THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 19, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with videoconference this day at 6:48 p.m. [ET] to consider the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I wish to welcome all of the senators, as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
[English]
My name is Percy Mockler, I’m a senator from New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Senator Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, senator for the Yukon.
[Translation]
Senator Loffreda: Senator Tony Loffreda from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Tonight, we continue our study of the planned expenses under the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, which was referred to this committee on March 7, 2023, by the Senate of Canada.
This evening, we have with us senior officials from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety Canada, and the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
[Translation]
Each group will be represented by a person who will provide comments.
[English]
Those opening remarks will be from each of the three individuals representing each ministry. From the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Samantha Hazen, Chief Financial Officer; from Public Safety Canada, Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Security Officer; from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Cheri Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear in front of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Before we begin, I would ask all the other witnesses whom I did not name this evening to please introduce themselves should they be called upon to answer for their different ministries.
We will now hear opening remarks.
Samantha Hazen, Chief Financial Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the RCMP’s Main Estimates for the 2023-24 fiscal year.
My name is Samantha Hazen and I am the Chief Financial Officer for the RCMP. I am joined this evening by Bryan Larkin, Deputy Commissioner of Specialized Policing Services.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I know that the RCMP has not appeared before this committee in a number of years. I would like to take some time to give you an overview of the RCMP and of our financial structure, which will help you better understand the main estimates before you today.
[English]
The RCMP is Canada’s national police service. We are a complex organization that practises law enforcement at community, provincial and territorial and federal levels. We also carry out international obligations from peacekeeping missions to building relationships with partners abroad, including our Five Eyes partners in the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
The RCMP’s workforce is made up of about 32,000 employees. Two thirds of these employees are sworn police officers; the other third are unsworn civilian members and public servants.
We provide front-line policing through contract agreements with over 150 municipalities and 600 Indigenous communities across Canada.
We are responsible for addressing increasingly serious and complex threats in Canada in areas such as terrorism and extremism, drugs and organized crime, national security, protective policing, and border integrity.
We provide specialized operational policing services to our law enforcement partners, including advanced training, firearm licensing and investigative and forensic services.
[Translation]
I would like to remind everyone that we are marking the one hundred and fifth anniversary of the RCMP this year. We are honouring this milestone by looking to the future and seeking to modernize our organization. This means constantly finding ways to better care for our employees, to treat all those we serve with dignity and respect, and to do our police work in a way that builds trust.
Real and lasting change takes time. We know there is still work to be done.
[English]
That brings me to our resourcing needs for this current fiscal year. In these Main Estimates, the RCMP is presenting $4.2 billion. This funding is administratively organized around our three main service lines — contract and Indigenous policing, federal policing and specialized policing services. The RCMP fulfills its mandate with this funding, along with $2 billion of revenue, primarily from our contract policing partners.
These Main Estimates represent a total decrease of $67.6 million, or 1.6%, from the previous fiscal year, which I would like to briefly explain. The change in these Main Estimates is primarily related to a temporary decrease of $230 million for the grants to compensate members of the RCMP for injuries received in the performance of duty. This decrease is temporary in nature. Additional funding has been identified by the government with access to be sought through a forthcoming supplementary estimates process. This funding will ensure the uninterrupted payment of benefits to injured members.
As a part of these Main Estimates, the RCMP is seeking incremental funding of $138.5 million for member health costs, compensation adjustments and statutory expenditures for the employee benefit plan.
Additionally, the RCMP continues to advance its efforts to address systemic racism and is seeking incremental funding of $17 million to do so.
Lastly, the RCMP is seeking funding for the renewal of the federal framework for the legalization and regulation of cannabis, to largely maintain existing efforts.
Finally, I would just like to acknowledge that these Main Estimates were tabled before the federal budget of 2023. Other additional investments and commitments for the RCMP were identified in that budget. I would be happy to return to the committee to further explain the funding that will be presented through a future estimates process.
[Translation]
With that, I’d like to thank the committee again for the opportunity to testify. Deputy Commissioner Larkin and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Hazen. Mr. Amyot, the floor is yours.
[English]
Patrick Amyot, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Security Officer, Public Safety Canada: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, I wish to thank you for the invitation to discuss the 2023-24 Main Estimates on behalf of Public Safety Canada.
[Translation]
Like my RCMP colleague Samantha Hazen, I want to acknowledge that I am appearing before you on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am pleased to be here to discuss these 2023-24 main estimates as we prepare for another dynamic year.
Through these estimates, our department is seeking $2.6 billion in support for our commitments, of which $2.3 billion is in Vote 5 grants and contributions.
The amounts being sought represent a net increase of $1.8 billion when compared to the department’s main estimates of the previous year.
[English]
The following are the key initiatives for which Public Safety Canada is seeking funding: $1.7 billion is being sought for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program, known as DFAA. This includes $550 million related to supporting British Columbia’s response to recovery efforts following the 2021 atmospheric flooding and wildfire events. This is the main amount that explains our increased budget for Main Estimates 2023-24.
We also are seeking $332 million for the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program, or FNIPP. Advancing Indigenous-led approaches to public safety continues to be a top priority.
Another $85 million is being sought for the Building Safer Communities Fund, BSCF. This fund reflects this government’s commitment to deliver a total of $250 million in support of prevention and intervention activities for children and youth who are at risk of joining gangs or becoming involved in crime. This program also provides support to youth and young adult gang members who are in the process of exiting gangs.
Finally, $77 million is being sought through these Main Estimates for the Memorial Grant Program for First Responders. This program recognizes the critical role of first responders in protecting Canadians and provides one-time payments to families of first responders who have died as a result of their duties.
This is simply an overview of some of the important work we are advancing at Public Safety Canada. Our department remains committed to building safer communities for Canadians and combatting gun and gang violence. We focus our efforts on ensuring that our nation is able to effectively mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from all hazard events. We are committed to protecting our critical infrastructure from a wide range of risks. Finally, we ensure the national security threats are understood and reduced, while maintaining public trust.
[Translation]
We at Public Safety Canada collaborate closely with other levels of government, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders to deliver on our core mandates. We are also unwavering in our commitment to deliver results for Canadians while ensuring fiscal responsibility and effective resource management.
[English]
As you can see, Public Safety Canada exercises a broad leadership role that brings coherence to the activities of the departments and agencies responsible for public safety and security within Canada. That said, I’m joined here tonight by departmental colleagues who have roles in emergency management, community safety, First Nations policing, firearms buyback and national security.
We look forward to answering any questions you may have about our work and our commitment to Canadians. Thank you.
The Chair: I will now recognize Ms. Crosby from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. The floor is yours, please.
[Translation]
Cheri Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Finance) and Chief Financial Officer, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me back to present the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, on behalf of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
Like my colleagues, I would also like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are gathered is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Today, I am joined by Major-General Blaise Frawley, Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff; Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel); and Major-General Simon Bernard, Director General Military Personnel – Strategic.
I have prepared a brief statement, and after this, of course, my colleagues and I will be at your disposal to answer any questions you might have.
The Main Estimates reflect a determined and comprehensive effort to direct and allocate defence dollars responsibly and appropriately across a broad spectrum of related activities in support of defined corporate priorities during the fiscal year.
In the 2023-24 Main Estimates, the Department of National Defence is requesting $26.5 billion. This represents an increase of $538.8 million, or 2.1%, from the Main Estimates approved for the fiscal year 2022-23. This change reflects increases across the department vote structure, but I would like to highlight a few key areas.
First, operating expenditures, Vote 1, would increase by $338.6 million to $17.9 billion, attributed mainly to initiatives announced in Canada’s defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, including funding for the ongoing maintenance and sustainment of our capital assets and for initiatives announced in Budget 2021 and Budget 2022.
These new priorities reflect the department’s commitment to support recruitment and retention; NATO readiness; modernizing the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD; and sustaining the existing continental defence and Arctic capability.
Culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces, or CAF, is once again highlighted, as is the implementation of our Indigenous reconciliation program and other initiatives that continue to strengthen our personnel.
Second, the capital expenditures, Vote 5, would increase by $120 million to $6.6 billion, attributed mainly to initiatives announced in Budget 2021, including the modernization of NORAD and the North Warning System, as well as for investments in major capital projects, such as the Hornet Extension Project, Defence of Canada Fighter Infrastructure Project and the Joint Task Force 2 infrastructure project.
Third, grants and contributions, Vote 10, would increase by $5.4 million to $319.8 million, which is largely related to the contribution program for the remediation of former Mid-Canada Line radar sites in Quebec and the new Indigenous reconciliation grants and contributions program. The funding for payments in respect of the long-term disability and life insurance plans for the members of the Canadian Forces, which is Vote 15, would remain at $446.7 million.
Finally, the statutory allocation would increase by $74.7 million to $1.7 billion for legislated items including employee benefit plans.
The funding requested will ensure that National Defence can continue to carry out its essential operations, programs and initiatives; deliver on the priorities of the Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces; and implement the vision outlined in Strong, Secure, Engaged.
[Translation]
In conclusion, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces continues to deliver on its core national mandate, while ensuring fiscal responsibility and effective resource management.
[English]
My colleagues and I would be pleased to address your questions or any comments you might have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Crosby.
Before we go to questions, I would like to ask Senators Pate and Cardozo to introduce themselves.
Senator Pate: Thank you, chair. My apologies for missing introductions. Welcome to the witnesses. I am Kim Pate. I live here, in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies for being late. My name is Andrew Cardozo, and I am from Ontario.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to share with you that you will have a maximum of five minutes each for the first round of questions and a maximum of three minutes each for the second round. Therefore, please ask your questions directly. To the witnesses, please respond concisely. The clerk will inform me when the time is over.
Senator Marshall: Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here.
I am going to start with questions for the RCMP. Perhaps one of the witnesses can answer — Deputy Commissioner Larkin or Ms. Hazen. I did have an opportunity to look at your departmental results report because I noticed that your funding fluctuated quite a bit from year to year. You also addressed that in your opening remarks.
I would like to focus on the number of people within the RCMP. You were saying there are 32,000 and that about two thirds are police officers. Could you give us some idea as to whether the 20,000 is a consistent number? Do you have a target higher than that? Are there issues with regard to recruitment? What are the challenges with regard to recruitment in the RCMP?
I realize there are a number of questions there, but I would like to get a handle on the challenges and what is happening with regard to recruitment, focusing mostly on police officers as opposed to civilians.
I understand there is also a contract and Indigenous policing. I do not know if that is a separate category, but I will leave that up to you.
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question.
Recruitment remains a top priority for the RCMP. We are committed to filling some of the vacancies we have across the organization. Our goal is to ensure we are hiring and developing the talent needed to provide support and to be able to respond to the evolving nature of policing at large and in the communities we serve.
Senator Marshall: Do you have a target number? You were saying the two thirds of the 32,000 are police officers, but the impression I’ve had in the past is that it’s difficult to recruit for the RCMP and that you have not achieved your target, that there might be a gap. I think it’s something similar to the Canadian Armed Forces. There is a challenge with regard to recruitment. That’s what I’m trying to get a handle on.
Bryan Larkin, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you for the question. Recruitment in policing is a global challenge. Our target is around approximately 19,000 regular members who would serve in three themes. They would serve in contract and Indigenous policing, across the country from coast to coast to coast. The others would serve in federal policing, with a mandate that also includes international policing, and then in specialized policing, which also supports federal and contract coast-to-coast highly specialized services.
Our target is 19,000. We continue to see hard and soft vacancies. We have launched a research project right now including doing a series of polling across the country around characteristics and how we can actually modernize our recruitment process to attract more regular members into policing. We’re looking at mobility across the country. We’re looking, obviously, at diversifying our workforce. That includes heavily specific efforts around Indigenous and representation as a part of our systemic culture change.
Senator Marshall: Are you short a certain number of members?
Mr. Larkin: We are experiencing vacancies right across the country.
Senator Marshall: Do you have a number?
Mr. Larkin: I can get back to you in writing with the number. They do fluctuate from month to month based on hard and soft vacancies. Again, we do have a significant recruitment strategy ongoing. We’ve been able to reduce our recruitment from 648 days to 333 days to onboard a new member. We’re also coming out of the pandemic and we still continue to play catch-up because at a certain point our training academy in Regina, the Depot Division, was closed. We’re continuing that process. I can tell you that since the start of the year, our troops have been filled each week with 24 new cadets. We’re on target for just over 700 recruits this year. But we’re seeing, again, attrition and vacancy rates impacting us, as all police services.
Senator Marshall: What’s the compensation relative to other police forces in Canada? I think that was an issue at some point in time. Are you comparable now? I’m trying to get a handle on the challenges of filling those vacant positions.
Mr. Larkin: Recently we did actually certify the National Police Federation and had our first collective agreement. We’re extremely comparable. In fact, in some provinces we’re actually above the norm. What we are also experiencing is a lot of interest in our organization from experienced officers, particularly those in federal policing in Quebec and Ontario who actually would do federal police work.
Senator Marshall: For National Defence, Ms. Crosby: Is there any funding in the Main Estimates for the F-35 fighter jets? I’m looking to see where that money is. Would it be in the Main Estimates, or is it too early to start paying for them?
Ms. Crosby: I’ll start by introducing you to Troy Crosby, who can give you an update, and then come back to me if you wish to have the details on the funding. It is early days.
Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: I’m Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) at National Defence. The project for the F-35 acquisition is run inside my group. At this point, we’re not purchasing equipment, but we are involved in staff work, studies, travel, site visits and other activities. There is a small amount of money that will be spent in this fiscal year for the F-35s.
Senator Marshall: Could you send that amount? I want to get a handle on it. It’s a big project, so I’d like to track the money.
Mr. Crosby: We can, senator. It will be in the tens of millions of dollars, but we can do that.
Senator Marshall: Yes, if you can send that in.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: I’d like to welcome the witnesses, and before I ask my perhaps somewhat spicy questions, I’d like to thank all of you — whether it’s National Defence, the RCMP or Public Safety — for all that you do to ensure the protection of our borders and the safety of our citizens.
My question is for the deputy minister of National Defence. You won’t often see me surprised by a rate or ask why a growth rate is so low from a department like National Defence. We are talking about an increase of only 2% over last year for the main estimates. It seems to me that the world has changed in the last year, and in the last four years. Yet, if you compare the level of authorities for the next fiscal year with that of the year before the pandemic, we’re talking about an increase of just 15%, compared with 44% for all government budgetary spending.
I was hoping the budget would contain more initiatives — here, we see barely $80 million more over five years. I don’t think I’m the only one who’s shocked. An article came out in La Presse on Monday. It was co-signed by 60 people — former defence ministers, former deputy defence ministers and former chiefs of the defence staff. According to the article, the security of the country is in jeopardy and the budget doesn’t deal with it. Do you agree with that? I’d like to hear from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Crosby, as well as the Chief of the Defence Staff on this dearth of funding. How are we going to fix these long-standing deficits when it comes to military capacity and preparedness? Am I missing something? Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for that question. Of course, Canada has an unwavering commitment to our NATO alliance and continues to make strategic investments in defence. Together with our NATO allies, we intend to continue to be able to meet the evolving threats you see before you. Canada, in fact, has one of the largest defence budgets of all the 31 alliance members. Canada remains the sixth-largest contributor to the NATO common funding, of which we are asking for funding to fulfill that commitment this year in Main Estimates.
In addition, chair, I might add that Canada has spent 1.28% of its GDP in defence in 2021-22, and we are tracking to increase that to 1.29% in 2022-23. Perhaps most interestingly, Canada has also spent 13.7% of defence spending on major equipment in 2021-22 — the target is 20% — and we are on track to triple the amount spent on equipment between 2020 and 2026 to $14 billion, which will surpass the 20% investment.
In conclusion, we continue to invest significantly in our equipment, in our men and women and in our capabilities to continue fulfilling our role in NATO and beyond.
Senator Gignac: I’m a little surprised because as a member of National Defence, I’m involved in that. I had the opportunity to be in Brussels, in the headquarters of NATO. Quite frankly, the figure is not 1.9%. It’s 1.3% for the last fiscal year. When I check your figure, the extrapolation for the next five years, from Finance Department, we reach 1.4%. I don’t know where your figures come from. I would be very interested after this testimony if you could send material just to catch me up regarding the way it’s calculated.
Ms. Crosby: If I could correct, Mr. Chair, it’s 1.29% for last year.
Senator Gignac: Okay, sorry. So it’s 1.3%. But at NATO, now it’s no longer a target of 2% of GDP; it’s a floor they mention. I’m curious to see if it would be a minimum target and what you intend to do. I would be curious to hear the reaction of MGen. Frawley as to whether they have enough resources to protect the sovereignty of Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for the question. I will begin, and then —
[English]
— I’ll turn it over to Major-General Frawley. The last defence policy update was, of course, in 2017. As you may know, the world has evolved, threats have changed, and new and emerging requirements have caused us to review our defence policy update. This review was announced in Budget 2023. Currently, we are undergoing extensive consultations and stakeholder engagements with parliamentarians and senators alike, as well as academia and Indigenous partners to make sure we get it right. We are determining what requirements we need for today and for the future. We believe the defence policy update will do just that. To say more on that, General Frawley, I’ll turn it over to you.
Major-General Blaise Frawley, Deputy Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Canada is unwavering in our commitment to the NATO alliance, to the defence of the Euro‑Atlantic security and to the rules-based international order. Essentially, we are the framework lead nation for forces in Latvia right now. Our biggest commitment internationally deployed is the Operation REASSURANCE commitment of 1,200 troops. The feedback we get from our NATO allies as well, we may not be meeting the 2%, but we are hitting well above our weight in what we contribute in those various areas. We will continue to make important contributions to global peace and security alongside our NATO allies.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Thank you for reassuring us by saying that Canada’s national security and national defence are not in jeopardy, because the 60-odd co-signatories seemed to think otherwise. We shall see.
I will now turn briefly to the RCMP.
The agreement between Canada and the United States reached on March 24 of this year seeking to broaden the Safe Third Country Agreement received a great deal of attention. I would like an update. Since the announcement, what changes have you observed in terms of asylum seekers at the border? This is an important issue in Quebec. My question is for either of the RCMP representatives.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question.
[English]
Obviously, the Safe Third Country Agreement came into force. A big impact was in the province of Quebec at Roxham Road, where we were seeing on average a significant amount of irregular migration. Since that date, I can tell you that the migration and irregular migration have almost ceased. We are seeing other pressures across the country, which is natural, but we have seen an immediate impact.
We continue to monitor the border, collect intelligence and work with Immigration and our U.S. partners. We continue to do that, but when you look at the weeks leading up to the announcement, we were averaging 161 people per day, with significant resources dedicated to that. As of April 5, 2023, the C Division members have intercepted 202 people in the Quebec region. So we’ve seen a significant impact, but we closely monitor volumes at Roxham Road. We adjust our posture as required, and now we’re looking across the country at other ports of entry to see whether or not migration changes.
Senator Smith: I have a question for National Defence. I’d like to talk a bit about spending lapses. Historically, the Department of National Defence has a bit of a reputation for lapsing billions of dollars in procurement funding, and the organization’s departmental plan for 2023-24 makes note of the risk-based defence procurement pilot, now referred to as a “risk‑based approach to contract approval for defence procurement,” which is designed to increase the flexibility to provide National Defence, Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, and the Treasury Board in respect of procurement activities.
Could you please provide an update on this pilot program and how it’s enabling the department to streamline defence procurement? How does it differ from your existing situation?
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for the question. I will begin, and then turn it over to Troy Crosby. Of course, at National Defence, we have a very large and complex budget, and it supports personnel, operations, capital investments in equipment and infrastructure and so forth. However, despite long-term planning, some schedules don’t go as planned for obvious reasons, such as supply chain issues, labour issues, labour shortages and even internal challenges we may have.
That said, I will start by saying that last year’s lapse — it’s too soon to calculate this year’s lapse, but referring to the budget in 2021-22, there was a $2.5 billion lapse, but $2.27 billion of that was made available in future years. One good thing we can do at National Defence is move the money to the time and place we need it. With that, though, the risk-based procurement approach is an interesting one and meant to help us achieve some of our objectives in capital projects. I’ll turn it over to Troy for more on that.
Mr. Crosby: The risk-based approach is an indication of thinking that’s been going into defence procurement approvals for contracting, working with central agencies and our colleagues at PSPC. There’s been a delegation of authorities to the assistant deputy minister level at PSPC so that PSPC isn’t required to go to higher levels and potentially to Treasury Board for approvals based on an assessment of risk, including legal risk. In that way, there’s an appropriate level of focus and effort applied to those seeking those contracting approvals, and they’re able to move more quickly through the system.
Senator Smith: The departmental plan also notes that procurement resources are in high demand, and there’s a shortage of procurement specialists across government. This risk could impact your department’s ability to meet your procurement targets for 2023-24. How is your department working to mitigate this risk in the immediate term? Are there plans to address this problem in the long term?
Mr. Crosby: There are challenges with finding specialized procurement staff across both National Defence and in PSPC. We are working to ensure that we have what we’re referring to as an “academy approach” to the recruitment of new procurement specialists, who are then brought into the department and in a very deliberate way put into a professionalization and training system so they can quickly become capable of supporting our activities. We also speak regularly with our colleagues at PSPC so that we’re coordinating our work. They, of course, need procurement specialists to support us as well.
Senator Smith: Has this been accelerated or implemented due to what’s going on with Ukraine? Has this been in the plans for a period of time? I go back a long way. We used to run the committee. We used to always talk to your group about lapsing and buying bigger tanks and jets and equipment. But that always seemed to be put ahead into different time frames, and the results weren’t there.
I’m wondering how you look at yourselves today in 2023 versus where you were back in, say, 2017. I recognize you have a whole new plan for the department. How do you look at yourselves? Are you happy with the progress you’ve made to this particular point? Are you ready to go forward in time with all the challenges that you face nationally and internationally?
Mr. Crosby: Since 2017, the Materiel Group that I’m responsible for has grown by approximately 550 people. That was actually 700 public servants, but we’ve lost approximately 150 military personnel. We’re quite a mix of military and civilian within the group.
That said, right now our focus is on ensuring that we have a plan, as you’re suggesting, looking forward at not just today’s work but the work to come and ensuring that we have a respectful, diverse, inclusive and supportive workplace where people want to come to work — because we do have to compete for those human resources. Once we have them among us, then back to the academy idea, as an example. Then we’re working on ensuring the professionalization and development of those people so that they can continue to contribute. Of course, it’s not just about the procurement specialists. We employ engineers, technologists and finance specialists — quite a diverse number of specialties to get the work done.
Senator Smith: Would you consider that a cultural shift is needed moving forward or that you’re implementing?
Mr. Crosby: As part of the defence team, we certainly want to ensure that we have a very supportive work environment. We are also, as most, coming to grips with post-COVID change in our work environment and how we’re working together. I can say with great confidence that our workforce is very focused on the objective of supporting the Canadian Armed Forces, and we’ll continue to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My questions pertain to firearms trafficking and are for the RCMP officials.
According to our notes, the RCMP teams up with municipal and provincial police services to combat the illegal movement of firearms inside and outside Canada. The group also collaborates with the investigative service at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — on investigations into cross-border smuggling.
I would like you to comment on the amount requested in the Main Estimates to fight the illegal movement of firearms inside and outside Canada.
[English]
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question. At the RCMP, reducing gun and gang violence is a priority for us. We are closely reviewing all recommendations from the Mass Casualty Commission, including those that align with Bill C-21 and other firearms-related recommendations.
Specifically within these Main Estimates, I do not have the number that the RCMP is dedicating towards this particular program. We work very closely with our colleagues at Public Safety with regard to this particular issue.
Senator Moncion: But it is a growing concern and problem for our country and especially in the cities closer to the border.
In what measure has that market grown in Canada in the past few years, or do you have those numbers?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you very much, through you, Mr. Chair. Again, as my colleague alluded to, gun and gang violence is a significant priority for us. We are seeing a significant increase, particularly in urban areas, around firearms and the trafficking of firearms.
Geographically, we have a border integrity workforce in partnership with the CBSA as well as the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF. We have embedded liaison officers within the ATF monitoring the illicit traffic. We are also working closely with Public Safety around new legislation and new reform, and our firearms and licensing regime continues. We have just launched the digital platform for Canadian licence owners to apply for digital licensing, which is an important part of our regime.
We have also invested money in a program called NWEST, which is focused on firearms tracing. The RCMP Commissioner has an internal directive where all firearms seized and/or found must be traced through our laboratories to look at criminal connections to investigations with all police services, and I’m pleased to announce that as we update that, the Province of Ontario’s FATE program will be migrated into the national system, as well as the Quebec program. So we will have a really holistic view. We have lagged behind looking at it from a holistic national perspective.
On top of that, we have been expanding a ballistic program where ballistics that are seized from shootings and/or scenes of crime — every single ballistic piece — are actually traced, and that tracing mechanism, within three days, provides us the type of firearm, potential links to other crimes, the type of gun et cetera. That has an automatic linkage into the ATF system, so we are looking at it from a North American perspective.
We have programs led by the RCMP. We have a pilot project with the Winnipeg Police Service. We are just meeting with the Atlantic police chiefs to launch an Atlantic program, and we have a pilot project with the Vancouver Police Department.
That is where we are seeing the investment of monies, specifically as we look at how we actually continue to combat firearms.
But the border integrity piece is unique. When you look at particularly Montreal, Quebec, and Toronto, Ontario, you see that cross-border trafficking, whereas in other parts of the country they are domestic. So the work that we are doing is fairly unique as we look at our geography.
Senator Moncion: And you have different hot spots in this country where the traffic is easier, I would say, and more fluid than other areas in the country.
Mr. Larkin: Certainly, yes, through you, Mr. Chair, obviously the urban centres: Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, large ports of entry are significant challenges for us. We look at the corridor through Windsor, through Niagara and then, of course, we look at, in the province of Quebec, our connections in very proximity to the States of Vermont and New York. Those are hot spots and, of course, all ports of entry, so Halifax and Vancouver are significant areas, as well as in the north. When we look at Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, obviously the connection and the close proximity to the United States, those are the areas where we focus our resources.
Senator Moncion: I met with the Thunder Bay police, and that was one of their growing concerns.
Senator Pate: My first questions are for National Defence. I was interested to see in the Main Estimates that there are approximately $2 million in grants for the Community Support for Sexual Misconduct Survivors Grant Program and that same amount was requested in the same funding category in last year’s Main Estimates. I am curious as to where the money is going to in terms of the list of organizations. I know generally you have outlined sexual assault centres, virtual platforms, research and academic, but could you provide a list of which actual organizations received that funding, as well as the amounts they received?
I am curious as to whether this is sustaining funding, and that is why it is reappearing, or whether it is grant funding for specific projects, as well as what the criteria are for determining who receives the funding in those projects and what measures are taken to ensure accountability and how survivors of sexual misconduct are looped back into the process to ensure the evaluation of it.
That is my first — sorry — not really one question but a series of questions related to that. Thank you.
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for your question. There was a lot there to unpack. Let me at least begin by reminding the committee that addressing sexual misconduct and gender-based violence is a top priority for National Defence, obviously, and in the military, and Budget 2021 allocated $236.2 million over five years. So there is a repetition per year.
This program started in 2021-22, and there is $33.5 million per year ongoing to support various initiatives.
I do not have at my disposal here today the various details that you have asked for in terms of how much is going to whom and I do not know if General Frawley has any.
MGen. Frawley: Mr. Chair, just to add: Absolutely, one of our top priorities if not our top priority is culture evolution within both the CAF and the department. The funding mentioned will go towards the prevention and response to all forms of sexual violence and elimination of barriers for the meaningful representation and participation of diverse women across the defence team.
As well, it will go towards a positive space program that aims to foster a safe and inclusive work environment for everyone.
Again, I have to reiterate just how important culture evolution is for the Canadian Armed Forces and the department.
Senator Pate: As a former service brat, I can attest to that. I am very interested in who is receiving the money grants and in the evaluation components if you could provide that.
Also in the Department of National Defence, if I am reading it correctly, there is just over $1 million being provided to support the Indigenous Reconciliation Program. Is that correct?
I know from the submission that it comes out of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls inquiry, and I would have thought that I would be asking this of Public Safety or Corrections if they were here, but I’m curious what the role of National Defence is in providing that support and how it came to be that it is your department administering that. As you may know, it is an area that I have worked in for a long time, so I’m curious.
Again, what funding is being provided, to which groups and how is it being allocated and how is it determined where the needs are for it?
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for your question. Through Mr. Chair, of course, Indigenous partnerships actually are critical to advancing reconciliation and conducting our operations in anything from enhancing security to conducting operations, even overseas, but most importantly as we start to develop our capabilities in the North as well.
Indigenous partnerships are absolutely essential. We currently are engaging Indigenous governments and different organizations on helping us with our defence planning and investment planning.
We also are leveraging an Indigenous procurement framework, which Mr. Crosby can speak to. Of course, we also have efforts being placed on increasing our Indigenous representation in the CAF. I would say attention to our Indigenous partners is pervasive throughout everything we do. In Budget 2022, National Defence was allocated $9.5 million to facilitate engagements that we want to do, concerning anything from work we want to do on our vast custodial properties that we have across Canada to any other investments we may be making.
Senator Pate: I am realizing that I am interrupting you, but I am specifically interested in the work that is being done on reintegration for those who have been criminalized because that is specifically noted, so what the goals of the program are, who is benefiting, how many people are in it, which initiatives. And I understand that I am probably out of time, so if we could get that in writing, that would be great.
The Chair: Thank you. Could you provide that information in writing, please? Okay.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here and answering our questions.
[English]
The Insurance Bureau of Canada is telling us that in the 1980s, we used to spend $0.3 billion on destruction from extreme weather events. In 2022, it jumped to $3.1 billion.
In the 2023-24 Main Estimates, Public Safety Canada is requesting transfer payments of $1.725 billion in contributions to the provinces for assistance related to natural disasters. This same item was only $100 million in the Main Estimates of the previous fiscal year.
Have you observed increased frequency and severity of natural disasters due to climate change? And what are the strategies for you to predict next year? How much will it cost us?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. Yes, you are absolutely right; we do have $1.7 billion in DFAA, Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. This is basically a program to help provinces and territories that experienced a hazard, a weather event, to rebuild and get things back together.
The number of weather events and the severity have increased; you’re absolutely right. On that, I will ask my colleague Doug May, who is in charge of administering the DFAA program, to provide a little bit more details to contextualize this.
Douglas May, Senior Director, Programs, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for your question.
Climate change is accelerating, as is the frequency and severity of events such as wildfires, floods and winter storms, which continue to disrupt lives, cause damage to critical infrastructure and impact our supply chains. In the event of these large natural disasters, the DFAA is the main instrument for the Government of Canada to provide financial assistance to provinces and territories.
We are currently doing a review of the DFAA program to ensure that it is sustainable with respect to support to provinces and territories for disaster recovery. Recently, as part of this review, Minister of Emergency Preparedness Bill Blair appointed an external advisory panel to make recommendations on how to improve the long-term sustainability of the program.
Senator Galvez: Thank you. Can you tell us which regions, provinces or territories are the most affected? Has a vulnerability map been prepared by your department?
Mr. May: Predominantly, what we have seen in recent years is certainly the province of B.C. with respect to flooding and wildfires, similarly with other areas in Alberta, Manitoba and, obviously, the recent events in the Atlantic provinces, most recently as a result of hurricane Fiona.
Senator Galvez: How is the money distributed? How is it calculated? What criteria are used to decide how much money is allocated for the different events?
Mr. May: It is predominantly on a case-by-case basis, depending on the cost-recovery requirements of a province. We work closely with the province after an event to determine what its response and recovery costs were. The province has the first responsibility in terms of setting up its program, and then our DFAA program is there to cost-share up to 90% of those costs.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you very much. Don’t move, Mr. May. I am following on from Senator Galvez.
This $1.7 billion is a large amount. If we accept the trend that there will be more climate change disasters coming and in different places — including predictive melting in the Arctic, which also suggests a greater presence for the CAF, for example, for search and rescue, defence capability and all of that — we are going to get stretched. Without punning too much, it is going to be a bit of a perfect storm.
I am wondering whether you are looking at any international models in terms of how other jurisdictions, governments and countries are handling these events. We always look south to the United States. We see the floods at one time of the year in California and then there is a drought.
Some European countries have established civil defence forces, for example, to look at natural disasters. I raise this because there are a few of us who are members of the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee, and we had a recent conversation with Minister Blair about national security in the context of climate change.
I am wondering if there is any longer-term planning — because your department and National Defence have these lines in their estimates — and whether you are thinking ahead, because these emergencies are going to become more frequent. They put tremendous pressure on departments and on the sub‑national actors, the provinces. I’m wondering whether you are doing some thinking about this as you look ahead.
Mr. May: I can say that we are. I cannot say specifically, however. Certainly, from a programmatic perspective, we are looking at more strategies to work with provinces, territories and departments that are mitigative in nature, where we want to be more preventative and have more preventative strategies to help increase our resiliency to these disasters in future years.
Senator Boehm: Are you doing some policy planning as you look ahead?
Mr. May: There is indeed some policy planning associated with the National Adaptation Strategy and the Emergency Management Strategy for Canada. With respect to specifics, I would suggest that we can get back to you in writing on specific strategies we are using to improve resiliency to these events and in terms of predictive analysis.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
This question is for National Defence in the context of the Mid-Canada Line radar in Quebec and the remediation measures that are being taken. What type of contamination is it that you are looking to clean up, or is it contamination? Are we just getting rid of old gear?
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for your question. I am just checking to see whether I know the specifics on that. No, we don’t know the specifics on that particular one. But I do have the information, obviously, and would be very happy to supply you with more details.
This is a program that National Defence, on behalf of the government, takes the lead on. In the Main Estimates, we are requesting money to contribute to the cleanup of the contamination. I do know that this has to do with former military radar sites.
Senator Boehm: Former Cold War sites, not new Cold War sites.
Ms. Crosby: Exactly. In this particular estimates process, we are asking for about $7 million to contribute to this cleanup. That amounts to almost $50 million over a period of about seven years. That much I do know, but we would be happy to get back to you with more.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to all of our witnesses who are here today. I would like to focus in the first round on the RCMP.
The RCMP, as Canada’s national police force, has a very large mandate. My questions focus on rural Canada, and specifically Northern Canada. An RCMP member can be a nurse, an EMS — in addition to policing, there is the community outreach. There are all of these roles that are fulfilled by the RCMP in rural Canada, and particularly in the North.
You outlined four streams of funding, Ms. Hazen: the contract, Indigenous, specialized and internal. My understanding is that in the three northern territories it is contract policing. The Yukon government or the Nunavut government would contribute a portion and the federal government would contribute a portion to providing these policing services.
It also means that the entire country is competing for what is available in those four pots. Could I ask you to provide in writing, please, the regional breakdown of those four pots of funding? Who gets what?
I would also like to speak for a moment and follow up on the guns-and-gangs discussion held earlier.
You mentioned a number of border points in Canada, but you missed the rural ones. They are critical as well. For example, in Alberta, we have all heard of Coutts, but the Alberta government has a $2.4 billion surplus this year. Then there is New Brunswick and St. Stephen as a border community, and the New Brunswick budget has a deficit of $430 million.
The provinces contribute money to the policing, and there are these guns-and-gangs issues that occur everywhere in the country. How are the resources spread evenly? My former colleague Senator White could discuss the guns that came across the border at Beaver Creek in the Yukon from Alaska — quite significant.
If you could just elaborate on how your resources are spread across the country, evenly, in terms of combatting some of these issues. In this instance, it is the guns-and-gangs issue.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question. I want to clarify one piece. It is three themes: Contracted Indigenous policing is one bucket, and then there is federal and specialized policing, so contracted Indigenous are together.
From a firearms perspective, as you know, we are a vast country with different challenges, and obviously we monitor crime severity and trends in violent and organized crime. The resources are a very complex mix, as you allude to. There is a series funded by the province or territory, which would be the contracted Indigenous piece. And then through other funding mechanisms, federal policing has organized crime teams, firearms investigative teams that are funded federally, and then specialized policing has a significant amount of support through firearms tracing, through the Canadian Firearms Program.
All three buckets, or pillars, within the RCMP work together collaboratively to combat and ensure public safety in Canada.
It is spread across the country in a variety of perspectives with the exception of Quebec and Ontario, where we are not the provincial and/or municipal police. They have those two jurisdictions. Those two provinces are solely federally based with resources of federal policing and specialized policing, which are funded through the federal government.
We look at this from a national perspective. We also support, obviously, international and global policing as we look at these trends.
Senator Duncan: You look at it from a national perspective. But that national perspective is coming from Ottawa. Are we seeing the needs across the country? And you also identified less money. Do you have enough to meet those needs, this complete variety of needs?
Mr. Larkin: I will add that each province has a commanding officer who looks at it from their perspective and works in areas where they provide contract and Indigenous and/or provincial policing, works with public safety of that province and works with municipalities, and so there is very much a localized and provincial lens.
That is tied in through a series of ongoing committees where we bring together all of those commanding officers, all of those CROPS officers who look at criminal operations. They connect on a regular basis, looking at trends and patterns. I would suggest that the work we do coast to coast to coast blends exceptionally well, and that goes beyond our borders.
We are very much focused on localized needs. I know that to Commissioner Duheme, a big priority is how we look at localized needs, but also how we look at it from a larger transactional perspective. Organized crime knows no boundaries.
And then I will add the cyber piece to that, which is changing the landscape of policing. We have a traditional method of policing, which is the police car in your neighbourhood, but then there is a whole other neighbourhood, which is the cyber piece. We are looking at that from a localized level, but also providing national support.
The Chair: Thank you. If you want to provide additional information, please do it in writing.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you to all of our panellists for being here this evening.
My question is for Public Safety Canada. As you mentioned, you are asking for a $1.8-billion increase for the 2023-24 Main Estimates, which is close to a 200% increase compared to the previous fiscal year Main Estimates. I know one of your department’s priorities is to protect Canadians, our critical infrastructure and our economy from cyber-threats and other emerging threats.
As you know, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s website, as well as the Senate’s website, experienced some issues. According to the media, it was a pro-Russian hacking group who took credit for both attacks. I was told it seems that these attacks had very little impact on the systems, which is reassuring. Nonetheless, it does highlight a certain vulnerability and reminds us we should never take these attacks lightly.
Can you provide us with some of the work you are doing to reduce some of our cyber-vulnerabilities? A word or two on the development and implementation of a renewed national cybersecurity strategy would be helpful, too. And how much of your $1.8-billion increase is directed toward mitigating these risks?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. Yes, we do have money and we do have activity at Public Safety for national security and cybersecurity. The best person to answer your questions is my colleague Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Assistant Deputy Minister of the National and Cyber Security Branch within our department.
Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère, Assistant Deputy Minister, National and Cyber Security Branch, Public Safety Canada: The National Cyber Security Strategy is now valid until 2024. As has been discussed publicly by the minister and is in the minister’s mandate letter, we are in the process of renewing that strategy.
So the consultation process happened in the last few months. We are now in the process of having it packaged together and presenting to government our advice on the renewal of that strategy.
Some of the advice we have received was around how to better protect Canadian businesses, how to ensure that Canada is well protected as we move toward a more digital economy and also making sure that Canadians feel supported in their daily lives against known cyber-threats.
There is no new funding received in the latest budget for cybersecurity. We are hoping that through the renewed strategy we will be able to formulate a new set of programs.
Senator Loffreda: Despite the increased cyber-threats, do you not feel you need new funding? Do you have sufficient resources to mitigate all of those risks?
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: Well, we do, but the cyber-needs are quite significant. We are in the process of renewing our strategy and coming up with a series of new programming that will address the ever-evolving threats. In that matter, we’ll advise government and hope to receive direction from it.
Senator Loffreda: Given this dynamic environment we are in, where the geopolitical situation is changing drastically and rapidly, how often do you oversee, overlook or review that strategy?
Mr. Aubertin-Giguère: It needs to constantly evolve, and that’s the way we are trying to conceive it as an evergreen.
The current process is more of a four-year cycle. The Prime Minister said midway through the current strategy that he wanted a renewal, a review of that strategy. We’ll have to look at whether the four-year cycle is too long or whether the strategy needs to be implemented and put in place.
That said, irrespective of the new program that we’re putting in place, we have a very solid security infrastructure in Canada. We have very competent players who are protecting Canadians against cyber-threats, such as CSE, for example, the RCMP and also our minister. Our department is playing a leadership role in making sure that Canadian cybersecurity policy is up to date and adequate.
Senator Loffreda: I would like to think that if there are any new threats or risks, that it is overlooked, overseen and renewed more often than every four years. I would think so, right? Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Dagenais is certainly no stranger to the police aspect. Senator Dagenais, the floor is yours.
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Major-General Frawley. I would like to come back to the fact that your budget increased by only 2%, despite all the challenges and despite the political commitments made. In particular, I’m thinking of the government’s surprise commitments for the war in Ukraine. As we know, prices have risen by an average of 4% to 7%. With that in mind, I find it hard to believe you will have sufficient funding. Will you have to make cuts? If so, in which sectors? Are we yet again going to see cost overruns? Are we going to have to deal with requests for additional funding?
[English]
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for the question. I’ll begin and pass it to General Frawley right away.
It’s clear that National Defence takes the investment into defence very seriously. You’re absolutely correct that we constantly need to refresh our cost estimates as inflation rises, as we have other challenges, to achieve our procurement objectives.
Again, I would remind the committee that these Main Estimates do not, for example, include what has been announced in Budget 2023. For us, anyway, this underlines the importance of our defence policy update and the review process that we are currently undergoing to ensure that we do have the wherewithal, the resources we need to equip our men and women and to succeed in addressing the complex threats that we face.
With that, I’ll turn to General Frawley to explain more.
MGen. Frawley: Our defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, released in 2016, anticipated a certain environment and the threat environment to evolve in a certain way over time. We all have come to realize that we probably didn’t realize just how quickly that environment would change.
Hence the criticality of the defence policy update, which is currently under way, with a significant amount of engagement with stakeholders. While a letter to the government may seem scathing, it is in line with the fact that we do want to engage with as many stakeholders as possible. We do need to hear from as many different individuals as possible, be it ex-defence officials, academics, industry, to make sure that we get it right.
Our focus is on what the CAF, the department, need to look like into the future and make sure that we do get it right.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My next question is for Major-General Simon Bernard. I have been a member of the National Security and Defence Committee for 11 years. The committee will soon be studying the recruitment challenges of the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that the forces are short approximately 12,000 members. When people have the choice between the RCMP and provincial or municipal police services, where the pay is more enticing than in the army, most choose a career in the police service.
Do you have plans to significantly improve the pay of Armed Forces members to attract more people? If so, how much will that cost? Where is that money earmarked in the budget? Will the funding be enough to make the military truly competitive and to facilitate recruitment? As the chair mentioned, I was a police officer. I had the choice between the army and the police, and I chose a career in the police force because, at that time, the pay was better. Where will you get the funding from? I would like to hear your comments on that topic.
Major-General Simon Bernard, Director General Military Personnel – Strategic, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: The effort to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces currently has three priorities regarding the state of our military.
[English]
We see people as a core capability in the CAF. What we’re trying to do now is to focus our efforts on recruitment, but also retaining that talent in service.
I’ll mention a couple of initiatives that we have launched to modernize our recruitment process and enhance the candidates’ experience. We’re trying to streamline the recruitment process and enhance the candidates’ experience. What we have also done with regard to meeting the object of your question is we’ve launched the CAF Offer.
The CAF Offer was launched on February 2 of this year. It is our value proposition to young Canadians who want to join and serve. It has the monetary, non-monetary, quality-of-life and all other benefits we offer.
We also understand why people do not want to join, so we have outstanding outreach and engagement with communities. We’re also committed to evolving our culture, and that will play a key role in making sure the Canadian Armed Forces reflect Canada’s diversity as well.
There’s a lot going on right now. You’re probably tracking that on December 5 the Minister of National Defence announced that permanent residents would now be allowed to join the CAF, as they represent an important, skilled and diverse workforce in Canada.
I do believe that our value proposition as we speak today and the value proposition that was launched under the CAF Offer — nothing is aspirational. This is how good of a value proposition we have for Canadians and permanent residents. I do believe we have a competitive offer for Canadians or permanent residents who would like to serve.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you all for being here. It’s a fascinating evening.
My question is for the RCMP. I hope you take this question in a constructive way. There are various problems in the force across the country in various ways. I wonder if we should be looking for a different kind of solution. I wonder if the force is just too big. I look at the estimates for next year, and it’s $1.8 million for contract and Indigenous policing and $1 billion for federal policing.
There are some provinces and cities who, from time to time, talk about taking back policing into their own jurisdictions. I note that contract policing — you can tell me if this is right or wrong — the current agreements go until March 31, 2032, so that’s nine years from now.
I’m wondering if we should be looking at changing our set-up and returning policing to the provinces and municipalities and having the RCMP be the national police force, your number one objective, with some coordinating, of course, of intelligence and things like that.
Is it just too big a force to change and move? Would it be more efficient if you had one national police force and you let the provinces do their own thing with some level of coordination of some services?
Deputy Commissioner Larkin or Mr. Amyot could speak to that.
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the feedback. It’s very important. I know that Commissioner Duheme is committed to ongoing change within the RCMP, the modernization.
You are correct that the contract policing does extend to 2032. I’ll ask my colleagues from Public Safety specifically to speak to the contract, because they do manage those for us.
We have been very much welcome to the transition that is happening across our country, so we have seen different provinces and different municipalities looking at different models of policing. We actually participate in that transition. We welcome that dialogue. We welcome that discussion.
When we look at the overall complexity of policing in Canada, we’re looking at the Mass Casualty Commission recommendations. We’re looking at other significant recommendations around the RCMP. Our commitment remains looking at reformation, modernization and the evolution of our organization. That also comes in discussion with various levels of government and Canadian citizens.
Our commitment right now continues to be to deliver on our mandate, which is to contract Indigenous policing, federal policing and specialized policing. That mandate has not changed, but we’re certainly open to and welcome the ongoing dialogue. Because that also involves police jurisdiction, various public safety and departments of justice across our country, but ultimately the Canadian citizen determines the level of policing they receive. Specific to the contract, I’ll look at our colleagues from Public Safety, who manage the contracts on our behalf.
Senator Cardozo: Just to be clear, I’m not pushing one way or the other because I tend to want to have things better coordinated. But I look at this and think year after year we can’t seem to deal with the big problems.
Craig Oldham, Director General, Program Development and Intergovernmental Affairs Directorate, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Good evening. I’m Craig Oldham, the Director General working in Program Development and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Crime Prevention Branch at Public Safety.
As has been mentioned, there is an awful lot of work going on around contract policing, everything from how we manage the retroactive pay, the recommendations that are coming out of the Mass Casualty Commission and a number of other initiatives that are all oriented towards this.
There is engagement going on with provinces and territories and with municipalities around what they see as the future of policing within their jurisdictions. I would say that at this point, we’re very much in the study part of this whole exercise, gathering information, consulting, discussing how we might move forward in the future. But there certainly are no hard decisions made at this point, and there’s a lot of work to do, which we’re doing with the RCMP and with our partners and provinces, territories and First Nations as well.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you for that.
My next question is very specific and it deals with one street in this country, and that’s Wellington Street. Do you have a view on whether Wellington Street is better — from a security perspective — closed to traffic and be a pedestrian area or otherwise?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you very much. We are involved in the Public Order Emergency Commission and reviewing those recommendations. Although we are involved in that dialogue, the actual Parliamentary Precinct is now managed by a separate agency, PPSC, and I believe the questions would be better directed to them, as they manage parliamentary security. Although we have a role in that, the specific site and physical security are through PPSC now.
Senator Cardozo: Do you work with them quite a bit on security?
Mr. Larkin: We do work closely with them, but they have ultimate leadership and control of that. Hence, as we continue to review the Public Order Emergency Commission and Emergencies Act recommendations, we’ll continue that review. But the RCMP does not have a specific position/posture on that. We feel it’s better directed to the agency that’s responsible for physical security.
Senator Cardozo: Thanks.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will now move to the second round.
Senator Marshall: I want to go back to Senator Gignac’s question on the NATO spending because I got the impression from the answers we got from the officials that our contribution was rosy. But I’ve done a lot of research on the NATO spending, and there have been quite a few critical reports on it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did one last year, which said we’re not even near the 2%. I think there was an article in The Washington Post recently where the Prime Minister said we’re never going to reach our 2%.
NATO has put out some interesting information in the form of graphs that show that Canada is near the bottom of the list, right down there with Slovenia, Spain and Luxembourg. I think the number they had was 1.27%. We’re not even near our 2%. I wanted to indicate that it’s not as rosy. I got the impression that you were painting a rosy picture. I just wanted to clarify I don’t think it’s a rosy picture, but that’s not my question.
In the Main Estimates, I was disappointed that there wasn’t more money for National Defence, so when the budget came out, I took a look, and there’s quite a bit of money there — over $3 billion — for the Defence Department. But all of the funding says that it’s been provisioned already in the fiscal framework. Where? The Parliamentary Budget Officer was here yesterday, and I asked him, “Where is it?” I can’t find it. Where is it in the fiscal framework?
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for your question. It’s a very good one because over the years, particularly going back to 2021, the government has committed significant funding to National Defence, whether it was towards improving internal culture, recruitment strategies and so forth, or developing new capabilities. Budget 2023 actually made reference to many of the investments that were announced in Budget 2021, in the Fall Economic Statement, in Budget 2022 and subsequent fall and then we had the NORAD modernization —
Senator Marshall: It’s on page 177 of the budget. Can you tell me where it is in those previous financial documents?
Ms. Crosby: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer couldn’t tell us. I even questioned the statement that it’s in the fiscal framework if it’s that far back. If you can send the information, I can make up my own mind.
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for the question. We had that question too and we created the chart, so we can send that to you very easily.
Senator Marshall: I don’t think that money is there, but we’ll see. Thank you.
The Chair: So you will provide the information, Ms. Crosby? Thank you.
Senator Gignac: My question will go to Assistant Deputy Minister Crosby, since it will be about procurement. In February, with my colleague Senator Dagenais and other colleagues at the National Defence Committee, I had the opportunity and privilege to go to NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs. It was hosted by Brigadier General Peltier and it was a presentation about procurement. I was surprised that the procurement policy of National Defence is different than the procurement in the U.S., it’s not matched. And since we have a joint command, why is it the case? Have you done any stress tests around the resilience of your supply chain? Because in the case of so much global conflict, maybe we could have a problem with some suppliers, based in some hostile country, that are not reliable. So I’m just curious about your thoughts regarding the procurement policy at National Defence.
Mr. Crosby: Of course, Mr. Chair, we operate under somewhat different legislative bases. We operate with the same sorts of philosophies as our U.S. allies. How they implement their laws and regulations differs from ours. We do discuss different approaches.
With respect to stress testing specifically, where we look at the potential operational impacts of supply chain vulnerabilities, based on the lessons we observed during and since COVID, we’ve put in place a contract that will allow us to have supply chain illumination. The supplier, through gathering much detailed data, is able to move deeply into the supply chains right down to the raw materials and where they’re sourced from and up through the supply chain so we can assess any kinds of risks. We don’t do that for all the equipment. We do it on a consequence basis where we would have concerns for deployable equipment and these sorts of things.
Those assessments can also look at the financial viability of the companies that are involved, where they’re based and these sorts of perspectives. Our allies are taking the same sorts of approaches and we also have a number of forums where we can come together and exchange our thinking as we evolve this approach.
Senator Gignac: Since President Biden was very proud to mention when he was in Ottawa that it is the only joint command between two sovereign countries around the globe, may I ask you to consider and ask the government to revisit this procurement policy? If we have the same command, at some point, if we have different materiel, that could create some challenges down the road, whether it’s communication or the materiel. I just told the apprentices, but I have some concerns because the world has changed since a year ago.
Senator Smith: I have three questions I wanted to ask the Department of National Defence, and maybe you folks could write to us and give us some information, if you wouldn’t mind. Time is of the essence, and I want to make sure we get through this.
Spending on professional and special services totals almost $20 billion across all departments in this year’s Main Estimates. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, more than half of the spending can be attributed to five departments: National Defence; Public Services and Procurement Canada; Public Safety Canada; Indigenous Services Canada; and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
My first question is this: Could you please provide a breakdown of your organization’s spending on professional and special services? Two, could you please explain why your department is consistently seeking out external expertise, and why these types of skills are not found internally? Three, what is the department doing to reduce dependency on external consultants and hire and train capable staff already employed by National Defence to carry out these types of jobs?
I would be most interested to see that type of feedback to see how all your programs are moving forward and tying that to your actual base program of “ready and able.” I think it would be helpful.
Ms. Crosby: I can answer quickly, or I’d be happy to supply additional information.
The Chair: If you can answer quickly, we would appreciate that for the record now.
Ms. Crosby: Certainly. We take very seriously our responsibility in terms of being sound stewards of public funds. We also try to use open and transparent processes when it comes to contracting.
The procurement of professional services enables us to, for example, acquire special expertise that we do not have internally. Another example that we often use external consultants for is to benchmark, using information that we don’t have access to.
In the Main Estimates, we are seeking $5 billion, so we are a big consumer of external contracting, but it covers a wide variety of activities. Almost half of it is engineering-type activities that we use in our capital projects, and the rest of it is accounting, medical services, research, architects and translators.
Senator Smith: Would you be able to provide us with some numbers —
Ms. Crosby: Absolutely.
Senator Smith: — just so we understand the breakdown?
Ms. Crosby: Yes. We can give you that breakdown.
Senator Smith: Because it does go to the next question of what you are doing to get these people integrated so that you have the expertise so that you’re not going to always have to get these types of people, which may not be the best way of creating an atmosphere that is positive in terms of your business.
Ms. Crosby: Yes, I would be happy to.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: I would like to go back to the question about police services and the partnership you have forged with them.
You talked about major cities such as Winnipeg and Vancouver, as well as a partnership with Ontario and the Maritimes.
Are there any major cities that have not responded to the call for partnership with police forces as to the trafficking of handguns? Do you have any information on the effectiveness of your partnerships in reducing the trafficking of firearms?
[English]
Mr. Larkin: Thank you for the question.
The RCMP works with all police services and jurisdictions, so we have partnerships with all 194 police services as well as Indigenous Services Canada. Some of those are through special operations or special joint forces. We have a number of integrated units at all levels, and so we share an excellent relationship with all police services across the country.
Specific to your question around the reduction of crime or the reduction of crime severity, we do not have that information.
Senator Moncion: Not severity of crime; it’s the severity of arms trafficking.
Mr. Larkin: What we can do is, actually, as we look at national firearms examination and national tracing, I think that beyond 2023 and as we move into 2024, we’ll have better data that will allow us to provide that information.
Traditionally, we’re actually just getting our systems up and running from a national perspective, but we would commit to go back to our teams to see whether there’s data we can provide this committee. Absolutely.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: My question is for the officials from National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
[English]
The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence is studying how to manage the needs of Canadians struck by disaster. My previous question revealed that extreme weather events are happening more frequently, are more extreme, and the presence of the military is becoming more frequent in the provinces and territories. In fact, in 2021, the military responded to seven requests for assistance.
We know that this military time is very expensive, and it may be impacting the readiness for other missions, such as the ones in which we are participating in Ukraine.
When I look at the Main Estimates and the purpose, where is this expensive military time reflected: Ready Forces, Defence Team, Operations? How much money is it?
Ms. Crosby: Through the chair, thank you for your question.
We would certainly agree with you that National Defence is called upon with increased frequency to address various natural disasters or pandemics, in fact, and other such things. We’ve seen a steady trend over the past five, six, almost seven years, I’d say, in the frequency with which we respond.
We often speak about lapses as a bad thing, but I will say that our department is entitled to lapse about 5% of our operating budget carry forward, and we use that 5% to invest in such things as addressing natural disasters and so forth, the unpredicted things that we don’t know will happen but probably will.
Any funding that we put towards addressing natural disasters will be found in our Vote 1, in our operating funding. But we do see an increase in the costs; I agree with you. However, we leverage the Reservists, and I could ask General Frawley to speak more about that, which enables us to use the capabilities that the Reservists have and also keeps their skills tuned up as well.
I’ll turn it over to General Frawley, if you want to speak more.
MGen. Frawley: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Climate change is affecting the frequency, duration and intensity of Canadian Armed Forces’ operations, both at home and abroad.
Just to reinforce the question with a few numbers, when we do an operation that has to do with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, we call it “Operation LENTUS.” From 1990 to 2010, we reacted to eight different incidents over that period of time. From 2011 to 2021, there were 33. In that period, we went from an incident once every two years to three a year. In 2022, we reacted to five of these. That intensity is increasing, both in Canada and abroad.
I can tell you without going into any specifics that part of the discussions on our defence policy update is that we ensure that climate change and the impact of climate change and the impact on Canadian Armed Forces operations have to be factored in for our future.
Senator Galvez: Thank you so much.
Senator Boehm: I have a question for Mr. Amyot.
I appreciated the comments you made in your opening statement about the Building Safer Communities Fund. This is something new, and you’re projecting it to grow much more. I also notice in the following line that there are contributions to national voluntary organizations, and they seem to be scheduled to grow exponentially almost, as well.
Is there a connection between the two, or could you maybe drill down a little bit deeper into both the voluntary organization aspect and the Building Safer Communities Fund?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question.
Yes, the Building Safer Communities Fund — $85 million this year — is related to guns and gangs. It’s working with municipalities and Indigenous organizations to develop programs to help youth not get involved in crime or gangs, et cetera.
The national voluntary organizations are not linked to the BSCF. I’ll ask my colleague Craig Oldham to provide more information, but regarding the amount for the voluntary organizations, you’re absolutely right: It has increased by $2 million, and it’s $5 million in our Main Estimates for 2023-24.
Mr. Oldham: Thank you.
Patrick Amyot is right. The BSCF is not related to this at all. It is all about guns and gangs and it’s part of our ongoing initiatives in a couple of different areas against guns and gangs. The Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence is a part of that. Building Safer Communities is a part of that as well and is ongoing.
For the volunteer piece that we are talking about, which is related to emergency management, Mr. May can answer.
Mr. May: Thank you.
For the national voluntary organizations, there are two programs associated with those. There is a grant program that allows organizations like the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies to work with those who are looking to reintegrate into society after being incarcerated.
Similarly, there is a program associated with those same organizations with respect to helping them go through pardon reform. That is what that program is —
Senator Boehm: And you are looking at expansion, obviously.
Mr. May: It grows, yes, with respect to what you are seeing.
Senator Duncan: My apologies to the RCMP witnesses. I don’t think my question was clear enough. Here’s what I am looking for: If we were to picture a map of Canada, I am looking to see where the money has been spent and then overlay that with the mandate you have. It is a tremendous mandate; it is enormous. You alluded to that as well in your response. The needs are different across the country. I am looking to see how those two fit.
It seems to me also that you mentioned a funding reduction. I have a sense that you are being asked to do more with less in this increasingly modern context. That is the visual picture in terms of money that I am trying to see.
Overlaid with that, we have funding from community safety. Both of you have Indigenous policing as part of your mandates, so if we could also include the funding from Public Safety in that. That is the visual picture I am looking to get.
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question.
I am certainly happy to provide the committee with a breakdown. We do allocate funding across the various divisions. Particularly, I think your first question was with regard to the North and to the three territories. I can provide the committee with a breakdown of the contract and Indigenous policing business lines and what amounts of funding in these Main Estimates have been provided to them.
Senator Duncan: It is important to recognize that, with the mandate overlaying that, for example, in the North, the RCMP is the only police service we have. That mandate is stretched when you have a shared border, as in our example, or you have no transportation like Nunavut has.
That is critical as well in terms of information. Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: My question is for the RCMP once again.
I would like to dive a little deeper into the RCMP’s commitment to recruitment modernization. You are asking for a total of close to $4.2 billion in these estimates, which, surprisingly, as Senator Duncan said, is a 1.6% decrease compared to the previous year’s estimates. In 2022-23, you established a dedicated recruitment modernization team to focus on modernizing your recruitment and retention models. I realize that it may be in its infancy, but can you speak to us about the work of that team?
For instance, in your departmental plan, you state that you hope to:
. . . finalize the implementation plan to support the national roll-out of Recruitment Evaluation Centres, where candidates will be assessed on modern . . . attributes through a number of simulations, exercises, fitness testing, and interviews in a face-to-face environment . . . .
Can you expand on what you mean by “modern attributes”? What does that imply, and how do they differ from previous attributes?
On that same subject — and this is an important question — can you address some of the challenges the RCMP might have in recruiting and retaining officers? What incentives or benefits do you offer to attract the best and brightest individuals to your force?
Ms. Hazen: Thank you for the question.
To attract, recruit and retain police officers, the RCMP has made a number of changes to the regular member recruitment process and has developed attractive strategies.
Based on scientific evidence, we’ve established characteristics and attributes required of a regular member’s general duty constable. We’ve integrated those 18 characteristics and attributes for modern policing into our assessment process. We’ve introduced an undoctored online assessment focused on preliminary screening questions rather than an in-person proctored test, which has allowed us to increase the pass rate from 58% to 83%.
We have enhanced the applicants’ experience with a focus on ensuring we recruit the right people for the right roles, who have a balance of characteristics, attributes and diversity of identity and experience to be a modern-day police officer.
We also successfully piloted a two-day in-person recruitment evaluation centre that will enhance the suitability assessment by removing systemic barriers, reflecting equity, diversity and inclusion.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Amyot.
Mr. Amyot, with the closure of Roxham Road, there are no doubt certain logistical structures that will no longer be needed.
Will you be able to save money by not using them? Is it possible to cancel the contracts that I described as more or less questionable and that have not been awarded? If you have to keep paying, can you tell us how much those commitments will cost Canadians?
Mr. Amyot: Let me begin by saying that, at Public Safety Canada, there is a policy component with regard to customs since people cross the border with the United States.
That is part of a program that we discussed a bit earlier. We are not responsible for that. The RCMP would be able to answer that question.
Senator Dagenais: We understand that trailers were set up on leased land. Those trailers are no longer needed, but since the land was leased, will you have to break the lease or will you have to keep leasing the land? It is a fairly large piece of land that is no longer needed.
Mr. Amyot: That is a very good question, but once again, Public Safety Canada has not paid for any lease and has not maintained any trailers. That is a question for the RCMP.
Senator Dagenais: You may send me the answer in writing because I have some questions. A lot of structures were set up on leased land. That must have cost a certain amount. Since they are no longer needed, the trailers should be removed and we should stop paying the lease.
Mr. Amyot: We will do some research and submit an answer in writing.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Hazen, do you have any comments?
Ms. Hazen: There may have been RCMP-related costs associated with that, but I would be happy to go back to the department and do some research, along with my colleagues at Public Safety, and submit that in writing to you.
The Chair: Thank you, madam.
Senator Cardozo: I have a question about diversity hiring. I would like to find out from you to what extent you are able to hire non-Canadian citizens, people who are immigrants to Canada.
For the longest time, you did not do that, and I understand that might have changed over the years. I don’t often ask questions based on my own experience, but I have to tell you that back in my second year of university, an Acadian buddy of mine and I went to downtown Toronto to sign up for the summer training program at the Canadian Armed Forces. I wasn’t able to register because I wasn’t a citizen at that time. My buddy Marc Boudreau pulled out, I think out of solidarity with me. So you did not just lose me. You lost two of us.
I am thinking that maybe I could have been sitting there today as a major-general, and you could have been the senator.
What are your thoughts on how you are doing in terms of recruiting people from diverse backgrounds?
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for the question. Certainly, we are committed to growing the Canadian Armed Forces in a way that ensures that we reflect the diversity of Canada. I am happy to turn it over to General Bernard for more on that.
MGen. Bernard: Mr. Chair, again, we are committed to evolving our culture and growing the Canadian Forces and ensuring that our forces reflect Canada’s diversity.
As I mentioned before, on December 5, the Minister of National Defence announced that permanent residents would now be welcome to apply to join the CAF. Right now, we’re tracking about 6,000 applicants. The process is the same as it is for those who have Canadian citizenship in terms of security screening, suitability testing and then medical testing, before anyone can actually join.
The 6,000 applicants number was based on December. It may have increased a little bit. We can probably provide you with more fidelity in a written format.
Senator Cardozo: I would be interested in that. Thanks.
And in terms of the RCMP?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have also changed our residency thresholds for permanent residents to attract and diversify our workforce. Unlike General Bernard, I don’t have the specific data, but we can certainly provide that in writing regarding our recruitment over the last 12 months, with a breakdown of those candidates whom we are recruiting. But, again, we are also modernizing.
Senator Cardozo: I would just note that maybe next time you are here, the senior brass of the RCMP and National Defence will reflect the diversity of Canada a bit more. Thank you.
Ms. Crosby: Thank you for your comment. I would say that I am the first female CFO at National Defence, so we are making some progress.
Senator Cardozo: We are, indeed.
Senator Pate: I will pick up on Senator Boehm’s questions to Public Safety.
I would be very interested in the breakdown, again, of the organizations which are funded through the guns-and-gangs initiative, particularly for Indigenous youth. Which organizations are funded and for how much and for what period? Is it sustaining funding or special-project funding?
With the voluntary organizations, I know that through the sustaining funding program, there are those funds — you mentioned about $2 million for the pardon assistance or pardon reform process. I would be interested in, again, that breakdown of who is getting how much money for the pardon reform.
As well, I want to know if in Public Safety there has been any allocation — I couldn’t see it — for the streamlining of the records process. Certainly, the minister is on record as saying he’s interested in an automatic process. I know that some of us have had those conversations. How much of the estimates are geared to streamlining the process with a view to making it a more automatic process, in addition to the funding that’s going to individual organizations to assist individuals to apply for pardons?
Mr. Amyot: Thank you for the question. Yes, I don’t have the details on who got what for the Building Safer Communities Fund. Yes, we will provide that to you in writing.
The other question was concerning the pardons. I believe Mr. Oldham can answer this question.
Mr. Oldham: I’m sorry, we were conferring, but we actually got it flipped around. I was going to talk a little bit about the guns and gangs and the BSCF to give you that number. We will have to get back to you on the pardons case because I don’t know that.
In the big-picture scheme of things, I mentioned two programs. The Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence is a piece which funds provinces and territories, as well as a little chunk of money that goes to the RCMP and to CBSA. That money is $92 million annually. The provinces and territories then distribute and use that money for their initiatives.
The second piece, which is the BSCF that we talked about, is $250 million. That goes not to provinces and territories and federal entities; that goes to municipalities, to communities, including First Nations communities. That money is distributed based on a scientific method we use that looks at population, rates of crime, et cetera, where they apply to the program, and then we fund them to look for results.
Senator Pate: If you could provide that information and the formula you’re using, that would be great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Oldham: Yes, we can.
The Chair: Before we close, with the indulgence of all the senators, I have a question. Before I ask that question, I will bring to the attention of our witnesses this evening — from the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and National Defence — the quality of questions that have been asked around the table. We have a common denominator. The common denominator that we have is all about transparency, accountability, reliability and predictability going forward.
That said, you have been very informative this evening and also enlightening in sharing information for the Canadian public.
I have watched very carefully and listened very carefully to Major-General Bernard on the modernization of National Defence.
I have a question for the RCMP. I was formerly a minister responsible for the RCMP, municipal policing and also public safety in the province of New Brunswick. We have come a long way in policing in Canada, from 1867 to what we have now. I think it is time to revisit and modernize the mandate of the RCMP, keeping in mind that we must adapt to our communities.
My question to you is this: What do you think now when we ask you to look at the mandate of tomorrow? You have the prerogative of not answering the question here this evening, but for you, in the context of the questions that were asked tonight, what are your comments on modernizing the RCMP?
Mr. Larkin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Duheme could not be with us this evening. He is travelling to Edmonton for the regimental funeral of Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami. He sends his regrets, and you are stuck with me and my amazing colleague.
But I can tell you that Commissioner Duheme is very interested in a conversation and partnership with Public Safety, and partnership with all of our provinces and territories and with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police around the future of policing in Canada and how we look at what the future of policing in Canada is. We are seeing a significant evolution and change. We’ve talked about it this evening — the impact of firearms, the impact of cybercrime, the impact of crime severity in our country. We are recognizing an uptick around crime severity, in particular violent crime.
I know Commissioner Duheme is very interested in looking at a directorate within the organization, looking at all the recommendations, not just from the Mass Casualty Commission or the Public Order Emergency Commission — the POEC report — or the Bastarache report, but going back historically to look at all recommendations around policing in Canada, in particular the RCMP, which is our mandate, around contract, Indigenous, federal and specialized policing.
Our commitment to this committee is that we’re very much engaged in that dialogue. As my colleagues from Public Safety mentioned, we’re currently travelling the country, meeting with provinces, meeting with public safety ministers and department of justice ministers, meeting with municipalities, meeting with those who actually consume the service of the RCMP, discussing what is working, what is not working, what the future looks like, what we think about some of these processes.
We would be remiss if we did not look at the economics of policing. It is a significant impact — whether municipal, provincial or federal — on the citizen; the impact on the ratepayer is significant. And how we police as a country is something that Commissioner Duheme is interested in, but it cannot be in isolation. It has to be in conversation with all of our partners, levels of government and also our police of jurisdiction and Canadian citizens. We firmly believe that public safety and policing in Canada is set by the democracy of our citizens. They determine the level of policing in our country.
So, again, on behalf of Commissioner Duheme, I can tell you that that is at the forefront of his mandate, at the forefront of his work with Public Safety Canada, and we would look forward to obviously returning and engaging in that dialogue around what policing looks like in Canada for the future.
In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, they are hosting an annual summit in August in Ottawa. The theme of that will be the future of policing. The RCMP will play a significant role in that dialogue and discussion. In fact, I know Commissioner Duheme will be one of the guest speakers engaging our colleagues in policing about what that looks like as we work with our partnerships with Public Safety. I hope that provides some insight.
Again, you know, representing the commissioner, I know that he would be very pleased to speak more around his views on modernization, but my colleague and I can tell you that we are looking at standing up a directorate within our organization that looks to the future, who we are and how we impact the overall goal. I think the common denominator is around public safety for all citizens of our country, and that has to be at the forefront. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Before we end the meeting, I would mention to the witnesses that we will expect their written replies before May 3, 2023, in view of our schedule and the report to be tabled in the Senate.
[English]
I would also like to inform honourable senators that our next meeting will be next Tuesday, April 25, at 9 a.m., to continue our study on the Main Estimates.
We will also have a second meeting in the afternoon on the same day from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. to review the second draft of the Supplementary Estimates (C) report for the fiscal year 2022-23. The second meeting will be followed also — for the steering members — by a steering committee meeting to discuss the work plan of the spring and the mandate that has been given to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance from the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you to the witnesses from the various departments. Thank you and have a nice evening.
(The committee adjourned.)