Public Accounts Committee on March 1st, 2011

[William V. Baker]

First of all, if you look at all the institutions of government, there's nothing even similar to the RCMP, so we have to look at it on its own merits in terms of the proper governance arrangements. Certainly, you've already alluded to one of the big ones, that is, this is a service provider to eight provinces and three territories that have a responsibility for policing in their jurisdiction.

We need to look at governance arrangements that suit the needs of provinces and territories. There are unique operational challenges in the RCMP. Policing, as you alluded to, is a very dynamic field today with respect to new technologies, the evolution of criminality in this country, the way organized crime is evolving, and so on. There are many different dimensions there, all of which you'd have to consider in establishing the right sets of authorities in governance structures around the forces.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

That's it, Mr. Young.

Mr. Christopherson, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First, I'd like to ask if the analysts, in preparation for when we're report-writing, would be good enough to give us a briefing note on the issue that the deputy has raised. In his remarks, he said, “I would note that any decision on RCMP governance is a Machinery”--that's with a capital--“issue that ultimately remains the prerogative of the Prime Minister”. Could they delve into that for us and give us a bit of a legal briefing as to what exactly...?

I'm not questioning your veracity, sir. I just want to understand. Is that the only way? What does that mean exactly? What are our alternatives? That's what I'm looking for.

Here's where I'm having some difficulty. So far, virtually everyone who has touched this, whether it's us as parliamentarians, independent investigators, councils, task forces...all have unanimously said, including the commissioner of the RCMP--and if I'm putting words in your mouth, Commissioner, please correct me, and I know you will--that a third party oversight body is something that would be good for the RCMP and we ought to do it. If we're at that point, then that kind of leaves you, sir, sitting there somewhat isolated, in my eyes.

I want to understand. What is it that you need that you don't have today to make this a reality? Is it a direction from the minister and/or a direction from the Prime Minister? Is there something else? What exactly, sir, do you not have right now that you need in order to create this? What are the impediments to your getting that directive? What's stopping it?

We seem to get to you, deputy, and up till then everybody is on side, and then the support just falls off. I'm wondering, what would it take for you as a deputy to be given the direction to do this?

[William V. Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Two things. One is, I could join the chorus of support for a board of management, but it's not my decision. We have to understand that it's not the minister's decision. It is the Prime Minister's decision. I'm pleased you're asking for some work on that. But that is a well-established prerogative of the Prime Minister--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. Would that be the answer, then? Would that be the short answer?

[William V. Baker]

No. I wanted to give you a second part to the answer. That is, before I can give my minister advice on something as significant as the establishment of a board of management for the RCMP, having a recommendation or even support...it doesn't really matter how many organizations or people or time, we have to do due diligence on that. We would need a compelling rationale that considers all of the pros and cons, transitional considerations, costs and so on, before I could fulfill my duty to the minister in terms of providing him with advice or even suggesting to the minister that it's time to sit down with the commissioner and me and other officials to discuss it. That due diligence process I am responsible for, and I must insist that that is in place.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It sounds to me, in my words, like you're willing to absorb a few blows here for the boss somewhere.

Here's my difficulty. You say you need a compelling rationale. We have all kinds of compelling rationale, sir. We also have the example of the Toronto Police Service, which, unless things have changed, is one of the top three largest police services in the entire nation. We have a similar oversight body with CSIS, which deals with all the spying and secrets. I don't understand what the delay is.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Your question...?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My question, then, is that I'm taking from this that you're ignoring everything that has been done and you have to be personally satisfied before a recommendation goes to the minister. All the work that we did means nothing and that only your advice to the minister will actually make this happen. Is that correct?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry. We're out of time now.

[William V. Baker]

Mr. Chair, very briefly, of course the views of the public accounts committee and others matter. It's all input. It's important input, but--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Three years--

[William V. Baker]

--ultimately I need to have the time and the space to be able to put it all together and make sure that I'm giving the best advice I possibly can to the minister.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Shipley, please.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the commissioner and to Mr. Baker.

Just for some background, could you give us an idea of the size of the RCMP? What are we talking about? A few thousand people? A few hundred people? What are the assets in terms of buildings and their locations? Are they just in Ottawa or are there main buildings all around...? Maybe you could help us with that.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The RCMP today is an organization of some 31,000 employees. About two-thirds of those employees are police officers--in round figures, 20,000. About one-third, or 10,000, are civilians, either civilian members of the RCMP or public servants. We provide services across the country from about 800 locations, about 750 detachments.

We do international policing, federal policing, and provincial and territorial policing, and we also provide services to all police forces in Canada, services such as, for example, CPIC, the criminal records database, the DNA database, the fingerprint database. We run a college here in Ottawa for advanced training and development.

We are a very large, very modern police force, really in every jurisdiction and in some 26 countries around the world in consulates, embassies, and high commissions, and we also participate in international peacekeeping efforts in places today, including Sudan, Côte d'Ivoire, Afghanistan, and Haiti.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I have some great organizations in Ontario that actually came together. These are agricultural organizations. It took them four years. They all use the same equipment. They all use the same technology. They all use the same harvesting.

It took them four years, but actually in the end they did it right, and now it's a very successful organization. I guess I'm always cautious about “well, three years”, and that's why I wanted to get a bit of a grasp--I think everybody should have that--on the magnitude of the services you provide.

With that, changing that, taking that authority.... Help me understand the board of management. I'm assuming we're working basically on a principle.

Mr. Baker, you're waiting for due diligence to come to help make some recommendations and directives on that. Is this an administrative change, something that's not a very significant change to the RCMP if it were to happen, or is it something of a larger magnitude to go to a board of management?

[Commr William Elliott]

I believe it would be a very significant change. It would certainly be a change that would have to be implemented over a number of years. In and of itself, I don't believe governance changes will immediately significantly change the RCMP, but I do think that a board of management and separate employer status or separate agency status would be both an enabler and a catalyst of positive change, and it certainly would increase transparency.

But we would envisage that this would be done by way of legislation and, following the legislation, you'd have the appointment of a board, and then you would sort of develop policies and put in place all of the component parts of the newly defined organization over a number of years.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think you've answered the question, and I appreciate that, because when you're making that significant a change in a process, you actually want to make sure that you're going to be doing it right and that you have the policies and regulations in place.

Mr. Baker, when would you be expecting to get some sort of direction in terms of your due diligence and recommendations?

[William V. Baker]

Mr. Chair, as the commissioner--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Actually, just a brief response, please.

[William V. Baker]

The commissioner, having declared himself in terms of the interests of him and his organization, I understand that the RCMP itself is putting a case together for this. We're awaiting that. Once we receive that case, we will have to do the necessary sort of scrubbing and analysis. Part of my job is to ask the hard questions as well to make sure that we've got a good package for consideration by the minister and ultimately the government.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's it. Thank you.

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

I just want to follow up on the question asked by some of my colleagues here today, which I think is a very important issue, and I'm actually genuinely frustrated now because I don't understand how we can proceed like this.

We are talking about third party oversight. There seems to be unanimous support for it. There have been three years of reports and task forces, as Mr. Christopherson has mentioned. We've examined this issue every which way possible, and you now mention that you need to do further due diligence.

It just boggles the mind. What other due diligence is required? Could you elaborate on what that due diligence is? What else remains? And what is the associated timeline with that due diligence? Because I think we need to now have a perspective on when we can see results, as opposed to going in circles, which seems to be the case.