Public Accounts Committee on March 1st, 2011

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The key recommendation of our committee was recommendation number 31, and it stated:

The Government of Canada establish a Police Accountability Board that will provide third-party oversight of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

It was echoed by the Brown reports, by the task force, and in fact the Reform Implementation Council, in its last report, stated the same thing.

The first requirement is for the government to appoint--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, your time is up. You can have a quick question.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So they reinforced that.

At what point did you change your decision about supporting this board of management? You spoke about it at the Canadian Club in November of last year. Was it because the Prime Minister's Office now indicated that they would support it?

[Commr William Elliott]

At no point did I change my decision with respect to a board of management. As I've already indicated, I've had no dealings with the Prime Minister's Office on this subject. I do not believe the Prime Minister has yet been briefed in any detail with respect to the specifics of governance changes—at least not by me--so I'm not in a position to speculate on the view, or the potential view, of the Prime Minister. And that has had no role with respect to my own thinking on the subject.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Desnoyers, please.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee. My first question deals with one of the topics you addressed in your brief, Mr. Elliott. You say this:

Among the priorities we have been addressing are leadership, training and development, and significant improvements and investments have also been made in these critically important areas.

I would like to know what that covers specifically.

[Commr William Elliott]

I would answer--if I understand the question correctly--that our overall objective is to strengthen the leadership of the RCMP, to identify people with leadership potential, and to work with them throughout their careers to develop those leadership skills.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

But why is that, Mr. Elliott? Was there a critical lack of training or leadership in the past? You mentioned significant improvements and investments. Is that linked to what was discovered on the insurance and pension systems? Have these measures corrected the situation?

[Commr William Elliott]

Well, I certainly think that given a whole number of factors, including the increasing size and complexity of the RCMP, the increasing complexity of the environment within which we work, and the demographics of the force, where a lot of people are retiring and we are having to promote people more junior in their service to senior positions, it is incumbent on us—and on any organization that wants to continue to stay ahead of the curve—to invest more in leadership and development.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

So that wasn't done to fix the problems identified in the committee's report on the insurance and pension systems. At that time, labour relations at the RCMP were very difficult and turbulent. In fact, they were unhealthy.

It is clearly part of a bigger picture. On the labour relations side, you went through a very difficult time, and that is probably still the case. You also went through a very difficult time in terms of the pension system, insurance and accountability. You say in your brief that you have done significant work. At least that is what I understood, and I hope it is the case.

[Commr William Elliott]

Again, Mr. Chairman, I point out that investments in leadership, and in our people, are really designed to improve the organization as a whole. The specific issues with respect to the pension insurance issues arose prior to my being commissioner, prior to my being in the organization.

Certainly when I became commissioner there were lots of weaknesses that had been identified that needed to be addressed. Many of those weaknesses were identified in the task force report--that is, the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP.

I would say that the investments we have made since I have been commissioner have not been specifically related to specific issues. It's really an effort by us to strengthen the management and leadership of the RCMP across the board.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

My question is for Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Baker says in his report that the board of management has not yet been set up. Is that accurate?

[William V. Baker]

That is right. The RCMP is still studying the idea and putting together recommendations for the minister.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Can you tell us what you are studying at the RCMP that might prevent the setting up of a board of management? Does it depend on Bill C-43, which deals with the unionization of workers at the RCMP? Is that hindering the establishment of a board of management?

[Commr William Elliott]

Perhaps Mr. Baker is in a better position to respond to at least part of the question.

The proposals, which I am on public record, and the senior management team, as I indicated in my opening remarks...is supporting. The general proposals are laid out in the report of the task force of December 14, 2007.

Whether or not to create a management board is not a decision for the RCMP. It is a decision of the government. It is specifically the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Baker, can you tell me why the board has not been set up? Is Bill C-43 a significant factor? In his response of November 15, 2010, the Minister of Public Safety pointed out that the government had not yet made a decision regarding changes to the management structure at the RCMP. This is because of the turbulent labour relations and the need to complete contract negotiations before being able to think about putting in place other management and oversight mechanisms.

It seems to me that it is all there. A major decision by the Supreme Court recognized the workers union at the RCMP. If these workers were unionized, a "watch dog" style of structure would be put in place, in other words, a collective agreement that would settle labour relations problems, which are difficult at the RCMP. That would solve all of the issues we heard about relating to the pension and insurance systems. Often, a collective agreement…

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Please ask your question.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Given the reasons that I have listed, could you tell me why the board of management has not been set up?

[William V. Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, there are three points I think I would emphasize.

First of all, any decision to create a board of management for an institution of the magnitude and importance of the RCMP cannot be made easily or lightly. There has to be a very significant amount of study in terms of all of the implications.

Related to that, as you alluded to, there have been many other developments affecting the RCMP, including a bill that's now before the House on a new labour relations regime. We are in active discussions that I'm leading with the provinces and territories on contract negotiations. Included in that are their views on greater involvement in the management and the execution of those contracts for police services. There was recently a departmental audit committee set up for the RCMP that is also playing a role.

Part of it is looking at the universe of changes that are in play and ultimately assessing--it won't be my decision but the government's decision, ultimately assessing--what additional value a board might bring.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Baker. We can perhaps have a further response on another round.

We will now go to Mr. Christopherson, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Commissioner, Deputy Minister, thank you very much for your attendance here today.

I'd like to pick up on the last series of questions, because I think it's the crux of why we've asked you to be here--namely, why is the oversight board not in place? Why aren't things happening? Why aren't there, at the very least, clear recommendations asking that this be done?

I just want to set the stage here a little bit. I hear what the deputy is saying, but some of us who have experienced these areas also see it a little differently from how others do. In a previous life, I was Solicitor General of Ontario and responsible for all the policing in Ontario. Every single municipal police service in the province of Ontario has a police services board, with the exception of the OPP. Much like the situation in the RCMP, I was the civilian head of that, and my next agenda item was to do that, but then an election came along. History unfolded a little differently, and it remains undone.

A lot of us have experience with this in communities. Those police service boards are accountable to the community, and they're accountable to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, OCCPS. They have that accountability on both sides.

Let's go back to the very beginning. I will direct this to you, Deputy.

Mr. Brown was appointed to be an independent investigator, and he said:

The powers vested in the Commissioner of the RCMP make the holder of that office much more powerful than any corporate CEO. Accordingly, the attitudes and demeanour of the Commissioner pervade the RCMP more fundamentally than would be the case in most corporate environments.

He also goes on to say that the current RCMP paramilitary governance model

is not a governance model that investors in a $3 billion business would accept [because] a sophisticated business organization of this size cannot provide appropriate transparency and accountability within a command and control structure.

Mr. Brown then went on to recommend that a task force be created to look at this very issue further. He was appointed to be the head of that task force, and that task force--Mr. Brown again--came out and said:

Legislation should be enacted by the Parliament of Canada as soon as possible to establish a Board of Management of the RCMP responsible for the stewardship of its organization and administration including the oversight of the management of its financial affairs, resources, services, property, personnel and procurement.

We then went on to the RCMP Reform Implementation Council, which is the third step. The last report of that council said:

From the beginning, the Council has seen the introduction of a management board--a formal mechanism of external advice, oversight and guidance--as an essential aspect of successful and sustainable RCMP reform. We believe that such an improved and updated governance model will become the foundation upon which all successful reforms and improvements rest.

The cherry on the cake is that it was a unanimous report by all of us. We all agreed--even the government members--on the recommendation that Borys has already read into the record.

So across the board, everybody is saying, “Let's do this. There are good reasons. We have the experience. We have the plan. Let's do it.”

We're asking you in here to tell us, why isn't it happening?

[William V. Baker]

Mr. Chair, I hope I don't repeat myself too much.

I've had an opportunity to read all of those reports, and I'm familiar with them. I know there is certainly a strong view in favour of the establishment of some form of board. I've read the argumentation. When I was at the Canada Revenue Agency, I was consulted on this, in fact, in terms of my views, because it is, to my knowledge, the only other federal institution that has a board of management that's shaped that way, outside of the crown sector, with boards of directors.

It is, however, a very significant decision for the government to make, and ultimately the Prime Minister to make, with respect to whether or not this will provide value. And that process is still unfolding.

I know the recommendation has been out there for several years right now, but, with respect, when you look at the change agenda for the RCMP, it has been extremely busy. There are bills in the House. There have been other reports. Contract negotiations with the provinces and territories are in full flight. As I indicated earlier, the government's priorities have been established--to get those in place first and then look at what the residual value might be of a board of management.

So we'll await input from the RCMP on this. I know that Commissioner Elliott and his team are working on this. We'll have a look at that...recommendations we've made to the government, and we'll see.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you have anything to add, Commissioner, before I respond?

[Commr William Elliott]

I will simply state what I have said today and have said publicly: I, as Commissioner of the RCMP, and the senior leadership of the RCMP, are advocating the creation of a board of management for the RCMP, and that the RCMP be created as a separate agency and a separate employer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's a cute little performance.

I've got to tell you, Commissioner, that I hear what you're saying; you mouth the words, but then the deputy, who has to make things happen....

I've got to tell you, sir, I take your words and previous answers.... That's why we've called you in. I could set it to music. It's like dancing. I've got to tell you, right up front, what this looks like: the whole world is saying this ought to be done but there's a block somewhere.

I mean, even the commissioner is now telling us he thinks it should be done. So I don't know where the block is.

Is it you, Deputy, refusing to act on all of these good ideas? You keep saying we need to look at it more and study it more. I'm sorry, sir, it sounds like you're just delaying, delaying, delaying.

All the evidence is there. I don't understand what it has to do with labour negotiations, or negotiations with the provinces. We're talking about a macro overview board. You can still have a provincial version of that to deal with the contracts, if you wish.

I'd like to hear an answer as to how we should accept your words today as anything other than a big song and dance that's meant to delay things and basically to leave the status quo in place.

Convince me I'm wrong--please.