Public Safety Committee on Dec. 5th, 2012

[Don Head]

She was acting for a period of time while I was on leave.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

She said:

Pressures continue to arise at this site

—I guess she's talking about Stony Mountain—

due to presence of maximum security inmates awaiting transfer to other facilities and/or court processes as well as due to presence to the challenging dynamics of managing a complex security threat group situation.

We can say that there are fewer inmates than we anticipated, and I suppose that's a good thing, but it doesn't sound as though the pressures have been alleviated. There are still pressures in the system. We've heard, for example, that the court processes may slow down because of the elimination of the credit for time served, and so on.

How can you be so confident that everything is hunky-dory in the face of this double-bunking situation? Inmates are double-bunked, I think I read somewhere, for 23 hours.

It doesn't sound to me as though the pressures are being alleviated. It sounds to me as though maybe the reason we require more staffing in some of these institutions is that we're dealing with more complex populations. We have many different types of populations in the same institution. As a matter of fact, that's what the head of the correctional officers' union came to tell us when we were studying the problem of drugs in prisons. That's what they were protesting about on Parliament Hill. That's what they were protesting about in front of the Prime Minister's office in Calgary.

I understand that we're going to have fewer inmates, but it seems to me that the pressures are still quite strong, and maybe even growing. This would lead me to believe that maybe there are problems with the predictive ability within Correctional Services. If we predicted 18,000 and we had only 15,000, that's good news, but why are we off by 3,000?

[Don Head]

I'll deal with your last question first.

The issue, as I reported to this committee before, of projections was a problem related to data that was compiled in 2008 in that the only available data was for remand growth in the provinces from 2005. In 2005 all projections from CCJS, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, indicated that the remand population was going to continue to grow, so we factored that into the calculations. The next time the statistics were available from CCJS, the numbers had actually turned around.

Regarding the issue of double-bunking, particularly at Stony Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain is unique in the fact that it's the only federal penitentiary in the province other than Rockwood, which is the minimum security institution next door, that houses medium security offenders.

The odd time when there are problems within that institution and inmates have to be segregated because they have been involved in assaultive behaviour or other activities they should not been involved in, they have to, on rare occasions, place them in segregation, and two in segregation. The number of days they've spent two to a cell in segregation has been very low. We have an exceptional warden there who works very hard at reducing those numbers in as safe a manner as possible but as quickly as possible as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Again, I will remind everyone that when we're considering the supplementary estimates and we talk about prisons or Corrections Canada, there are, in the supplementary estimates, line items—canteen, construction, and those types of things. But for double-bunking, unless you word your question in such a format to ask why there isn't more money for that type of thing.... I'm just encouraging you to help out a bit here.

Thanks.

Mr. Garrison, go ahead, please, five minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to the officials for being here today.

I want to start with a question for Mr. Guimont directly. This is related to the supplementary estimates which provide $242 million as the federal government share of the cost for contract policing.

The thing that's no longer there is funding for the police recruitment fund. Why is that absent from the supplementary estimates? Is it true that the fund has been completely expended at this point? Is there additional demand that could have been funded in the supplementary estimates? I believe we heard from municipalities that there is unmet demand for this fund.

[François Guimont, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you for the question.

I hope as a newcomer to the department, I will have a long and productive relationship with the committee. I am happy to be here today.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you.

[François Guimont]

I'll raise two points. I may ask the commissioner to say a few words as well.

The dollars with respect to contract policing have been identified in supplementary estimates (B) as a result of negotiations that have been completed. I just want to be clear on that. That's obviously an increment that was not there at the time of the main estimates, but it was indicated.

With respect to the police officer recruitment fund, $400 million was set aside in 2008. You're obviously familiar with this. Right now that program will end March 31, 2013. I would say from my perspective—and I'm fairly new to this line of business—it's felt that the program, through the recruitment, has achieved its outcome. That is why at the end of the fiscal year the program will simply sunset.

Quite a number of officers were hired, 2,500 across the country, if I remember. These people are now operational. It is felt that this top-up meets the requirement contained in the announcement made in 2008.

If it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn to my colleague, Mr. Paulson, to see if he has anything to add.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Commissioner.

[Commissioner Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if I can add much about the fund and the sunsetting. I can speak to the contract policing in the supplementary estimates if you would like some more information on that, but I share the deputy minister's understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Let me turn then to the deputy minister regarding emergency preparedness.

What we saw in the original budget was a cut to funding for the colleges that offered the courses and a cut to programs funding municipalities to send people for emergency training. We heard a lot from municipalities after that time about how this was essential to their ability to build their emergency plans and carry out operations in emergencies.

Again, in the supplementary estimates, I hoped we would have seen a restoration of that funding to municipalities and a restoration of funding for the emergency preparedness courses at the college here in Ottawa, since we had so many people saying those were an important part of their emergency planning.

When we see the effects of climate change and the greater frequency and intensity of natural disasters that are taking place, it seems there is a demand here for the emergency training area which is not being met when it was previously met by the federal government.

[François Guimont]

Thank you for the question. I will start where the minister ended, on that very topic.

The government made an announcement regarding a mitigation fund of $99 million, almost $100 million, in 2012. As a newcomer, you have a choice of whether to put more resources towards reacting and curing. That's quite all right. Those are the actual DFAA payments we carry out. There's been a top-up in the estimates as we all know. However, there is probably very good logic in making sure that you try to minimize and prevent disasters from occurring. That is the whole thinking behind the $99 million that was put forward. Right now we're seeking approval in supplementary estimates (B) for $50 million of that $100 million.

That leads me to the very specific question you asked on the issue of the college. It is felt that the college has done what it needed to do. Said differently, the agreement we had put in place for programming is now offered in the private sector, another level at which training can be provided. That's one segment. The other segment is that, since this decision was made, we are also developing, with the Canadian School of Management, some curriculum content to offset some of the programs that might have been available through the college.

There are really two angles. First, products are available fairly widely, and I think that's understood and fair to say. Second, we are not totally ignoring the need for training. We're going to be working through the school on a curriculum that we hope will offset some of those things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Again, I will remind members that we're on a five-minute round of questions and answers, so it's very compact.

Mr. Leef, please.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all our witnesses. It's good to see most of you back again.

Commissioner Paulson, we've let you remain rather quiet today. I'll field my questions towards you.

We were all obviously very happy to see the contract jurisdictions signing their policing contracts. Maybe I'll just get you to comment on how important contract policing is across Canada and what investments we've made in contract policing programs.

On the heels of that, maybe you could touch on which provinces and territories have renewed their contract policing agreements with the RCMP. Also, what are the main changes in these contract policing agreements?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you for that question. I'll try to be brief.

Essentially, contract policing exists in eight of the ten provinces. With the exception of Quebec and Ontario, we are the provincial police force in those provinces. We share that role with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, of course, in Newfoundland; it's the only province that has two provincial police forces. We're also the contract police force in all the territories. It essentially means that we do front-line policing, municipal policing, response-to-call policing, and provincial police duties, all policing activities.

I think the feature of the new contract that might be of interest to the committee is the new accountability measures that we're deploying to address concerns that were uncovered—or, I guess, emphasized—during the negotiation process. In other words, our contracting partners, who are contributing an important amount of money towards this service, are naturally interested in having some active say in the priority setting and the deployment of some of these resources, so there is a rather robust accountability scheme in the new contract to account for the expenditure of all of these funds.

We've had a couple of meetings now with the contract advisory management committee, comprising all of the officials from the territories and provinces. We're beginning to lay that track of responsiveness to their interests, and of accountability, opening up the books, as it were, to demonstrate that, and also, not just in money, but in service standards. I think it hearkens a new era of accountability for the provinces and territories and an ability for the RCMP to continue to serve Canadians.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I would assume that when provinces and territories are looking at re-entering a contract with the RCMP, some of them dabble a bit in looking at what it would take for them to engage their own policing services. You did touch on it, now that the accountability structure and the deployment of resources in partnership with those provinces obviously have become a significant benefit to each of those provinces and territories in terms of looking toward the RCMP as their police force of choice.

Can you touch on some of the variables that the RCMP engages in with the provinces, and particularly the territories, that might be unique to jurisdictions and that allow the RCMP to be not only the icon choice of force, but the economical choice of force and the service delivery choice of force for Canadian provinces and territories?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I think that one of the features we provide to our contracting partners is a consistent level of service and professionalism and an ability to understand exactly what it is they're getting for their dollars. There is also a training standard. There is a service standard. There are performance standards that are shared with our contracting partners and that we try to live up to.

On the one side, we say that officers come into communities and then leave communities, but there is a benefit to be had by the transfer of officers across the country to strengthen that consistency of policing service across the territories and across jurisdictions. It provides for that consistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Leef.

Thank you, Commissioner.

We'll now go to Madam Doré Lefebvre.

You have five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. Hearing from you is very useful.

As the number of questions is growing, I will try to be fairly quick. I mainly want to put my questions to Commissioner Head, but I will first ask Mr. Guimont something.

Mr. Guimont, earlier, you mentioned a $400-million fund while answering my colleague Mr. Garrison's questions. You actually confirmed that the fund was no longer necessary according to your data. You said that fund would not be renewed in March 2013. However, according to the information I have gathered by consulting a number of police forces—mainly in Quebec, but also across Canada—this fund is extremely necessary and is still very topical.

Quebec's portion of the $400 million over five years was slightly more than $92 million. That money is currently being used to fund joint forces involved in the fight against street gangs. Since those joint forced were established, cities have been working together, and it has been proved that the initiative helps reduce street gang activities, such as crime, murders and related activities.

Have police forces been consulted to ensure that the $400 million was no longer necessary? Are you sure that this fund will not be renewed and that it is really no longer necessary?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Deputy Minister, would you respond, please.

[François Guimont]

Thank you for the question.

First, this is not about the fund not being necessary. The fund has achieved its purpose, which was the recruitment of officers. Second, once the investments were made and officers were recruited, I think there was certainly a need for various police forces to work together to the best of their ability to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of those new recruits and to establish good co-operation between police forces. That is what I would say.

As for your question about whether consultations had been held with police forces, I have to defer to my colleagues. My colleague Graham Flack, Assistant Deputy Minister, is confirming that relevant discussions did take place.

[Graham Flack, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

There have been continued discussions.

We held ongoing discussions with provinces regarding that. You are right in saying that other jurisdictions have always expressed an interest in a permanent fund. However, when the fund was announced five years ago, the government said it would inject a one-time amount of $400 million. The fund was set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. So, that was planned. However, you are right in saying that the provinces would have preferred to receive this funding on an ongoing basis.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much for confirming that. It is greatly appreciated.

I will now turn to Commissioner Head. I enjoyed your exchange with Mr. Norlock and Mr. Scarpaleggia. You raised some points I found extremely interesting regarding double bunking in prisons. The number of inmates was also discussed. You did some math regarding the potential increase in the number of inmates over the next year, and you also talked about the new cells that were going to be built.

To make a long story short, one of the three institutions that will be closed is in my riding. The Leclerc institution is actually located in my riding. I have also visited the Kingston Penitentiary. Those two institutions are totally different.

Given that new cells will be built, but others will be closed, will there ultimately be more or fewer cells in total?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Reply very briefly, please.