Senator Plett: Let me first of all say I didn’t think Senator Harder had been very mean, as you might have alluded to. As I have said many times, Senator Yussuff, we can choose our friends, so I choose you as a friend. We can’t choose our relatives, and Senator Harder is one of those. Nevertheless, I consider him a friend as well as a relative.

You know, Senator Yussuff, I’m not sure where anything in my speech that I made — again, as I already offered to Senator Harder, I could make the speech one more time; I do have unlimited time and we could make sure that I did say some of those things — but absolutely we need to review that. I think as I said at the end, I applaud Senator Harder for starting an inquiry. There is nothing wrong with us trying to find out.

But when you say it would make political sense to start a provincial policing organization — I’m not sure that’s what you said, but I think you at least alluded to that — I’m sorry, but I disagree that in our economic times I would want to take the political route over the economic route. We can’t afford to establish new policing organizations, and just because some in this chamber believe that the RCMP has become too large, I don’t think the people of Manitoba believe that. I think overall, in Manitoba, we are quite happy with the RCMP. As I said at the start of my speech, in Alberta, they are considering that.

I’m not sure that Ontario or Quebec have better policing than Manitoba does. I don’t want to be critical of them because, fortunately — in my last few dozen years at least — I have not had many run-ins with the law enforcement in any province, and I’m thankful for that.

I’m quite content, and I feel quite well served by the RCMP in Manitoba. I feel very well served by the Parliamentary Protective Service here in the Parliamentary Precinct and by the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, and, certainly, when I go to Quebec, by the Quebec provincial police.

I’m not suggesting that a provincial police department is inferior. I’m just not sure that they are superior. I think the RCMP has served us very well since the beginning of Confederation. I’m kind of proud of seeing those uniforms, and I am a bit of a traditionalist — I’ll admit that. But I kind of wish we still had them here on the Hill some days and be able to see the uniforms here.

(Debate adjourned.)

Senator Plett: When this came to light in January, leader, all the Prime Minister could say is that he asked questions of the public service about this deal. It’s his government, leader. It’s been almost four months since the Prime Minister has asked these questions of the public service. What did he find out, leader? Why did this happen, leader, and how much was spent in total to subcontract the work of the ArriveCAN app?

Now, if you have respect for us, answer those questions.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Senator Yussuff: Senator Plett, thank you very much for your remarks. I’m not going to be as harsh as my colleague over there with some of your discrepancies. But it would be fitting to suggest that an institution that was created in 1867 could use a thorough review in how it functions and meets the needs of the nation.

The RCMP, like other institutions in this country, needs to be reviewed to ensure it can meet the modern times we’re living in. As we know today, cybersecurity and cybercrimes are probably more heightened than anytime in history. Of course, when the RCMP was created, this was not a priority. It is now. It’s a serious priority, and the RCMP is doing its best, of course, to meet that.

In 2023, I would argue that municipal policing and provincial policing have evolved, as we have seen in Ontario and Quebec. Certainly, we could look at other provinces wanting to take on that responsibility, which makes political and economic sense for them to do so. Certainly, I think you would accept that we need to look at this institution. What might come may include some recommendations on how we can modernize it to meet the needs of a nation. I don’t think that would be out of step with what the inquiry can achieve. Would you not say so?

Senator Plett: Yes.

Senator Plett: Well, I think I need to read my speech again. I didn’t think I said that, Senator Harder.

Senator Plett: Answer the question.

Senator Plett: I wonder what last name they had. Were they also friends of the Prime Minister? A two-person company to subcontract out this work to major multinationals.

Senator Housakos: You’re being disrespectful.

Senator Plett: Well, as you know, Senator Harder, I was speaking today on the inquiry that the RCMP is too large of an organization, in your words. I don’t think they are too large of an organization. I relayed a number of ways that I feel that the RCMP could maybe expand their own mandate without us necessarily getting rid of the RCMP.

Senator Plett: What is disrespectful, Senator Gold, is that you don’t even attempt to answer a question. I asked you this: How do people get in touch? How do people contact the Special Rapporteur, the person you say is independent? How do people contact him?

Instead, you say we’re being disrespectful. How is it disrespectful to Canadians for them to know how they can contact this Special Rapporteur? If it’s not fake, there should be a way of contacting him.

This is a government that is incapable of making the right decision. Even when the choice is obvious, their lack of leadership and moral compass is shown time and time again as they designate others to make decisions for them. They simply create a new position to avoid the heat and weight of any responsibility.

Here are just a few examples of that: the made-up Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference; the so-called independent Senate appointment process; consultants, especially their friends at McKinsey; and all the expert advisory groups that cost taxpayers money.

Leader, if this Independent Special Rapporteur weren’t fake, don’t you think there would be more transparency on how to reach his office and that media requests wouldn’t have to be handled through the Prime Minister’s Office? Wouldn’t the leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition have received a response to his letter?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, my question today concerns the Prime Minister’s made-up Special Rapporteur.

Leader, your government is solidifying the fact that this appointment is anything but serious. I still cannot find a way for the rapporteur to be contacted by whistleblowers or Canadians who have been intimidated here in our own country by the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP. Three weeks ago, right here in this chamber, Minister Leblanc promised — he guaranteed — to provide an email or a postal address. We have received nothing.

Furthermore, leader, yesterday, the Liberal propaganda arm, CBC News, reported that the Privy Council Office — the Prime Minister’s department — is handling media requests for the Special Rapporteur. This is an independent Special Rapporteur, and the Prime Minister’s Office is handling media requests.

We are now learning that the rapporteur hasn’t even bothered responding to a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre.

Leader, Canadians do see this for what it is. I hope you do. It is a way for the Trudeau government to deflect all difficult questions of foreign interference onto a made-up role. How can your government — how can you — continue to stand by this fake job with a straight face?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, if you would one time answer our questions properly — Senator Housakos asked you a question.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak today to Inquiry No. 5 proposed by Senator Harder, calling the attention of the Senate to the role and the mandate of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, the skills and capabilities required for it to fulfill its role and mandate and how it should be organized and resourced in the 21st century. I would like to address Senator Harder’s specific proposal and also make some comments about what we are facing today as a country when it comes to policing.

First, with respect to Senator Harder’s inquiry, its scope is extremely broad. If one considers all the components of the issues he raises, it includes the RCMP’s role, the RCMP’s mandate, the skills and capabilities required to fulfill the RCMP’s role, the skills and capabilities required to fulfill the RCMP’s mandate, how the force should be organized in the 21st century and how the force should be funded in the 21st century. When one looks at the scope, it touches not only on the federal role of the RCMP, but also its role in eight provinces and three territories.

We need to remember that within the domain of federal policing, the RCMP is responsible for all ordinary federal law enforcement; drug enforcement; weapons trafficking enforcement; fugitive apprehension; the protection of the Governor General and the Prime Minister, as well as other at‑risk officials and diplomats; for the policing of properties in the National Capital Region; and counter-espionage, counter‑subversion and counterterrorism roles that are carried out in conjunction with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. We then have the separate mandate of RCMP policing in eight of Canada’s ten provinces, in many municipalities in those provinces and in Canada’s three territories.

When we are examining the role of the RCMP and the mandate of the RCMP, in addition to other issues that Senator Harder raises, this constitutes an extremely broad area. All of these areas touch on multiple complexities in policing. They also involve significant machinery of government issues, ones that would likely take years of work to both understand and address.

I understand that it is tempting to come to quick conclusions, one of which is that the RCMP’s mandate is too broad. Indeed, Senator Harder has already come to that conclusion, and in this regard, I refer to Senator Harder’s remarks in 2021, when he stated that the RCMP’s mandate is:

. . . simply too large and too heavily oriented to a provincial policing role that is no longer appropriate for a critically important federal organization. It’s too big to succeed.

For my friend Senator Harder, a conclusion has already been arrived at. I don’t know if this is what his intention was, but in reading his words, one might surmise that he’s already come to the conclusion that the RCMP must be broken up. That may be what the senator is advocating, but we should be under no illusions about the complexities of doing that since presumably eight provinces and three territories would have their own views.

I know that some provinces, such as Alberta, are considering the option of creating a provincial police force. Such police forces already exist in Ontario, Quebec and, to a more limited extent, in Newfoundland and Labrador. But what may work in some provinces may not work in others. Senator Harder was quite correct when he said in his remarks that:

Many Canadians, especially in Western Canada, see the RCMP as a much-loved symbol of a measured and responsible approach to policing in their communities.

I can certainly confirm that from personal experience.

In rural Manitoba, we have all grown up with the RCMP which, in my experience, has always provided exemplary service. I also believe that many provinces themselves would not be in a rush to simply create new provincial police forces out of thin air. There are potentially enormous transition costs associated with creating new provincial police forces. Canada’s debt today is unprecedented.

Frankly, I would suggest that, today, the additional cost burdens associated with potentially creating new provincial police forces are not ones that we would want to assume. In that regard, I think we need to be careful before we rush to the conclusion that, in all areas and in all provinces, the RCMP, as Senator Harder put it, is too big to succeed. In my view, that puts the cart before the horse because there are multiple areas of policing that we first need to fully understand before we arrive at such a definitive conclusion.

When Canadians consider the broader issue of policing in Canada, there are many issues that they want to see addressed before we jump to the conclusion that it is the RCMP’s current organization that is at the root of the problem. I would just like to highlight some of the issues in policing that I believe we should be looking at before we accept such a conclusion.

To start with, we have a very serious problem in Canada today when it comes to the smuggling of guns destined for criminal organizations. It is quite clear that the gun-smuggling problem is really at the root of much of the violence in our urban centres.

We also see a growing problem when it comes to the manufacture of 3D-printed guns. I recently met with police officers who were very alarmed by the growth of the 3D‑printed‑gun problem.

When it comes to gun smuggling, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw recently testified in the House of Commons that approximately 86% of crime guns seized were ones that had been smuggled into our country. We do not hear a lot about that. What we hear from today’s government is that they want to target law‑abiding sport shooters and collectors, people who have lawfully and responsibly held their firearms for decades.

Many engage in wishful thinking that, if we go after sport shooters and collectors in Western Canada or rural Ontario and Quebec, somehow the gun crime in Toronto and in other urban centres will be reduced. This is an ideological approach to gun control that is ignoring the fact that gun smuggling by organized crime and criminal gangs and 3D gun-making lie at the root of much of the problem.

It would have been very useful had Senator Harder’s inquiry proposal focused on that type of very specific problem, a problem that actually impacts ordinary Canadians. It is a problem that particularly impacts Canadians who live in many of our urban centres. It also disproportionately impacts Canadians who live in vulnerable communities directly impacted by the scourge of gun and gang crime.

When we consider the role of the RCMP in all of this, questions that I think are appropriate include: What resources are available to the RCMP to stop gun smuggling across the Canada‑U.S. border? How is the RCMP organized to carry out that task? Would it make sense to devolve such a mandate to a dedicated agency, such as those which exist in the United States when it comes to cross-border smuggling? That sort of investigation is desperately needed and it would address a real and growing problem.

Colleagues, we need to be more aware of the fact that Canadians are being confronted with a major problem related to crime growth in Canada. Too often in this chamber we are in a bubble where ideology prevails and we are willfully blind to what is going on outside this building.

The CBC recently reported Statistics Canada information which reveals that violent crime in Canada is up some 30% since 2015, the year the current government took office. According to Statistics Canada, there were 2 million crime incidents in Canada in 2021. There were 788 homicides in 2021, 29 more than in 2020. Almost half of the nearly 300 firearm homicides in Canada were reported by police as gang-related. My own province of Manitoba had the second-highest homicide rate in our country.

I would wager that more Canadians are concerned about how to make the RCMP as effective as possible in fighting crime on our streets than they are about how we reorganize the RCMP because some senators have prematurely concluded that it is too big to succeed.

If you asked people in Manitoba what their most urgent concern is with respect to the RCMP, I doubt very much that they would answer, “We urgently need to get rid of the RCMP and set up a provincial police force.” What Manitobans want is for the problem of crime to be addressed and for all police services to get the resources that they desperately need.

In my recent meeting with Winnipeg police officers, they told me how property crime in Winnipeg has exploded. It has exploded because of the growing drug use and drug dependency.

These days, the Winnipeg Police Service is not able to respond effectively to property crimes because they are too consumed with the rise in drug-driven violent crime; some of that is the product of lax laws and a revolving-door justice system. There are those in this chamber who instinctively reject that, but the evidence is very conclusive.

The National Post recently published an investigative report which illustrates how the government’s so-called safer supply of drugs is fuelling a new opioid crisis. The study interviewed 20 health-care experts and revealed that a significant portion of the so-called safer supply drugs are being distributed through government-funded programs and then sold at a huge markup on the black market to fund the ongoing purchase of fentanyl.

Fentanyl, as senators know, has killed more than 35,000 people since 2016. This is a staggering number, colleagues, which rivals most war zones anywhere. As much as we would like to pretend otherwise, the problem is not going away. In the past number of years, communities across Canada have been flooded with cheap opioids. One doctor is quoted in the study as saying:

I meet people in my office that buy large amounts of it and then ship it off to Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the United States, where it’s much more valuable.

That drug use on Winnipeg streets has helped fuel the explosion of drug-based crime. There is the additional problem that individuals committing most of the crime often tend to come from the same group of criminals.

Michael Weinrath, a criminologist at the University of Winnipeg, has analyzed the problems and estimates that while high-risk offenders only constitute 10% to 15% of all offenders, they nevertheless account for 50% to 70% of all the crime. As he recently stated, “A smaller proportion of repeat offenders are violent and keep committing violent offences . . . .”

Knowledge that this is happening is widespread.

A CBC story last year reported on this growing problem of prolific offenders in Canada. Prolific offenders are individuals who commit a disproportionate percentage of crimes. Such individuals may commit dozens, even hundreds, of crimes, and yet they keep getting short sentences as a result of our system. This is a growing problem throughout Canada.

Last year, the BC Urban Mayors’ Caucus, which consists of mayors from 13 municipalities representing more than half of the province’s population, wrote a letter to provincial ministers demanding action on the matter of prolific offenders.

But provinces can only do so much. What we need are federal laws and a federal government actually willing to address this. We also require courts and judges willing to put the rights of ordinary citizens and communities first when it comes to dealing with high-risk and prolific offenders.

Quite frankly, colleagues, the rights of Canadians to be safe in their homes and in their communities are more important than the so-called rights that these offenders have to be on the street.

I can tell you that what Manitobans want in the face of this is for our laws to be effective so that police can forcefully tackle the growth in crime as well as the criminal gangs who are both driving it and exploiting it.

A 2019 poll conducted by Probe Research found that the number-one community issue for Manitobans was the problem of crime, with 39% of Manitobans ranking that problem as their number-one community issue. The problem of drugs ranked second at 20%. Four years later, those concerns by Manitobans have multiplied.

None of this is to say that the mandate or organization of the RCMP should not be part of a broader policing discussion, but I believe it is vital that, when we consider the issue of policing in Canada, we start by addressing the real on-the-ground problems faced by police services in Canada.

One of those real problems facing the RCMP and many other police forces is the shortage of front-line officers on the street. That is certainly a problem in my province of Manitoba. This is why Manitoba’s Minister of Justice, Kelvin Goertzen, recently held an urgent meeting with Minister Mendicino.

That meeting request was to address the specific issue of the job vacancy rate in the RCMP. As Brian Sauvé, President of the National Police Federation, which represents RCMP members, has pointed out, recruitment is becoming a very serious challenge for not only the RCMP but for all police forces.

Policing shortages result in unsustainable workloads and exhausted officers. All of this seriously and negatively impacts community safety.

This problem, colleagues, is not unique to Manitoba. A vacancy rate of 20% was recently reported for the RCMP’s authorized strength of about 7,100 in British Columbia. This problem is also not unique to the RCMP. Detachments of the Ontario Provincial Police are also reported as understaffed, and in 2020, more than 1,000 front-line constable positions were vacant, representing 26% of the total front-line constable positions. These are very serious operational shortcomings.

Why is this serious problem with policing not being addressed? Why is the Government of Canada instead so ideologically fixated on repealing minimum sentences even though crime on our streets is growing? Those are issues that the Senate should examine.

In terms of RCMP vacancies, cadets for the force are recruited into training cohorts called troops, each of which typically includes 32 cadets. Between 30 and 50 troops should be trained per year, which would allow for the addition of about 800 to 1,200 new officers every year.

We have statistics that for the RCMP alone in 2018-19 — just as an example — there were more than 8,000 applications to join the force. So in one year alone, there were about eight times as many applicants as there were training positions. If this is the case, why is recruit output apparently not keeping pace with the number of applications? Why is this such a challenge? Are we training a sufficient number of officers to even replace those who are leaving? If not, why not?

These are very specific questions that any Senate inquiry should consider.

We know that the current waiting list to get into the RCMP is long. Some applicants speak about waiting a year, two years or even three years after they apply. Why is the wait so long? What are the main problems with RCMP recruiting? Is it mostly a problem of training capacity at RCMP Depot Division? Why are the bureaucratic hurdles as cumbersome as they appear to be? Has RCMP recruiting drifted too far away from merit and meeting the force’s most urgent operational requirements?

There appears to be no shortage of applicants from Canada’s many demographic communities. We know, for example, that of more than 8,000 applicants in 2018-19, 1,476 self-identified as visible minority applicants, 357 identified as Indigenous and 1,489 were women. Yet, somehow there are still serious personnel shortages within the RCMP. Why is that?

Canadians would immediately understand the importance of honestly addressing and answering those questions.

Colleagues, we need to remember the immense dangers that our police officers are facing each and every day. When Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala of the Ontario Provincial Police was murdered just after Christmas last year, he was the fifth police officer murdered in Canada in the fall of 2022.

Then we heard the terrible news concerning the deaths of Constables Travis Jordan and Brett Ryan of the Edmonton Police Service. In April, Sergeant Maureen Breau of the Sûreté du Québec was murdered when she responded to a call. And now we have the tragic death of yet another Ontario Provincial Police officer, Sergeant Eric Mueller, in Bourget, just east of Ottawa. Two other officers were wounded.

This is an unprecedented and terrible situation. My condolences go out to the family and friends of Sergeant Eric Mueller, especially as the funeral procession and service were held earlier today. Please know that our thoughts and prayers are with you, with all of the OPP officers and the entire community of eastern Ontario as you mourn the loss of a dedicated man — a man of service.

In 2021, only two officers were murdered in Canada, but in just the past several months, nine officers have been murdered and another RCMP officer, Constable Harvinder Singh Dhami, died in a collision while responding to a call.

The rise in criminal violence in Canada, the overcrowded conditions that confront our front-line officers and the increasing attacks on our police officers are the issues that should concern us the most.

I’ll make no mistake. I applaud Senator Harder for his sentiment and concerns, but in my view it would be more productive if we focused on the very immediate policing problems that Canadians face.

After that, if need be, we can get to questions of organization. But let’s start by being honest about the real policing challenges that are confronting Canadians every day of the week.

Thank you.

Hon. Peter Harder: Senator Plett, would you take a question?