Public Accounts Committee on May 16th, 2019

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Ricard, are you satisfied with that answer?

[Sylvain Ricard]

I'll bring it back to the planning aspect of the project management. As the commissioner mentioned, I will accept that overnight you can't deploy 20,000, or whatever the exact number is, instantly. What you need to do is establish what you're trying to do, have a national standard to determine how many carbines you need, plan for it, procure for it, deploy it in an orderly manner and manage the progress of that.

I'll go back to where I was earlier for us. That's a key limit in the report: good project management. The project management aspect is the cause of not planning for the need for recertification or the workload of the maintenance for the capacity they have. Good planning allows you to see all of those things coming—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

It was your finding that good planning did not take place.

[Sylvain Ricard]

Yes. That's a very important part of our report. Again, we're pleased to see the action and the response. They're going to address that because it needs to be addressed; otherwise, it's a circular thing.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Absolutely.

I want to get back to the commissioner.

My question wasn't why 20,000 members of the force do not have a carbine and a set of hard body armour. My question was why there was not better management in this. Where did the management break down?

This is about management. This isn't about resources. This isn't about whether every single member has a carbine. This is about why the project wasn't managed correctly. This is the committee for accountability for public spending.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

We took the steps that we felt were needed, first of all, to procure and deploy the carbines as per our risk assessment. Obviously, referring to the case of Moncton, there were gaps in that. We admit that there were gaps in that and are trying to figure out how to do that better, through reviews from the OAG and through our planning process.

We've reviewed our planning process to ensure that when we get the next type of equipment we most definitely make sure we are more succinct in our planning.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I have a little more time.

The RCMP did not track its distribution of hard body armour in any national database. We've heard about poor data from various government departments in virtually every committee report that we've heard from the Auditor General. When Canadians read this, it conjures up images of force members who need hard body armour, but don't know where it is and don't know how to access it because there's no database.

How do you even know where your equipment is and ensure that it's distributed appropriately if you don't have a database that keeps track of where your equipment is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

As Deputy Commissioner Brennan referred to earlier, we have improved on our tracking for the equipment. It's a little more problematic with hard body armour versus a carbine because it's not serial numbered, but we are ensuring that the numbers are tracked on the system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Before we go to Mr. Dhaliwal, I want to explain to you, so that you don't feel you are being picked on so much, that this committee takes the data—dissemination data and management data—very seriously. We're finding that across governments, there is a data problem in this country in management, input and access.

When we see that the Auditor General says again on the first page, “nor did the RCMP have the necessary information”, that goes back to data. We go through the report and, in different places, it talks about data.

I want to build on one thing. Our analysts have helped with this. You've already talked about some of the changes you're making to data. Does the RCMP currently have a suitable information management system, and training on that system, to accurately track and manage, for example, weapons inventories, certification and recertification?

We have all heard of the Phoenix pay system. We've heard of other things where it boils down to problems with data systems. Is the system good, and is the training on that system adequate in the RCMP?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

Thank you for that question. We're always looking at technology. One thing I can say is that part of vision 150 is getting better business intelligence within the RCMP. We have a lot of databases, but often we can't do the analytics. We need to get better at that.

With equipment, I know some of the technology we're rolling out.... For example, we have 800 members at the Surrey detachment. They have a system where they can track equipment coming in and going out, by each individual member. When they're assigned a CEW, a conducted energy weapon, or a carbine at the beginning of their shift and they're not individually issued, that can be tracked. Not only can it be tracked, but if somebody asks for a conducted energy weapon, and they've been off for three weeks, the system will say, “Sorry, I can't issue that, because your certification expired yesterday,” or, “It expired while you were on secondment for two months.”

The technology is there. We've rolled it out in the bigger units. We're always looking at better tracking, not only of resources such as equipment, but also with members themselves. We're tracking their whereabouts for critical incidents through android phones. We've just purchased 8,000, to better track for critical incidents, which was part of the MacNeil recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good. Thank you very much for that extra information.

Mr. Dhaliwal, I didn't steal your time. You'll get your time.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the witnesses.

My question goes to Auditor General Ricard.

In Surrey, even though we are very well served by the RCMP, the new mayor and the council are taking the direction of going to a municipal police force. When it comes to standard RCMP maintaining all these standards, and a municipal police, do you see any discrepancies in how they are doing? What are the challenges Surrey will face?

[Sylvain Ricard]

We have not audited that. We have not analyzed or compared benchmarks to other organizations. That is something for management to do. I suppose they do that when they do the risk assessment and compare other organizations. I'll leave it to the organizations to speak to that. That is not something we've audited.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Commissioner Lucki, thank you very much again for the great work the RCMP is doing to keep our country's streets safe. In particular, Surrey—Newton has a detachment which Randeep and I have visited a few times, and have seen the great progress they have made.

Surrey is thinking of going to a municipal police force. Can you say what the impact will be?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

We obviously don't control the standards of the municipal agencies. However, they often come to us when we are rolling out new equipment. When we hear of new technology they are using, we are sharing that technology.

I know that in some of the provinces, they're looking at provincial standards for all their police agencies. It's something we are examining. It's interesting. I just had this conversation last night, about national policing standards. Maybe that's something we need to look at. Geography in our country always changes the standards, because what would happen in Surrey might not happen in Pangnirtung, Nunavut.

We don't control their standards, but we often share them, and when we are looking at new equipment, we often go to somebody who already has it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Commissioner, last year, two RCMP officers came to my office. They expressed concern about not getting even their uniforms on time, and the cars not being maintained—the old models.

My concern is that if they can't get the basic equipment, how will you develop a plan so that the morale and the confidence of RCMP officers to get the proper training and proper equipment is there?

[Commr Brenda Lucki]

I will comment that sometimes it's not a question of having the equipment or the uniform; sometimes it's a personal preference on what type of uniform they have. In the Lower Mainland, in particular, many of the individuals buy their own pants, because they don't like the issued pants.

We are examining all of that. Actually, under vision 150, we have an innovation mailbox that allows the members to provide suggestions on equipment and training. We've received many suggestions in the uniform department, and we're testing some new uniform kit in the Lower Mainland.

Obviously in the RCMP, dealing with 20,000 members is a huge, huge task when we are procuring, especially when we go to switching equipment. However, when it comes to the safety equipment, that is non-negotiable. If we're going to get that equipment in, we have to make sure we have enough for what the risk assessment tells us. Absolutely.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Commissioner, in terms of this 13%, the officers who need to get trained, what do you see as the timeline for getting that completed?

[D/Commr Brian Brennan]

We work to ensure that all of our members get the training they need in a timely fashion.

That 13% may not be regular members who are active for duty. Some of that 13% could be those who are off on long-term sick leave or on maternity or paternity leave. That number is very hard for us to determine. Also, it's taken at a point in time.

With our training regime, in terms of identifying who needs the training, we are making gains in that area, but it's not always 13% of our active members. We're constantly refreshing with the members that they need this training, and we provide the opportunities for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal,

Mr. Motz, welcome.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll let you speak but not vote.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you. Sounds like at my house.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!