SECU Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, May 10, 2018
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Good morning, everyone.
Before I gavel the meeting to order, I invite everyone to stand for a moment's silence, because this is the point when our good friend Gord Brown's funeral starts. If you would, please join me for a moment of silence.
This meeting now comes to order.
As our main witness, for the third time this week—it must be because he enjoys it so much—we have Minister Goodale.
I'll let Minister Goodale introduce his colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sure we would all want to reflect, on this particular day, upon the loss of Mr. Brown and the impact it has had on all members of the House of Commons, on all sides. I send my particular condolences to members of the Conservative Party, of which Mr. Brown was a very distinguished member.
As a side comment, I note that in recent days I've had the opportunity to talk on trade-related matters to a prominent American in the field of international trade, Mr. Robert Zoellick, who is a former U.S. trade representative and a distinguished American official in previous administrations. He observed that he had come to know Mr. Brown in Canada-U.S. relations and in fact had had the opportunity to visit with him in Gananoque, where Mr. Zoellick has some other connections. Mr. Brown left a very large footprint, and one that is much respected.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me back today.
Before I begin, I also want to take a moment to recognize all the people across this country who are affected by spring flooding in Canada, particularly in New Brunswick, but also in Kashechewan in northern Ontario and in various parts of British Columbia.
Members of the Canadian Coast Guard, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Rangers, Transport Canada, the RCMP, and others have been engaged in providing assistance. I'm sure that all members of this committee in particular would want to join me in expressing our gratitude for the hard work of all these intervenors from the federal departments and agencies, working in close collaboration with provincial and local authorities and agencies. We wish them well in the important work they're involved in. We're certainly hoping that everyone stays safe.
I'm joined today by some key people from within the public safety portfolio. You are very familiar with Malcolm Brown, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. Brenda Lucki, the new Commissioner of the RCMP, is back with us for the second time in one week. John Ossowski is the President of the Canada Border Services Agency.
Jennifer Oades is the new Chair of the Parole Board of Canada. The board is busy this week in Ottawa, involved in training sessions for members of the board as they go about their important work across the country. We also have Anne Kelly, Interim Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, and Charles Lowson, Acting Deputy Director of Operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
[Translation]
I am very proud of the essential role all of these leaders and their organizations play in protecting Canadians and our rights and freedoms.
[English]
Some of these people were with me recently at the G7 meetings of foreign and security ministers in Toronto. Canada was proud to host that particular gathering, and we look forward to hosting the upcoming leaders' summit next month in Charlevoix. I am pleased to say that G7 countries stand absolutely united in dealing with the various security threats we all face, from terrorism and human trafficking to cybercrime and beyond. Canada also took the opportunity to promote gender equality and women's rights at those meetings in Toronto. Gender equality and security absolutely go hand in hand. That's a top priority for our G7 presidency, and an overarching theme for all G7 discussions in the meetings we are hosting this year.
Mr. Chair, the skilled women and men of the public safety portfolio ensure that we are all well placed to respond to evolving threats. Our parliamentary responsibility is making sure they have the resources to do so. That, of course, brings me to the topic of this meeting, which is the main estimates for 2018-19.
Portfolio-wide, the total authority sought here will result in a net increase of $857.2 million. That is 9.8% more than in the main estimates last year. I'll touch briefly on just a few of the highlights.
First, speaking about the G7, these estimates include $233.5 million for G7 security across the public safety portfolio. Last time I was here to discuss the estimates, I mentioned that we would be glad to provide security briefings about the G7 to Mr. Paul-Hus and Mr. Dubé. I understand those briefings have happened.
Work is well under way in coordination with provincial and municipal authorities to ensure that everyone in Charlevoix and the surrounding areas is safe and secure. I am also aware that there will likely be people engaging in demonstrations during the G7. Our government will always defend the democratic rights of Canadians to demonstrate and protest, provided that it happens peacefully and within the bounds of the law.
Canadians also expect police officers to maintain public safety while respecting the law and professional codes of conduct. To that end, I would welcome the expected observers from Amnesty International and the Ligue des droits et libertés.
The main estimates also include an increase of $48.6 million for CBSA. That funding will go to immigration and security screening, border processing, and inland enforcement. This is part of our commitment to ensure that the border remains secure while open to the expeditious flow of legitimate trade and travel.
Border Services officers are professionals who do a difficult job, prioritizing security while treating people with humanity and compassion. I thank them and members of the RCMP for being so adept at handling what has recently been a very challenging border situation. It is, in large part, thanks to the RCMP and CBSA, as well as their colleagues in IRCC, that public safety is being maintained, that Canadian law is being applied, and that our international obligations are being upheld.
The estimates also include $41.1 million in increased funding for the first nations policing program. This is part of the investment we announced in January of almost $300 million over five years, which is the largest increase in funding for the first nations policing program since its inception almost 30 years ago.
I am pleased to report that of the 42 agreements with first nations that have been due for renewal, 29 are either signed or in the very final stages of completion, and officials are working very hard at the remainder.
There's also an increase of $18.9 million in funding for the correctional service, and another $1.3 million for Public Safety Canada, to manage vulnerable offenders appropriately and effectively within our corrections system. That refers particularly to people with mental illness, as well as indigenous offenders and women. We know that our correctional system needs to be world-class, at both security and rehabilitation, because that is the best way of reducing recidivism and keeping communities safe.
There is an increase of $20 million for the national disaster mitigation program, to increase resilience so natural disasters don't cause as much damage as they might otherwise.
There is $19.1 million to build capacity to address drug-impaired driving, which includes officer training. There is $23.4 million for the memorial grant program. This is a new program that will provide $300,000 to the families of police officers, firefighters, and paramedics who have died as a direct result of their duties. This program is effective as of this past April 1.
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is, as you know, a very large portfolio. I am aware that your committee has had a full plate recently, too, studying the correction system as well as national security legislation, and you've now begun studying Bill C-71, related to firearms.
I cannot promise that the pace is going to slow down. In all likelihood, it will go in the opposite direction and get faster. I can promise, however, that our government will continue to prioritize public safety while at the same ensuring that Canadian rights and freedoms are well protected. It is the men and women at this table who represent the leadership of the public safety portfolio, and everyone they represent, who make such a huge contribution every day and work so hard to make sure that Canadians are safe and that their rights and freedoms are protected.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister.
I just remind colleagues that time stands still for no one, and we have a clock.
That said, we have Mr. Spengemann for seven minutes.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to start by echoing and expressing my own appreciation for the opening sentiments in memory of our colleague Gordon Brown, particularly as his funeral is taking place at the very moment when this committee is gathered.
Minister Goodale, it's good to have you back with your senior team. I'd like to start by asking you to elaborate on the status of CBSA's contingency planning. In the main estimates, is there specific funding and are there resources being allocated to manage the flow of irregular migration at our borders? Could you update the committee on what other measures, if any, are being taken to address this situation at the moment?
CBSA is front and centre in coping with the unusual situations that have existed at the border. In response to them, CBSA made a number of internal resource reallocations last year, but in budget 2018 a specific pool of funds was set aside for CBSA, IRCC, the RCMP, and others to make sure the capacity was there to deal with the border situation as it might evolve this year.
Mr. Ossowski is with me, and he has the greatest direct perspective on the resources that are becoming available and what those resources would be used for. I would ask John to comment on this.
Thank you, Minister.
As the minister mentioned, the budget proposed $72 million for CBSA over two years—about $49.6 million for this fiscal year, I believe, and the balance for next fiscal year. That's basically to allow us to look at the lessons learned from last year and do proper contingency planning for a surge that may happen.
We've done a lot of on-the-ground work with the RCMP and with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to make sure that we have the right facilities and the right processes in place to manage the flows as they approach us.
We're getting around 70 to 80 people a day, so it's very manageable. I had about 169 people on site last night who were working their way through the process. I would say it's very manageable right now.
Thank you for that.
Minister Goodale, the memorial grant program that you briefly addressed in your opening remarks is one that is certainly very much appreciated by the community of first responders in my riding, Mississauga—Lakeshore. Could you take a moment to go a bit further into the details of the way the program is structured and how families would apply for it? Also, with respect to the money allocated in the mains, how is the division of funds thought through as to what is available for grants and what is for administration of that program?
On the latter point, about the division of resources between administration and actual grant funding, I'd ask Mr. Brown to comment.
The point is simply this, Mr. Spengemann. We call upon the tri-services, as they're referred to—fire, police, and paramedics—to do extraordinary things. This memorial grant is something that the three services have been arguing for, probably for 20 to 25 years, as they come to the Hill every year to make their representations to government and to members of Parliament.
The House of Commons passed a motion on this topic about five years ago, one that crossed all party lines, expressing support for the principle. When I became the minister two and a half years ago, I was determined to get this into law so that, at whatever level a firefighter or a police officer or a paramedic is functioning, whether municipal, provincial, or federal, if the worst should happen and they should lose their lives in the course of performing their duties, the Government of Canada would, through this program, provide a tax-free payment of $300,000 to their families to acknowledge their service and to help, to the extent that money can help, in the difficult transition to the loss of a loved one.
We are in the process of public competition for an administrator of the program, an outside firm that has expertise in dealing with programs of this kind. This administrator would provide the liaison with the first responder community, providing information, setting up a website to assist them with information to handle the initial influx of applications, and so forth.
Hopefully we will not have many applications, but sadly we will have a flow. We've budgeted the funding on the basis of an actuarial analysis of what we might likely expect and on past experience. The effective date is April 1, so any deaths that occur after that date will be covered by the program. The administrator will handle the initial contact with the families, but it will be the Department of Public Safety that makes the final call with respect to eligibility for the program.
We want this to be smooth, generous, and compassionate, because that's what it's intended for: to assist those who have suffered the terrible loss of a loved one who has lost his or her life in the line of duty.
Unfortunately, Mr. Spengemann's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul-Hus, you have seven minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, thank you for your kind words about my colleague Gord Brown. That is very kind.
Today we learned from a briefing of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada that the infamous street gang known as MS-13 intends to take advantage of the situation created at the border by our government and Justin Trudeau's irresponsible Tweet in January 2017. The members of this gang want to create cells in Montreal and Vancouver and increase their presence in Toronto. As you know, this is a gang whose criminal activity involves human trafficking and sexual slavery for prostitution purposes.
Before MS-13 criminal gangs begin to terrorize Canadian communities, will you finally take steps to protect our borders and solve the issue resulting from the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States?
That is my first question.
[English]
Mr. Paul-Hus, obviously the activities of human traffickers or human smugglers are of grave concern to the government, regardless of its political persuasion, and I'm sure to all members of Parliament. Over the course of the last several budgets, we have set aside new funds that are specifically aimed at all forms of gender-based violence, including smuggling and trafficking.
[Translation]
I understand, Minister but I would like us to talk about the current situation at the border. We are talking about budgets here. There is a $48 million increase in CBSA expenditures. That is good, but we have to take developments at the border into account. Canadians are used to seeing women and children crossing the border on television; however, the situation is different now. We've had this information for a long time and today we heard it officially; there are really dangerous criminal gangs that want to enter Canada.
Does your government intend to take steps to modify the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S.?
If not, will funds be included in the budgets, or will measures be taken to allow us, once criminals have been identified, to arrest and incarcerate them and keep them in prison?
[English]
That's exactly what happens, Mr. Paul-Hus. As I've said many times in the House of Commons, whenever someone comes across the border in a fashion that is circumventing the normal port of entry, when they come across the border in that irregular way, they are immediately arrested. In the first instance, they are arrested by the RCMP, and at a later stage, they're transferred to the jurisdiction of the CBSA. They are identified, according to biographic and biometric information, and all of that is checked against our own Canadian databases and American databases for everything that deals with criminality, an immigration problem, or a security issue, so that if a criminal is identified in that process, they are turned over to the police for the normal processing of criminal behaviour.
[Translation]
You know, as I do, that often these people arrive without papers precisely to avoid being identified. If there is no information in the U.S. data base, there is no way of identifying them. In that situation, do immigration rules force us to release them?
[English]
Mr. Paul-Hus, if there is any doubt about their identity, any question about criminality, any issue related to a risk to the public, or any doubt that they might not present themselves in the normal course for subsequent proceedings, they can be, and they are, detained. If officials at the border, which includes the RCMP in the first instance and CBSA and IRCC later on, feel there is any doubt about any of those matters, they are detained to ensure public safety.
[Translation]
That is our hope.
I have a second question, Minister.
For several weeks, when we ask questions during question period, we've been attacked by you or your minister colleagues who reply that the Conservatives reduced the budget of the CBSA by $300 million over the past years.
I have here a document from the Library of Parliament that says precisely the opposite: from 2012 to 2015, the Conservatives increased the budget by $300 million, and your government has decreased it since 2015, except for this year when it increased it.
Can you confirm that it is wrong to say that Conservatives reduced this budget by $300 million, and that the opposite is true? I have the document here.
[English]
I am more than happy to discuss those numbers with you, Mr. Paul-Hus, because there is the departmental performance report for CBSA for the year 2014-15. We all recall who was in government in 2014-15, when the government of the day was making very proud statements about how they were cutting the budget for CBSA by $148 million, and that the cuts would continue in 2015-16 and 2017-18. That's the departmental performance report of CBSA, as filed in Parliament.
[Translation]
[English]
I would note that, in addition to the funding that's referred to in these estimates, there has been additional funding—
[Translation]
[English]
—approved for CBSA, for a broad variety of initiatives, to make sure that we're backfilling the losses that the agency sadly incurred under the previous administration.
[Translation]
Thank you, Minister. I have to move quickly because the chair is keeping us to our allotted time. However, it will be my pleasure to give you the document. You will be able to see that we did our homework.
[English]
Yes, sir.
[Translation]
I have one last question.
Let's talk about the deportation of illegal refugees. We learned that last year 26,000 people had illegally crossed the border. Last Monday in Montreal you told us that 90% of these people were not granted asylum.
Do you have the necessary budgets to deport 24,000 people? I know that when immigration refuses to deal with them this falls into your court. You have the mandate, with the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, to send people back where they came from.
How much will this cost?
[English]
The legislation says that if a person is determined to be inadmissible, they are to be removed as quickly as possible. That is exactly what CBSA strives to do in every case. Part of the new money we've referred to here would increase the capacity of CBSA to move forward on those removals.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul-Hus, your seven minutes are up.
[English]
Mr. Davies, welcome to the committee. You have seven minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to express our condolences to all colleagues, particularly my colleagues in the Conservative Party, on the passing of Mr. Brown. He will be missed.
I also want to take this opportunity to offer, on behalf of our party, our warmest congratulations to Commissioner Lucki and our best wishes for her as she takes on this important role. I must say, for the record, that I had the good fortune of attending high school with Commissioner Lucki and, out of an abundance of chivalry and to set the record straight, that I am older.
Minister, thank you for being with us.
The departmental plan indicates a planned decrease in funding related to the grant to compensate RCMP members injured in the performance of their duties in 2019-20 as compared with 2018-19. Can you explain the reason for that decrease?
I would have to ask Mr. Brown or Ms. Lucki to comment on that. Obviously, the funding is related to the need, and the force would always want to be in a position to provide the appropriate support for those who are injured in the course of their duties.
As you know, these estimates provide only a snapshot at a certain location in time. If additional funding is required to deal with a need that has not been anticipated in these estimates, that would be accommodated in the supplementaries.
Thank you. That's good to hear, if that unfortunate event does come to pass.
The departmental plan also indicates a long-term reduction in staffing for the Security Intelligence Review Committee, reducing the number of full-time positions from 24.5 in 2018-19 to 13.5 in 2020-21. It is also indicated on the government's website that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency will replace the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.
What kind of budget is NSIRA expected to have, compared with SIRC and the CSE, to ensure that we are not weakening and diluting our national security review process and oversight by giving the new agency a much broader mandate and more departments to oversee without the commensurate resources to match its new mandate?
Mr. Davies, I would love to answer that question in excruciating detail. The problem is that the review function is now being vested in the Privy Council Office. That's obviously to avoid any conflict of interest with the operational agencies. The principle is that the review function is separated from the operational function so that the review can be independent, impartial, and comprehensive.
I can tell you that, as this new structure was devised, we took great care to determine to what extent the new review function could be covered by a transition from the old review agencies, and to what extent there would be a new burden on the new review agency, because its mandate would be broader and there would be interdepartmental connections.
Thank you.
I want to turn to the impending cannabis legalization. If you believe the government's statements about July 1, then we're a matter of seven weeks away from cannabis being legalized in this country.
We New Democrats have been raising the issue of having an agreement with the U.S. to protect Canadian citizens from peril as they approach the border. This week, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman, said:
I actually think Canada has to negotiate this out. This is not something [where] one person should be making...individual decisions. I think CBSA and...U.S. Customs and Border Protection...need to have an understanding as to how best [to] approach it.... We really need to figure this out more government to government...so that you don’t have one-off operations...[at] 117 border crossings.
This was followed up on yesterday by U.S. immigration lawyer Len Saunders from Blaine, Washington, who warned that without an agreement, this approach is dangerous and “is going to create many, many, many border crossing issues for many, many, many people”. Canadians could be barred for life from entering the United States for simply admitting that they've consumed cannabis, legally or otherwise.
Minister, do you have an agreement between Canada and the United States that will protect Canadians and their travel and business interests once cannabis is legalized in Canada?
Mr. Davies, the dialogue between Canada and the United States has been ongoing on many issues, but specifically on this issue, for quite some time. We have wanted to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security and all the agencies that function under DHS are well aware in great detail of how the Canadian law will change and why that change is appropriate. The flow of information has been going back and forth very effectively.
One thing we point out to the United States is that cannabis crossing the international boundary in either direction is illegal today and will remain illegal after Bill C-45 is enacted. Nothing changes in that regard.
I don't mean to interrupt you, Minister, but I'm talking about the consumption, not the transfer of cannabis across borders. If I admit that I've smoked marijuana in the past, and that's against U.S. federal law, can you assure me and other Canadians that once it's legal here, this will not affect my ability to enter the United States, yes or no?
You should always answer questions at the border truthfully. The best advice one can give is that Canadians should be aware, when they come to the border, that they are entering a country that has a different federal law. You should not engage in behaviour that would provoke or prompt an American border officer to be suspicious about your behaviour.
Thank you, Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Davies. I am somewhat curious as to what your high school yearbook says about who was most likely to succeed.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Ms. Dabrusin is next, for seven minutes, please.
Thank you, Minister, for coming here today.
I was happy that you highlighted in your opening statement the additional funding that's going to first nations policing. Could you perhaps talk a bit more about what is being done with first nations policing and why it's important? We're clearly making some significant contributions to increase that program. What's the benefit of this program, and where do we see it going?
The benefits are very clearly proper public safety and proper policing in all parts of Canada. Regardless of where Canadians live, they should be entitled to expect equality of service from the police agencies that have jurisdiction.
The existing first nations policing program, if memory serves me correctly, covers about 430 communities, and that represents some 400,000 people. The increase we have made in funding is the largest contribution to that program since it was first invented in about 1991. The funding would allow for improvement in the officer ratio, and so for an increased number of police officers; better pay for those police officers; better working conditions for the police officers; and safer conditions, so they can deliver their services to the communities in which they operate in a safe and secure manner.
The program has done good work in the past. The statistics show that public safety is higher and crime rates are lower in those communities that are served by the first nations policing program. We can, however, always do better. The local chiefs of police and the first nations chiefs have indicated to us repeatedly that the program needs to be upgraded. They need more officers, and their officers need to be paid on par with other police forces in the country. They need to have better equipment, operating procedures, and so forth. They also need to have their infrastructure upgraded.
We've been working on all these fronts with the first nations leadership nationally and with individual communities. We are now nearing the end of the negotiations, community by community, to implement the new funding. It will flow over the course of the next five years.
There are two very good things about this funding that are new and different, apart from its being more. First of all, going forward the funding will be indexed; there is an inflation factor built in to protect against rising costs. Second, the commitment is not just for the first five years but is ongoing at this level.
We may well need to negotiate improvements and increases to the program on top of this base funding. This is now all in the base, and it is on a go-forward basis so that it doesn't expire when the next five years come to an end. It has longevity attached to it.
Thank you very much for that.
The other thing I noted when you made your opening remarks was about funding in the main estimates for vulnerable offenders in the correctional system. As you know, this committee recently studied indigenous incarceration specifically.
Could you speak to what this money is going to go to? How is it going to help our vulnerable offenders?
The funding that has been identified in the last couple of budgets, part of which is specifically referred to in the estimates, is aimed in particular toward indigenous offenders, toward those with mental health issues, and toward women in the correctional system.
The correctional service has been working very hard to make sure that its services to vulnerable population groups are increased and are more effective at treating those groups of people appropriately within the system, increasing their chances of rehabilitation and therefore the likelihood that they can be ultimately reintegrated into society in a safe manner.
This is Anne Kelly's first opportunity to appear before this committee.
Anne, I wonder whether you have a word or two to add about the innovative approach that the correctional service is taking in dealing with those vulnerable groups—indigenous people, women, and people with mental health issues.
Thank you for the question.
As I've mentioned before this committee, one innovative thing we've done is to establish aboriginal intervention centres. What this means is that aboriginal offenders will get earlier access to programming. Once they successfully complete the program, there's a review of their security classification. What we're noticing is an increase in the number of offenders who are getting a minimum security classification and therefore are going to lower security. The other thing is that, because of their accessing the program earlier, we hope their cases are going to be prepared for presentation for decision by the Parole Board of Canada.
When I looked at the main estimates, I noticed that there is additional funding for the security infrastructure program as well. I've heard considerable interest about that in my community, so I want to thank the minister. We have only 20 seconds, so I'll leave it at that, but thank you for having that extra funding. I'm happy to see it.
It's a good program. It has served well, and now that we've expanded the terms and made the program more broadly publicized, the demand level has gone up. In future years, we'll have to examine whether or not the allocations we've budgeted so far are sufficient to meet the demand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the committee's taking the time at the beginning of this meeting to remember Gord Brown—and your comments as well, Minister—given that his life celebration is occurring as we speak. Thank you for that.
Minister, my colleague talked about MS-13s using the loophole that exists now to illegally cross the border. You mentioned that you use biometrics and all the means possible to identify them and see whether they have any records. I appreciate that.
We know, however, from CBSA's on-the-ground officers, that the biometric system is broken. It's not working right now. As we speak today, it doesn't work, and they're not being trained on how to use the live scan devices. Apparently, there are more than 10,000 live scan fingerprints in a holding tank or a repository that are not associated with any person.
If that's the case, how are we sure that the illegal border crossers are not posing a threat to Canadian security?
Mr. Motz, the process used at the border by both the RCMP and CBSA is intended to be, and is, strong and secure, based on the best information and technology available. The statistics we have accumulated over the course of the last year of experience, when the irregular movement has been most pronounced, would indicate that the number of cases where there is a criminal issue involved is very small.
Maybe I could ask Mr. Ossowski to comment further, because his officers are responsible for administering this.
No, that's fine. The number of those who have crossed to date might be small, but we know that there are criminal elements that will exploit this and are exploiting illegal border crossers. I'll move on.
We know that the costs with illegal border crossers are extensive. We know from immigration estimates that each illegal border crosser, while wading through the process, receives $15,000 to $20,000 annually in government handouts. There are additional costs on top of that.
The reports from you and Minister Hussen suggest that 90% of these will be deported, and you've indicated that you try to have them deported as quickly as possible. However, CBSA and Immigration and Citizenship tell us that deportation can take years. We have more than 14,000 people on a deportation inventory already, not even counting the illegal border crossers.
I'm curious about a couple of things. First, how are you going to pay the more than 300 million taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of illegal border crossers? Those are just the 2017 numbers; they're going to be higher in 2018. Will those who are being ordered deported continue to receive social assistance while they drag out the system?
Mr. Motz, part of what you've asked falls within the jurisdiction of IRCC under their settlement processes. As for the security issues, which are my responsibility, we have calculated as carefully as possible what the increased requirements are for CBSA and the RCMP, and the funds that were announced in the budget, some of which are included in these estimates, are adequate, we believe, on the basis of what we know now, to cover the incremental costs for policing and border security. Those are the things that are covered in these estimates.
In line with that, we know the inventory that exists for deportation currently, without the illegal border crossers. We've been told that they can't get to them because of resources. It's expensive. If they leave voluntarily, it's about $1,500. Depending on where they're from and where they have to be taken to, it could be $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, or $10,000 to remove one person ordered deported.
If that's the case, where is the money going to come from? Is CBSA properly resourced to deal with the current backlog of inventory deportation orders? Then we have potentially tens of thousands more who are going to be ordered deported.
Excuse me, Minister. That's an important question, but unfortunately Mr. Motz has left you no time to answer it. I'm sure you'll circle back to it, because it is an important question.
Yes, it certainly is. There is a lot of innuendo buried in that question as well, which demands a very vigorous response.
Thank you, Chair.
Minister, you've already talked about the memorial grant program. On Friday night, the Halton Regional Police Association organized a “battle of the badges” that had public safety officers boxing to raise money for Camp FACES, which is for families of first responders who have died in the line of duty and by suicide. On behalf of the thousand people who were there, and the many others in my riding and across Canada, I want to thank you sincerely for putting that program in place. It means a lot to those families.
You make a point, Ms. Damoff, that I think is important. A public safety officer who has died as a result of suicide is also included.
That's wonderful. I wasn't aware of that, Minister. Thank you.
Did you want to respond to Mr. Motz? I have a question, but did you want to take the opportunity to respond to his? It's up to you.
Mr. Ossowski has some responses about the effectiveness of the work of CBSA.
There is a provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in section 133, that regardless of how a person has crossed the border, the first obligation of the Government of Canada is to determine that person's status. If they are determined to be legitimate refugees seeking asylum and entitled to the protection of Canada, then they proceed through the system. If they are determined not to be in need of Canada's protection, then they are removed. The law obliges the government, first of all, to make that determination. Is their asylum claim legitimate or not? We are meticulously following the law to make sure that we answer that question properly, first and foremost.
I would note that section 133 is the law today, and it has been the law for the last two and a half years. It has been the law for the previous decade, and it was not changed by the previous government.
Minister, are Canadians safe? There seems to be innuendo here that Canadians are not safe. Are you confident that our security agencies are doing their fine work and that Canadians are safe?
We are so fortunate in this country to have a border services agency such as CBSA, a police force such as the RCMP, and all the municipal and local counterparts they work with so effectively to serve Canadians with distinction. Yes, indeed, they accomplish standards of safety and security in this country that are among the highest in the world.
Thank you, Minister.
I have only two minutes left, and I have a question about the opportunity for inmates in correctional facilities to get training and work.
Something that was restored in corrections is the penitentiary farms; there was $2.4 million for that. I had the opportunity to visit, in both Edmonton and Winnipeg, corrections facilities where they talked about the importance of this type of training and work. In fact, in Edmonton I visited the CORCAN facility that was shut down by the previous government.
Could you talk a little about these programs and also about whether there is any opportunity to restore these CORCAN facilities and provide job training for inmates? We know that their success on the outside is dependent on their receiving this kind of training and being able to find work when they are released from prison.
We have made the commitment, Ms. Damoff, to re-establish prison farms at the two locations where they previously existed around Kingston. That initiative is under way. We hope to learn from that initiative about the proper way to go about this, and about their effectiveness and value in terms of rehabilitation within the system. Based on what we learn from that experience around Kingston, we would look forward to expanding this program elsewhere in the country.
In terms of job training and preparations to re-enter society, that's a core function of the correctional service. Obviously, public safety is job number one, but preparing people to re-engage with society in a crime-free way after sentences have been served is also a major objective of the CSC.
Anne, do you have anything further you'd like to say on that topic?
If she does, she's going to have to work it into another answer. Again, I regret that time respects no one.
Mr. Paul-Hus, you have five minutes, please.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, once again we saw the budget costs related to the migrant crisis that followed our Prime Minister's unfortunate message on Twitter. Quebec asked the federal government for a reimbursement of $146 million, just for 2017, because of the social costs this has generated. Immigration-related costs are well known.
On your side, if you consider all of the public security agencies, what budget increase is needed now simply to manage the migrant crisis?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Through the course of last year, the agencies, principally CBSA and the RCMP, were able to reorganize their affairs in such a way that they did not require an incremental request for funding. As they approached the new fiscal year, they both advised the government that they could continue, to a certain extent, to reallocate resources, but that they were probably at the limit of the flexibility they had internally. Accordingly, in the budget, the government put forward a financial commitment—
[Translation]
[English]
—of $173 million more. Part of that is reflected in these estimates. There's more to come, but this is the beginning.
[Translation]
That's perfect. So with regard to public security, this issue has generated costs of $173 million.
As Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, do you accept that marijuana will become legal while there will be no law governing drivers in this regard?
The RCMP Commissioner is with us today. Mr. Blair can say one thing but as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, do you agree with the fact that regardless of whether Bill C-46 is ready or not, marijuana will be legalized?
[English]
Mr. Paul-Hus, the problem with impaired driving, whether it's drug-impaired of alcohol-impaired, exists today. It's already here. That's why, in Bill C-46, we have created new offences. We have provided for new funding and new technology to better deal with all forms of impaired driving, whether it's cannabis or anything else. The sooner Parliament can deal with Bill C-46, the better. It's not contingent on Bill C-45, because the problem already exists.
[Translation]
Today, because of the legislative process, Bill C-46 is delayed. However, the Prime Minister absolutely wants to legalize cannabis. In fact, I don't know why this is so urgent. So, you accept that Bill C-46 is not ready but that C-45 will come into effect.
[English]
We're anxious to see both pieces of legislation proceed. Bill C-45 corrects a problem that has existed for almost 100 years. The law with respect to cannabis in Canada has been long-standing, and for those 100 years it has been an abject failure. It has not kept marijuana out of the hands of our kids, and it has not kept the proceeds out of the hands of organized crime. Obviously, the existing law is not working. We need to change the approach. Bill C-45 changes the approach.
Bill C-46 deals with the larger and different problem of all forms of impaired driving, whether it's drug-impaired or alcohol-impaired, creating new offences, new technologies, and new techniques to keep our roads safer, and it needs to be passed promptly, too.
[Translation]
Thank you, Minister.
To conclude, I'd like to go back to the budget cuts. You are maintaining your position and repeating what you answer every day in the House of Commons, which is that the Conservatives reduced the CBSA budget by $300 million, despite a report from the Library of Parliament, which was just made public and is still warm, which states the opposite.
Are you maintaining your position?
[English]
I maintain that position. I would be glad to see the library's opinion.
The fact of the matter is that over the last five years, the previous government cut very close to $400 million from CBSA, and very close to $500 million from the RCMP.
Thank you very much, Mr. Paul-Hus.
We started a little late. Mr. Picard, you can finish off with the final five minutes, please.
[Translation]
I would like to address the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The departmental plan intends to correct some issues concerning money laundering and the whole question of financial crime.
I would like you to tell us what the issues are that we are facing currently, and what recommendations you will make to improve the situation to fight money laundering and financial crime.
[English]
Monsieur Picard, these organizations are very sophisticated in the way they organize themselves, the way they hide their activities, and the way they launder their proceeds. They're constantly changing and morphing into different forms and shapes, and different types of activities.
The RCMP and all the agencies it works with need to be just as sophisticated, just as nimble and agile, to detect and collect the evidence, and to prosecute the offences that are committed. That requires inter-agency co-operation. You are very expert yourself in the type of integrated teams that need to be drawn together to deal with money laundering and the activities of organized crime.
We also need to make sure we have first-rate technology, because the criminals use it and we need to have that degree of sophistication in law enforcement. We need the coordination and collaboration, and we need the sophisticated technology. We also need a new generation of police officer, who may not have the style or the aptitude that is traditional in law enforcement but does have a skill set in relation to financial crime, forensic accounting, the use of the digital economy, and so forth. That implies a recruitment effort by the RCMP that goes beyond the conventional.
If I could, I'll stop here and ask Commissioner Lucki to address that matter particularly. She was the commander of the training division in Regina, Depot Division, and she has some very important ideas on the recruitment of civilian resources that have the particular expertise the force will need in order to deal with these sophisticated crime organizations.
As mentioned at the committee earlier this week, we are looking at innovative ways of attracting the civilian aspect with the specialized resources, both in commercial crime and money laundering, as an example. At the training academy, we get an overview of the background of each cadet. If they have a background in any of those areas, we have a specific staffing officer who deals with a federal-type mandate, and they review that. If there's an opportunity to streamline that person into that area, we take every opportunity to do that.
[Translation]
Because of the complexity of financial transactions and the enterprises that take part in these illegal transactions, the training provided to the RCMP is not sufficient to acquire the expertise needed in finance, brokering or business in general. On the one hand, we must recruit civilian experts from the outside. On the other, there is a salary constraint; we have to make sure that we can attract those experts and keep them in the RCMP.
[English]
On behalf of the committee, Minister, I appreciate your appearance.
With that, we will suspend for a couple of minutes and allow the minister to leave.
Thank you.
The meeting is back in order.
Colleagues, I don't particularly enjoy cutting off answers or questions, so take a look at the chair from time to time, just so you have some feel for the time on the clock.
I'm assuming there are no further opening statements, Mr. Brown.
I'll just go to Ms. Damoff for the first round of seven minutes.
I think Mr. Picard is in the second round. We're going to switch. He can continue on, and then I'll take his seven minutes.
Thank you.
Let's keep talking about my favourite subject, money laundering.
[Translation]
When our exchange was interrupted, I was asking a question about the difficulty of recruiting expertise from the outside.
We have to go beyond the training that is available at Depot Division. We need practical expertise and knowledge that cannot be provided there.
I read in a recent article that thanks to the Toronto model, we are slowly starting to develop a recruitment system that is more open to outside expertise. This allows us to provide to organizations such as the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams, in the case of financial crimes, equivalent expertise to counter organizations that have no problem hiring experts and finding the necessary knowledge, human resources and technology.
[English]
To add to what I was saying earlier, we do recruit specialized civilian resources. We have been successful in both Vancouver and Toronto with specific crown prosecutors, for example, who are trained to deal with those specific crimes. We bring them in specifically for that. We also work closely in partnership with financial institutions when we need certain specialties. We definitely need to recruit continually in those specialized areas for exactly those laws.
[Translation]
The arrival of the Integrated Market Enforcement Teams was the right response to the challenge; the integration concept allowed different organizations, both provincial and federal, to work together and reach better results in specific investigations, as well as a better distribution of the tasks to be accomplished.
This still remains work that is done in relative isolation, in that there are many more agencies involved in investigating financial crime, including money laundering. I'm thinking, in particular, of the Canada Revenue Agency, the Department of Industry, and the Competition Bureau.
In fact, for each file, there would be reason to work on greater integration. This could possibly allow a more practical distribution of duties, mandates and investigations. The various parts of an investigation could also be distributed among the various agencies.
With regard to financial crimes and money laundering, aside from hiring extremely expensive resources, how is the RCMP developing its work model to improve things, be more effective and integrate better with other agencies and federal and provincial departments?
[English]
I can't speak to the specific working model, but what I can say is that there is integration with other government departments that have such specialties, as well as other police agencies. We have an integrated approach, so if they have some specialized resource that we can draw upon, we will. With that integration, we try to reduce the redundancies.
We have an ongoing working group at the federal level to develop and establish exactly that best approach that you're speaking about.
[Translation]
Thank you.
I would now like to talk about customs and events related to irregular immigration, since this is a very popular topic.
According to messages we hear from here and there, from media or political organizations, it seems that this summer we will be facing as big a challenge as we did last year and that we will have the same problems. I think we can draw a number of lessons from what we went through last year.
What did you learn from last year's experience to help you adapt your work methods at the border this year? Not only must you show the same efficiency and give Canadians the same assurance regarding security at the border, but we have to see that your approach has evolved. You have to be able to meet people who arrive at the border and process their files. Is that how you see things?
[English]
[Translation]
Thank you for the question.
[English]
First of all, I would say that we learned a lot from last summer. It came up very quickly. Jacques, my vice-president of operations, remembers August 9 very well, when 470 people showed up. We've done a lot with our colleagues in the RCMP, Immigration, and Public Safety to work on our contingency planning for the summer. We are expecting about the same volume. It could be more, although it's a bit of a black art to predict what might happen. That has led us to look at the processes in terms of making sure we're as efficient and as effective as possible.
I want to assure the committee members that no one leaves a port of entry until we're satisfied that they do not pose a risk. All the criminality checks are done, and no one leaves until we're satisfied that there is no risk to the public. If there is something we cannot resolve over a short period of time, there might be a detention involved until we resolve that, but no one leaves the port of entry until those issues are resolved to our satisfaction.
[Translation]
The only message about pressure on human resources comes from the same source, that is to say human resources and officials.
Could you give us some perspective on the pressure that border service officers are feeling, and tell us whether the constant and repeated demands to increase financial and human resources reflect such an urgent need that the safety of Canadians is being jeopardized? And does this lead to poor management of the people who arrive at the border?
[English]
[Translation]
Thank you for the question.
[English]
Last year, one of the things we did very effectively was to rotate people in and out on four-week to six-week assignments, so we were able to maintain our pace in other areas. Quite frankly, if you go there and talk to my officers, you'll see that they've enjoyed the change of pace and the experience. It's something unusual for some of them from the smaller ports of entry, who might not have been involved in this kind of work, and so they're learning new skills. That said, it is always a strain in terms of the logistics of moving people around and making sure that I have capacity where I need it at any given point in time.
I am going to continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Picard.
When migrants are released and head for the Montreal region, for instance, or elsewhere in Quebec, is it always the RCMP that does the follow-up on these migrants, or is it the responsibility of the Sûreté du Québec?
It can happen that a person who has been authorized to live in Montreal does not show up for the interview with the immigration officer who has convened them. We know that currently, 10% to 12% of people do not show up for the second interview. You could say that they've been lost in the wilderness. In that case, does the Sûreté du Québec or the RCMP have the mandate to find them again?
[English]
I can take that.
As I mentioned, no one with any security issues is released. The process is that once they're released, they go further and their eligibility is determined in terms of their refugee status, ultimately ending up in a hearing before an Immigration and Refugee Board member. It's our responsibility to make sure that they show up for that hearing. We work with IRB in terms of the security screening process and the timing of that hearing, and make sure that they show up for that. If they don't show up, then we're in contact with them. If they still don't show up—there may be legitimate reasons in terms of scheduling conflicts or something—then we would start to enforce a remove order.
[Translation]
Can you confirm that last year, at least 10% of refugees requesting asylum did not attend their second interview and we have no idea where they are in Canada?
[English]
[Translation]
You are lucky if you know where the people who did not come to the interviews are located.
I have another peace of information I would like you to confirm.
I am told that when it is confirmed that people have a criminal past, or if you have suspicions about them, they are incarcerated. Last year, there were some deaths among some of the asylum seekers who were detained. I have been told that the government is exerting pressure to release as many of these people as possible in order to avoid mortality in prison.
Can you confirm that this type of pressure is actually being brought to bear?
[English]
I can give you some statistics, in terms of criminality, from last year. As you are aware, in terms of asylum seekers between ports of entry, we had 20,593 for the calendar year. In that same time frame, we had 104 cases where there was some criminality. The numbers are very low. Until we resolve that criminality, no one leaves the port of entry.
[Translation]
My next question is for the Commissioner of the RCMP.
At our meeting last Monday, you said that the RCMP was ready for the legalization of marijuana. However, as I mentioned in one of my questions to the minister earlier, Bill C-46 will not have been passed. How then can you confirm that the RCMP has everything it needs to monitor citizens?
[English]
As I mentioned earlier this week, we're in the process of increasing the capacity and training for drug recognition experts. We have approximately 10 or 12 courses scheduled for this fiscal year, and that's just the RCMP. There are several other police forces that are increasing their capacity as well.
[Translation]
Last year, when we were studying cannabis in the House of Commons, this was a major concern expressed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Even the RCMP was saying at that time that it could not be ready for July 2018.
The government is currently exerting a lot of pressure. The bill may only pass in September, finally. Last Monday, you said that you were ready, but you are doing training and we know that it takes time to train people in detection.
If the bill legalizing marijuana comes into effect on September 1, will the members of the RCMP be in a position to enforce it?
[English]
Yes, currently we have 200 drug recognition experts in the RCMP alone. I'm not sure about the total number across Canada within the municipal police forces. Obviously, in the areas where we are adjacent to those municipal police forces, we work together and share those resources. They're strategically placed throughout the country. The increase in capacity is to ensure that our ability will be even greater than it is now, because, as the minister said, it's not a new problem.
[Translation]
On the topic of detection, a project was set up last year, if I remember correctly; it was the Shiprider project, a collaboration between the United States and Canada to intercept contraband on the water. I know that you are working on a similar project, known as “Landrider”, for contraband on land.
In the case of illegal migrants, are there any discussions that could lead to a collaboration with the Americans on American territory?
Last week, I went to Roxham Road, and I saw that we could post a police officer on the American side to tell people that they can't come in to Canada in this way. In that way, people would no longer reach the entry point.
Is that the type of discussion we could have? Is there a program to prevent people from crossing the border illegally?
[English]
There are constant conversations going on between Canadian and American officials about the whole issue of migrant movement. Members of Mr. Ossowski's team are talking to their American counterparts. Law enforcement is talking all the time. In the context of a specific model like Shiprider, I think that's getting ahead of ourselves. I also think there has to be a recognition that there are questions about the movement of these people in the U.S. that are up to U.S. officials to resolve.
Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.
There is no representative of the NDP. Normally, I would take the rule of “use it or lose it”, but in this case, because it is an unusual day, I am going to go directly to Ms. Damoff and reserve for Mr. Davies, or whoever the NDP representative is, over the course of the next few minutes.
Ms. Damoff, you have seven minutes, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Kelly, the departmental plan for the Office of the Correctional Investigator indicated that a GBA+ was done. Was that analysis done on corrections or on that office?
Okay. Regardless, I'm wondering if we could get a copy of whatever analysis was done.
One of the concerns I have is this. I visited the Edmonton Institution for Women, and the women there are being trained to sew and do nails. I also visited Pê Sâkâstêw, which is for men, and they are learning to frame houses and become carpenters. It seems that an analysis should be done on the training programs for men versus women. To get a sewing job versus framing a house is putting women at a disadvantage when they get out of corrections.
I was wondering if you have looked at the training programs. If not, could you?
Yes, certainly, we could look at it.
In terms of what you've seen at the Edmonton Institution for Women, I do believe we offer different programs at different institutions. It's not just sewing, doing nails, or cutting hair. Some women learn to build houses as well. We've had that at the Fraser Valley Institution. We definitely want to provide women with vocational training that's going to be transferable to the community.
On the earlier question you posed, employment for offenders is a priority for us. We want to keep them productively occupied so they don't get into trouble and so they acquire skills they can apply in the community. Research has shown, as well as our own statistics, that if offenders have a job when they are released into the community, they are less likely to come back to the institution.
Yes, I heard that as well. The biggest indicator for success on the outside was successful work release when an offender was inside. Thank you for that.
We had a little conversation with the minister earlier about the funding that's gone into addressing vulnerable offenders, and that includes people who have mental health issues. I heard it at Edmonton maximum security institution, but also at other places, that if there is one single thing corrections could do to deal with issues in the prisons, it is to deal with fetal alcohol syndrome. I'm wondering what steps you're taking, when an offender first comes into corrections, to identify that it's FASD, and what programming there is within corrections to deal with fetal alcohol syndrome.
Certainly, an investment has been made in mental health. We screen offenders when they arrive at intake. I would have to check on fetal alcohol syndrome, but I believe some studies were done.
Fraser, do you have anything more?
It's challenging for both the offender and the staff to deal with. If we can deal with it effectively and make those investments, we can hopefully have more success for the people who are coming into corrections, but also not putting the people who work there at risk, and making sure we have a good outcome for everyone involved. Thank you for that.
Another thing that has come up is healing lodges. We have four that are funded and managed by CSC, and we have five that are managed by communities. I know that the ones managed by communities receive less funding than the ones managed by corrections. I'm wondering if there are any plans to reduce this discrepancy to make sure that community-managed healing lodges receive funding that's more comparable to what the CSC-run lodges are receiving.
With the healing lodges that are managed by the community, it's actually a collaborative process. We negotiate with the community, and there are a number of factors we look at. Just recently, we negotiated an agreement with Waseskun in Quebec. We've also renewed the agreements with the Native Counselling Services of Alberta for the Stan Daniels and the Buffalo Sage centres. Actually, as I've told this committee before, we've revised our framework and the feedback is very positive. However, it's a collaborative process, and an agreement is reached.
Okay, thank you.
I have only about a minute left. Commissioner Lucki, we were talking earlier about what you are doing in terms of recruitment of indigenous officers, and I was quite impressed with what you were telling me. I just wonder if you could share that with the committee.
Most people think that our recruiting efforts are concentrated in the big centres, but we have found that the best recruiting is by our own members, so we have people placed within each province to recruit. We go to schools. When there are hockey tournaments at certain ages, we go there because there are certain types of activities that seem to attract the people who might want to look into policing.
In Regina, which is a big recruiter, the academy provides opportunities. We have the aboriginal leadership conference, where we choose youth from all over Canada who come and do a week of training strictly for indigenous people. We also have another program where one indigenous youth and a member of the detachment come together. They're exposed to the academy, but they're also working together to solve community issues.
Thank you. I appreciate Commissioner Lucki's looking at the chair so that I'm not having to cut people off.
Mr. Davies, you have seven minutes, please.
Actually, I was scrumming behind the minister, and he proved the adage that one should never use 10 words when a thousand may work.
The government has announced $81 million over five years toward the passenger protect program. Part of that is to implement a redress system like the one Canadian airlines already use for flights between Canada and the U.S.
I have two questions. First, how much of these funds will be directed toward the redress system? Second, how much is the establishment of the appeal process referred to in Bill C-59 expected to cost?
Thank you.
The government has also indicated plans to implement a new cybercrimes unit within the RCMP. Are we expecting a government bill in relation to this unit? Are there any details in terms of when and how this will be set up?
Okay.
Can you update us on when we might expect that unit to be set up, and any other progress we're making in that regard?
The budget request is in, so we're waiting for Parliament to express its opinions on authorizing the funds. There are a range of issues in the cyber initiative that are seeking Treasury Board approval. We're working with the RCMP on that, so I'll turn to Brenda about the specifics.
We intend to set up a cybercrime coordination unit so that things can be funnelled through one area. Because the borders are limitless, we need a standardized approach where we can deal with all the different crimes. It's a five-year plan. The coordination centre will have investigative capacity as well.
Thank you.
The 2018-19 estimates for the RCMP include an increase in funding of $517.9 million in support of a new funding model. Could you elaborate on what the government means by this new model and what is incurring most of these costs?
I'll try to answer that. The $517 million is on the contract side, and it's a technical one-time adjustment. It has been approved by the Treasury Board, and it's changing how we collect the revenues that are given to us, the money we are collecting. In effect, it's cost-neutral. There is really no change. It's just the way we did it in prior years, the timing of it, so it's a cost-neutral type of collection.
Thank you.
I'll now turn to the corrections side of CBSA. There are currently nine healing lodges for indigenous offenders in Canada. Four are funded and managed by the Correctional Service of Canada, while five are funded by CSC but managed by communities.
Are there any plans to expand the number of healing lodges, as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Absolutely. The way it works is that there has to be an expression of interest on the part of the aboriginal community. Actually, there is one right now that we're considering. It would be a healing lodge for women in Manitoba. There are others as well that are currently under consideration, so the answer is yes.
Thank you.
I understand that a question was asked on the issue of prison farms. I must state for the record that I visited the prison farms both in New Brunswick and here in Ontario a few Parliaments ago, and I was struck by how effective those prison farms and animal husbandry were in helping inmates who have difficulty in connecting with other people learn social skills. A myriad of positives came from it. Unfortunately, the previous Conservative government shut those down.
I'm just wondering what plans there are, if any, to reopen prison farms or similar types of programs to provide offenders in the federal system with opportunities to work with animals and provide productive services and goods not only to the prisons but also to the surrounding communities, as they did in the past.
Thank you.
I'll just repeat what the minister said earlier. We're starting with the prison farms at Collins Bay and Joyceville, and then we're going to see how that works. That's going to inform us in terms of the potential for other farms elsewhere.
In Ontario, at the prison farm in Kingston, I believe, they had a livestock herd that was outstanding. I understand that it was sold off, but some of the local farmers actually purchased some of that stock, hoping it could be used in the future for the re-establishment of a prison farm.
Are there any plans to try to get that prize-winning cattle stock back into the corrections system?
I'll be short.
Since it was announced in the budget that money would be received to reopen the farms, we are currently working with the prison farm advisory panel on what the model is going to look like, and, yes, they certainly have cared for those cows for many years now.
No, I realize there may be some challenges with translation, but it was five minutes.
[Translation]
It is the same for you: you have five minutes.
[English]
Thank you.
First of all, before I ask the question, I want to make it very clear that my Conservative colleagues and I applaud the incredible effort of the CBSA and the RCMP in dealing with the illegal border crisis. It is not a problem you caused. It is a problem that was caused by the irresponsible tweet of the Prime Minister and then perpetuated further by the current government's not responding to it appropriately.
Your organizations are left to try to clean up the crisis. You indicated that 20,593 illegal border crossers came into Canada in 2017. Of those 20,593 illegal border crossers in 2017, how many have been ordered deported?
Just to start from the very beginning of the process, as soon as someone comes across, they are given a conditional removal order. They go through all the checks with us at the port of entry, and subsequently an eligibility hearing with us or the IRCC. Finally, a determination is made by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
This process takes some time. After that, there are appeal mechanisms that are available to them. We're starting to see some early cases coming through from the surge from last summer. In any given year, we do between 7,000 and 8,000 removals. Last year, 3,947 of the 7,783 were failed claimants. A subset of that were—
That's failed claimants from any year. It depends on where they are. If they can exhaust different processes, sometimes it can be quite a lengthy process. In terms of irregular claimants last year—and I don't know when they came—it was 227.
I want to impress upon the members that there is a continuum here, and it's very hard to look at one snapshot. I don't have the details, for example, on everyone who arrived in August of last year and where they might be in that continuum.
Anyone who has an enforceable removal order, we will remove, although I will state that the priority for us in terms of removal is security, criminality, and organized crimes. That's where we put our efforts first. Failed refugee claimants, who represent about half of the number I gave you, are our second priority in terms of removal, because generally they are much lower risk.
Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. I know Canadians have been asking a lot about the process and how long it takes.
Of the 227 you mentioned who have been ordered deported, how many have actually been deported?
No, everyone gets a conditional removal order until their process is resolved to full completion. Those actually removed were 227.
For the 20,000 who came in illegally, we have no idea where they are in the queue and what impact that is having.
Thank you.
My next question has to do with CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, whoever can answer that.
I see that in the budget there was a transfer for the cybersecurity authority to CSE, which is under Defence. Now, we all fully believe that there has to be a full investment in increasing our cybersecurity. In Bill C-74, in the budget estimates, you talk about employees from the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre also being transferred over to CSE, but there is still funding for cybersecurity within the Public Safety portfolio.
I'm curious to know whether that's a duplicate. If you're taking all that and moving it over to Defence, how are you able to justify both?
There are two different activities. One is operational, and we are consolidating operational activities within the Canadian cyber centre. The relatively small amounts of funding remaining within the department are for policy activities, including ongoing policy work around cybersecurity, critical infrastructure and cybersecurity, etc.
These are two very specific, different functions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the officials for being here.
I want to ask Mr. Brown about the national disaster mitigation program. There has been a sizeable increase for 2018-19 under the main estimates: $57.1 million has been allocated for national disaster mitigation. I think that is very important, very timely, and very welcome. Canadians see what's taking place in New Brunswick, for example.
I come from southwestern Ontario, specifically London. Our region was affected by serious flooding in the areas of Chatham and Brantford, so this is all welcome.
I want to ask about the extent to which climate change factors into the decision-making when it comes to policies or objectives such as this, because complex problems have complex causes. Twitter does not cause flooding. We heard from the other side that a complex issue has been caused by Twitter, apparently.
What we do know is that climate change has a very serious impact when it comes to the cause of these national disasters. In the United States, an independent estimate by the U.S. Government Accountability Office is that over the past 10 years, $350 billion has been spent on national disasters: hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. These are obviously linked to climate change in a major way. In the European Union, an EU analysis found that, between 1980 and 2016, there were 436 billion euros in economic losses as a result of climate-related disasters.
When we see a line item like this, $57.1 million—and I expect that this would either stay the same or probably increase in years to come—to what extent does climate change impact the decision-making here?
The approach in terms of disaster response and mitigation generally is an all-hazards response. We factor in all elements of causality. Climate change and its effects in terms of major weather events, floods, the increasing severity of fires in the boreal forest, etc., are all factored in.
The NDMP's cost-shared program with the provinces suffered at the beginning from perhaps being undersubscribed. It is now the subject of a lot more interest from our provincial colleagues. We're in the midst of a round of project proposal assessments right now.
Thank you very much.
I also want to ask you about a separate matter, the $150,000 that has been set aside in the 2018-19 estimates for the cybersecurity co-operation program. Can you explain what the objectives of the program are? What partners will the government be co-operating with to carry out this program?
It currently constitutes a very modest initiative of $150,000, and it's essentially just working with partners on specific projects that have a high impact. It will be working on sharing best practices and sharing information in terms of cyber-threats, such as a particular cyber-assessment that one of our partners may have done in the private sector or at the provincial level that we can work with. It's a very modest program.
Okay, it's a tool in the tool kit when it comes to cybersecurity. It caught my eye, so I wanted to ask about that.
Yes, this is a broad-based grants and contributions program that works with communities across the country, indigenous communities in particular, to create things like community safety programs that are designed by the community. There is external expertise that comes in, but they are community-led. It is very effective and oversubscribed. The demand outstrips our ability to supply the services people are looking for.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to reply to my colleague about the Prime Minister's message on Twitter. It was indicated clearly by the people in our embassies throughout the world, that as soon as that tweet was sent, all hell broke loose for those who had to answer questions.
I'd like to get back to the Canada Border Services Agency representatives.
Mr. Ossowski, I put a question to the minister earlier concerning the fact that people say that the Conservatives reduced the CBSA budget by $300 million. However, I have a report here that says the opposite. There were indeed budget cuts to administrative services, but I don't think there were any to field operations. In fact, the figures I have here show that there was an increase in the budget for field operations, which went from $1.7 billion in 2012-2013 to $2 billion in 2014-2015. Afterwards, the new government made budget cuts.
Can you confirm that what the ministers have been saying is inaccurate? Do the figures correspond to what I just said?
Thank you for your question.
[English]
I would happily review your study and give you my insights on it. One quick example to explain any drop in the estimates might be that there was project funding provided for several large projects as part of the Beyond the Border action plan. Those projects have come to completion, so as they're done and move to a steady state status, the overall budget of the agency drops.
I'd be happy to review that document, the study you have before you, and provide my input based on my records.
[Translation]
When the Conservative government was in power, before we had the illegal migrant issue, were there budget cuts on the order of $300 to $400 million made to the field operations of the Canada Border Services Agency, as we were told?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
It is a budget question, fair enough. I wonder whether the best way to handle the answer is, as Mr. Ossowski said, to review your numbers and get back to you. Would that satisfy you?
[Translation]
That's perfect, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to respect the public servants and not embarrass them, but the fact remains that this is a budget matter and 1 + 1 = 2. The Liberals have a different way of doing math, but that's okay.
[English]
[Translation]
Very good.
I will now address the RCMP.
We talked about the problem of the MS-13 gang. We know that members of this gang are active in our large Canadian cities. According to our information, there is an important inflow of confederates of this group who are coming to join their friends in Canada. Can you confirm that?
[English]
I can't confirm those numbers with you, or whether, in fact, they are operating in certain areas of our country. Any of the organizations that come to our attention are obviously investigated. We try to take that intelligence and bring it into evidence so that we can properly take those types of groups to court.
[Translation]
People often claim that we Conservatives create division or that we are trying to scare Canadians. In fact, we would be more inclined to say that we like to know the facts. If there are dangerous criminals, we simply want to know. We want to know if you are taking steps to control them. We aren't trying to frighten Canadians, but neither do we want to wear rose-coloured glasses and think that everyone is law-abiding and nice.
Can you confirm that the RCMP has a good handle on the situation with regard to the MS-13 gang, and that the people who have been identified will be detained? Can you reassure Canadians on that front?
[English]
Anything that is under investigation, unfortunately, I can't share with you, but in many areas we have ongoing investigations of the groups you mention. If it comes to fruition, Canadians will be the first to be advised.
[Translation]
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Brown, you're probably the most suitable to answer this question, given your role.
In the estimates, CSIS is seeking $2.4 million more for illegal immigration reviews. I'm just wondering about the nature of CSIS's work related to illegal border crossers. Do they recognize the potential threat of having an open border for anyone who can get a travel permit to the U.S., or is this an acknowledgement that CSIS needs significantly more resources to properly investigate questionable individuals?
CSIS is involved in the security screening aspects of the illegal migration flow, but most of the questions have rightly been directed to my colleagues from CBSA and the RCMP, because they are the ones at the border dealing with the people as they come in. As has been clearly articulated, nobody about whom there are any security-related concerns is allowed to come in until those concerns have been resolved.
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
My first question is for Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown, we had an exchange with the minister on the memorial grant program. There was a residual question that we didn't have time to get an answer to, which was on the breakdown between funds allocated to the grants themselves and funds allocated to the administration. I am wondering whether you have that number or, if not, whether you could provide it to the committee.
I do. The administration costs are up to $1.8 million. The vast majority or a significant portion of that will be funds provided to the third party supplier who will run the program for us, except for the final decision, which will rest with the department.
Thank you very much for that.
My next question echoes the interest on the part of my colleagues Mr. Davies and Mr. Fragiskatos in the area of cybersecurity.
I represent a city, Mississauga, that has some 73 Fortune 500 companies, many of which are data-intensive and data-centric. There is increasing interest on the part of companies in knowing what the government is doing on cybersecurity.
Is the protection of data held by insurance companies and banks a public safety/national security issue?
That's an interesting question. I suppose it depends on who chooses to try to access that data and for what purposes. It can also be a criminal question that is associated with my friend the commissioner, as well as local law enforcement. It depends.
But when we're talking about the formulation of a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy, it would definitely be within these parameters.
Could you update the committee on your vision of how that strategy is unfolding? You mentioned in commentary to colleagues that there is a five-year plan. There is a cybercrime coordination unit. What would have to be done from the public safety side, in terms of infrastructure and human resources, to put these kinds of protective mechanisms in place? Where are we with respect to closing those gaps?
Relatively speaking, Canada is quite well positioned in terms of the cybersecurity posture of the Government of Canada. The reality of an enterprise-wide protection system that works very closely with CSE means that most of my international colleagues wish they were in a similar circumstance as Canada. We have more work to do at other levels of government and the private sector. Within the private sector, different sectors are more seized with the issue and are investing more heavily.
I'm not going to pick winners and losers here, because I don't think it's constructive to highlight where there may be vulnerabilities, but I will say that the government announced in the budget a significant investment, $700-odd million, for cybersecurity more generally, and I think that there will be an awful lot more detail about that coming forward in the relatively near future.
Are there any processes under way at the moment that are pulling in the stakeholders and voices that should be part of that conversation?
The cybersecurity strategy review that took place over the last two years was quite extensive and had input from hundreds of participants. We also have a critical infrastructure forum that has all the critical infrastructure sectors represented by the private sector and by government. They are actively engaged in these issues, and the stakeholders will be actively engaged as the government rolls out the next steps.
Thank you very much for that.
Mr. Chair, my final question is for Commissioner Lucki.
It's not fair, because there are only 30 seconds remaining, but I want you to give the committee a taste of your vision for the RCMP's work outside of our borders in the areas of post-conflict reconstruction, policing, and the UN peacekeeping mission work that would fall within the ambit of our defence.
We're doing a lot of work, for instance, in Ukraine, helping them to police in a more democratic society. They've already come to the RCMP training academy three or four times, including the state secretary and judges. They have come to Regina and worked with judges in Saskatchewan, so there's been a lot of good work.
Thank you, Mr. Spengemann.
That almost brings to an end the work of the committee on the main estimates.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank each and every one of you for your work and your contribution to the functioning of our society.
Colleagues, we have 16 votes. First of all, I want to seek unanimous consent to group them.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We're voting on the main estimates in front of you.
ç
CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$1,442,043,878
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$197,930,474
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
ç
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$521,451,792
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
CIVILIAN REVIEW AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION FOR THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$9,667,981
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures, grants and contributions..........$2,026,625,710
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$189,141,724
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
ç
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$138,311,494
ç
Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$1,007,864,906
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$4,129,824
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
PAROLE BOARD OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$42,457,608
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$2,531,606,533
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$289,535,957
ç
Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$253,673,483
(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to on division)
ç
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$2,872,348
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
SECRETARIAT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$3,294,747
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$4,607,497
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Shall I report the main estimates to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Monsieur Paul-Hus, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I tabled a motion concerning the invitation to the new national security adviser. I would have liked us to discuss this, and to send the official invitation.
[English]
Regrettably, we are out of time. I could say that we are out of time and that would be the end of it; however, I am open to any suggestion that other colleagues might have.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer