Public Safety Committee on May 1st, 2014

[François Guimont]

Mr. Chairman, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage and I'll explain why. I would say that we haven't really had the details, if you wish, of the number, the 1.2 million, of which 800,000 would be a subset of that number. I'm looking at my colleagues here, and we're not given the details, if you wish, now. We should be getting that. We should sit down and then understand what the number is composed of.

Is it federal? Is it national, meaning, is it federal institutions plus provincial institutions and municipal institutions? There are a number of elements to the number that would be helpful for us to be able to position ourselves vis-à-vis that information in view of my earlier answer to your question.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, and I appreciate your answer and I certainly recognize the need to balance national security versus privacy concerns, and that's always a difficult balance. I think the huge concern out there, though, is if one is obligated to get a warrant then that means there's that second check that any of your agencies or Security Establishment Canada does not get out of hand in terms of somebody on a witch hunt for whatever reason. That's why warrants are so important.

I want to come back to CSC. I'll be quite honest with you, gentlemen. I believe with the current situation with CSC and punishment, Canadian society is going to pay a huge price down the road, because these people do come out.

I mentioned earlier the correctional investigator's message. We know the prison farms were closed by CSC, and that in my view was one of the better rehabilitation approaches within Correctional Service Canada. I'm told—and I'll have you give an answer, Mr. Head—that currently within CSC more people are spending more time in their cells, and that the kitchen facilities in some institutions have been closed and the food is being brought in. That was another skills development tool within CSC. So where are you at on that?

[Don Head]

Thank you for the question. I think there's some really good information to share. As was pointed out, the farms were closed and our research did not suggest that it was providing any significant changes in terms of issues around recidivism.

One of the things we have been pursuing is looking at how we modernize our overall program delivery infrastructure, as well as how we deal with the employment skills of offenders. One of the things I should add is that we have also increased our capacity to deliver programs to offenders. Since I've taken over as commissioner in 2008, we have increased by 50% the number of offenders who are completing a nationally recognized program before their federal parole eligibility date. For us, that is really significant given all the other challenges that we've been dealing with.

But to the longer-term issue, one that's always at the forefront of our minds is how do we best prepare offenders to get back into the community? We've been reaching out to industry leaders now to look at how we can have them invest in the training of offenders so we can train them and in turn, turn out workers for them. So we've started, for example, discussions with a couple of the major construction companies across the country. Getting offenders building and framing houses has become a major activity for us. Involvement in Habitat for Humanity—we've been producing a significant number of houses, and houses even for first nation communities. We also have discussions going on right now with the oil and gas industry as to making investments into Canadian citizens, giving them the training so that when they come out they can find jobs and go back into the community as law-abiding citizens.

We're taking a totally different approach than in the past where we had to own everything and pay everything. We are looking for those kinds of partners out there. We're seeing a number come to our door, saying they think there's a good opportunity. We have a potential workforce; they have a need and some money. Let's get them together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, I didn't hear. Did you say it was for seven minutes or five minutes? It should be five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will begin with Mr. Paulson.

We were a little surprised during the last question period. In fact, could you give us a brief follow-up concerning what is happening with the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the sexual harassment cases in the RCMP? What is happening at this time?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

The last time I spoke to you, I was talking about the implementation of our gender and respect action plan, which was a 37-point plan we had brought forward to address many of the underlying drivers. That has been completely implemented, or has pieces of it that are ongoing. We have deployed and stood up respectful workplace initiatives in every one of the divisions.

As I've said several times, we've succeeded in centralizing our oversight of harassment complaints and the process that attaches to those complaints. I can tell you that in 2012, I want to say, we had a little over 200 harassment complaints—not all of them sexual, by the way, a small portion of them sexual harassment—but now we're down, in the first quarter of this year, to about 22, I think, or 24 complaints. So the number of harassment complaints are going down. Our ability to investigate them properly and efficiently and quickly is going up, and the mood of the organization is on the upswing. The operations, I can tell you, are succeeding in numerous areas.

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

Do you attribute the decrease in the number of cases to the new way of doing things at the RCMP? Have any funds been put in place to help you in processing cases? How are things going?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, RCMP funds have been allocated to that. Another amount of $10 million a year was set aside.

It's for the implementation of our new legislation, which will go a long way to affecting the cultural issues within the force by pushing down responsibility to our leaders, to engaging our leaders at the very front level. There is some money put aside for that. In fact, I can tell you that the first training for the implementation of Bill C-42 has come up this week.

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

Is that beginning this week?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Yes, that is beginning this week.

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

That is excellent. I want to wish you good luck in those undertakings and we are going to continue to follow that file very closely. It will be interesting to see what happens; I hope we can talk about it again in the coming months.

I would also like to do a brief follow-up concerning what was said about double-bunking in our correctional institutions. I will speak directly to you, Mr. Head.

There were three penitentiaries in my riding, the Leclerc Institution being one; unfortunately it closed its doors last year. In fact, I am quite close to representatives of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. I often go to visit facilities to see how things are done there, and in particular, I ask a lot of questions of the officers about their work. I ask them about operations but especially about health and safety, theirs as well as the inmates.

Concerning double-bunking, what we hear within our penitentiaries is not exactly what we hear outside of them. Correctional service officers do not feel safe when there are two or more inmates in one cell. Sometimes there are three inmates in the same cell. However, these cells were built to contain only one person. Moreover, often it is not just the fact that they don't feel safe, but also that they cannot adequately ensure the safety of the inmates there.

For instance, I was speaking to a female correctional service office who told me that often, in cells built for one person only, they could not see the second person on the cot up above. They cannot ensure that that person is alive. I think that there is a check done every hour on the hour during the night to make sure inmates are alive.

So this makes it extremely difficult for the officers to do their work. They don't have the necessary equipment to do it. In fact, they don't feel well supported with regard to this double-bunking. They fear for their own safety and feel that they cannot do their work properly.

So, is this simply a temporary measure?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madame Doré Lefebvre, you're over time. If you'd like a brief answer....

[Don Head]

It is yes, and if we get another opportunity I'd be glad to give you some of those details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Head.

Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll start my questioning through you, Mr. Chair, to Commissioner Paulson.

Commissioner, from one former policeman to another current policeman, in my 30-year career or in the careers of those people I had around me, I never directly saw or was privy to direct political intervention. Reading a media report—and I always read those with caution because they're often not accurate—I noticed your letter to Mr. Angus of the NDP after he accused you and the RCMP of being influenced by the minister. I wonder if you could share with us, not only the contents of that letter but your sentiments and your experience and what you would do if you received this kind of influence.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair.

I think my operational independence has been a topic of great discussion lately, and it's one that I'm very interested in setting the record straight on. Of course I received the letter to which you're referring. I read on the CBC news that it was addressed to me, and it was about what was going on with one of our investigations.

I thought there had been a previous press item questioning the ability of the organization to have executed its responsibilities in accordance with peace officers, sort of oath—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me, Mr. Paulson. I want to interrupt you for just a second. We have some technical difficulties. If you could just bear with us for a few seconds, we'll hopefully get them cleared up.

Thank you very much. We'll suspend for two minutes.

Colleagues, given that we're getting on with the meeting, the situation is this. The mikes are working. However, the recording transcripts are digital, and that is not working at this particular point, so if any members are concerned that any testimony might not have been picked up for a digital recording over these last few minutes, that is the situation.

The chair has no control over that. We are awaiting tech, and they have not and will not arrive, so we can trust the attention of our analysts and our clerks to the testimony. I'm pretty sure you would be comfortable with their assessment of what is going on. Either that, or we would have to excuse the witnesses at this point.

You have a point of order, Mr. Norlock?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I believe we need to have accurate recordings of the meeting. I believe that the analysts generally give a good overall view of what was said. In the likely event that this meeting must come to an end because of the technical difficulties, I would respectfully request that my question be fully answered by the commissioner in writing, not before the adjournment, so there can be an accurate reply to my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. Any further conversation?

Yes, Mr. Garrison.

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

I believe we're obligated to adjourn the committee. I don't believe we can proceed without official transcripts of committee meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

From the point of testimony with the witnesses, the chair certainly agrees with you, and I think most members would agree to that. However, I still do think that we would be able to proceed with the votes, for the very simple reason that it is something that can be recorded quite accurately by the analyst without any major conversation on that, because it's either a yes or a no.

So at this particular point, then, having no technical capacity to be able to record, on behalf of all of the members of the committee I would certainly like to thank all of our guests for coming in today. On behalf of the citizens of Canada and the Government of Canada, we do thank you for your good work on all of our behalf. Thank you very kindly.

We'll suspend now for a couple of minutes, prior to voting on the issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay, colleagues, we're back in session here. We will now go to the votes. I'd just bring to your attention two things. Most people here, I think everybody, should have this control chart for the main estimates, just so you know exactly what you're voting on. Of course we had interim supply, so we are voting on the estimates minus the interim supply that was already approved. You of course are voting now on what is left to approve. Are we all clear on that just so we have the totals that you're actually voting on?

We have 15 votes here. Potentially, if we have consistency on every vote from all of our colleagues, regardless of how you vote on the issue, with unanimous consent, the chair would accept a motion to do all of the votes at once. But I would like to first see if we have consistency on your voting pattern. I would simply ask you the question going around: Are we consistent with the opposition on your voting?

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

We'll be voting against all of them.