response to the security crisis in Haiti.
With that, we would like to again thank the committee for the opportunity to spend time with you this morning. We look forward to your questions.
[Translation]
Thank you all.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch and Chief Financial Officer, Public Safety Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to join you today to share an overview of the 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (B) 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 keep Canada and Canadians safe. Its mission is to build a safe and resilient Canada and contribute to our country’s resilience through the development and implementation of innovative policies and programs, as well as concrete engagement with domestic and international partners.
The department plays a role in three areas for Canadians: community safety, emergency management and national security.
As mentioned, my name is Patrick Amyot. I’m here as the Chief Financial Officer for Public Safety Canada.
I’m here this morning with some colleagues who will answer further questions in their respective fields.
[English]
The total public safety budgetary items included in the 2024-25 Supplementary Estimates (B) is $802.9 million. This represents a 48.7% increase to the department’s appropriations. These Supplementary Estimates (B) include several internal transfers in the amount of $92.3 million to be reallocated out to other federal departments.
[Translation]
These transfers facilitate the reallocation of funds within departments to meet Public Safety Canada’s priorities and ensure effective use of public resources.
[English]
The most significant item in these supplementary estimates is $800 million reprofiled from the previous fiscal year for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or DFAA, contribution program. As you are all aware, the long-standing 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.
[Translation]
Last week, Public Safety Canada launched the first phase of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program for businesses as part of its comprehensive strategy to combat gun violence in Canada.
[English]
Included in these Supplementary Estimates (B) is $32 million to expand the program to individuals, which is expected to be launched in the spring of 2025. Most of this funding will be used to support provinces, territories and the local police jurisdiction to establish plans to collect assault-style firearms from individuals. The funding will also be used for expanding the functionality of the Case Management System, which was originally developed for phase 1 businesses.
The third most significant item included in Public Safety Canada’s Supplementary Estimates (B) is $14.9 million for the Canada Community Security Program. This program has a significant role in Canada’s action plan on combatting hate, particularly in the face of hate crimes, which have increased due to geopolitical tensions.
[Translation]
This program replaces the federal Security Infrastructure Program and provides time-limited funding to private not-for-profit organizations that are at risk of hate-motivated crimes. Eligible recipients include places of worship, provincially and territorially recognized private educational institutions, shelters for victims of gender-based violence, community centres, cemeteries, early childhood centres and administrative offices and spaces.
[English]
Honourable senators, with this brief overview, my colleagues and I look forward to discussing these estimates with the committee members.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Amyot.
Senator Forest: Thank you for your presentations.
My first question is for Mr. Hammond, from Public Services and Procurement Canada.
There is an additional $9.6 million for the Translation Bureau in the supplementary estimates (B). We know that translation services work miracles with extremely limited resources, because hiring interpreters seems to be very difficult. Is any of that funding going to alleviate the challenges in recruiting interpreters, and are there long-term strategies for recruitment?
[English]
Mr. Hammond: The funding that’s provided in the Supplementary Estimates (B) is particularly for the support to Parliament in terms of the interpretation services. I know that there is work going on within the Translation Bureau to look at alternative areas of recruitment for new translators, and I know that work is progressing quite well.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: So there’s no strategy in place to address this recruitment issue with the additional $9.6 million?
[English]
Mr. Hammond: As I said, I know there is work happening in the Translation Bureau, and they are meeting with several institutions to identify pertinent sources for translators to meet the demand that’s arising.
I know they are working on the strategy. I don’t have the details of that particular strategy here. I would be happy to look into that and get back to the committee if you would like more details on that.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you.
My second question is for Mr. Amyot.
I notice that the largest request for additional funding from your department, which is $800 million, relates to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements fund. This money would be used to reimburse provinces and territories for expenses incurred in response, recovery and implementation measures after natural disasters.
Why is it taking so long for the provinces to be reimbursed? The flooding in British Columbia dates back to 2021.
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. I’ll ask my colleague Douglas May, Senior Director, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, to elaborate on that.
As for me, what I can say is that it takes time; it’s true. When something happens, first we have to deal with the event itself. It’s only afterwards that the accountants get involved.
On the issue of the claims, the provinces and territories have up to five years to submit them. That’s the usual time frame, but it can be extended. If you look at our quarterly financial reports, there’s an event from 2013 that will be resolved soon, but it takes time to collect all the claims. That has to be verified by a provincial auditor and a federal auditor. Some cases are really very complex.
In this case, we are at the mercy of the provinces and territories that must submit their claims to us. We’re working with them to make sure that they have everything they need to be compensated.
Douglas May, Senior Director, Program Operations, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: I’ve got nothing to add.
Senator Forest: That can be extremely difficult on Canadians who have suffered these kinds of losses. If you lost part of your home and you’ve been waiting since 2013—
Mr. Amyot: I absolutely agree. This is about reimbursing the provinces and territories. Impacted Canadians may well have gotten the help they need.
Senator Forest: Do you mean compensation?
Mr. May: That’s right.
[English]
We work with the provinces and territories. The province puts in place the program and then we work with them in terms of cost sharing the claims that they put forward. Of course, these events in B.C. were extremely complex and extremely large. In fact, I think the 2021 atmospheric event is the largest recorded disaster that we have against the DFAA. The province is still in recovery mode so it’s an active file.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Mr. Larkin, on the issue of fentanyl exports, do we have a strategy for that? Only small amounts are currently being seized at the border. Would it be an exaggeration to state that Canada is a major exporter of this drug?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question.
[English]
In short, yes, we do have a national strategy. We’re working with the police of jurisdiction through the Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime, or CIROC, committee which is a collection of police leaders from across the country. We have a national strategy.
You are correct that Canada has seen an increase in the exportation of fentanyl. We’re doing a significant amount of work. Clearly, in our discussions in partnership with the CBSA and other police of jurisdiction, one of our focuses has been around a renewed national strategy. We also have the Trilateral Fentanyl Committee, with the U.S.A. and Mexico, on a North American strategy on how we combat the terrible, devastating impacts of fentanyl. As this committee knows, more than 56,000 Canadians have lost their lives.
In short, we’re looking and using and leveraging the opportunity right now to be much more agile in our approach, which will include an enhanced integration with drug teams across the country. More to roll out on that, although there is a national strategy as well as a North American ongoing working group with our partners.
Senator Smith: Mr. Amyot, I’d like to ask you another question, this one on foreign interference and national security.
Your Departmental Plan 2024-25 emphasizes countering foreign interference through initiatives like the foreign influence transparency registry in coordination with international partners. Recent news highlights increasing concerns over cyber-threats and espionage linked to foreign actors.
Question: Could you provide us with updates on how Public Safety Canada is working to operationalize the foreign influence transparency registry and what challenges have been identified in the shareholder engagements? Is there a date you can share with us? What measures are being taken to integrate findings from international partnerships to counter foreign interference more effectively?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. In our Supplementary Estimates (B), we have an amount to combat foreign interference in the amount of $2.8 million. Your questions are more in terms of an update, and I have my colleague here Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, who is the Associate Deputy Minister, or ADM responsible for foreign interference.
Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for your question. The $2.7 million for countering foreign interference is for the creation of the office of the coordinator, my office. Our work is to provide policy coordination and operational coordination and engagement on issues of countering foreign interference.
Your question referred to the creation of the transparency registry. It’s a separate set of funding. We are working towards a June time frame. That’s our internal plan. Everything is progressing to the plan.
Senator Smith: [Technical difficulties]
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: That’s right. That’s correct. Though I must say there could be a lot of contingencies along the way, but our internal plan is to be ready.
Essentially, we need to name the commissioner — or the House and the Governor-in-Council, or GIC, will need to name a commissioner. Then we need to have the IT infrastructure, the intellectual infrastructure, so to speak, and have the individuals for the office before we can go and essentially put the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, or FITAA into force, and that is a GIC decision.
The goal is to build the office, name the commissioner, build the IT infrastructure, set in the core advice and then go for coming into force. As I said, June is the time frame, but there might be a lot of contingencies along the way.
Senator Smith: Looking at cybersecurity and critical infrastructure, with the initiatives like the National Cyber Security Strategy and Bill C-26, the department aims to secure Canada’s critical infrastructure and enhance public trust. What specific benchmarks have been set to evaluate the success of the National Cyber Security Strategy within its first year?
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: We’re renewing the strategy so it needs to be implemented. There are a lot of consultations with stakeholders and so there is a plan for a renewed strategy. I don’t have the specifics on the implementation measures, but we’re just about to transition —
Senator Smith: Something like a one-paragraph or two-paragraph summary on that would be helpful just to see where that’s at.
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: Yes.
Senator Smith: One last question. How will the department address vulnerabilities in the newly expanded 5G infrastructure under the cybersecurity act?
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: Bill C-26 establishes standards that telecom organizations need to abide by. Essentially, they need to have a solid cybersecurity plan. There are also reporting mechanisms that are proposed so that cyber incidents are reported to the Government of Canada and then we can build better resilience. Telecommunication is one of the four sectors touched by Bill C-26. The expectation is that they will reach a certain level or accepted standards.
Senator Smith: Is the planning in place right now? Are there any results that you’ve received or is it too early to tell?
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: Bill C-26 has not received Royal Assent. That’s the expectation that once the bill is adopted, then that will create a statutory obligation to do this.
Senator Smith: Right. So it’s in the early stages. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: My first questions for Public Safety and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relate to the firearms buyback program.
[English]
Public Safety Canada has a line that says they are asking for $32 million for funding of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program. The RCMP also has $13.6 million for the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program. Can you explain exactly who is doing what?
Mr. Amyot: Yes. Public Safety Canada is asking for $32 million in Supplementary Estimates (B). As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, it’s to continue with the phase 2 of the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program for individuals.
Public Safety Canada’s responsibilities are basically to establish the policy, get the system ready, marketing, communication and notification.
My colleague Greg Kenney, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the compensation program, is here and can provide more details on how we are doing things at Public Safety, and then the RCMP.
[Translation]
Greg Kenney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Firearms Program, Public Safety Canada: Good morning and thank you for the question. My name is Greg Kenney.
[English]
I am the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Firearms Program. The $32 million, as my chief finance officer already articulated, is to advance phase 2 during this fiscal year in anticipation of the launch of that second phase in 2025.
The $32 million represents a number of activities, notification and communication as articulated by Mr. Amyot. We also have an IT system we are evolving from phase 1 to phase 2, leveraging a lot of the functionality that is in place now to support phase 1 and businesses for individuals.
We are working with other federal government departments in setting up a contact centre to enable individuals who are participating in the program to call and seek secure support.
There are a number of other smaller initiatives that are under way. We’re working with professional services to complete our privacy impact assessment and arrange information-sharing agreements with our different partners, a number of those planning and preparatory activities to support that spring launch in 2025.
[Translation]
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. The RCMP got $13.6 million in 2024-25 in support of public safety.
[English]
Those funds are to support Public Safety Canada in phase 1. The Canadian Firearms Program received that money. That is around ensuring, although there is no police involvement in phase 1, our firearms program does assist with email, communication, notification, mail-outs to the 2.3 million licence holders, as well as approximately 4,000 businesses that are licence holders; those include firearms stores, ranges, et cetera.
That money is also assisting us in the planning for phase 2, which is the individual collection.
We are working on this plan for nine provinces, with the exception of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That would actually launch and coincide with our areas of jurisdiction over a six-month period in the spring of 2025.
We’re working on operational plans to collect approximately 30,000 firearms in areas the RCMP provides service. We’ll also support smaller and mid-sized agencies that need national support and collection.
Senator Dalphond: What I understand from both of your answers is it’s not money to fund the repurchase of arms, it’s to gather information and put systems in place.
I heard on television that somebody is buying back arms from the store owners; is that the RCMP or Public Safety Canada?
Mr. Kenney: Phase 1 of the program, which is under way now, businesses nationally were invited to participate in the program last week. The compensation amount is for phase 1 and businesses, that’s under way. The process involves businesses using the case management system, which I referred to earlier, to submit their claim, identify the firearms they have and agree to the terms and conditions.
Senator Dalphond: How much has been paid so far?
Mr. Kenney: About $35,000.
Senator Dalphond: $35,000?
Mr. Kenney: Yes. The first phase, our final testing phase, involved four businesses. They turned in 35 firearms.
Senator Dalphond: What is expected for this year with respect to the repurchase of arms from stores or dealers?
Mr. Kenney: We’re anticipating anywhere between 7,000 and 10,000 firearms from businesses who are in possession of eligible firearms.
Senator Dalphond: That means how much money?
Mr. Kenney: We have budgeted from $13 million to $18 million for compensation for businesses.
Senator Dalphond: $13 million to $18 million, and we have spent $35,000 so far. We are far from the target, if I may use that expression?
Mr. Kenney: Yes, $35,000, at this stage.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Pate: My question is for Mr. Amyot.
I’m concerned. Although I do not see it articulated in the funding requests of the supplementary estimates, Public Safety Canada at the end of this month will see the end of the ministerial advisory committee on the implementation of the Structured Intervention Units.
I’m curious as to whether there is any money in the supplementary estimates for continued correctional oversight and, if so, where that is.
Who will replace the ministerial advisory committee to provide the kind of oversight that is clearly required of these SIUs?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question.
I would confirm there is no money for that in Supplementary Estimates (B).
I’m glad to see my colleague, Chad Westmacott, who has information to provide to you.
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: You are correct that the implementation advisory panel is not being renewed. Their mandate ends at the end of this calendar year.
The Structured Intervention Unit Implementation Advisory Panel was created to ensure the implementation of the Structured Intervention Units. They have been around since the start. They restarted and we extended their mandate out to December 2024 where, previously, it was supposed to end last year.
The oversight going forward is to be done through the Office of the Correctional Investigator, which is the appropriate body to be taking a look at oversight of all things within the correctional service, including the Structured Intervention Units.
Thank you.
Senator Pate: The Office of the Correctional Investigator has been, on an ongoing basis — both the OCI and the ministerial advisory committee — provided scathing assessments of what has not been done in terms of the Structured Intervention Units, in addition to calling for the commencement of the five-year review of the provisions of Bill C-83 that were supposed to be implemented.
With respect, there has not been a follow-through on the recommendations made by the Office of the Correctional Investigator over the years, in any year I would say.
This year, in addition, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights sought more information about oversight and was denied that as well.
What assurances do you have we’ll actually see a change in behaviour of Correctional Service Canada?
Mr. Westmacott: I can’t speak for Correctional Service Canada specifically.
I can point out that, with every report the Office of the Correctional Investigator and Independent Assessment Process has provided to the public safety portfolio, Public Safety Canada has worked closely with CSC to ensure there are actions going forward.
In terms of public safety specifically, there were recommendations related to the Independent External Decision Makers, or IEDM, structure, or the independent external decision-maker structure; we have taken those onboard and provided additional training to IEDMs to ensure national consistency across the country.
Senator Pate: You are aware there have been significant concerns raised of late about IEDMs who were not merely rubber stamping Corrections decisions not having their contracts renewed.
I note that on Public Safety Canada’s website it specifically says they advise and support the Minister of Public Safety on legislation and policies governing Corrections and Criminal Justice and, in particular, strengthening the federal corrections system. Specifically, the website mentions the implementation of the Structured Intervention Units, or SIUs, and the role of the IEDMs, and the ministerial advisory committee, in providing oversight. If that is not provided, what do you suggest this committee do?
Mr. Westmacott: I’m sorry, I have missed the —
Senator Pate: If the lack of oversight continues with Corrections, what do you suggest this or other committees of the Senate do?
Mr. Westmacott: There is a significant value to this and other committees to raising concerns around Correctional Services and the correctional system within Canada.
Every single recommendation provided to Public Safety Canada or Correctional Services is looked at closely, and actions are taken to try to address the concerns raised.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Mr. Amyot. When we talk about extreme weather events and their cost, Canadians look at insurer losses. The Insurance Bureau of Canada publishes insured losses, which indicate how much each event costs. For example, the Jasper wildfires cost $880 million. In total, we know that every year now, the cost of insured losses is increasing. It passed from $1 million to now we’re at $4 billion per year.
In your estimates, you are asking for funding through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements for Canadian Red Cross urgent measures to implement a Flood Risk Awareness portal to enhance natural disaster resilience. You call all of that natural disaster, but it is related to extreme weather events caused by global warming. This is all added to whatever the Insurance Bureau publishes.
Can you tell us how much these extreme weather events cost per year total? How are you preparing for next year? How much is it going to cost next year?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. It’s very broad, so I’m going to try to answer, and I have my colleague Doug May here who will be able to help out.
How much does it cost? It’s not just Public Safety Canada that has put in costs in terms of extreme weather or climate changes. Our biggest program is the DFAA, the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. Public Safety Canada’s role is to help provinces and territories recover from a disaster, whether it’s a flood, a forest fire or any extreme weather.
The specific amounts right now to help recover, as you see, these supplementary estimates have an $800 million addition, but in the Main Estimates, we had $5.5 million. This fiscal year, the plan is $1.35 billion.
What I can say is how much it will cost. Currently, for the DFAA, we do publish the future liabilities based on the 87 events that were approved by an order-in-council to help provinces and territories. We don’t help every province and territory; it depends on the amount. The current liability is $5.5 billion to be paid out, theoretically, in the next five years. That’s what we have for the DFAA.
There are a number of programs that we have in place for prevention. As you see, there is a flood portal that we are creating right now, which is $2.1 million. That’s to help Canadians have information on whether where they live in a place that is subject to flooding.
Senator Galvez: So what happens, for example, if you find people live in areas prone to flooding?
Mr. Amyot: That’s where I will ask my colleague to answer. Thank you.
Mr. May: There are incentives within the DFAA with provinces that are in high-risk flood areas to relocate, yes. I don’t have all the numbers, but it is a reality and that is happening.
Senator Galvez: I would like to know where exactly citizens can apply. Is it on the website?
Mr. May: These are incentives and objectives that are through provincial programs once the disaster hits. Then there is eligibility under the DFAA to partner with the province in terms of what we call Innovative Recovery Solutions to allow individuals to relocate, yes.
Senator Galvez: One last point. Mr. Larkin, I’m sure your people participate in some of these emergency calls. Is this included in the cost that Mr. Amyot mentioned, or are there other costs on top of insured losses, security public office and now the RCMP?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. The RCMP would have a role to play in emergency management within the province, municipality or territory. Those costs would be part of the actual contract policing program that we budget for annually. A lot of it is actually around evacuation, critical incident support and major incident commands that we would support, as well as some financial funds to manage. A number of our members get displaced in these areas, as well as business contingencies to ensure operations, but that is a separate budget allotment.
If you’re interested, we can forward information from across the country by province and territory around emergency management and the funding of that, but a lot of those would be operational policing necessities where we are evacuating a community. For example, in Jasper, obviously, we did a lot of evacuation and a lot of support. We invoked Article 9 where there was support from Saskatchewan as well as B.C. and Alberta to assist those members in ensuring the safety of the community, but those are separate within our contractual agreements.
Senator Galvez: Can you please send that to the clerk?
Mr. Larkin: I’d be happy to do that.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to our panellists for being here this morning.
I have two questions for the RCMP, the first being on border integrity and the second being on next year’s upcoming G7 Summit in Canada whereby in these Supplementary Estimates (B), you’re requesting approximately $44 million for the presidency of the G7 Summit. I note an additional $53 million going to Shared Services Canada and another $17 million to Global Affairs Canada.
Before speaking to the RCMP’s total budget funding for the G7 Summit, my question is on border integrity. What is your biggest challenge? What major changes will be made based on President-elect Trump’s demands, if any? Do you have sufficient resources to efficiently meet the demands and targets that we will set?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. First and foremost, I want to highlight that across the country, we have Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. We do a significant amount of work in the current environment around border security and border safety. Much of that is focused on the smuggling of firearms, humans, as well as illicit drugs.
We also have a responsibility to support CBSA with points of entry. One of the greatest challenges is the vastness of our country. We have a significantly large border. We also recognize that the volume of people, the volume of vehicles and the volume of vessels is a significant challenge for us. You do that with a limited amount of resources while balancing significant priorities currently facing the RCMP, which includes foreign interference, the significant complexity and the changing landscape that we’re in around protection of public safety and public figures.
We’re balancing a series of responsibilities and trying to be as agile as possible as we look at the border. Clearly, we have a significant amount of work that we do with U.S. law enforcement. We meet regularly. We have U.S. border patrol, FBI and ATF members integrated and embedded into units within Canada, across our country. We have daily and weekly interactions with U.S. law enforcement. There is a lot of work happening.
We have been working closely with Public Safety Canada in the last month significantly on the future landscape of Canada-U.S. relations. That includes working very closely with our CBSA partners, looking at potential around enhanced technology and using technology at our vast border, also looking at how we can increase our vessel patrol and our aircraft and air support to look at border management as we look at all the different challenges. We have been working with Public Safety Canada to support potentially a ministerial ask around a border action plan. Although I can’t get into all of those details, we do have a resource ask. We have looked at the future as we look at an integrated border.
The challenge, quite frankly, is managing the various priorities of policing, the complexity of policing and the reality of the amount of goods and people that travel between both of our countries. I think it’s a shared responsibility with Public Safety Canada, CBSA and other law enforcement partners.
I want to reiterate the excellent collaborative approach we have in Canada, but also with the U.S. We work exceptionally well together. We have seen this recently in a number of significant arrests, Operation GIANT SLALOM being one of them, which was a U.S.-based drug trafficking project that seized a significant amount of fentanyl destined for our country. I’ll pause there if you want me to move into the G7 question.
Senator Loffreda: You can. It’s just a quick question. You said you work closely with U.S. law enforcement. Are they satisfied with our performance, and why President-elect Trump’s demands? Is it strictly political then, or are there legitimate concerns on the U.S. side?
Mr. Larkin: I can’t speak for U.S. law enforcement agencies on their satisfaction rate. What I can tell you is we have a strong relationship. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the president-elect’s approach and those types of things. What I can tell you is we’re very proud of the work we do every single day to ensure border integrity in our country. We are also very proud of the current operations that we do every single day.
That being said, we recognize through Public Safety Canada and through discussions with Canada Border Services Agency, the expectations of our organization may change. We are tooling up for a future where there will be different expectations. We’re looking at the agility of our organization, as well as prioritizing, as we previously discussed, addressing fentanyl and addressing opiates in our society — which, again, we have had national strategies on, but clearly, there is a demand to do more — as well as other significant issues including the sharing of information with U.S. law enforcement agencies, specifically around sex offenders that travel to the U.S. and how we share information with our U.S. partners.
Senator Loffreda: The G7, we’ll do it on the second round if there is not enough time during this round.
Senator Carignan: Second round, please.
Senator Kingston: Welcome to everyone. My questions are for Mr. Larkin.
We talked about these subjects before in September, but you do have over $360 million in your Supplementary Estimates (B) requests for the Contract Policing program. In September, I asked some questions around the renewal and modernization of the RCMP’s mission-critical, front line policing services. Of course, you have a large deployment in New Brunswick in terms of contract policing.
In your answer, you talked about the fact that many of the calls that your force responds to address social disorder not necessarily criminal charges, and you talked about the fact that you are moving forward in terms of things like launching crisis-intervention teams where a police officer is paired with a mental health expert and crisis intervention triaging at your communication centres.
First of all, I would like you to talk a little bit more about your progress since then in terms of those issues, as well as the upcoming meeting, for lack of a better word, of police leaders nationally that you talked about in January 2025, which is coming right up, and what you expect to achieve there.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. You are correct that we are seeking incremental growth through 2024-25 through the end of the contract, which is 2031-32. My colleague, Mr. Amyot can speak to specifics around the contract management because Public Safety Canada does manage the contract.
As I alluded to, we have received $440.2 million. Of that, $367 million of those dollars are voted authorities. Of that, $79.5 million is for statutory authorities. So again, in each of the provinces and territories, that commanding officer would look at and work with the local government and with the Minister of Justice or Minister of Public Safety, depending on the province you are in, around questions like: What are the key priorities? What priorities are we setting? How do we manage this?
I can tell you that recently, at the meeting with a Senior Assistant Deputy Minister from Public Safety Canada, as well as other assistant deputy ministers and the federal policing territorial deputy minister, there was a lot of discussion around tiered policing, community safety officers and Indigenous communities. It’s a large topic. We also asked: How do we actually triage calls for service so that we respond better to the needs and so that we’re more prepared?
As we look at, particularly in various divisions across Western Canada, the crime severity impact, it’s significant. When you look at the communities we provide service to, there are a lot of complex criminal issues, not all of those that we’re best suited to solve. How do we manage this as we move forward?
There is a federal policing territorial meeting in early January when the 2032 contract and beyond are to be discussed, as will policing priorities. One of the questions that we’re asking internally to support public safety is: What does the future of policing look like? Quite frankly, there is an equality challenge across the country. Some provinces are wealthier than others and are able to pay for levels of policing and other services which other provinces and territories cannot.
I’ll give you a phenomenal example. In the Yukon Territory recently, we met with Minister McPhee and the Deputy Minister, Mark Radke, where we rolled out a mental health service that has a police officer and a mental health nurse. We are seeing significant success, particularly in the Whitehorse community, which is the largest urban population. We’re seeing a significant decrease in demand for policing and calls for service. We’re also seeing better outcomes with the individuals we are coming in contact with.
Perhaps what the team at the office in contract policing can do this for this committee, which would be easier for us because of the vastness of the provinces and territories and the uniqueness of each, is to provide a snapshot of the mental health, triaging and community service officers by province and territory to give you insight into the various landscapes. Because from across the country, it varies in the level of service. Some of that is built on the contractual agreements, or the contractual arrangements, and, quite frankly, the ability to afford policing services.
Senator Kingston: As a follow-up, in New Brunswick specifically, has there been — second round?
The Chair: Second round, please.
Senator Ross: My question today is for Mr. Hammond. I’m from New Brunswick, and I guess you could say we heard anecdotally that Phoenix was not really ready to roll out when it did. I’m wondering if you could give me a sense of the $100 million plus allocated for Dayforce. Can you give me some reassurances as to the rollout, the timeline, the readiness and the measures that are being implemented to ensure some of the challenges with Phoenix are not repeated?
Mr. Hammond: Thank you very much for the question. In terms of the funding that we received as part of the Supplementary Estimates (B), it’s predominantly to be used to determine the feasibility of the Dayforce system. That’s a process being done with Dayforce and Government of Canada employees to ensure we are ready to make sure that we can launch this new system at an appropriate time. So the feasibility will be done this year in order to determine the timelines for the rollout.
Senator Ross: At this point, there is no rollout timeline. The $100 million is just for the feasibility?
Mr. Hammond: At this point, they are assessing the feasibility, and then we will determine the timelines for the rollout.
Senator Ross: Would you say that they have established or will be establishing sort of go-no-go points at which they would determine whether to keep going or to stop, which perhaps were not in place with Phoenix?
Mr. Hammond: What I would say is the department is very cognizant and very concerned about ensuring that we take the steps necessary to ensure this is a proper rollout. The work that is ongoing with our colleagues within the Pay Centre, and the pay transformation team is focused on ensuring we don’t make the same mistakes this time.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: My first question is for Mr. Amyot.
In response to Senator Forest’s question about the slow pace of compensation between the federal and provincial governments, you explained that you were at the mercy of the provinces to submit those claims, and I agree with that. You also stated that the claims were checked twice: first by a provincial auditor, and then by a federal auditor. Why the need for two separate verifications? After all, auditors are professionals who are required to give an unbiased opinion of the claims. Isn’t that duplication? Are efforts under way to reduce that kind of duplication in light of the fact that provinces that have already disbursed significant sums to compensate disaster victims are made to wait for the federal government to do its part and reimburse them?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. There are indeed two verifications at this time. That’s part of the program’s framework.
I’ll start, and I’m sure my colleague will be able to elaborate further.
The provinces and territories gather expenditures, and they’re not the only ones to have them. They absorb all of the expenditures of their partners, including municipalities, law enforcement, firefighters and more. The initial verification is meant to determine what will be reimbursed, depending on the province’s framework.
Then, what hasn’t been repaid can be claimed from the federal government. We check to make sure that what we pay is part of our framework. Given the complexities and the sheer number of partners, the provincial or territorial auditors first check that to ensure that everything is consistent with their program. Then, when the claim comes to us, we make sure that these aren’t things that the federal government doesn’t reimburse. That being said, it’s a very theoretical answer. Maybe Mr. May can give you further details.
Mr. May: I’ve got nothing to add. There are two programs: the province’s, and ours. We work together. There are, however, differences between the programs which require us to carry out verifications in each of the jurisdictions.
Senator Moreau: Given that the program criteria are known, both those of the federal government and those of the provincial or territorial governments, why could a single verification not cover all of the criteria? That seems entirely possible.
Mr. Amyot: I completely agree. This is a lot of money we’re talking about, not to mention two different frameworks and two different programs. The provinces are responsible for setting up their own compensation program. They check what they have. In most cases, they reimburse partners themselves, without support from the federal government.
Senator Moreau: If you’re in a position to provide the committee with that information, could you tell us what it costs to audit all of the sums that went out in compensation, including the provincial and federal audits? You could just provide that number to the clerk of the committee.
My second question is for Mr. Larkin. In response to a question from Senator Loffreda, you indicated what you’re currently doing to ensure border security. However, I heard Minister Champagne say that the federal government had been making efforts for several months to improve border security. My question is this: In the supplementary estimates we’re looking at today, is there any amount of money that’s going to improve border security?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for your question. We’ve not gotten any additional funding in the 2024-25 supplementary estimates.
Senator Moreau: When you talked about improving technology, drones and technological equipment to facilitate the control of a border that isn’t militarized in any way across the country, what additional funding will you need to meet the federal government’s requirements for improving border security?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. It’s very important. There is technology and personnel deployed at the border every day. We’re working with Public Safety.
[English]
We are looking to the future of enhanced technology improvements. Very similar to Minister Champagne and our minister, we have been working closely around what can we do to improve and enhance. As I alluded to, we have limited resources that we balance, but I want to reassure this committee that we have significant technology deployed. We also have significant individuals deployed. This is an enhancement plan that would only increase what we currently do every single day.
[Translation]
The Chair: I’m going to continue along the same line of questioning. You say that you have limited resources. I’ve heard you say that a number of times today.
In 2014, the RCMP had 29,000 employees. In 2024, there are 31,161 employees, so about 2,000 more. I’m assuming that about two-thirds of those are police officers, because that’s the ratio. So there’s been an increase in the number of officers over the past 10 years. I’m being generous, because with the numbers you mentioned, I’m not sure there was an increase in the number of police officers over 10 years. If there is one, it’s very slight. The actual increase in the number of officers is about 6%, and that was with a budget of $2.63 billion. Under the Supplementary Estimates (B), the budget will increase to about $5.6 billion. If I take away $400 million for new police officers, that leaves $5.2 billion. So the budget has increased 100% over 10 years. However, there are only 6% more staff. What is going on in the RCMP?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for your question.
[English]
You are correct. There were approximately 32,000 employees in 2024. About 20,000 of those would be regular members, and about 12,000 would be public servants. It’s important to note that over the last decade, we’ve also actually looked at functions within the organization. Does a police officer need to do some of the technical expertise work, cybersecurity work and cybercrime investigations? We’ve been piloting civilian criminal investigations around money laundering and financial crime. Where do you need a traditional police officer that we all know? We’ve been looking at different pieces as part of our federal policing modernization mandate. Support by public servants and civilian members for specialized policing is very high. When we look at forensic sciences and the laboratories, all of those are professional subject-matter experts.
When I talk about limited resources, you are correct. In the last decade, crime within our country has evolved. It’s changed significantly. The investigations and the court rigours are much more demanding than they were previously. From a protective policing perspective, we’ve had to be agile to realign resources. We have a set, limited number of police officers within a set budget, and we manœuvre and move based on priorities, crime severity and what we believe at the time are significant threats. That is the reality of what we’re facing.
When we speak about the border and looking to the future, we have been working with Public Safety Canada and CBSA as to what would be a realistic, ideal piece where we combine technology with human resources. What is realistic around recruiting? What is realistic around training and the outputs to make sure that we spend financial dollars from the government wisely? There is a real blending of the work that we’re doing here. It’s not a simple piece. Also, we still have responsibility to fill contract policing seats and front-line policing across our country.
[Translation]
The Chair: In 2014, the population was 35 million. Now, it’s up to 41 million. Law enforcement calculate their numbers using a ratio per 100,000 population. According to Statistics Canada, more often than not, the number of police officers per 100,000 population decreases year after year; it has dropped by 18%.
It almost sounds as though you’re firefighters rather than officers. You’re assigned to places where there are fires, car thefts, arrests... Following the election of President Trump, Minister Champagne stated that he had been preparing border control measures for several months. What a peculiar thing it is to say that we’ve been preparing for several months. We should always be ready. However, additional resources will be allocated immediately. It seems to me that you need more police officers. The number of police officers hasn’t kept pace with population growth.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for your question.
[English]
Clearly, we’ve looked at diversifying the workforce. It’s important to note that we don’t believe that adding more police officers necessarily gives us the best outcome of solving crimes or addressing some of those issues. We can use highly trained, highly skilled civilian individuals to do some of that work. We’re looking at other agencies, but I’m happy to have our Chief Financial Officer provide any insight into the budget increase and where the money is being spent. Happy to share that with the committee.
Clearly, we are in the process, I can tell you, asking for resources for the future. We recognize that our federal policing and our specialized policing is at its limit. The likelihood for us to respond to the evolving complexity of policing, evolving threats, that we will need to add resources. That is the work we’ve been doing with Public Safety Canada right now.
[Translation]
The Chair: I don’t want to go beyond my allotted time. Could you answer quickly? Alternatively, you could send us a written response.
[English]
Samantha Hazen, Chief Financial Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Very quickly, Mr. Chair, I would add to his response that the majority of the funding and the majority of the officers at the RCMP support the contracts in the Indigenous Policing program. The Federal Policing program provides policing support along the borders. So 62% of our budget is spent on contract Indigenous Policing, while only 17% is attributed to Federal Policing.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, that’s very useful.
Senator Forest: Mr. Amyot, we’re talking about delays in the reimbursement program for disaster-related costs. There was an ice storm in 1998, and 25 years later, Quebec is still waiting for the $484 million it spent in response to this event. That’s not what I would call a reasonable time frame.
Mr. Amyot: I’m not sure I can speak to that particular case.
Senator Forest: Has it been too long?
[English]
Mr. May: Thank you for the question. I’ll have to check. My understanding is that this event was recently closed and we made a final event against that. I’ll have to get back to you with specifics.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You’ll be sending us a written response? Thank you.
Mr. Hammond, public servants are now in the office three days a week instead of two. I’m a long-standing member of the Subcommittee on Long Term Vision and Plan, so I assume that that has an impact on your assessments. What are the impacts on your assessments of the space required in square metres in all the buildings that are under renovation or the new buildings currently being built?
[English]
Mr. Hammond: Thank you very much for the question, senator. I’ll turn to my colleague, Mark Quinlan, who is here and he is responsible for the real property.
[Translation]
Mark Quinlan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Services, Public Services and Procurement Canada: That is indeed a good question. Budget 2024 identified targets and a significant reduction in office space for public servants. We’re using a model where public servants generally have unassigned spaces, which is to say that they’re shared spaces. We want to make sure that we don’t set aside a space for five days if an employee can work in the office three days a week.
We know that, for a number of legitimate reasons, people can be absent from their office for several days. In that context, given the decision to go from two or three days to three days, and four days for executives, adjustments had to be made to each department’s plans. There are about 9,000 executives. So we’re talking about 9,000 more days of work per week that must be taken into account when allocating space. I have to tell you that the plans, since the budget announcement, have moved forward for the largest departments in particular. Despite the increase in the number of employees in the federal public service and despite this adjustment, we’re well on our way to continuing to make cuts to the portfolio and, in so doing, gains for taxpayers.
Senator Forest: Before the pandemic, people were at the office five full days a week. After the pandemic, that dropped to two days and now we’re at three. In your opinion, what kind of savings are we talking about? Could we save 10%, 15% or 20% compared to what was expected before the pandemic, taking into account a difference of one day per week?
Mr. Quinlan: The last time I appeared before you, I mentioned that the federal portfolio, in terms of space and square metres, had 24 million square metres of space across Canada that belong to the federal government. Our minister is mainly responsible for office space, which represents 25%. So 26 other federal government departments have 75% of the area in square metres. We’re talking about correctional services, penitentiaries, military bases, border services and all kinds of buildings in our national parks.
PSPC is responsible for office space for the majority of employees who occupy those spaces, but not all. So that’s the context. We’re talking about 7 million square metres. Of this area, 1 million square metres are dedicated to storage, leaving 6 million square metres for office space. It gets more complicated, because some of these office spaces are occupied by administrative tribunals, for example, that have special facilities, and we also have all kinds of very specific spaces. However, we still believe we can reduce that by about 50% over time. I say “over time”, because our portfolio is divided between Crown-owned spaces, which represent 50%, and spaces that are leased, typically for 10 years.
We need to reduce the number of leases each year. In some cases, Crown spaces have to be emptied and subsequently made available for housing, whenever appropriate, in order to continue reducing those spaces. The secret is unassigned space. If we give each employee a space, we won’t be able to reduce expenses. In fact, with the increase in the number of employees within the public service, I would have to acquire new spaces. However, by depersonalizing work spaces and promoting space sharing, we’re able to achieve enormous efficiency. As we move forward and work with departments, we can save a lot of money.
In closing, there’s only one caveat. Of course, many public servants come to the office five days a week for all kinds of appropriate reasons. Take, for example, the Jonquière tax centre. Employees receive income tax returns on paper. They have to be on site every day to handle these documents and enter the data. So many public servants can’t be at the office only three days a week — or four days for executives. For the vast majority, it is the unallocated space that makes these savings possible. Over time there have been modest savings, but we do have a 10-year plan that is being implemented.
The Chair: Judging by the traffic this morning, it looks like many public servants decided to work from home today, even though it’s Tuesday.
[English]
Senator Smith: I just wanted to follow up on Senator Carignan’s question to you, Mr. Larkin. The RCMP’s 2024-25 Departmental plan outlines the organization’s continued focus on modernizing operations, addressing national security threats, enhancing relationships with the Indigenous communities and improving recruitment and retention to support a diverse and skilled workforce. You got the money from Budget 2022 provided funding to support these goals, including investments in addressing systemic issues and expanding operational capabilities.
Now, if you take a snapshot. The 2022 budget gave you the dough, and you set up your objectives. Now, here we are in 2024 and going into 2025. Where are we, can you give us a portrait, a snapshot?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. In short, as I alluded to in my opening comments, it continues to be a work-in-progress. The RCMP is a large organization, and these things don’t change overnight.
I want to speak to recruitment and retention and so I will tell you from a recruitment and retention perspective, we made significant progress. We created a specialized directorate to deal with national recruiting because clearly we need to supply and really create police officers as our manufacturing business. As of yesterday we have approximately 7,000 applicants in the recruiting system. We have been able to fill 40 troops of 32. In 2025 and beyond, we’re looking to increase that. We are in the process. We have had significant interest from experienced police officers from other agencies transitioning into the RCMP. From recruitment and retention, I would say things were advancing well.
Senator Smith: What will those numbers bring you up to in terms of actual people in place in the force?
Mr. Larkin: Again, one of the challenges is dealing with attrition. In some provinces, we’re in a net positive now. We’re not in a deficit. We’re hiring more people than are retiring and leaving the organization.
We still have challenges in certain provinces, particularly in the northern territories, around replacement, attrition as well as having people go there. We’ve created pre-posting agreements which allow members recruited out of a specific province to return to that province.
Senator Smith: What would your net-net be?
Mr. Larkin: The net? I don’t have the data with me. I can supply the data to this committee. I can also supply our 10-year plan, which will show you how we actually arrive and where we’re going.
We have mapped out a 10-year plan around the number we need to recruit, retire and promote, with respect to all the different positions. We’re in a better place. That being said, particularly in contract policing, we still have a series of vacancies across the country which are creating challenges for front-line delivery, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities.
Senator Smith: Systemic challenges, what would they be?
Mr. Larkin: The systemic challenges? The RCMP has had a series of reports, the last being the significant one, the Bastarache Report. We have launched a complete reform and accountability directorate which is focused on culture, I believe. One of Commissioner Duheme’s priorities continues to be culture. We’ve seen significant increases. We’re seeing a decline in internal workplace harassment complaints; we view that as a positive outcome.
We’ve moved to a complete independent system which we, again, see as a positive income. Recently, Bill C-20 received Royal Assent, which is also another public complaints forum which will allow us to have independence from the RCMP. We are launching a leadership development program.
We’ve seen some significant change in the systemic piece. A need to be candid is that will take, likely, a complete renewal and transition over the next 10 years to see the outcomes we really want to see.
Senator Smith: How is the relationship with Indigenous cultures and populations in our country?
Mr. Larkin: We’re committed to every province. The commissioner has an Indigenous advisory council. A lot of work has been done around cultural competency and in educating our recruits when they leave the depot and are stationed, posted and deployed to an Indigenous community.
It varies across the country. Our relationships are varied across the country. We’ve had a challenging summer with a series of fatal interactions.
We continue to meet. The commissioner does meet on a regular basis with the Assembly of First Nations and other Indigenous organizations. We have a full-time directorate for Indigenous policing. We work closely with Public Safety Canada. I would say our commitment to reconciliation, the MMIWG inquiry and work continues to carry on, that also includes some of the mass casualty work that identified some significant work.
We are progressing very well. We’re happy with the progress. We won’t be happy until we have reached the outcomes of our departmental plan. Our surveys and stakeholder consultation tell us we’ve seen significant improvement. That needs to be ongoing. We’re committed to it. We feel confident we’re going in the right direction.
Senator Smith: If I asked you what you would give yourselves on a scorecard, what would that be? See how I slid that one in, the scorecard?
[Translation]
The Chair: You’re going to send us the 10-year plan and the past figures. Can you do so by province, as well?
Mr. Larkin: We can do so by province, no problem.
The Chair: In detail? Thank you.
The Chair: No problem, Mr. Chair.
Senator Dalphond: My questions are for Mr. Hammond.
[English]
The public service, public works and government services is asking for $620 million more in capital expenditures in relation to Place du Portage, Les Terrasses de la Chaudière, West Memorial Building and Centre Block. Can you give us a breakdown of the amounts for each project?
Mr. Hammond: Thank you for the question, senator.
I don’t have the breakdown of those projects specifically, but I’m happy to provide that to the committee.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The next question is: These are not new things. Centre Block has been going on for six years. Chaudière and Portage have also been going on for a while.
Why is it we have supplementary estimates of 50% to add to the authorization that was provided in the Main Estimates? Why is it that capital expenditures cannot be forecasted on an annual basis?
Mr. Hammond: All of these projects are part of our investment plan as a department. When we sought the funding for the Capital Investment Fund in 2019, we laid this out.
What this supplementary estimates funding does is align the cash requirements required in order to move the projects forward. Obviously, you have movement on projects. There are delays. There are advancements on projects. This is to align our funding to ensure we can deliver on the projects and the plans for this year.
Senator Dalphond: To follow up on your answer to this question, when you did the Main Estimates, you are not providing funding for what you know is coming up until you get the bill?
Mr. Hammond: As much as possible, we plan for these projects and have contingencies. Obviously, there are changes in projects as we go through the year. There is some requirement to adjust as we move throughout the year.
Senator Dalphond: We have 50% extra coming up. You mean there will be another supplementary estimates to finish the year, maybe two?
Mr. Hammond: I can certainly provide some details in terms of what our planned spending is on each of these projects, if that would be helpful for you to see what our plans are for the rest of the year.
Senator Dalphond: It is difficult to have a picture of what you are forecasting, because we get it piecemeal each time.
Senator Moreau: Mr. Larkin, yesterday the government announced $1 billion to improve security at the border. Were you consulted before this announcement?
[Translation]
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question.
[English]
Public Safety Canada and the portfolio, CBSA and the RCMP, work together to come up with proposals. I personally can’t answer that question right now. We can provide more information. There is a team that works 24/7 with our portfolio partners at Public Safety Canada.
Senator Moreau: You don’t know if you were consulted before the announcement?
Mr. Amyot: Présentement, no, at this point. It’s not all for Public Safety Canada. Keep in mind I’m representing Public Safety Canada. Most of the money going for border patrol and border security is the RCMP, and mostly CBSA.
Senator Moreau: Mr. Larkin, were you consulted before?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question, senator.
Yes. We’ve been heavily involved in a lot of discussions and dialogue, beaucoup de réunions. Yes, we’ve been heavily engaged in discussions with Public Safety Canada, CBSA and other law enforcement.
In short, I don’t have all the details of that announcement, so I don’t know the outcome of the funding. I can say and assure you we have been heavily involved, in fact, I would say a series of meetings non-stop around our future plans around enhancing the RCMP presence around the border, but also tied to organized crime, fentanyl strategies as a complete package around how we can manage some of the border challenges.
Senator Moreau: Would you provide the committee with the details of the $1 billion that was announced?
Mr. Amyot: Absolutely. We can provide what was announced and provide more details.
Senator Moreau: Between public security, the RCMP and anyone else? Okay.
[Translation]
I have another question for you, Mr. Larkin. I was surprised by something.
[English]
We have to spend $4 million to reinvest our revenue from sale, transfer of real property. Can you explain that to me? Why do we have to spend $4 million to reinvest the revenue of sales or transfer of real property? I don’t understand.
[Translation]
Mr. Larkin: I’m going to ask our Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Hazen, to provide some details on that point.
[English]
Ms. Hazen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
The RCMP is one of the holders of a real property portfolio within the Government of Canada. Through our routine disposal of our real property assets, the RCMP deposited $4 million into the Consolidated Revenue Fund during the period from October 2022 to June 2023. So we’re just seeing the authority to draw that money out and reinvest it within our portfolio.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: That wasn’t clear from the description, but now I understand perfectly. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Amyot: May I add one little point here? You asked us for more information on the announcement. There was no announcement, according to what I’m being informed right now, on a $1 billion —
Senator Moreau: It was on the news yesterday. We don’t have to believe what is on the news?
Mr. Amyot: It’s probably a leak.
The Chair: Probably a leak, yes.
[Translation]
Perhaps you could tell us what you asked for, and then we can compare that with what you’ve received. We’d like to have a breakdown of what you asked for.
Mr. Amyot: Okay.
[English]
Senator Pate: Mr. Amyot, it’s a question for you as well. The voted appropriations for Public Safety Canada in Supplementary Estimates (B) include funding for the Indigenous Secretariat, which is identified on Public Safety Canada’s website as the department that is leading the response to the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and reviewing what Public Safety can further contribute to the Calls for Justice and Indigenous reconciliation.
I’m curious as to what steps the Indigenous Secretariat is taking as well as what the funding will be utilized for. In particular, what action and progress is being made on Calls for Justice 14.1 and 14.2 to implement agreements between the minister and Indigenous communities for the transfer of prisoners to Indigenous communities. I note that the provision of care and custody under those respective provisions is the mandate of the minister, so hoping there are updates there. I’m aware of a number of Indigenous communities I have been working with who are very keen to develop these resources, not in an institutional manner but in an individualized manner. It looks like you are going to answer, Ms. Moran.
Mr. Amyot: I’ll start by saying thank you for the question. Yes, there is $3.1 million in Supplementary Estimates (B) for establishing the Indigenous Secretariat. It’s part of the 2024 budget announcement of $275 million over five years for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program.
We can provide Chris Moran, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program to provide more information.
Your question did touch as well on Correctional Services. I wanted to say that would be a question for Correctional Service Canada, not Public Safety Canada, because they are in charge of —
Senator Pate: Sorry to interrupt. The reason I mention that it’s within the responsibility, it is part of the ministerial responsibility to make those contracts, I understand the Correctional Service Canada may be being delegated to administer it, but it’s actually the responsibility of the minister. I’m curious as to what role the minister or your department is taking in monitoring those.
Chris Moran, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indigenous Affairs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, senator. As you note, the estimates do include the establishment of the Indigenous Secretariat, which is a branch of Public Safety Canada that is dedicated to integrating information and our activities related to Indigenous communities. That includes responding to MMIWG; it includes working with Justice Canada and First Nations on elements related to the Indigenous Justice Strategy; and, very importantly, it includes the delivery of the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program. Additionally, we are working with our colleagues across the department to drive towards better coherence to respond to all of the issues you have raised with respect to corrections and serving Indigenous people better.
The department does have a program called the Indigenous Community Corrections Initiative, which is assessing and adjudicating the applications. Some of that would include correctional interventions in community, but we’re working closely with Corrections on that.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: I’ll ask my two questions, and you can send written answers.
Mr. Hammond, representatives from the Office of the Procurement Ombud appeared before our committee two weeks ago. We talked a lot about the procurement process and the many problems associated with it.
[English]
We talked a lot about the McKinsey issue. I asked him some questions about what is going to happen with the green procurement policy that the government is going to implement or that it is implementing. I would like to ask you if you can please send what are the criteria to decide that a project is green or not green? What is that? If you can send that in writing, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Hammond: I would be happy to send that.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much.
Mr. Larkin, listening to the questions of my colleagues about how much the money has increased — Senator Carignan says it’s 6% in soldiers but a 10% increase in budget, and also on Senator Smith’s question about the predictions in how to retain, I’m interested in the ratio between officials versus soldiers — officials versus the people who are on the ground, the police. I remember reading something on NATO saying that in Canada, we have a lot more officials and generals per soldier compared to other NATO countries.
When you send the information by the year and province, can you please add the ratio between officials and generals versus the police and soldiers?
[Translation]
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question.
[English]
I’m going to clarify, when you talk about officials, you’re talking about senior leaders versus regular members?
Senator Galvez: Yes, the people on the ground.
Mr. Larkin: I do not have that data handy with me, but I am happy to, in a reply, send the ratio and the numbers based across the country as it relates to those.
Senator Galvez: I want to understand the budget increase and what it is going for, the salaries, how much goes to very big salaries versus the people that are needed. Through my discussion with Mr. Amyot, I realize that there are a lot of hands that are needed on the ground for whatever things, the border control or extreme weather events, disasters, so where we are. That’s my curiosity. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Larkin: No problem, we will send information on the ratio.
The Chair: I know some senators have a specific interest in indigenous issues. Here are some interesting figures from the Statistics Canada website. In 2022, 8% of police officers were racialized and 4% were indigenous. It also shows that in 2022, 77% of police officers were men and 23% were women. The opposite was true for office staff, with 69% women and 35% men.
Since you’ve already provided all this data to Statistics Canada, it would be helpful if you could provide it to us as well. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Loffreda: We’ll take the question that I asked during the first round for the RCMP. Thank you for that. As I mentioned, in these Supplementary Estimates (B) — the question was on the upcoming G7 summit in Canada. There is about $44 million being sought by the RCMP for the presidency of the G7 summit. I note an additional $53 million going to Shared Services and another $17 million to Global Affairs Canada.
Can you speak to us about the RCMP’s total budget funding for the G7 summit? Most of it is being spent on which resources? What other partners are you working with domestically to ensure the safety and security of world leaders and their delegations that will be visiting Alberta next year?
And I’m looking at intelligence with respect to public safety and other important matters. Thank you.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question, and my colleague, Ms. Hazen, can provide the overall G7 landscape.
I can speak to the specific $45.4 million. Of that, $44.5 million is a voted authority; .9 million is through statutory authorities. The money is being spent, quite frankly, as we prepare for this significant event. The location has been chosen by Global Affairs.
I’ll talk about some of our security partners. We’re working closely with the Calgary Police Service, the Alberta Sheriffs, conservation officers, the Canadian Forces, as well as other police services of jurisdiction, or POJs, including federal, provincial and municipal agencies, as we identify policing and security needs.
The money is being engaged. We’ve set up a directorate. We do have a whole directorate that is planning for G7. A senior leader overseeing this as we get ready to prepare.
The money right now is significantly around site visits, operational preparation activities, understanding the environment, what will be our mandated security responsibilities. Then, of course, with that will be a significant amount of equipment and potential safeguarding of those that are coming. So that is the planning work that is happening.
As you are all aware, this is happening fairly quickly. Those funds are being spent on increasing planning and getting ready for that. I’ll give you an example of equipment. Some of it will be technology-based, some of it will be vehicle-based. Other pieces will be fencing and other proper equipment required to secure the area.
But Ms. Hazen may be able to provide more information on that from an overview perspective.
Ms. Hazen: Thank you very much for the question. The RCMP is the lead security agency, obviously, for the G7 Summit. You asked about partners. We are working very closely with our security partners, which include the Calgary Police, Alberta Sheriffs, conservation officers, Canadian Armed Forces, as well as other federal, provincial and municipal agencies, to identify the specific security needs.
As far as the funding that will be required, this is the advanced funding. So funding required to do the site visits, pre-planning, and procure some equipment in advance. The event itself will take place next fiscal year. You’ll see additional funds coming through to the department in order to cover off on those costs, but as far as the total budget that we anticipate will be needed to support the security requirements, we’re looking at upwards of around $300 million in total.
Senator Kingston: My question is for Mr. Larkin. I would first like to congratulate you on your initiative in the Yukon, to pair or to include a mental health nurse in the calls that you receive that are appropriate for mental health services as well as policing services.
Some of the things I’ve heard about contracts evolving, I guess. So my question is what progress has been made in New Brunswick to have certain initiatives like the one in the Yukon coming to reality?
And I just wanted to point out that when I’m listening I’m hearing, well, New Brunswick is not only a rural province, but there are many small Indigenous communities scattered throughout New Brunswick that I believe are served together, if you will, in the context of our population.
So could you just comment on the progress that is being made towards these very good initiatives in New Brunswick?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. When we look at New Brunswick, I will highlight the Moncton and Codiac detachment, which are urban areas with larger populations, where, quite frankly, from a health perspective we see more readily available services to support policing initiatives.
When we go into rural New Brunswick one of the challenges is, quite frankly, that we don’t have the same accessibility or the same supportive health services. As you’re well aware, we don’t control that. We see a similar notion in Indigenous communities, where some of our efforts to modernize our policing response to deal with non-criminal or non-policing matters, where there is no other option other than to phone the local RCMP detachment, we don’t necessarily have the same supports. And that is something that is consistent and common across the country.
Where we see some unique abilities to do work it’s often heavily dependent upon the provincial health care system, the provincial mental health and wellness system where we rely on that. Where we’re seeing success is the launch of the initiative of the mental health line where our communicators are able to redirect.
But I’ll give you an example of a model in British Columbia where our communications centres have embedded mental health nurses that are triaging calls for service. Again, the level of service and the level of delivery, based on contractual agreements, is very different there than it would be in other provinces or territories.
I’ll use the Northwest Territories as an example. All of our detachment are generally fly-in detachments. There is no roadway to get there or the ability to bring health services along with us.
It’s a mixed bag across the country. New Brunswick is a fine example of significant, diverse, rural population, Indigenous population. Where we’re seeing success, to be quite candid, is in the larger urban areas of Moncton and Codiac. We’ll see that similarly with the POJ partners.
We’re working very closely with the New Brunswick chiefs of police on different models with the province. How do we do business differently? How do we actually have better outcomes? Largely, quite frankly, the ability to do it in urban centres, or largely more populated areas, are more successful. Equally other systems, that we don’t control, are facing similar challenges.
Senator Kingston: I would just like to point out to you, as you discuss these issues in different jurisdictions, like New Brunswick, that nurses are located everywhere. So the utilization of their services along with yours would be beneficial, I think. Thank you.
Mr. Larkin: I agree a hundred per cent.
Senator Ross: Another question for you, Mr. Hammond. Following up on Mr. Quinlan’s response to Senator Forest on office space, he talked about non-attributed spaces. I wonder if we’re seeing any increased employment costs in terms of employee health costs, and any impacts on productivity, given that hot desking doesn’t really allow for the customization of work space for ergonomic issues. A lot of studies I have read say it can also contribute to reduced employee satisfaction, impacting productivity. Some studies say up to 70% of employees do not prefer non-attributed spaces.
I wonder what the balance is between saving on space and spending money on wellness and efficiency issues that might be caused by this strategy?
Mr. Hammond: Thank you very much for the question. I’ll turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Quinlan, to respond.
Mr. Quinlan: We could talk a lot about different studies, but when it comes to wellness and employee well-being, we have a duty to accommodate based on medical requirements or other requirements, and that’s paramount. If an employee has mobility issues, requires an assigned seat, a desk, specific ergonomics, we accommodate that, of course.
The vast majority of ergonomic issues can actually be resolved with modern furniture solutions, high-quality adjustable chairs, adjustable desks, et cetera.
When there is an ergonomic requirement, departments will work with that employee to make sure that they’re accommodated. Giving employees an assigned seat for three days a week, in fact, it’s not three days, because employees will have a minimum of three vacation weeks a year, another week of family leave, up to three weeks of sick leave, another couple of personal days, and then they’re off on training, or travel, or other meetings. If you are providing that space for a minimal amount of time you’re foregoing hundreds of millions of dollars of savings to the taxpayer.
Heating and providing HVAC, so energy, greenhouse gas emissions for that space. And in some parts of the country they benefit from hydroelectricity. Places like Nova Scotia electricity, HVAC, comes from coal, so the greenhouse gas emissions are even higher.
Obviously departments have to determine if operations can be done as effectively, as productively in a hybrid environment. If not, employees are required to come in five days a week, and departments determine those operational realities and should be monitoring that productivity. But when the jobs can be done as effectively, using shared spaces provides a greener government and it provides savings to the taxpayers. And, in fact, when done properly can offer a multitude of solutions in the office that employees can use during that same day.
So is it a magic solution? No. Are there pros and cons? Yes. But what the government has decided to do was to recognize the hybrid environment and use unassigned seating by default. By the way, I don’t have an assigned office. We provide assigned offices to deputy ministers, ministers and other people who require it for operational or accommodation reasons — to go back to your initial point. The government decided to go in that direction, and we’re executing on that plan.
Senator Ross: That’s an excellent and robust answer. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: I also have a question for the RCMP. In 2014, there was a small summit between the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which resulted in a document entitled Way forward together: joint border strategy. It discusses the problems of border management and illegal immigrants. Here’s an excerpt from page 12:
Canada will likely remain a target destination for illegal migrants, with only traditional source and transit countries likely to change. Increased information sharing among intelligence and enforcement agencies, along with the increased use of biometric identity verification, will only grow in importance in supplying valuable data —
That was in 2014. I’m surprised to see that, in the Supplementary Estimates (B), there is a request for $1,933,000 to implement a biometric screening system for citizenship applicants, a system that the federal government had budgeted for in 2023. Apparently, implementation takes time. Is there anything that remains to be done with biometrics? Will this put an end to the biometric screening process, with all the issues we’re currently facing?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.
[English]
This question about biometrics is likely best designed and destined for CBSA. The RCMP, between ports of entry, is not using biometrics. I believe that that’s at the point of entry, where CBSA has jurisdiction.
[Translation]
The Chair: It’s a joint strategy, so I guess that aspect is covered more by the other partner. Thank you.
We still have five minutes. Do any senators have any other questions?
Thank you very much for your cooperation. Please send your written responses to our clerk by the end of the day on Tuesday, December 24, 2024. Many thanks to all our support staff. Our next meeting will be tomorrow, Wednesday, December 11, at 6:45 p.m. Thank you very much and see you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)