Public Safety Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's channelled through the national security adviser. Is that a fair statement?

[François Guimont]

For the PM, yes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It requires ongoing information and assessments provided to the executive branch, namely, the Prime Minister.

[François Guimont]

Yes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It also requires coordinating all of the various branches within the broader intelligence community. Is that right?

[François Guimont]

Yes.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

In the course of exercising that function, there is some oversight. Is that a fair statement?

[François Guimont]

Well, the oversight—I would use the word “review”—is separated along a number of lines at the agency. The director of CSIS has SIRC as a review mechanism. Commissioner Paulson also has the capacity, a review mechanism, to look at the operations of the RCMP. It's separated. It's not integrated. Also, they're not parliamentarians. That's the big difference. It's people who are from the outside, so they're at arm's length. They're not tied to Parliament.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

My question is this: where do you see the national security adviser's role within the national security oversight committee? Do you see this particular official being the most appropriate one to brief the national security oversight committee on ongoing real-time exercises of government authority as provided for under the relevant statutes?

[François Guimont]

Mr. Chairman, if I were to look at the dialogue we had in the U.K. when I was there with the minister in January, I would say that they will go where they need to go to get the information they need in carrying out their duties. It could be calling upon the NSA, but I can see the director of CSIS being called forward, and it's the same thing for Commissioner Paulson, me, or anyone.

I will again repeat myself. They will go where their mandate essentially allows them to go to get the information they need to carry out their work.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

This is in keeping with my question earlier to the minister about the ability to compel witnesses to come and provide evidence to the statutory committee.

[François Guimont]

That's a question that will need to be discussed.

In the U.K., they have the power to compel, if I remember, but they have been using an approach whereby in calling people to come forward to the committee the individuals contribute or collaborate quite freely.

That point will have to be discussed and decided by the government.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

On this International Women's Day, I want to go back to Commissioner Paulson. We talked about putting women in leadership in the RCMP. I appreciated your support that this needs to happen if we're going to change the culture to create a healthy workplace that is free from sexual harassment.

One of the things I had asked, and I might not have been clear about, is that we need women to enter policing. You're doing some promotion on that. We need them to remain in policing and also to take on leadership roles.

I'll give you an example of one of the obstacles I've heard, which is child care. For women, working shift work or working 12-hour shifts when day cares are open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. makes it very challenging to get into policing.

I'm wondering whether you need more funding to look at issues like that: why women aren't entering and staying in policing, and are there ways we can make it so they are able to both enter and stay in the RCMP?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

That's an excellent question, and it's something we've turned our mind to in the last several years as we've tried to advance on the gender and respect issues that we've been working on.

Just quickly, women have a retention rate in the force on par with men up until 25 years. That doesn't answer your question, but it's interesting that once they qualify for a pension, they leave. That affects our ability to advance a greater cohort of women into the executive and senior executive ranks.

Putting that aside for a second and going back to your question, in terms of accommodating families, that's where our concentration is now. In large urban centres where we have a sizeable representation, that's not a problem. We—at least I and the senior executive—are moving towards a more innovative approach to HR. For example, job sharing has been something which women have raised with me, and we're completely open to it. We need to get the mechanics and the practical arrangements done, but the authorities are all there and the support from senior management is there.

The challenge is in the more remote areas. We police, I think, 78% of the geographic land mass of Canada, and in some very remote circumstances. In terms of our postings and our policies around postings, it presents a challenge. We'll have a two-person detachment, and it can be very difficult for families.

We're completely open to innovative approaches. Do we need more money for HR practices? Yes, we absolutely do. We are embarking on our review—the minister referred to it briefly—of our funding demands, and it is being put out to contract as we speak. That will provide an opportunity for the government to understand how to rightsize the RCMP.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I suspect that in remote areas, getting the right people, whether they're men or women, is a challenge because of those families.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Right.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

So you're really limiting who is able to take those postings because it would only be certain people with certain family situations who could do that.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Right.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay, thank you. I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That's your time, and that will end our questioning.

I have three questions for the committee members.

You have in front of you the list of the 12 requests regarding voting on the supplementary estimates. Do I have unanimous consent that we will agree to them as they are stated, or would you prefer to vote on them one at a time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It's okay to accept them. Are they accepted then unanimously?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY

Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$43,936,130

Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$8,960,703

(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to on division)

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........$1

(Vote 1c agreed to on division)

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

Vote 1c—Operating expenditures, grants and contributions..........$1,788,446

Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$2,311,554

(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to on division)

PAROLE BOARD OF CANADA

Vote 1c—Program expenditures ..........$299,150

(Vote 1c agreed to on division)

PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$1

Vote 5c—Grants and contributions..........$1

(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to on division)

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$71,330,241

Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$26,020,296

Vote 10c—Grants and contributions..........$6,600,000

(Votes 1c, 5c and 10c agreed to on division)

SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........$270,262

(Vote 1c agreed to on division)