JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, April 27, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order.

We're still working on estimates here. We have today from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Commissioner Murray; Deputy Commissioner Allen; Deputy Commissioner Zaccardelli; Assistant Commissioner Cleveland; Assistant Commissioner Charbonneau; and Assistant Commissioner Richter. I'm looking for the women; I'm sure there'll be some soon.

We're ready to go. I know you have a presentation to make, and we will be happy to hear it.

Commissioner Philip J.R. Murray (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Madam Chair. With your indulgence, perhaps I will start with my presentation.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm very pleased to appear before you today to describe how the RCMP is successfully meeting the challenges facing law enforcement as we approach the next century. In my presentation, I will highlight the strategic priorities that are outlined in our report on plans and priorities, as well as some of the initiatives that are helping us serve Canadians better into the next millennium.

The chair has already introduced my colleagues, so I will dispense with that.

The RCMP of the late 1990s is an organization that is committed to fiscally responsible change and renewal. We see flexibility and adaptation as an essential part of effective law enforcement in a time of growing globalization as well as significant social and economic change. Our report on plans and priorities shows that we are committed to operationalizing the government's priorities of safe homes and safe streets, national unity, youth and health.

Our own priorities also support the vision of Minister Scott to strengthen public safety through a strategy that balances a strong fight against organized crime with an approach to effective corrections that builds on prevention, healthy communities, and alternatives to the traditional justice system.

We are committed to protecting Canadians against organized crime, as well as other forms of violent and youth crime. At the same time, our strong tradition and expertise in community policing is based on an ongoing commitment to social justice, community health, collaboration and innovation.

The RCMP is also aligned with the overall government emphasis on fiscally responsible change and renewal. We see flexibility and adaptation as an essential part of effective law enforcement.

Two years ago I outlined for this committee the RCMP's plans to streamline our administrative activities in order to reduce operating costs, and at the same time, maintain and enhance our traditional high standards of policing and excellence in service to the Canadian public. The force pursued these plans and accomplished our goals through the reorganization of the RCMP into four regions: the Pacific, North West, Central, and Atlantic regions.

Our deputy commissioners have now been assigned to each region and they are responsible for implementing policies in their regions, for standardizing program delivery, for promoting the corporate objectives of the RCMP, and for bringing a regional perspective to the policy-making process.

[Translation]

Regionalization also contributes to better communication within each region, across the Force and with our partners. Our members and other employees at the division level are encouraged to see themselves not only at part of a division, but as part of a regional team which is closely connected through their Deputy to the other regions across Canada.

[English]

Accordingly, regionalization has also contributed to the alignment of policies, goals and objectives across the force and with our partners. We now have a strengthened decision-making process at headquarters and improved implementation of force-wide policies in the regions.

Today we are building on these accomplishments by exploring ways to stay within our fiscal targets and at the same time to continue to deliver effective and efficient services with real benefits to Canadians. We are taking further steps to streamline the force administratively over the next two years in order to ensure that the RCMP continues to provide high-quality, cost-effective policing service to Canadians and achieve our corporate objectives. We have struck a high-level internal task force to accomplish this mission.

• 1540

[Translation]

The RCMP's commitment to effective service and to fiscally responsible change has made the Force responsive to shifts in the nature of crime and in the safety needs of Canadians. I would like to share with you some of the law-enforcement priorities in which the force has taken a leadership role and has achieved success.

[English]

The RCMP is recognized by its national and international partners as a leader in the fight against increasingly globalized organized crime. In recent years, we have been involved in three major initiatives aimed at reducing transnational organized crime activities: the anti-smuggling initiative, the integrated proceeds of crime initiative; and the Canadian drug strategy. These initiatives have been particularly successful because they significantly decrease the risk of involvement in illegal activities and take the profit out of criminal enterprises.

The RCMP national drug strategy has had successes by targeting the highest levels in criminal organizations. The anti-smuggling and integrated proceeds of crime initiatives have demonstrated successes in combating and dismantling organized criminal networks. They have enhanced Canada's profile globally and have shown that international, national and local partnerships are essential to address the increasingly sophisticated and transnational nature of organized crime.

While ASI and EPIC are, first and foremost, enforcement initiatives dedicated to putting organized crime out of business, the economic and social benefits of our efforts cannot be ignored. During the first nine months of this fiscal year, approximately $20 million in assets had been turned over to the Seized Property Management Directorate by the RCMP. From the time the program began in 1989 through to the end of 1997, approximately $241 million in assets from the proceeds of crime legislation have been turned over.

In 1996 the chairperson of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario praised the RCMP and its partners for contributing to a $100-million increase in revenue for that year due to the decrease in smuggling. Exact figures are not yet in for 1997. However, it's estimated that the LCBO's sales for last year increased by another $700 million.

[Translation]

The revenue gains I have just mentioned demonstrate that a direct spin-off of our enforcement efforts include increased federal and provincial revenue collection and the protection of Canadian industry, and as a result—Canadian jobs.

[English]

The RCMP also plays an increasingly important role in the fight against criminal motorcycle gangs. We have enhanced our efforts to disrupt and dismantle outlaw motorcycle gangs during the past year.

[Translation]

For example, Joint Forces projects, such as Projects Falcon and Wolverine involve the joint efforts of the Sûreté du Québec, municipal police and the RCMP to combat traditional organized crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs in the province of Quebec.

[English]

Projet Carcajou—that's “wolverine”, en anglais—targeting outlaw motorcycle gangs, has seen 550 arrests in the past two and a half years, for offences right through from murder to bombings.

In December 1997 Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which I chair, together with its partners in the national strategy to combat outlaw motorcycle gangs, implemented a three-tier strategy in the fight against outlaw bikers and organized crime. This strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships, the timely information exchange amongst partners, and the education of governments at all levels, as well as law enforcement agencies, about organized crime.

New forms of organized crime, such as high-tech crimes, require specialized resources and training for police investigators and an infrastructure of support services that the RCMP, with its unique role as a national, federal, provincial, and municipal policing body, can provide.

• 1545

The trans-shipment of drugs through Canada to the U.S.A, migrant smuggling, and telemarketing are organized crime activities that have prompted our international partners to call on the RCMP to take specific enforcement actions to stop the victimization of their citizens or the impact on their country.

The RCMP, along with its partners, has made significant strides in the fight against organized crime, but there is much left to be done. We face a significant challenge around gathering the financial resources and keeping the highly skilled staff needed to arm us with the technological capability required to meet the growing sophistication of organized crime in terms of cyber crime, telemarketing fraud, and information warfare.

The importance of partnerships in fighting organized crime and in so many of our initiatives brings me to another major priority of the RCMP—namely, a networked police community. We are building on our community policing approach and our goal of developing law enforcement technologies by focusing on developing a networked police community by 2005. This networked police community is based on partnerships enhanced by the use of technology and the worldwide leadership that Canada can provide.

Through these networks and partnerships, the RCMP has become an important player in the evolution of integrated justice information systems. We can take pride in our coordinating role amongst law enforcement agencies and in the development of new technologies to enhance and upgrade police information. For example, the violent crime linkage analysis system, or ViCLAS, a computer system that creates profiling information on homicides, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes, is used by police forces across the country and in several other countries. It is recognized as one of the best such systems in the world.

In order to ensure that our valuable electronic information links to other police forces and governments are not disrupted with the changeover to the year 2000, the RCMP has made the Year 2000 project a top priority so that the force will be in a state of readiness well in advance of 2000.

[Translation]

Global recognition of the leadership role the RCMP can play has also extended to international peacekeeping. Requests for RCMP personnel to contribute to peacekeeping efforts outside Canada have increased in recent years. Currently, RCMP personnel are involved in peacekeeping efforts in Haiti, Bosnia, Croatia, Guatemala, and Western Sahara. We are also playing a supporting role in The Hague.

[English]

While we are very proud of our international successes and recognition, our primary commitment is to our active roles in national and community policing across Canada. The RCMP is committed to the philosophy of community policing. Under this style of policing the police and the community form a close partnership to solve local crime and disorder problems in the community.

The RCMP prides itself on being available for a wide range of community needs and on finding appropriate community-sensitive, problem-solving approaches. Some examples include: helping with evacuations and systematic searches in the province of Quebec during the recent devastating ice storm; negotiating peaceful solutions to potentially explosive situations, such as racial tensions in Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia; and working with the Nunavut Implementation Commission to ensure that culturally sensitive policing is available in the new territory.

I consider these examples to be positive statements on the effectiveness of community policing. The problem-solving and community-healing approach they demonstrate are also reflective of our commitment to restorative justice. The RCMP has played a key role in developing alternatives to the traditional justice system and we are championing restorative justice, particularly through community justice forums.

• 1550

In recognition of the unique needs, challenges, and realities of the diverse communities that make up Canada, I have during my tenure as commissioner established or continued several advisory committees to provide me with the advice, information and feedback necessary to continuously provide sensitive, effective and appropriate service.

I have established a youth advisory committee to discuss issues with young people and to provide a forum for consultation and education.

I also have a visible minority advisory committee to provide me with advice on recruitment, training, promotion, as well as employment equity issues, and to ensure that we in the RCMP are sensitive and responsive to the increasing diversity of our country.

The RCMP also contributes to and is very supportive of the work of the Canadian Centre for Police-Race Relations, which is housed in RCMP accommodations here in Ottawa.

In furthering our partnerships with first nations people, I have as well an aboriginal advisory committee. The force has also instituted a successful aboriginal cadet development program, and since 1995, 78 aboriginal cadets have graduated and have been hired as peace officers. Some of the cadets enrolled in this program will become part of the RCMP policing program for Nunavut, to which I alluded earlier.

[Translation]

The RCMP strongly believes that most appropriate style of policing for a diverse and multicultural society like Canada is one that shows respect and sensitivity for different cultures, values and lifestyles.

[English]

The force has expressed its commitment to making these values and principles part of our community policing approach through a mission vision and value statement that was prepared in a process in which almost all of our employees were consulted.

As well, I have appointed an ethics adviser to ensure that sensitive issues of concern to the RCMP members are handled in an appropriate, respectful, sensitive and ethical manner.

This commitment to relevant, sensitive and flexible policing also extends to our national police role. Last year, in partnership with the Department of the Solicitor General, we reviewed our National Police Services program, which includes the Canadian Police College, forensic laboratory services, the Canadian Police Information Centre, the fingerprint bureau and criminal record repositories, as well as the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada.

The services provided to other law enforcement organizations assist in maintaining national policing standards, combating organized crime, and ensuring national security.

The objective of the review was to improve service to clients, identify emerging needs, consider cost-sharing arrangements, and examine alternative service delivery mechanisms. We have learned that national police services are becoming increasingly relevant beyond the police community to government partners and social service agencies, amongst others.

Through our international, national, federal and community policing roles, the RCMP plays an important part in building national unity. The RCMP is a highly visible symbol of national unity, recognized and respected in every part of Canada and worldwide. This year and next are particularly significant in this regard. This year, as some of you may know, the RCMP is celebrating its 125th anniversary. Next year we will celebrate the march west.

[Translation]

Finally, I can assure you that the RCMP is undeniably turned towards the 21st century. We are planning to take advantage of the numerous opportunities that will provide by encouraging team building and shared vision to achieve our common objective of safe homes and safe communities.

[English]

Madam Chair, I'm confident that the force will continue to be a progressive and dynamic police service that is sensitive to the needs of Canadians generally, our employees and the three levels of government that we serve.

• 1555

Our emerging tradition for this year and beyond is to continually evolve, to welcome and actively seek change, in order to continue our high level of service to the public in an increasingly diverse and changing Canada.

Thank you very much for your time. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer questions from the committee.

Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I only have two people who have so indicated. We'll start then with Mr. Ramsay, who will have about eight minutes.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Murray, for attending, and for the presentation you made.

I want to begin by first of all commending your NCOs out in B.C. who are working so actively in the youth community diversion programs. We met with some of them, and I'm very impressed with their concern for the welfare of the youth out there who get into difficulty for the first or second time. I'm encouraged by their participation and support for the diversion programs.

Of course, the Sparwood program was initiated by the NCO in charge of that detachment. He and the defence counsel who got that under way appeared before the standing committee during the ten-year review of the Young Offenders Act. That's a bouquet, Mr. Commissioner, to the force and the dedicated people you have under your command.

Now that I've said that, I have some questions I would like to ask you. There are some loose ends that I would like you to comment on with regard to the Airbus matter. Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald was allowed to retire before the case against him was clarified or cleared up. He wasn't required to answer to whatever charge was being considered against him. Under the authority of the RCMP Act, you had the authority to ensure that he answered to whatever charge the force levied against him. Why is it that you allowed him to retire before that matter was cleared up?

Commr Philip Murray: First of all, Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald had pensionable service. He was entitled to take his pension under the provisions of the RCMP Act. I suppose, as a matter of technicality, one could have held him back in order to have his hearing. It's my understanding that he had secured employment in the private sector and that he was anxious to get on with his life. Consequently, he proceeded to pension prior to the hearing being undertaken in relation to the allegations that were made against him.

In terms of the RCMP Act, the delegated authority to deal with those issues goes to the commanding officer of the division in which he was stationed. In this particular instance, at his wish to retire, the commanding officer chose not to proceed with it, because he had employment in the private sector and he wanted to move on with his life.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Commissioner Murray, I appreciate that response. However, the responsibility for that whole Airbus situation, the fiasco, the releasing of information that ought not to have been released that led to the $50-million lawsuit, from the public perception, descended upon Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald. When he was allowed to get out from under whatever responsibility he had and the role he played, then those in the public were left without answers to questions that were foremost in the minds of at least some of them.

Do you think it was a responsible act to allow him to take his pension before he answered to the charges, the basis of which we were assured was there?

Commr Philip Murray: I can only say that he was satisfied with the process as it evolved. He wanted to get on with his life. He had employment in the private sector. Consequently, he decided that it would be in his best interests to go ahead and get on with his life.

• 1600

He agreed to that particular situation, along with the commanding officer of his division, Assistant Commissioner Mercier, who was the one responsible for pursuing the allegations involving Staff Sargeant Fiegenwald, and consequently, the matter was concluded. Assistant Commissioner Mercier was satisfied, and the matter was concluded.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Do you feel that the demands of justice have been met through this procedure?

Commr Philip Murray: I don't think the matter of the administrative code of conduct issue respecting the RCMP Act really had anything to do with the course of justice in this particular case. As I said, the allegations involved Staff Sargeant Fiegenwald. He was satisfied with the process as it evolved, so consequently, that code of conduct is really involving him and his employer. So the larger public involvement is really dealt with in other fora.

There was a civil process that took place that dealt with that aspect of it. Of course, there's an ongoing criminal investigation respecting the larger issue dealing with the whole Airbus matter. So there are a number of opportunities still available for the course of justice to be pursued.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I'm not entirely satisfied that an agreement between Staff Sargeant Fiegenwald and his commanding officer is really meeting the demands of justice, particularly when it was reported that he was being charged for misconduct that led to the release of information that eventually contributed to the $50 million lawsuit.

But let me turn to another point on the Airbus thing, and then I'll leave it.

The $50 million lawsuit was the direct result of a letter that was sent under the signature of Kimberly Prost of the Department of Justice, on behalf of former Justice Minister Allan Rock, at the insistence of the RCMP. This letter contained false accusations of criminal activity.

I'd like to quote from that letter:

This investigation is of serious concern to the Government of Canada as it involves criminal activity on the part of a former Prime Minister.

That letter is still there. We have asked the Department of Justice to withdraw that letter because it still forms a base upon which others may sue the Canadian taxpayer, but they have refused to withdraw that letter. I know, from my own experience—I think everyone else here knows as well—that the RCMP does not need a letter containing a false accusation in order to do their job.

Would you recommend that this letter be withdrawn?

Commr Philip Murray: If we go back to the letter itself, you're correct that some of those statements you read are in the letter. There was an apology issued in relation to leaving the impression that conclusions had been drawn on the part of the RCMP and the Government of Canada in relation to the guilt of the parties named therein.

Immediately after that particular letter became public, the Department of Justice wrote the Swiss government and informed them that these were merely allegations, not conclusions. That was reinforced again at the time of the civil case settlement. It was reinforced with the Swiss government that these were allegations only.

There's also the matter that this is presently before the courts in terms of whether or not that particular letter should be withdrawn. There are really a couple of things happening. One has to do with the charter implications outside of Canada. That part of it is before the Supreme Court of Canada. The other part deals with whether or not the letter should be withdrawn. That matter is before the Federal Court of Canada.

• 1605

Given that there are two pieces of litigation dealing specifically with that letter, it would be really inappropriate for me to advance any public comments in regard to it. The matter is before the courts.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Murray. On April 23rd of this year, my colleague from Charlesbourg, Richard Marceau, asked you questions regarding the 125th anniversary celebrations of the RCMP and I see that in your presentation you refer to it again and that you make a link between this and the promotion of national unity.

Mr. Murray, given that you were not able to specifically answer that question during the last meeting with Mr. Marceau, could you tell us what is the budget allocation for the RCMP's 125th anniversary celebrations?

Commissioner Philip Murray: As I indicated the other day in response to your colleagues, there is no budget as such within the RCMP for the 125th anniversary celebrations this year.

Naturally, individuals are responsible for coordinating events in each province and a committee is responsible for coordinating activities throughout the country.

As I indicated, there is no budget as such. There are partnerships with the private sector and other government departments, but within the RCMP, there is no budget for this operation. There are more than 700 events taking place throughout the country this year, including nearly a hundred in the province of Quebec. It's certainly a very positive celebration, not only for the RCMP but for our country as well.

[English]

I think it's very important that as Canadians we recognize institutions. The RCMP is an institution in Canada that is highly respected. These events are community driven, not RCMP driven, and we're very proud to be the recipients of such recognition. It also provides an opportunity for us to thank the people of Canada as well, for being involved in 125 years of service—

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Okay, Mr. Murray.

Commr Philip Murray: —and it's also, I think, extremely important to remember that almost 200 members of the RCMP gave their lives for the service of this country. So the fact that the private sector and the other government departments are prepared to help us celebrate is to me a good thing.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Murray, you're telling me that with 700 activities throughout Canada, including 100 in Quebec, the federal government will not contribute one penny for the celebration of the 125th anniversary of the RCMP. As Commissioner responsible for the RCMP—and you even state this in your presentation to the committee—you are unable to tell me whether the federal government is contributing money nor where the money comes from that will allow you to celebrate along with other Canadians the 125th anniversary. Is that correct?

Commissioner Philip Murray: I answered that there were funds coming from other government departments, but not from the RCMP.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I see. How much?

Commissioner Philip Murray: I don't know the exact figure, but I can try to find the answer. I will send it to the committee in writing.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Commissioner, you'd already been asked this question on April 23rd. As we can see today, you don't usually come to these things alone. I'm convinced that you knew that the Bloc Québécois was persistent enough and would ask this question again. I understand that today, you are unable to answer me. But could you make a commitment this time to answer the committee in writing so that we can find out how much the federal government plans to invest in the celebration of the 125th anniversary of the RCMP?

Commissioner Philip Murray: Yes, I will find the answer and reply in writing.

• 1610

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In another vein, Commissioner, given that the RCMP is a public service, a police force that exist to ensure the enforcement of the law and that you do a good job, I find it strange that for the 125th anniversary celebration, you are in partnership with the private sector and are using outside sources of revenue. Isn't this dangerous, in terms of the Code of ethics or potential conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest, that the RCMP, private enterprise and other groups can fund the same activities?

[English]

Commr Philip Murray: Philosophically, your point is well taken. In the context of the celebrations of the 125th anniversary, I think it's important to recognize that the business community is also part of the community. As I indicated earlier, these events and celebrations are community driven. The private sector is part of that community and the business community does have a corporate social responsibility to its communities. Businesses are a part of the community just like the police are.

As we move more towards a community policing approach, there are more opportunities for partnerships with community groups, and that includes the private sector. There is a fine line; I agree with you philosophically that if there is an impression that the private sector is funding public sector requirements there is a line to be drawn there.

I indicated earlier that I have appointed an ethics adviser who deals with those delicate questions, but the whole issue of corporate sponsorship and corporate involvement in the public sector is much more pronounced in the 1990s than it ever was before.

A lot of that is driven by the need for public institutions like ours to look at alternative ways of delivering the service, of involving ourselves. The public purse simply can't supply all of the demands that are there. We have to look at alternative ways to deliver that and certainly the private sector is one of the ways by which we do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I fervently hope, Commissioner, that for the private sector that will invest in the celebrations, this will not represent a source of tax deductions as we see regularly, because the argument that you've just given me, and which is quite true, shows clearly that it would still be the taxpayers who would be indirectly paying even if the private sector funds the activities for the 125th anniversary. Indeed, if companies could eventually deduct their participation from their revenue, its exactly as if the man on the street were funding the 125th anniversary celebrations.

It seems to me that this is more serious than a mere philosophical debate, Commissioner. The fact that the RCMP is being mixed in with the private sector is a serious matter, even though it may be perfectly laudable for you to celebrate your 125th anniversary.

Let me give you an example. An organization we heard about during the 35th Parliament, the Heritage Front, with which you are surely familiar, could decide to prepare an activity and give you money for the 125th anniversary festivities. Do you think that public opinion would be favourable toward co-operation between the Heritage Front and the RCMP?

If you want to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the RCMP, that is your right. But why can't you arrange to use the RCMP's money to celebrate your own 125th anniversary and why don't you ask the government to give you funding if you think it's important for national unity, as you stated, Mr. Murray?

Commissioner Philip Murray: As I indicated earlier, it is the people of this country who are responsible for celebrating these events; it's not the RCMP. It is communities throughout the country that must celebrate this event, and that includes the private sector.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'm not so sure that there would be demonstrations in Quebec if you decided not to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the RCMP. We too in Quebec are familiar with the RCMP's history. I must say that there were a few years when you did not come out looking so good. I think that you too are familiar with the RCMP's history.

• 1615

It's not true that the people are asking for a celebration of the 125th anniversary. I think that you should give us some different answers, not that one.

Commissioner Philip Murray: Even so, that's my answer. It's a partnership between the RCMP and another community.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Murray, I would like to finish off with a completely different matter that also concerns me greatly. The RCMP and the government have service contracts with some municipalities. Approximately 200 Canadian municipalities in eight different provinces have contracts with the RCMP. Costs are split 70 per cent/30 per cent if the town's population is 15 000 or less, but if the town's population is 15 000 or higher, costs are shared 90 per cent/10 per cent. However, in the final analysis the federal government is sort of subsidizing the municipalities.

This arrangement will probably end by the year 2012. But that is still 14 years away. Mr. Murray, have you determined how much it costs the taxpayers of Ontario and Quebec to have the government subsidize municipalities and provinces as well by sharing costs?

Commissioner Philip Murray: I don't agree with your claim that this is a subsidy from the federal government.

[English]

The Government of Canada obtains a return on that investment. I prefer to see it as an investment on the part of the Government of Canada rather than an expense.

The RCMP is responsible for the national police services provided to all sectors of the police community in Canada and is at the same the federal police force responsible for delivering federal policing programs for the Government of Canada. Having the resources available at the provincial level and in a number of municipalities provides an excellent training ground for those investigators for the larger federal programs.

At the same time, there is a large body of resources available for the federal government to utilize in other parts of Canada whenever there is an emergency. The larger federal government responsibility under the Constitution for peace, order and good government is provided for by having a large body of highly trained federal resources available right across the country, to be moved as the situation warrants.

I think it's interesting to note that prior to the Second World War, before what we call the “contract” policing role became quite large, the Canadian military was called upon to aid the civil power approximately 100 times because there simply wasn't a body of trained federal resources available.

Since the Second World War it has been called out on only three occasions, so I think that's indicative of the use that's made of having federal resources right across the country. In a very seamless fashion, highly trained resources can be moved to other parts of Canada to assist as required and when emergencies occur and to be involved in the policing of major events that occur from time to time in Canada.

To sum up, I would say it's very much an investment on the part of the federal government, a very good investment, and not a cost.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, and all of your officers, for being here today. We really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you directly and participate in what is to some extent an accountability session.

With that in mind, I'd like to follow up on some of the questions posed by Mr. Ramsay in regard to the Airbus investigation. I must say as an introduction that this is surely going to be borne out over time as one of the most farcical and whimsical investigations in the storied history of the RCMP.

First I'd like to ask you if you can confirm that the investigation has now broadened to include Airbus, MBB, Bearhead, and Boeing, and that there are more investigators now involved in the investigation, which includes combing through the National Archives.

• 1620

I'd like to know if this is bearing any fruit or if the Prime Minister himself is still the subject of this investigation. Because quite frankly, Commissioner, it's appearing more and more like a gambling addict who's behind, trying to double up his losses and find some return. I'd like to know where this investigation is going.

Commr Philip Murray: I think it's important to recognize the importance of what the role of the police is in a society. It has to function at arm's length from government. When allegations are made, it's our responsibility to investigate them. There were allegations made of influence peddling in relation to the letting of the Airbus contract. That's what we're investigating and that's what we're going to continue to investigate until such time as we arrive at a conclusion that either those allegations are borne out, as you say, or the investigation leads us to the conclusion that no criminal activity occurred in relation to that contract.

That's our role in this process. From time to time, whenever there are individuals who are high-profile, it makes it that much more difficult, but I think it's all the more important that it be at arm's length from government so that there's no impression in the minds of the public that there's any political interference involved one way or the other, whether it's the government that happens to be in power at a point in time or the government that may have been involved at the time the allegations were made. As difficult as that is from time to time, that's our work, and that's what we have to continue to do. The investigation is active and ongoing and it will continue until such time as we come to that conclusion.

The matter that was discussed earlier in response to Mr. Ramsay really had to do with the civil aspects of the case. The language that was used in that letter from the Department of Justice was completely inappropriate. The government apologized for that and we, the RCMP, apologized for that because we do not reach conclusions until such time as an investigation is completed.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With all respect, isn't that in fact what happened? You've acknowledged that there was an apology, and I believe it was a qualified apology because the investigation is ongoing. You've never backed away from that or withdrawn the letter that was inappropriately drafted in the first place. In terms of accountability, that process has never been completely disclosed.

You referred to the settlement that was made with Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald as being in his best interests. Surely it was in the best interests of the RCMP and the government of the day. Where does public interest and accountability come into this process?

Commr Philip Murray: It strikes me that this is exactly what I was talking about. The integrity of the criminal investigation is really paramount, and we can't let other processes interfere with that. One of the reasons the civil matter was settled was that some of the decisions that had been taken in the civil process were leading towards decisions by the courts that would not protect the integrity of the criminal investigation. From my point of view, it's paramount that the integrity of the criminal investigation be protected until such time as we can bring it to its proper conclusion, and we're continuing to do that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: In terms of the integrity of the system, it's questionable when a private citizen has to sue the government and, by virtue of that, your force in an effort to clear their name. Even in that civil process that took place and the ongoing matters you've described, the onus is on the individual to clear their name. There's never an open forum in which they're able to uncategorically profess their innocence.

Commr Philip Murray: One of the things that happens in a democratic society when allegations are made is that people's reputations are at stake until such time as the matter is resolved. I'm the first to agree that the wording in that particular letter was completely inappropriate, but it's interesting to note that going back all the way to 1985, when the MLAT legislation was first passed, the language in that letter was quite consistent with the language that was used, because it was going government to government. It was the first time the contents of any such letter ever did become public. Consequently, the names of the individuals involved became public as well.

• 1625

Normally when people are under investigation, the public doesn't know about it. That would have been the case here as well had the contents of that letter not become public. But they did become public, it was addressed in a civil matter, and there was an apology issued.

But that really hasn't anything to do with our— I would say more than a responsibility, I think it's an obligation that we see this thing through to the end. We didn't invent these allegations. Our responsibility is to investigate them. If our investigators feel there are sufficient grounds to lay charges when the investigation is completed, they'll take it to a prosecutor, who will decide whether or not to proceed through the courts.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Let's go back to the beginning of this. Is it common practice for the RCMP to base an investigation on a journalist's article in a foreign magazine like Der Spiegel, a CBC documentary on the fifth estate, or a noted gossip columnist like Stevie Cameron? Is that the basis for the beginning of a serious investigation of a former Prime Minister?

Commr Philip Murray: I think you realize that because there's an ongoing investigation, it would be really inappropriate to talk about what the sources of the allegations were. I'm sorry, but I really can't discuss those allegations or where they came from in a public forum like this.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Commissioner, you mentioned the letter that was sent. I believe you have said publicly that you did not see the letter before it was released.

Commr Philip Murray: That is correct.

Mr. Peter MacKay: My question to you, then, is whether that is normal practice in an investigation of this stature, something this serious that would involve a former Prime Minister. Is it normal that it wouldn't come across your desk before it was released to a foreign jurisdiction with which we had no reciprocal agreement in terms of exchanging information?

Commr Philip Murray: Do you mean the letter itself?

Mr. Peter MacKay: The initial letter that went, the one sent by Kimberly Prost.

Commr Philip Murray: Well, that's a government-to-government letter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But surely you were aware the investigation was under way at that time.

Commr Philip Murray: Yes, I was.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Wouldn't it be normal practice to have you in the loop?

Commr Philip Murray: In terms of these letters?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Commr Philip Murray: There are over a hundred of those things going out of the country every year involving the RCMP alone. We have an infrastructure in place, checks and balances that deal with the supervision of these investigations.

As an individual, I don't know what value I could add to the contents of that letter. The actual negotiation and involvement between the investigators and the Department of Justice takes place at the operational level. I don't know why I would be involved in that particular process.

As I said, there are checks and balances and supervision in place to make sure the viability of that particular enforcement strategy is in place. They were certainly carried out in this case, as they are in every other.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, Mr. Commissioner—

The Chair: Thank you for your questions, Peter. I'll try to get back to you.

Mrs. Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

First of all, I want to say how proud I am of the fact that you are going to be looking forward to the 125th anniversary. I think your television programs—yours or anybody else's—Due South as well as North of 60, have promoted an image somewhat out of the normal context. I don't see one red coat around the table, which I find missing.

The Chair: Oh, pardon me!

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Oh, this is why you got dressed that way, Madam Chair.

I also don't see one woman around that table. That's an issue I wish to discuss in the second half of the questioning I'd like to put forward.

Let me get to the first question I'd like to ask you, Commissioner Murray—and let's be formal in that sense. When you were before this committee last year or the year before, we were talking about the performance report and the whole question of DNA. I think you know I've had an ongoing concern about the issue of privacy. Once lost, it is never regained, and it has some serious implications for both the general population and the population you might deal with from a criminal perspective.

• 1630

I want to have some sense of assurance that the protective walls, the fire walls, are up, the walls that ensure that the information you need to both do your police work and identify across this country, if necessary, people who have committed serious aggressions and crimes, is used for that purpose and that purpose alone, and is not to be used for research of a general nature within the general scientific community.

Can I have that kind of assurance?

Commr Philip Murray: You have my full assurance of that. As you know, the matter of the DNA databank is presently before the House. If it becomes law, there are very specific requirements attached to it. The DNA databank—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No, Mr. Murray, excuse me. In my view, the significant terms around it are not sufficient. I've raised this with the Attorney General. I feel we need to make very certain that you as the RCMP, who are going to be responsible for the maintenance of that bank and the keeping of that data, ensure that within your own structure you have a code of ethics and a code of understanding that will be part and parcel of the development of that bank.

I want to know, please, where it's at. How effective and efficient is the new technology you've put into place to get earlier decisions on the DNA being taken, in general?

Commr Philip Murray: I was going to carry on by saying that the DNA is part of the national police services. While that is an emerging technology—and I agree with you; who knows where it will go down the road—I think the integrity of that process really comes down to the integrity of the organization itself.

All of the national police services contain information on Canadians who have— Whether we are talking about fingerprints or dealing with information in the Canadian Police Information Centre, or now whether we are talking specifically about DNA, the laboratories have been collecting data for many years prior to DNA, and always with the utmost integrity.

It's fundamental, I think, to the success of that organization, the crime detection laboratories, that there is that degree of confidence in them. You certainly have my undertaking to make sure that we will continue that in the future as well, specifically regarding DNA, and that it will only be used for the purposes for which it was collected.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I thank you for that.

By the way, the relationship of DNA to any of the other materials and any of the other information you have on people is very different. It's like a credit bureau rating. They have a credit bureau rating on you too, sir, and if you and anybody else in this room would like to ask about it, you'd be quite amazed at the disinformation that's in there.

The DNA does not give disinformation. It gives a lot of personal family information that can be serious in jeopardizing the lives and families outside of the criminal you might be attending to. That's why I am very concerned about it.

I'd like to ask you, when do you assume that the new technology will allow you to advance in that work? Will it still be six to nine months before you get a response on a DNA analysis? How much has it improved?

Commr Philip Murray: There has been a significant increase in the number of personnel who are devoted to that function. The point—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It's not the personnel I'm interested in, Mr. Murray, it's the technological advance in terms of the time it takes between the taking of a pinprick or a hair follicle, or whatever the case may be, to having an analysis made and it being returned to your laboratory to do the screening.

Commr Philip Murray: We had moved to a new technology, called PCR. That was the training I was alluding to. In order to train the personnel in the laboratories across the country, it took a considerable amount of time to make sure we had it right.

Consequently, that work has been done, and the lag time, or the delays, if you will, have been reduced significantly from a technological perspective. However, with the advance of the knowledge associated with the utilization of DNA, the number of requests of course has been rising exponentially. The demand side and the availability are really the issues.

• 1635

From a technological perspective, the answer is yes. From a demand perspective, we simply don't have the resource base it takes to keep up with the demand and provide the kind of timely response one would expect, but like everything else, we're juggling resources to try to address that issue.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much.

To move to the second part of my questioning, I do note the lack of any female officers around you in terms of top leadership. I presume these gentlemen reflect top leadership.

I listened with a great deal of interest to your statement, particularly in your conclusion, when you said you were confident that by pursuing your three strategies—alignment, cultural change and communications—you would succeed in your strategic objective of “creating safe homes and safe communities for all Canadians”.

I'd like to know, Mr. Commissioner, under the following series of questions, how you can proceed with ensuring safe homes and safe streets. You have police forces in a number of municipalities and provinces, as I understand it, with contract policing and whatever. What training do you give to handle cases of family violence, sexual assault, rape, and rape victims? What is your training there, and the community component?

Commr Philip Murray: I can perhaps ask my colleague, Assistant Commissioner Cleveland, who is responsible for the training area, to specifically answer that question. That's an area that is a top priority in terms of the organization. The whole issue of family violence, the issue of violence in the community generally, is something we are paying very close attention to.

Dave, perhaps you could allude to some of the initiatives we have in place in that regard.

Assistant Commissioner Dave G. Cleveland (Director, Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you. I'd be pleased to.

Training in this area is really very consistent with our philosophy of community policing—that is, working with the communities to determine what the needs of the community are and to deliver a service that is consistent with those needs.

We are very conscious of the issue of violence within the community, and particularly violence towards women and children. We have over the last several years—in fact, longer than that—advanced a very aggressive campaign of training at all levels. In fact, when I say all levels, if you were to look at the training we provide to our recruits, or cadets, as we call them, at Regina, you would find that they receive comprehensive training in the areas of sexual assault, family violence, and the others that you mentioned.

That training begins at that point. We pursue it further at the division level—a division being, of course, a province. Each division has a division training program, and that training is pursued at intervals thereafter, depending on the nature of the duties the individual is involved in, of course.

If it were a police officer who was involved in primarily administrative duties, I would suggest they may not receive very much training in that particular area, whereas one who was employed in a detachment with frequent exposure to the public in areas like this would be given this as part of in-service training.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: When did you start that training, sir?

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: When I say several years, I would suggest that I'm drastically underestimating it, because it would be training that has been prevalent in the organization for certainly more than a decade.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Then, sir, can you explain to me why a September 1996 report in the Canadian media indicates that six out of ten female Mounties surveyed by the RCMP research branch indicated they had been sexually assaulted or had been sexually touched?

If there's been training over several decades, can you tell me why this would be happening within your own branch? Maybe you need to be sending your officers back for some training.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: I'd be pleased to answer that, and I hope I didn't mislead you or fail to address your first question.

The survey you allude to did in fact suggest that as high as six out of ten—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, it's 60%.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: —female members had reported an incident of that nature.

I should point out, of course, that at the point in time when the survey was done, several years ago, women had already been in the organization for some 20 years. For many of the respondents, the survey would have spanned an entire 20-year career at that point in time. The incidents described by them would have ranged, I dare say, from inappropriate comments that they would have deemed or perceived to be harassment of some type to others that they might have deemed to have been sexual assault, as you suggest, although I would hope that were not the case.

• 1640

To go specifically to your question about training, Madam, I am pleased to tell you that we were also very concerned about the results of that study. We have undertaken a very comprehensive program of harassment training within the workplace, which has spanned the entire workplace. This is not just operational people, but all employees of the organization.

Perhaps I can use my own immediate work area here as an example. I have some 220 people working for me, and I have required each and every one of those individuals, including myself, to take mandatory harassment training.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you for that.

Could you tell me, Mr. Commissioner, what percentage of the members of the RCMP are women, and what percentage of the non-civilian population is made up of women?

Commr Philip Murray: You probably have the exact percentages. I think it's important to illustrate at the outset that the regular members, or the police officer side of the organization, just started hiring women in 1974. Women have always been part of the administrative support and the operational support, if you're talking about the laboratories and the Canadian Police Information Centre and so on. The actual police officers just started to be hired in 1974, so we were starting from ground zero. That's one of the reasons you don't see women at this table at the moment.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Murray, that's almost 25 years ago. One-half of the human potential for leadership— As a matter of fact, 51% of the Canadian population is made up of women. Are you telling me that you've been recruiting them for 24.5 years and you haven't been able to find anyone who can sit at this table or be in top management? Come on.

Commr Philip Murray: We're getting to that point, but you don't find any of us in this room with less than 25 years of service, either. With the type of organization we are, all of the police officers come in at ground level. There is an expectation that when people get to these positions, they have the kind of experience that's necessary.

We now have a woman in charge of criminal operations in a province, for example. She's obviously very close to this table. There are many others who are behind her.

But the great majority have been hired within the last 10 years or so. What you're going to see 10 years from now is pretty much an equal balance of women at the table.

It's interesting that those women themselves are saying they want to be well prepared before they come to the table.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I don't blame them.

Commr Philip Murray: They're gaining that valuable experience all over Canada. I'm very optimistic about the quality of women we have in very key positions. They are not at the senior executive level at the moment, but they are at the executive level in provinces. It won't be long before they'll be at the national level as well.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I just wanted to point out that employment equity means right across the board. It doesn't mean just affirmative action at one level.

Secondly, no one said you should hire or place anyone because of their sex, but because of their competence. There are plenty of competent women. That's why I'm placing the question. I don't expect them to be any smarter or any less smart than any one of you at that table, but I'm sure there are plenty of women who have the equivalent competence.

So I'm looking forward to being here— ten years from now, I have to wait? Well, I'll have to think about that.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to meet you face to face. Congratulations as well on your 125th anniversary. I've been participating in some of these celebrations in the riding already. It's been very good.

• 1645

On July 21, 1997, a four-page letter was sent from your office to the Department of Justice. Acting Commissioner Beaulac signed the letter.

I'm now quoting from your letter:

—the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms.

We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in a violent crime compared to the Department of Justice findings of 623 firearms involved in a violent crime.

Are those two statements from that letter accurate?

Commr Philip Murray: I'm going to ask Deputy Commissioner Zaccardelli to respond specifically to your question, because he's been dealing with the file with the Department of Justice, and I haven't been.

For me, the important issue is really the fundamental principle of safety in the community, of officers' safety in responding to domestic situations and the like. The issue, really, in regard to the number of weapons is whether they were in fact used during the offence or were involved in the offence. I think that's where the difference is.

Maybe, Zac, you could elaborate a little more on the subtleties of that and on how this whole issue arose in the first place.

Deputy Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli (National Headquarters, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Commissioner.

Sir, I will try to shed some more light on this question. The RCMP was asked by a working group set up by the justice department to provide certain information related to the use of firearms in the commission of offences. We provided that information to the justice deparment. In examining that raw material we provided to them, they applied a certain methodology to arrive at the use of firearms during the commission, or approximately close to the commission, of an offence. They came up with the figure you referred to, that of 623.

The RCMP used a different methodology with respect to the same raw data. When we say 73, or the smaller number that you refer to, that refers specifically to the use of a firearm in the commission of the actual offence. You have a situation in an armed robbery or a hold-up where the individual, the person committing the offence, has the firearm in his possession and uses it in the commission of the offence. That's where we used our methodology.

In situations where you do a drug bust, for example, you may find the drugs in a home or an apartment or whatever, but in doing the search, in finding the drugs, you may also find a restricted weapon, an unregistered weapon and so on. In our methodology that was not considered to be “the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence”. In the justice department survey, that was included. They've used a more liberal interpretation of the raw data—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

D/Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: —and that gives rise to this discrepancy. We had a number of discussions with the justice department and we agree that there are two different methodologies. That's why we have this discrepancy.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

Let's go on with this. In her desire to ensure that accurate data was presented to the Alberta Court of Appeal, Ms. Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control asked the RCMP for an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of these RCMP data presented in appendix A, I believe it is, of the Department of Justice report entitled “RCMP (PIRS) Table 2. Firearms Involved in Crime: Type of Firearm Recovered According to Offence”. I'm sure you're familiar with that.

Last July, you refused to provide Ms. Cukier with the affidavit she requested. Are you now prepared to sign an affidavit or to swear in court that the Department of Justice presentation of RCMP statistics on the number of firearms used in crime is accurate?

D/Commr Giuliano Zaccardelli: Again, we had the raw data and we applied a methodology, the same raw data that was in the hands of the justice department. They applied a methodology of their own and that's why you have the discrepancy. When we were asked to sign an affidavit by the justice department, we said no, that in our view they had used a different methodology. That was why we did not sign that affidavit.

• 1650

But we recognized in our discussion, and then wrote to Justice, that we didn't find fault with their methodology when applied to those statistics; we simply acknowledged there were two methodologies applied to the same data. That's why you have this discrepancy.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So I gather you're not prepared to sign that affidavit.

Tax dollars are scarce, and you yourself gave the example of insufficient resources for the proper use of DNA fingerprinting and so on. The handgun registration system has been in place since 1934, as you know. Has the registration of handguns reduced the use of these types of firearms in violent crime or has it kept them out of the hands of criminals?

Commr Philip Murray: That's a very difficult question to answer with any degree of accuracy, but I think what's important here are the principles involving gun control. They're really two-fold. One is public safety and the other is officer safety, from the point of view of the police.

Most of the incidents involving violence associated with attacks on police officers have been involving issues in accordance with domestic violence, responding to residences where there are firearms.

The degree to which the officer is aware through a database that there are potentially firearms in that residence is very helpful from an officer's safety point of view. There have been many other incidents whereby, through lack of safe storage, tragedies have occurred in residences right across the country.

The fact that there is a database and that weapons are registered implies a certain accountability on the part of the person who has registered that weapon to make sure it is appropriately stored.

From those two perspectives, I think the principle is important in keeping guns away from unauthorized people, so I suppose one could draw from this that the less available they are, the less opportunity there is for criminals to have them. But I can't really answer your question directly because it's really quite hypothetical.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, that's it.

I'm going to go to Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Commissioner Mr. Murray.

I'm going to diverge from money issues into policy issues here. As I believe you will be aware, a committee of Parliament that scrutinizes the regulatory field is of the view, and has reported to the House, that sections 56 and 57 of the RCMP regulations are not in compliance with Canadian law in that they overly restrict the political activities of the members of the force. I understand there is work going on now, finally, after some few years of rather slow response in efforts to reconstruct and reword the regulations that purport to govern political activities.

I'll also indicate that it's my experience— and I've sat on that committee for almost 10 years now, the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations. The current tilt of the membership of that committee appears to be that if the regulations are not quickly revised, it might well be the disposition of that committee to recommend and move disallowance, which doesn't happen very often. It's only happened about five times in the history of this place.

Could you update me on the progress of the force in re-articulating sections 56 and 57 of the regs?

Commr Philip Murray: I'd be very happy to, and I'll ask Assistant Commissioner Cleveland to amplify, because he's been dealing with the issue specifically.

It has been a difficult issue from a policy point of view. I alluded earlier to the importance of being seen to be arm's length from the political process. That's a very important principle underlying our system in Canada. Historically, the national police force has always been not allowed to be a part of the political process, through regulation.

• 1655

Obviously, the times have changed, with more advocacy at the community level and so on. The police are part of the community, and we encourage people to be part of the community.

Where do you find the right balance? That has been the debate for a considerable period of time. We feel we've struck the right balance at the moment.

Dave, maybe you wouldn't mind alluding to the specifics of the recommendation we're advancing.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: I'd be pleased to.

Sir, your point is well taken about the amount of time it has taken us to bring these forward, but in defence of our own process, I guess it's been one that reflects the inclusionary nature and consultative nature of the way we do business. That is to say, we've worked closely with the membership of the organization, with the members' representatives, in determining what would be acceptable to those groups of people.

Perhaps of greater importance is the fact that we have also worked very closely with the joint committee that has been struck involving representation from the Solicitor General's office and our own legal services in terms of bringing something forward that we felt would satisfy the needs of our force and of Canadians and that would address the concerns that you suggested were reflected by the subcommittee that had looked at the previous regulations.

All of this is to say that we are very sensitive to the concerns you have expressed. We are in the final enactment process, if you will, with the new regulations, 55 through 57, that will go through the office of our Solicitor General. I would hope they might be enacted within the next month or two.

I understand our minister is appearing before the committee again. I believe that's on May 14 or thereabouts. We are in a position to give him every assurance that the new regulations are drafted and would be in a process so as to be enacted.

Mr. Derek Lee: May I just note that I understand that, yes, the Solicitor General will be appearing before the committee, but that appearance would not have been necessary had the force moved expeditiously to make the changes. The Solicitor General, of course, has to carry the can for the force in Parliament. That's the only reason he appears to be appearing before the committee. I'll leave that with you.

Other than that, can I seek your assurance that the force will move expeditiously and will allow some flexibility in this matter, recognizing the fact that almost every other police force of significance in this country has been able to make changes, including provincial forces that have exhibited quite a bit of flexibility?

I will recognize as well that the RCMP has international, national, provincial and municipal functions and perspectives here. That may make it a little bit tougher to devise just the right regulation, but everyone else seems to have been able to do it. In our view the current regulations are not valid. They're unconstitutional and they have to change quickly. You may wish to comment on that.

Commr Philip Murray: As you said yourself, because of the international, national, provincial and municipal responsibilities, it made the situation that much more difficult in terms of coming up with a solution that met those very unique needs. Because we provide services to all three levels of government, plus international services, it's far different than it is for somebody who polices a particular municipality, or even a province. But your point is very well taken.

We recognize that there had to be some changes made. The real issue was coming to something really suiting everyone's needs. As senior management of the force, we're now comfortable with what is being proposed, and we give you our concurrence to move it through the system as quickly as we can, certainly.

• 1700

Mr. Derek Lee: I just wanted to indicate that I and some colleagues on that committee have seen the draft, and it might need a bit more work. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. I'm asking you if you're prepared to show further flexibility, because there needs to be some more work on the current draft. What you have now is not going to fly. That may come as a surprise to you. I'm giving you a parliamentary perspective. I'm seeking flexibility and a commitment to work diligently to get this out of the way very quickly.

Commr Philip Murray: Well, we're open to suggestions, and when we hear what they are, we'll give them our prompt attention.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lee.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, last Friday's organized crime summit, at which I think you were in attendance, confirmed that the National Police Services, which includes the Canadian Police Information Centre, and the Criminal Intelligence Service are in dire need of an influx of money. I understand that without the additional investment of approximately $200 million over the next four years, there are going to be serious problems in the provinces and municipalities in terms of their ability to actively pursue the problems in the criminal justice system.

Can you confirm from the RCMP perspective that this is the situation, that there is that need for the influx of money? Along those lines, with respect to the proceeds of crime that are recovered by the RCMP, where does that money go, and does it appear here in these budgetary estimates?

Commr Philip Murray: I'll deal specifically with the first part of your question, and then perhaps I could ask Mr. Charbonneau to deal with the second part, regarding the allocation on the proceeds of crime and how that mechanism actually works in practice.

You're right; there is a serious need to refocus on the National Police Services. The National Police Services were first set up in 1966 as a result of a federal-provincial conference on organized crime in Canada. That gave rise to the RCMP becoming responsible for what's known as the National Police Services, which included the elements that were mentioned earlier.

But with the rust-out problem associated with the Canadian Police Information Centre—the CPIC, as it's known—that system is now getting on to 25, 26, 27 years old. A lot of it was written in COBOL, so even to have availability to upgrade it, from that perspective, is virtually impossible.

The demands on that system are increasing exponentially. Police departments at the local level in many cases now have direct access through computer from the car, so naturally the demands on the system have been growing substantially. This year there will be over 114 million requests on CPIC. When it was originally devised, we were talking about something in the range of 20 million.

So you can see that the demands on the system plus the technology itself, which is outdated, require that it be revisited, and revisited promptly. Certainly that was part of the agenda and the discussions the other day, and discussions that have been ongoing for some time, as to how we are going to find that kind of funding, given the fiscal environment we're all living in today.

We're confident of the recognition on the part of all of the partners at the federal level, because it really goes beyond law enforcement and the police community per se. It really deals with other departments, such as Revenue Canada and the Department of Immigration, and more and more other departments are having a requirement. When we talk about sovereignty and controlling our borders and so on, it's very important that we have integrated databases that can move across departmental lines and make sure our very sovereignty is protected.

As for the role of the provinces and municipalities, if we all can come together— We have to find a solution, and we have to find one very quickly, if that's going to remain viable.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Commissioner, that resource problem you speak of ties into another question I'd like to pose to you, in follow-up to my colleague from the Reform Party.

• 1705

For the proposed gun registry under Bill C-68, the estimated cost was initially $85 million. I understand that $66 million of that has already been invested, and the system is nowhere near up and running, I'm sure you would agree.

Given the problems that presently exist with the CPIC system, the criminal record repositories, the fingerprint repositories, and the proposed DNA legislation that is hopefully going to lead to a similar system to the fingerprint repositories, what degree of confidence do you have in this proposed gun registry?

I want to pose to you a hypothesis to follow up on one of the practical examples one of your officials gave. Say an officer arrives at the door in response to a domestic call and he has this gun registry system in his vehicle or access to it through his computer in the same way they would have CPIC. Say that information is not accurate. It tells him that, yes, there is a gun in the house, which causes him to approach with perhaps his revolver drawn. Or, on the contrary, he approaches without the revolver because the information has come back in the negative, saying there is no need for alarm as there's no registered gun in there.

Say that information is not accurate. I suggest that it's going to be very difficult to keep the information updated. We have a census in Canada every number of years that isn't accurate, so how is this system going to be used to protect rank and file officers? Do you have that degree of confidence such that you want to endorse this type of legislation?

Commr Philip Murray: You're right in the sense that the system will only be as good as the data in there. There is an expectation that there will be checks and balances to make sure the information or the data going into the system is accurate. The actual system itself is being built by the Department of Justice, but we have people participating with them because we're the ones who are going to be charged with the responsibility of operating the system after it's put into place.

There are some technical solutions to some of the things you're talking about to make sure that if there are obvious faults, then it will be kicked back. There will also be some human intervention to make sure that, in fact, the information is accurate. You're absolutely right that if the data is not accurate, then it's not going to be of any help. So it's really important that work be done on the front end to make sure that before it goes into the system, it's up to date and accurate.

Your other question was regarding the proceeds of crime. I'm sorry we got off on another topic. Perhaps Mr. Charbonneau can respond to that, because I think it was an important part of your first issue.

Assistant Commissioner René Charbonneau (Director, Federal Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Commissioner. I'm not too sure about exactly what you want me to touch on concerning the proceeds of crime, but we have 22 proceeds of crime units across Canada, of which 13 are what we call integrated proceeds of crime units, or IPOCs.

For the first nine months of this fiscal year, we've so far seized approximately $20 million in assets.

Mr. Peter MacKay: How much of that would come back directly to your department?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: It doesn't come back to our department.

Mr. Peter MacKay: What would prevent that from happening? Why couldn't the offset of some of these new systems occur with this influx of money from the proceeds of crime?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: The rules were not set that way. We work by the rules that were given to us.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is that something the RCMP would like to see happen, that you would directly benefit from the proceeds of crime?

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Well, we have to be careful if we benefit from the proceeds of crime. I know the Americans kind of work this way. I'm not too sure. I'm not a big fan of getting all the money back. We have to be careful because we could work on certain crimes or organizations with the grounds and the motive of mainly getting the money and maybe not going to the source of the problem. So I'd be careful with that direction.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Commissioner Murray, in your presentation you indicated that you've graduated 78 aboriginal officers since 1995. What percentage is that of the total complement of the force?

Commr Philip Murray: It's safe to say that it's considerably more than 78. I was alluding to just the numbers that graduated from that particular program. Those were people who did not meet the minimum standard. The program is designed to bring them to the minimum standard, and then they go into the legitimate process and become engaged.

• 1710

Dave, you have perhaps the number of aboriginals who have been hired since that period of time. There are considerably more than 78.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: Yes, indeed I do.

We currently have some 621 aboriginals in the organization. That reflects more than 5% of the population of the RCMP. I can assure you as well that our very vigorous efforts continue to recruit individuals, male and female alike, from that designated group, as well as others, to make the RCMP more reflective of the communities we serve and of the Canadian population in general.

Mr. John Maloney: The eastern Arctic is predominantly Inuit. How many Inuit officers would you have, male and female?

Commr Philip Murray: One of the things we're doing in conjunction with the implementation commission over in the eastern Arctic is to make sure that we are reflective of that community.

Initially, it's our intention to hire 20% as a starting point, between now and the time of implementation, which is April 1999. We're actively working in that regard to make sure that we get a number of good-quality candidates from the community and also through the aboriginal cadet development program.

Dave, I don't know whether you have the specific numbers on Inuit at the moment.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: No, I don't have the specific numbers, because statistically they are included in the overall aboriginal numbers. Certainly there are very specific efforts to recruit from that area.

I myself, along with some of my senior colleagues, went up to that area just over a year ago. We spoke at great length with people within the community, with our own detachment people there, with the youth in the community, with the view to just that, with an emphasis on recruitment from that community.

I'm pleased to tell you also that not just our recruitment but also our transfer and human resource policies have evolved considerably in the organization. We would now recruit individuals, aboriginal or Inuit, from many of those communities and post them back to their own community, where they would in some cases certainly be happiest, and in many cases certainly perform a far, far better level of service to us.

Mr. John Maloney: Do you currently police the eastern Arctic?

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: Indeed we do.

Mr. John Maloney: You indicate that you're working with the Nunavut Implementation Commission to develop service-delivery models. What's going to change, when Nunavut comes into effect, from what already exists there?

Commr Philip Murray: The intention will be that there will still be a provincial or a territorial policing agreement similar to what's in place now with the Government of the Northwest Territories, but the key is to make it as reflective as possible of the specific needs of that community.

It's been something we've been evolving slowly towards. The unique problems in the north that are presented in those communities because of their isolation and the specific cultural requirements of the Inuit— It's largely an Inuit population that will result in the new territory, and philosophically, they want to make sure that all of the organizations involved in the new territory reflect their specific needs.

As I've said, we have been working very hard to make sure that we do our part to meet those needs. So while the technicalities of the contract will be the same, the actual application is something in which we want to be very sensitive to their special needs.

Mr. John Maloney: Perhaps switching to another area, in your 1997 performance report it was indicated that the average turnaround for DNA results was roughly four to six months. On the DNA, the police would like to see samples taken at the time of charge as opposed to time of conviction. Taking it that we have a four- to six-month turnaround time, is that a valid argument or position? A case could be disposed of within that four- to six-month period.

Commr Philip Murray: One of the things is that when the DNA databank comes into place, there will be additional resources put into place, for processing purposes, in the DNA databank. One would hope that the turnaround time will be more efficient than what it is now.

• 1715

Of course, as I was alluding earlier to Ms. Finestone, as the technology emerges, as well, the actual time it takes to do the analysis is much less from a technical point of view. But it still takes extra resources because of the increasing demand.

If the matter was taken at the time of the charge, certainly there would be opportunities to do analysis vis-à-vis other offences that are already in the system.

The difficulty with that particular approach at this point is really with the Charter. At the time the legislation was advanced it was view of the Department of Justice that if we put that into the legislation at this particular time, there might be challenges under the Charter.

Consequently, there is a provision under the first part of the DNA, which is the so-called warrant bill. So if we in the police community have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a particular suspect has a DNA sample, we can go to a court and have a warrant issued in that interim period.

So all is not lost with this particular piece of legislation. There is an interim step.

I suspect that we had these same kinds of arguments back in the 1930s when fingerprinting first came into vogue. I would think that over the long haul the public and the courts will become more comfortable with the whole concept of DNA. I wouldn't be surprised if over the long haul those issues we are talking about now will probably not be of such great concern in the future.

Mr. John Maloney: I have a final question. Are we any closer to a resolution of the Air India bombing?

Commr Philip Murray: You know, I wish I could have a definitive answer for you. That has been the most costly and complex investigation in the history of the country. It was a terrible tragedy, and it is one for which the resolve is there to bring it to a successful conclusion.

We are optimistic that we are just about there. I talked in another context about some of the charter implications. In this particular case you can just imagine the volumes and volumes of documents and evidence that have accumulated over the past 12 years. They would probably fill this room.

So disclosure is going to be a very serious issue when charges are subsequently laid in relation to this file. There is all kinds of work going on at the moment with prosecutors to make sure that everything that is possible to be done is done so that there are no disclosure problems at that particular time.

It will be absolutely essential that the Crown not only produce everything that is available, but also be seen to be producing everything that is available. So all that work is being done now to make sure there are no problems from a technical point of view after charges are laid.

That process is very complex and time-consuming, but we are going to get it done. We are working diligently with prosecutors in the province of British Columbia to make sure that this happens in the briefest time possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Commissioner, I just have one question to deal with staffing and experience levels. I come from Surrey B.C., which has the largest detachment in the country. You may or may not be aware of some of the problems Chief Superintendent Smith is having out there keeping experienced people.

Indeed, he has just lost one of his most experienced people to the by-laws department of the municipality. So that is a real concern for Chief Superintendent Smith, for me, and for the community in terms of how that could translate into safety on the streets.

He did mention to me at one time that 25% to 28% of the constables or the people on the streets were basically rookies. Of course, that is all tied directly to the cost of living on the west coast.

So I just wondered if there were any talks in progress with Treasury Board, and what their status is with respect to cost-of-living allowances, housing allowances, and things like that.

Commr Philip Murray: It is an important issue, and it has been quite problematic, and Surrey itself is in it. I'll ask Dave Cleveland maybe to look up some of the attrition rates to give you a sense of just exactly what is happening more globally, although it won't be specific to Surrey.

• 1720

There's no question that there are a couple of issues relating to the lower mainland. One is the cost of living, and the other is that over the past few years that's where all the growth has been taking place. We've had to pour new resources in there.

Because of the fact that the cost of living is so high, it's very difficult to get people who are already serving to volunteer to go there. Consequently, our only alternative to fill the new positions was to put in recruits.

It's kind of a double-edged sword, because these are the people who are paid the lowest, as well. So you're putting the lowest-paid people in the area with the highest cost of living. That's been problematic, as well, from the point of view of their own well-being.

We've been working with the Treasury Board for a considerable period of time to try to find a solution. Of course, there wasn't a solution as long as we were in the freeze, because of the freeze legislation. But we've been able to come out of that not only with a pay increase but also with authority to do a pilot project to deal specifically with high cost-of-living areas. These will make up the difference between the salary of an RCMP member and the salary of the highest municipal police department officer, in this case in Vancouver. There's a difference there, so the allowance would make up that difference because of the high cost of living.

So we do have an interim solution, but it goes nowhere. When the average price of a house is $289,000, you know, another $3,000 or $4,000 doesn't really do an awful lot in that context. But it is a step in the right direction in terms of the fiscal realities we're all facing.

Dave, do you have the numbers on attrition overall? Because they haven't really been out of line but they have been problematic in that particular area.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: Yes, indeed I do. Thank you, Commissioner.

One is immediately drawn and is very sensitive, as we certainly are, to the fact that we have had some of our senior people in areas like the lower mainland of British Columbia, and indeed in other areas, leave the force recently, in some cases for opportunities in the private sector.

I think it's important to explain first that what we're seeing in many, if not most, of those areas is a consequence of the demographics of the RCMP. I'm suggesting to you that in many, if not most, of those cases, what we had were people who were entitled to a pension with some 25, if not more, years of service who were leaving the organization to go elsewhere. In fact, in many cases, they were taking up a job elsewhere.

When we see a significant number of people leaving one particular area, of course this causes specific concerns, but as the commissioner suggested, if you look at it both globally and locally, if you will, in British Columbia itself, what we find there is that during any given year we have about 3.4% of the organization leave through normal attrition. These are people who quit, most of whom go with pensionable service, and begin to draw a pension.

In the case of British Columbia, and particularly in the lower mainland, it was some 3.8% versus the national average. So as you can appreciate, the difference in figures was really not that profound.

I certainly wouldn't dismiss the possibility that some of this was obviously related to the very high cost of living in the lower mainland of British Columbia. As the commissioner has pointed out, we were fortunate enough to receive a significant pay raise, and another that we call a “market adjustment allowance” to offset the very high cost of living in that particular area.

We're confident that this is going to enable us to keep our senior resources where we need them, or certainly many of them.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Do I have time for one more question?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: This is just another one alluding to the ViCLAS. Another concern I've been hearing from some of the people at E Division is that the bottom is going to fall out at ViCLAS. They just don't have the resources or the staffing to keep it up. I was just wondering what's in the works for that.

Commr Philip Murray: The ViCLAS I alluded to in my opening remarks is really a world-class system. I guess this is like the earlier response to Mr. MacKay, but in a different context: it really takes the data to make the system effective. There's such a demand on scarce resources all over the country that it's been very difficult to get all the data into that system.

In the case of the province of Ontario, you may recall the terrible Bernardo affair. Consequently, the commission of inquiry under Mr. Justice Archie Campbell recommended that legislation be passed to ensure that all was entered into the system. In fact, that was done in Ontario because that's where those incidents occurred.

• 1725

As a result of that legislation, the Province of Ontario placed $3.4 million with the Ontario Provincial Police to enter the data for all the cases in Ontario. That is being done almost as we speak. So very soon we'll have virtually 100% of the cases in the province of Ontario.

The other provinces haven't seen fit to have the same kind of resource allocation process. In B.C., eight full-time resources are devoted to it, but there is only 30% of the cases as a result of that, and the backlog grows.

Clearly in all those cases the pitch has been made to the provincial governments on the need to allocate resources. But it's like everything else in that there are scarce resources available in the provinces.

I agree with you; it's something to which we have to continue to give priority. We've been allocating additional resources in different parts of Canada on a part-time basis to try to catch up with the backlog, and to make sure that any additional cases that occur get into the system immediately.

So all in all it's an excellent initiative, but it can only be successful if we have all the data. I think we're reaching a point where all the provinces are getting to the point where their books are pretty well balanced so they're starting to look at investing in these kinds of initiatives.

So I'm optimistic. It's not going to happen overnight in terms of the full resources that are needed for that, but we're getting there.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: It sure would be a shame to see it go under, though.

Commr Philip Murray: Well, it won't go under. We're going to keep it going, but we have to get 100% of all cases. That's our objective.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: How has the compliance been? There was some discussion in B.C. that some of the detachments weren't complying the way they were supposed to, or the way they were being asked to, and others were. Others were up to 100% compliant, and some were falling way behind.

Commr Philip Murray: I've written to the commanding officers of all our divisions about the importance of making sure that when audits are done, we are complying. The difficulty is not a philosophical one; it's really a question of having available resources. But I think if it's given enough priority, we'll get it done.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Murray, I would like to go back to the issue of pay increases for officers throughout Canada. What percentage increase have they asked for this year?

Commissioner Philip Murray: This year, they asked for 3.75 per cent, 2 per cent as of January 1, 1 per cent as of April 1, and .75 per cent as of October 1, I believe. Have I got it right?

A voice: Yes.

Commissioner Philip Murray: So, 3.75 per cent over the entire year.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Fine. If we go back to the other two years you were telling us about, how much would the increase be for the next three years? How much were they asking for in all? Did they really ask for 7 per cent?

Commissioner Philip Murray: We carried out consultations with the Pay Board. I'm going to ask my colleague Curtis Allen, who is the Deputy Commissioner who has responsibility for that Board, to explain how the process with Treasury Board worked.

Deputy Commissioner Curtis G. Allen (Deputy Commissioner, Central Region, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): The Pay Board's objective was for RCMP members to receive the same salary as members of the three police forces in our sample earning the highest salaries.

That's the objective that the RCMP Pay Board set during our work.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Which three others?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: Our sample includes eight police forces. it includes the police forces of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg. In Ontario, we have the Toronto police force. We also include the provincial police force, the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal police.

• 1730

So, it depends, because each time one of the police forces gets a raise, the figures change. At present, the three forces that are the best paid are quite likely Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: How much were they asking for in all?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: We will certainly have to get nearly 12 or 13 per cent to reach our objective. The Pay Board set January 1, 2001 as its deadline. So, we have four years to reach our objective.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Which is how much?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: About 12 or 13 per cent.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: And the officers will be satisfied with that?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: I think that most of our members will be satisfied if we can reach that objective.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Do your senior officers get annual bonuses on top of their salaries?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: Senior RCMP officers are treated exactly as senior officials are. We belong to the same plan as members of the public service who are in the EX category.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: So they receive bonuses.

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: Well, we get what the others get, but we too were hit by the salary freeze.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: But the freeze is over.

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: That's right. We've got through it.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Before the officers?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: Yes, before the officers. I believe that the freeze ended for us in June of last year, whereas our police officers were frozen until January 1 of this year.

Commissioner Philip Murray: It's because their salaries were frozen one year before the officers' were.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: I think that the officers are doing good work, and they deserve a raise. When I look at the figures, from 4.5 per cent to 12 per cent, I find them to be rather low. They should have received 3 or 4 per cent right away. They didn't get any back pay, did they? They just got a raise.

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: There wasn't any back pay, because our members' salaries were still frozen until the 1st of January. But as the Commissioner was—

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: January of this year?

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: That's right. So, as the Commissioner was saying, our members got 2 per cent as of January 1st of this year. They also are getting the other increases, as the Commissioner pointed out.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Don't you think 2 per cent is low? Did someone give you orders, and if so, who? The big bosses or Treasury Board? How did they do it? I think 2 per cent is low for officers who are working in the field, risking their lives, working very hard and preventing crime.

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: We do not have the power to set pay increases for our members. We have to go through the Treasury Board, and that's exactly what we did. I think that the members of the RCMP will get what we have set as an objective, and they will be satisfied with that.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: If it were up to you, how much would you give your officers?

Commissioner Philip Murray: Number one.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Deputy Commissioner Curtis Allen: No, I think that—

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: I don't want to give you a hard time, and I won't ask you to answer. But your smile shows that the officers deserve more.

I'll finish off with one last question. In any event, let me get back to the Estimates. A few years ago, in 1996 and 1997, I thought the RCMP's budgets were transparent. You could go from one page to another and follow all their projects in Canada. After a member of Parliament was elected, he knew what was going on, in Quebec and in the other provinces, and he also knew what was happening in his own city or town.

In 1996, 1997 and 1998, on page 58, a number of projects are listed, but you have other monitored capital projects costing between $400,000 and 3 million dollars. A member of Parliament no longer knows what's going on, and so he has to ask questions.

• 1735

This year, I can't find anything in the Main Estimates. There is a small footnote somewhere, on page 41, that says, “major capital projects by business line: due to the significant impact of Project 2000 costs—” We members of Parliament have to scour the Main Estimates, even though we represent the people. I'm not talking about the detachment in Rouyn-Noranda. I got a moratorium from the minister. You know about that. That's another matter.

But let me get back to my earlier thought: why this lack of transparency? A few years ago, we knew what was going on. Nowadays, we too have to look and look and look.

Commissioner Philip Murray: Certainly. It's a Treasury Board process. Perhaps Mr. Richter could explain the process and how it works.

Assistant Commissioner Frank A. Richter (Director, Corporate Management, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Mr. Saint-Julien, we were under a lot of pressure about the posting plan for Project 2000. While we were preparing this report, we were very much in the dark about our capital budgets, particularly construction budgets, as well as our expenditures.

We now have a plan for Project 2000, and we have readjusted our capital projects plan. We have more information now, and we could give you the plan for the next few years.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Madam Chair, I would like to get a copy of the plan that our witness just mentioned, because it's important to know about the construction projects in Canada. Thank you very much.

I have one last question in closing. I have some letters here from the Auditor General of Canada. They say that the RCMP told the Auditor General that, late in 1993, because of the budget cuts that it had taken, the RCMP had been forced to streamline its activities.

In a second letter to the Auditor General, dated February 27, 1998, it says:

Over the years, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's budget has been reduced on a number of occasions, and so, the RCMP had to make cuts in some years. According to the information at our disposal, the Commissioner announced in September 1993 that the RCMP would have to make substantial reductions to its budget over the next four years.

Could you tell me why all kinds of major capital projects sprang up in Quebec in the four years following 1993, that is to say, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997? At the same time, you were telling the Auditor General that you had to streamline operations, that you had to cut back. Is there a reason for this? Did you get your hands on some money tucked away somewhere? When you have money left over at the end of the year, do you apply it to the public debt, or do you return it to the Treasury Board?

Commissioner Philip Murray: Once again, I believe that Mr. Richter is familiar with the specific situations in the provinces.

Assistant Commissioner Frank Richter: Mr. Saint-Julien, our capital budget was not affected by the cuts. Most of the cuts were to our operating budget.

Decisions about capital expenditures are made using a system of priorities that is followed throughout the entire country, particularly when it comes to construction projects. It all depends on the priority of each particular project everywhere. Sometimes there are differences between provinces.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murray. Thank you, ma'am.

[English]

The Chair: You know, you own one of the most valuable pieces of property on the riverfront in Windsor. You ought to sell it and build a nice new building in my riding and make some money for yourselves.

I'm going to let Mr. MacKay have the last question, but just one, because we're over time now.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to keep this brief.

In light of the fact that we're short of time, I do want to express again our appreciation for you being here. I know you have a monumental task ahead of you under tough conditions and with scarce resources.

• 1740

I'd like to undertake to ask you a few questions. If we don't have time, I could send them to you in writing, specifically with respect to the RCMP's involvement in the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the financial contribution your organization makes to that organization.

Secondly, I just want to follow up with respect to alternative dispute resolution and the two systems that appear to be in place, or at least they appear to be— There's a divergence, as I see it, between the rank and file and those who can benefit from alternative dispute resolution, which sets up a bit of a rift in terms of how these disputes are resolved.

Jennifer Lynch, I believe, devised a system. In an ironic twist, she was an appointment of Brian Mulroney, and yet this system is the one Fraser Fiegenwald has operated under— or has avoided being held responsible for his actions.

I want to ask you about officers who go through that process and are subsequently rehired through a contractual relationship with the RCMP either as supernumerary or civil members of the RCMP. They are receiving an RCMP pension after having been given a buyout. Can you confirm that this is in fact taking place?

Commr Philip Murray: First of all, getting back to the CACP and the first part of your question, we've had a long-standing, very close working relationship with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. As a matter of fact, I believe for the first time in its history there is a member of the RCMP who is the president of the CACP.

We have long been involved in committee work. After all, we are everywhere in Canada and we're involved in all aspects of policing, so it's only proper that we be involved in the broader police decision-making body. We have been actively involved and the fact that we presently have a president would indicate that those relations are very strong with the municipal and provincial police departments across Canada. That contribution has always been there and certainly continues to this day.

With regard to ADR, that particular process is available on a voluntary basis to anyone throughout the organization. It really is a system whereby there's an expectation that problems will be resolved at the lowest level possible and in an informal way outside the formal systems. It has been something that has been very successful in terms of quickly resolving disputes and moving things through the system without resorting to formal systems.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is there a separate fund earmarked for ADR that would compensate an officer who chose to go that route?

Commr Philip Murray: There's no fund per se. In fact, oftentimes it doesn't even involve money. Sometimes it involves principle and sometimes it involves an interpretation of policy. Often it's really a question of finding an independent third party either within or outside the organization that can act as a mediator to resolve a dispute. That's the principle behind it. If there is something that gets resolved using dollars and there's an expectation that it will come from within the existing base of whoever is responsible for making the decision, there are no additional funds set aside. There's no ADR fund, shall we say.

As a matter of fact, ADR has saved a considerable amount of money. Usually when something like that occurs, that's really based on a business case, if something were to proceed through the formal system, such as a discharge, it might cost considerably more for the person to be discharged today if it involved a case of the person going to be fired.

If somebody were to come back into the system in that sort of a situation, I think there are checks and balances in place to prevent that from occurring in terms of whether that's for workforce adjustment or for ADR or anything else.

Maybe Dave could elaborate.

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: I would like to very much, specifically with respect to our workforce adjustment directive, which I believe you are alluding to, Mr. MacKay. It is an RCMP directive but it does bear remarkable similarities to what applies to the broader public service.

Of course, the sources of a couple of pay-outs within that directive are, first, a payment in lieu of the unfulfilled surplus period, which can be up to some 26 weeks, and second, a lump sum payment, which can be up to 15 weeks.

• 1745

Within our directive and within the broader public service work force adjustment directive, there are certain criteria that would limit, and in fact prohibit, people from coming back into the public service, into government or into the RCMP if they had received those benefits without paying the benefits back. That would be one way in which they could do that.

I can assure you, we are very conscious of those requirements, and we comply fully with them.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can I ask you a direct question? Is Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald under a contract with the RCMP, and how much money did he receive in his ADR hearing?

A/Commr Dave Cleveland: I may have to defer this to the commissioner, because my answer to your first question is going to be that I am not aware that he is under a contract. The answer to the second question is that I am not aware, because it was something agreed to by the sergeant and his commanding officer. I had no involvement in it.

Commr Philip Murray: I don't know that he's under contract. To my understanding, he went into the private sector. I have no knowledge of him working with the RCMP.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is the private sector company he's employed with contracted to the RCMP?

Commr Philip Murray: I don't know the answer to that question. As far as I know, though, he has no current involvement with the RCMP.

[Translation]

Perhaps Mr. Charbonneau has heard about that.

[English]

A/Commr René Charbonneau: Not to my knowledge. I have no indication to that effect at all.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are the details of the financial compensation package he received public? Are those contained in or referred to specifically anywhere in the estimates? Is that information you're willing to disclose?

Commr Philip Murray: I don't know the contents of it personally. The ADR arrangement that's entered into is between the two parties and the mediator. Consequently, it's a private communication between the two parties.

So I don't have that information, I'm sorry.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

The Chair: Thank you. I know we kept you a little late, but we appreciate it.

Commr Philip Murray: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We'll now rise.