Public Accounts Committee on March 1st, 2011

[William V. Baker]

Mr. Chair, my role as deputy minister is to work with the agencies in the portfolio and develop advice for the minister. Then, in turn, it's the minister's determination whether he wishes to sponsor an idea moving forward with the government, and in this case the Prime Minister. I do not deal directly with the Prime Minister or his office on these matters.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

We have a situation where this ultimately is the “prerogative of the Prime Minister”, in your own words. So either, over the last three and a half years, the Prime Minister has abdicated in his duties to implement these changes that everyone has recommended, or perhaps blocked; there have been allegations that it's been blocked up to this point in time.

I'd like to turn to something else. You're here today to report on the implementation of the committee's recommendations.

Mr. Baker, you didn't even note the committee's recommendations. You talked about the task force; you talked about other bodies. You didn't even note the committee's recommendations.

Mr. Commissioner, neither did you.

There are 31 recommendations. Could you provide us, this committee, with...? We spent a great deal of time and tremendous taxpayer resources to try to produce recommendations that the government could act on. Could you at least provide us in this committee with a checklist? I would have thought you'd arrive here today with a checklist saying, okay, from the 31 recommendations, we've implemented these. Obviously the most important one has to be—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, we're out of time now, and we have no time for response.

We'll go to Mr. Dreeshen, please.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here today.

Basically I want to talk about some of the TBS information that had taken place in March 2010. The RCMP had received some greater authority from Treasury Board Secretariat to enable the organization to respond more effectively to the emerging priorities and better support the police operations.

I'm wondering if you could explain how this is benefiting the RCMP governance structure.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I referred to in my opening remarks, we have been provided with additional authority, specifically with respect to contracting and procurement. That's as a result of our working with both Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and Government Services Canada.

On our authority, for example, with respect to procurement, the financial limit on procurement has been raised from $25,000 to $400,000. That will allow a much more expeditious management of our procurement. It will also help us to more effectively manage capital projects—for example, the building of detachments will have a long-term capital plan that will set out the specific priorities. We'll have that plan approved, and then we will go ahead and manage the procurement within those financial levels.

The proposals we are making with respect to authorities, along with the governance changes, would see further increases to our authorities, and they would see the exercise of those authorities overseen by a board of management.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you. Certainly the RCMP detachments, the new facilities you have, are needed in a lot of different areas.

I wonder if you could let us know some of the improvements that were made to the RCMP systems, processes, and policies across the country, with the intent to improve service to Canadians and to assist the front-line membership.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've done a number of things. Zeroing in for one moment on front-line staff, as I indicated in my remarks, we have clarified and strengthened policy. We've put in place new systems, including reporting on incidents, importantly with respect to the use of force. We have put in place policies that clarify the obligations on officers to make reports with respect to incidents.

We have developed streamlined systems with respect to them generating reports and making reports. We have a pilot project going on; it's referred to as “PAT”, or the police access tool. It will be a much more user-friendly version of our PRO system, which is the daily occurrence reporting that officers make.

We've also put in place a system with respect to paying officers who are on call. We have added additional positions. We are providing new mechanisms that mean officers are on call less frequently, and they are actually being called out less frequently.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you.

I do have one other question, then. I wonder if you could describe for us what the RCMP external investigation or review policy is that was published on February 4, 2010. Could you give us some information on that particular policy?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes. Thank you very much.

That I would describe as the RCMP getting our own act in order. Following serious incidents involving RCMP members, the public has rightly questioned this whole issue of the police investigating the police, the RCMP investigating the RCMP.

So although the establishment of independent investigative agencies rests with governments, we as the RCMP adopted a policy that requires us, following a serious incident, to refer those investigations out, firstly to the independent agencies, where they exist--and they do exist in the province of Alberta--and secondly, if there no such agency in the jurisdiction where the incident arose, to try to get another police force to take on the investigation. Increasingly, we're doing that.

Thirdly, where we're not able to do either of those two things, there are requirements with respect to bringing RCMP officers in from other jurisdictions to conduct the investigations. There are requirements for screening with respect to conflict of interest and there are provisions for the appointment of independent observers. All of this is designed to provide further assurances to Canadians that the actions of the RCMP will be thoroughly and independently investigated.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Elliott. We're a little over time on that one now.

Mrs. Mourani, you have the floor.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming today to answer our questions. I would like to ask Mr. Elliott a question, if I may. To avoid slipping up, I am going to refer to some people by name.

On February 8, a few weeks ago, Mr. Souccar met with the committee to discuss the internal conflicts you are experiencing at the RCMP. He told us that your behaviour towards several officers was disrespectful. He received complaints, not in writing but verbally, from those people. He also told us that your disrespectful behaviour had continued throughout your entire mandate. So it wasn't something new. He specifically said this: "Three years later, with nothing changed and his behaviour getting worse by the day, it boiled over and resulted in the situation that we found ourselves in this past summer." He then added that the "RCMP needs to become better, stronger, more transparent". So that means that, for him, the RCMP is still not better or more transparent. A little farther on, he talks about a "recommendation made in 2007 by the task force on governance and cultural change in the RCMP". And he said this: "I dare say that if a board of management had been in place, this whole affair of last summer would not have happened."

If I'm not mistaken, you were appointed in 2007, Mr. Elliott. Is that correct?

[Commr William Elliott]

I was appointed in 2007, yes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

There has been talk about labour relations problems since your arrival. Mr. Souccar said that, given the circumstances, the board that people keep talking about would have been very helpful. The board should have been in existence since 2007, but it still does not exist.

Mr. Baker, you said earlier that the government was expecting recommendations from the RCMP. If I'm not mistaken, you have been waiting for recommendations for almost three years. What we are talking about here is a typical case that a board of management could have resolved.

Mr. Elliott, I admit that I do not understand. You went to the RCMP supposedly to bring some additional transparency and respect, but at the end of the day, we have heard that your behaviour was not consistent with those values. Mr. Baker has told us today that there is still no board of management that can resolve situations like the one involving Mr. Elliott.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

An opportunity to respond....

[Commr William Elliott]

Okay. Well, there's a lot, Mr. Chairman, in that question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Yes.

[Commr William Elliott]

I would start by saying that I agree with some things Mr. Souccar told the committee. I agree with Mr. Souccar's suggestion that the RCMP would be better off if we had a board of management.

I frankly do not agree...I frankly disagree with a number of things that Mr. Souccar alleged. I would point to the workplace assessment that was done following complaints being made, and the conclusions of that assessment, which indicated--as I testified and as a number of members of the senior executive committee testified--that yes, there were difficulties, difficult relationships, at the senior executive of the RCMP. Some people supported my approach. Some people did not--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, but we're over time on that. I know that you certainly want to respond to these allegations. Perhaps there will be more rounds of questioning. Please feel free to respond to the previous question at that particular point.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We'll now go to Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is for Mr. Baker. The modernization of police services is a huge challenge. My understanding in your situation with the RCMP is that it's because of the many provincial partners that contract the services, but also, we didn't talk yet today about technology. It's not just vehicles, the cars, and the helicopters, but you have weaponry to deal with, operating systems, two-way radios, and all of that.

Can you describe how the contract management committee is going to help control both the quality of the services that are provided and the cost?

[William V. Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The existing contracts with the provinces, territories, and municipalities have something referred to as a contract advisory committee. We have been working with the provinces and territories to put in place a much more significant capacity for provinces and territories to have a say in the functioning of these contracts. These are big contracts. They're expensive for provinces and expensive for the federal government and they cover 20 years.

The discussions around the contract management committee--there have been many and I've had the opportunity to participate myself in many of these--have focused on how we can make sure that key decisions around the functioning of the RCMP in those jurisdictions, the costs, because the provinces and territories bear 70% of the costs, as well as the overall plans moving forward, and that they know what those plans are..... They have an opportunity to provide input and at times directly to the commissioner or whomever so their considerations can be fully taken into account. So for example, on the area of accommodation, which is probably a very good one, detachments, housing, and everything in that jurisdiction...a chance to see what the capital plan looks like and a chance to have input into the design of these buildings, and making sure the costs are reasonable as well. We're all trying to contain costs at a time of restraint.

As well, we're also building mechanisms for dispute resolutions, should we actually arrive at that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

So it's almost like co-management?

[William V. Baker]

I wouldn't call it co-management because there is an implicit recognition that this is a single institution, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The commissioner has to have the management authority to run that institution. But I think we've gone a significant way--and I think the provinces and territories would agree--in providing a meaningful opportunity for them to have a say.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Again, this is for Mr. Baker. Policing is not a business. We have front-line officers. Your front-line staff are officers. They carry weapons. They often work under short periods of tremendous stress and then for hours of sometimes dull routine. That's unique in your operating environment, so can you tell us what else is unique that makes the governance such a great challenge?