JUST 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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

0905

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.))

Mr. Ward P. Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service)

0910

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Assistant Commissioner Louise Saint-Laurent (Correctional Service Canada)

0915

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

0920

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

0925

Mr. Ward Elcock

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Eva Plunkett (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Corporate Management, Department of the Solicitor General)

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Ms. Eva Plunkett

0930

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Ms. Eva Plunkett

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Pierrette Venne

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

0935

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Ms. Patricia Hassard (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Police and Law Enforcement, Department of the Solicitor General)

0940

Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin (Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police)

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

0945

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Ward Elcock

0950

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Pierrette Venne

0955

Ms. Eva Plunkett

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Chantal Bernier (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Strategic Policy and Programs Branch, Department of the Solicitor General)

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Ms. Chantal Bernier

Ms. Pierrette Venne

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

1000

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Chantal Bernier

Mr. Peter MacKay

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

1005

Ms. Hélène Chevalier (Executive Director, National Parole Board)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Ms. Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Ward Elcock

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

Mr. Chuck Cadman

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Ivan Grose

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

1015

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. John Maloney

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. John Maloney

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. John Maloney

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. John Maloney

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. John Maloney

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

1020

Ms. Chantal Bernier

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Chantal Bernier

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Ivan Grose

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

1025

Mr. Ivan Grose

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

Mr. Ivan Grose

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Chuck Cadman

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Chuck Cadman

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Ivan Grose

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

D/Commr Paul Gauvin

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

1030

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Lynn Myers

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1035

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

1040

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Hélène Chevalier

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

1045

Mr. Peter MacKay

Ms. Eva Plunkett

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Chuck Cadman

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Peter MacKay

1050

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Ward Elcock

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Ivan Grose

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Ivan Grose

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Eva Plunkett

Ms. Chantal Bernier

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Chantal Bernier

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

Mr. Lynn Myers

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

NUMBER 007

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start, please.

I'm sitting in for the Honourable Andy Scott, who is sick this morning. So you have my sympathy.

We have a series of witnesses this morning. I'd like to welcome to the committee the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, represented by Mr. Elcock; Correctional Service of Canada, represented by Louise Saint-Laurent; the Department of the Solicitor General, represented by Eva Plunkett and Patricia Hassard; the National Parole Board, represented by Hélène Chevalier; and the RCMP, by Paul Gauvin.

Welcome, all. You're familiar witnesses to this committee, and I understand that Mr. Elcock is going to lead off with a short statement. I would be surprised if it's anything other than short for Mr. Elcock. I won't explain the procedures, because you're all quite familiar with appearing before this committee.

Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward P. Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, the government has allotted substantial amounts of money to the public safety anti-terrorism initiative in the last year and a half. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service received an increase of about 35% to its budget, to augment existing operational capabilities.

The supplementary estimates before the committee are part of the ongoing increase received by the service in the December 2001 budget. These resources will be used, as I've indicated earlier, to augment existing programs.

[Translation]

My goal today is to help you better understand why we needed this money. So I would first like to take a few minutes to talk about the current situation and the threat following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

[English]

I've said on a number of occasions that countering the possibility of a terrorist attack occurring in or originating from Canada was, prior to the events of September 11, the highest priority of the service. Islamic extremism was already our highest investigative priority within the counter-terrorism program. Following the attacks and the Afghanistan engagement, the service adopted a heightened operational stance in order to monitor closely the potential for any retaliatory attacks by al-Qaeda and to assist U.S. agencies in their investigations.

In order to do this, we had to divert substantial resources from less urgent targets to address the increased level of threat, and to intensify existing investigations on Islamic extremist activity in Canada.

[Translation]

The government has also taken steps to counter the threats of terrorism and to improve security, both within Canada and abroad. The December 2001 federal budget provided CSIS with additional funds for a five-year period.

[English]

Thanks to these funds, CSIS is better positioned to contribute to the government's initiatives in the fight against international terrorism and threats to national security.

As an example of where those resources will be used, let me elaborate on two key programs--namely, technology and security screening.

Advances in computer-based communications and encryption continue to challenge the capacity of intelligence services, including CSIS, to lawfully intercept communications and gather intelligence. Some of the additional resources will therefore assist the service in remaining abreast of leading-edge technology through early identification of operational technological requirements, research and development, and by collaborating with domestic and foreign allies.

Secondly, the service's security screening program is a vital component of the Canadian government's priorities with respect to public safety and is the first line of defence in preventing persons of security concern from entering the country or gaining access to sensitive assets or locations vital to the security of Canada.

In response to the attacks in the United States, Citizenship and Immigration Canada requested that the service screen not only all new refugee applicants at the beginning of the determination process, but also those refugee claimants currently in their refugee process. We have used some of the additional resources to cover those new responsibilities.

It's important to note that security intelligence is a risk-management enterprise. There is no realistic number of personnel or financial resources that could ensure that every possible scenario involving threats to national security will be covered all the time. The task of addressing the spectrum of potential threats involves ongoing threat and risk analysis, priority setting, and a flexible application of available resources.

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

In addition, a considerable investment in time and resources is required in order to recruit new employees and bring them up to a working level. All new intelligence officers take a five-year training and development course. As soon as new employees have completed training and reached a working level, CSIS will be better able to restore the balance it once had among the forces affecting risk management in the global threat context.

[English]

That said, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my remarks by emphasizing that the additional resources, both human and financial, are already assisting the service in implementing a long-term plan to address resource requirements not only for the current threat environment but also to equip us so we can respond to such sustained emergencies in the future.

I'll be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

Madame Saint-Laurent.

[Translation]

Assistant Commissioner Louise Saint-Laurent (Correctional Service Canada): I would like to thank the chairman and members of the committee for giving me this opportunity to describe the nature of our supplementary estimates request.

I would like to begin by stating that Correctional Service Canada intends to continue measuring the effectiveness of its contribution to protection of the public, rehabilitation of offenders and social reintegration, given that in the past year, Correctional Service Canada has identified a number of programs and service-delivery challenges, and finally, that the service is operating within the government management framework entitled Results for Canadians and is contributing to the government agenda.

The increases in the 2002-2003 reference levels total a net amount of $13.1 million, divided into four broad categories.

First, there is the realignment of resources under the Correctional Service capital budget to address in-year workload pressures in relation to, for example, health services, the workers' compensation fund as against the base budget, and the maintenance of automated systems essential to the Service's mission. This also includes a transfer of $10.1 million made necessary by the change in policy on the capitalization of assets flowing from the implementation of the government initiative called the Financial Information Strategy.

Second, there is the increase in the workload and costs in non-discretionary spending areas like payments to municipalities in lieu of taxes.

Third, there is cost recovery for accommodating detainees under provincial responsibility during the G-8 Summit in Alberta.

Fourth, there is the payment in connection with the Canada/New Brunswick Corrections Initiative.

Although the Correctional Service is a major federal agency with a budget of $1.4 billion, it needs to review and set its strategies and plans in order to be able to deal with its current financial situation, while ensuring that it continues to have adequate resources to finance activities essential to maximizing the chances of social reintegration of offenders.

Even if some service levels have to be adjusted, this will always be done in keeping with general government priorities and corporate objectives under the service policy framework.

No decision that might compromise the health or security of service personnel or inmates or that might jeopardize public safety has been nor will be taken.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have about the various aspects of our request. Thank you for your attention.

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Merci, madame.

We'll open it up to questions at this point. The format is seven minutes for the first round of questioning, and I'll turn to Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you all for coming, especially Mr. Elcock. It's good to have the director of CSIS here, not an assistant or an associate, and we appreciate your coming. Probably CSIS is one that is under the closest scrutiny of all, given September 11.

We know that prior to September 11 one of the huge concerns we had in our party was the reduction in funding, the reduction in manpower, and the reduction in, it would seem, a commitment to CSIS. We know that we went from close to 2,800 personnel working for them down to 2,000, maybe under 2,000. We also know that in 1993-94 we had a budget of $244 million over the next six years, and we saw that reduced by $48 million.

I was going back over an old report, and I'd just like to quote Mr. Elcock from the 2000 public report. What's interesting is that much in that report was the very same as what we heard in your report today. That's not necessarily negative, but it is worthy of drawing attention to or taking note of.

In the 2000 CSIS public report, it says, and this is prior to September 11:

Up to now, CSIS has been able to risk-manage the challenges. However, the terrorist events of late 1999 underscored the continuing requirement to review efficiency within the context of the existing threat environment, with particular emphasis on the allocation of human resources.

I think it's very obvious you were drawing attention to the concerns and to the needs.

More than ever, the Service must rely on risk management

Again, we heard that in your report today, and I think we've heard it from the commissioner of the RCMP. We have to risk-manage and we'll always be risk managing, but it was very obvious in this report.... I'll just go back to the quote here; maybe I shouldn't be commenting until I've finished reading it out:

More than ever, the Service must rely on risk management, concentrating resources selectively and precisely on the major issues, while assessing new and emerging threats.

Now, under the supplementary estimates CSIS will receive another $5 million or $5.3 million, bringing its annual budget to $252 million. In 1993-94 CSIS had a budget of $244 million. Over a six-year period it was cut, and now we're seeing it being restored to something close to the levels of 1993.

I have a number of questions, and the first one is, are you back to the manpower level of 1993? The next one is, again, a political type of question. We're never totally satisfied with the budget or the funds we're given, but are you confident that the amount of extra dollars that have been given is sufficient, given the increased threat and given the number of groups or entities you must be working on, studying, and hopefully preparing files on to bring forward to the government to have them put on the list?

Many former CSIS officials have said that CSIS does not have an adequate number of skilled analysts. I know that the last time you appeared before our committee, you made it very clear that it takes five years to adequately train a new recruit--if they're called recruits--when they begin working for CSIS.

I think it was two days ago in the paper we saw where CSE had put a little advertisement across Canada. Normally they'd get 25 responses for intelligence type of work, yet they received 13,000 applications. Is it the same with CSIS? Are you confident that the numbers and the manpower are adequate to the job you're required to do?

Also, just quickly, in what year did you first warn the federal government that Hezbollah posed a threat to the security of this country, and have you recently advised the government of the threat they currently pose? After September 11, given that the new terrorist bill came in and we knew that we would have to list entities, how long was it before CSIS suggested that we put al-Qaeda on the list? It was seven months before they were listed.

¿ (0920)

How long did it take CSIS to move to the cabinet position, or to the solicitor general's department, and say that al-Qaeda should be on the list, and how long for Hezbollah?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Elcock, there are about two minutes left in this round, so if you could be brief, please.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of questions there.

Are we back to the level we were before cuts were made in the service? No, we're not. But that's neither here nor there. The reality is that times change, the needs change, and whether you're spending money on technology, people, and so on, the balance changes. So I don't think that is of much assistance to anybody one way or the other.

Are we confident that we have the resources we need given the level of threat? The honourable member referred to the 2000 report, and in a sense that was a precursor to the money we received in the 2001 budget. We certainly believe we have the resources. Of course, it will take us some time to train the new people who come on board. As the honourable member referred to, it takes about five years to get to the point of being fully operational, if you will. That said, people are actually making a contribution before five years are up since training for the service is essentially learning on the job. So people do in fact make a contribution before the five-year term is up.

Do we have enough skilled analysts? Yes. I've seen various reports by people who claim to be former CSIS officers and to understand what CSIS has or doesn't have. I don't think we lack in terms of having skilled analysts. Certainly, in terms of managing threats, it's always going to be risk assessment. That will always be an element of the job of an intelligence service. I have yet to hear of an intelligence service that had enough resources to do everything it wanted to do. I'm sure the old East German Stasi, which had half the population watching the other half, made an annual request for additional resources because they didn't think they had enough. But in terms of dealing with the threats, I believe we have the resources we need.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

[Translation]

Ms. Venne, you have seven minutes.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My first question has to do with the statement by the new Solicitor General in the House of Commons last week, on November 27 to be precise. In reference to the list of terrorist entities, he said, quote:

The decision to list an entity is a very serious one. The consequences are severe, not only for terrorists but for those who support them.

It's all well and good to identify terrorist entities and to denounce them publicly, but obviously that alone will not prevent any terrorist organizations from raising funds in Canada.

I would like to say that after C-36 was enacted, it took for ever for the first names to appear on the list of terrorist entities, a surprisingly short list that is also surprising because of the absence of a certain notorious entity, as Mr. Sorenson said earlier, namely Hezbollah. I would like to think that the Anti-Terrorism Act, which still poses a threat to rights and freedoms, and the investment of $7.7 billion over five years announced by the future leader of the Liberal Party to improve security, have had some results other than a sheet of paper with 13 names written on it. Now, here are my questions.

Since C-36 came into force, how many terrorists have been denied entry to Canada, how many have been deported, and how many have been prosecuted? How much money has been seized so far? In short, what concrete steps have been taken in the field to protect the public? Those are my first questions.

¿ (0925)

[English]

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, the business of dealing with a terrorist threat is not one that can be answered simply by trying to tot up the number of people who have been arrested or denied access to the country. I don't have the number of people who have actually been denied. There are people denied access to Canada on a regular basis. There are people who are deported. But that, in and of itself, is not much assistance in trying to deal with the kind of threat that terrorism poses.

The threat of terrorism is one that is hard to investigate, hard to find. The people involved are hard to identify. It takes an enormous amount of manpower, an enormous amount of analytical ability. It takes an enormous amount of technological ability to be able to get inside those organizations to be able to detect those kinds of operations, some of which may not in fact be aimed at Canada at all, but may be aimed somewhere else.

So the fact that one can't put together a list of six people who have been prosecuted and sixteen people who have been deported really tells one very little about the nature of the struggle against terrorism. It is a worldwide struggle in which we cooperate extensively with intelligence services, law enforcement agencies in Canada and intelligence service around the world, in an effort to try to deal with a worldwide threat. You cannot simply add up how many people get arrested in Canada and have any sense of whether the war on terrorism has been won or not.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I certainly suspected I wouldn't get an answer, but I decided to go ahead and ask my questions anyway.

On April 16, 2002, the Auditor General exposed significant gaps in terms of information on the criminal justice system, gaps that make it difficult to fully assess its effectiveness. She quite rightly said, quote:

Building and maintaining an effective criminal justice system requires reliable national information on the nature of crime, on crime trends, and on what works.

Without that information, the government cannot be sure its initiatives are working well together.

Her report also stressed the need to improve coordination and information exchange with respect to crime and offenders among the agencies and institutions that make up the criminal justice system.

What steps have been taken by the department and agencies under its responsibility to coordinate, analyze, evaluate and revise, if necessary, their initiatives?

[English]

Mr. Ward Elcock: I'm not sure that's my question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Madam Plunkett.

Ms. Eva Plunkett (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Corporate Management, Department of the Solicitor General): I'm not sure it's my question either, but--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Madame Venne, to whom did you direct the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: My question is for people who are supposed to be talking to one another, agencies that are supposed to be talking to one another, in such a way that the department and the agencies under its responsibility can exchange information on criminals and coordinate their programs.

[English]

Ms. Eva Plunkett: My sense is that you're referring to our integrated justice information project that is under way. Frankly, I'm not the expert to address that.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: For example, Correctional Service Canada must have to talk to the RCMP sometimes. It must have to talk to other people sometimes. It must have to coordinate that information. That is a direct example.

[English]

Ms. Eva Plunkett: That is the objective of the integrated justice information project. It is a major project that is being led by the Department of the Solicitor General with the agencies involved, with the other federal partners, with provincial jurisdictions as well. The objective is to have an integrated information system across jurisdictions that can ensure that the information for criminal justice prosecutions, criminal justice activities, to aid the police, to aid the correctional officers.... They will be able to speak together at all times.

¿ (0930)

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: On April 16, 2002, the Auditor General released a report in which she said there was a lack of coordination. What has happened since then? That is what I am asking you.

[English]

Ms. Eva Plunkett: At that stage, the project was just initially under way. There hadn't been the level of work done that there has to date. It's a long-term project. As you can imagine, it is very complex.

In terms of a status report, I believe the Auditor General will be commenting on it again in terms of the progress made. There are many elements and many jurisdictions involved in it, and all I can suggest is that if there is more information, we could come back to the committee on that. But it is a major five-year project, so if the Auditor General commented on it in the first phase, it's obvious that, yes, there still was work to be done at that time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Madame Venne, we're out of time, but you may want to come back to this at a future point.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am very disappointed that I got no answers.

Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. MacKay, for seven minutes.

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

Mr. Elcock, the members of the committee appreciate your attendance.

In view of the fact that SIRC, the oversight body for your ministry, doesn't have a full complement right now, as you know, I'd like to know if you have concerns about that yourself as head of your own ministry, your own department, and what, if any, contact you have with Madame Gauthier and that body.

Mr. Ward Elcock: We deal with SIRC on a regular basis at all levels within the service. Researchers from SIRC, as well as members of SIRC, deal with various levels of the service.

The work of SIRC is ongoing. I'm sure they would like to have additional members appointed, and the government will, at an appropriate time, make those appointments. Certainly in terms of the workload for SIRC it would be nice to have a full board, but at this point we don't have one yet.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Elcock.

Just as a follow-up, in a sense, in terms of contact, can you tell us how often on average you would meet with the Solicitor General, the new minister?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I usually meet with the Solicitor General on a bi-weekly basis, but sometimes once a week.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to those meetings, I don't expect you to disclose any personal or confidential information, but on the issue of the listing process and how individuals wind up being listed, is that something that normally would take place as part of the briefings with the minister?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Not necessarily. The process of listing is an ongoing one that involves not only us but other departments. The minister would be kept advised where the lists are, where the progress is on various files, but the department might do that as much as we would do it in a meeting with the minister.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Generally speaking, Mr. Elcock, in your capacity as director, can you assess for us the weight that your recommendations would carry with the minister as to the listing?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I hope my recommendation carries a great deal of weight with the minister, but that's really for the minister to answer, not me.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So the final say is obviously with the political minister.

Mr. Ward Elcock: As it should be.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

Mr. Elcock, can you give us a general figure or estimation of, to your knowledge, the number of times the two new powers specifically embodied in the anti-terrorism legislation--that is, investigative hearings and preventative arrests--have been used, or are those powers being used, since that legislation came into law?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I think you'd have to address that to the RCMP. We don't make arrests, and I'm not aware of how often the RCMP or other police forces in Canada may have used those powers.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. So no one under your purview has ever used those powers?

Mr. Ward Elcock: We don't have a power of arrest, so it would be hard for us to use those powers.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Right.

With respect to individuals, you weren't able to say in terms of any specific figures how many individuals might have been denied access to Canada or deported. Are you aware of any effort that is ongoing with your department and with other departments that might involve the deportation of individuals?

¿ (0935)

Mr. Ward Elcock: Yes. Primarily that would be under now section 77 of the new immigration legislation, and there are a number of cases ongoing in respect of deportations.

There are other cases, of course, where refugee claimants may be denied refugee status, which in a sense is like deportation, but not quite.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can you speak generally, Mr. Elcock, to ongoing coordinating efforts between Canada and other security services, mainly the United States, and has that coordinating effort improved since the time of the terrorist attacks in the United States last September?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I'm not sure it's improved. It was enormously good before September 11. The issue is not really so much whether it has improved or not improved; the question has really been the volume of information that has been shared as a consequence of September 11, and there's no question that the volume has gone up.

But as to the degree to which we share with both the FBI and the CIA and other services around the world, we share perhaps with those two organizations more than with anybody else, but we share very widely with a number of organizations around the world.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you aware of any specific investigations that involve CIA or FBI agents coming into Canada?

Mr. Ward Elcock: If any operations like that took place involving the service, Mr. Chairman, they would take place under the direction of the service.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That would mean there would have to be prior authorization for them to enter the country. Is that correct?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Certainly in the case of CSIS, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you aware of any instance where CIA agents came into Canada without that authorization?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I'm not aware of any at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You're not aware of a case in British Columbia involving an individual charged with trafficking drugs.

Mr. Ward Elcock: I wouldn't be aware of cases involving the trafficking of drugs. That would be a police investigation rather than a CSIS investigation, in all probability.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So the CIA would deal directly with the RCMP rather than going through CSIS.

Mr. Ward Elcock: If indeed they had information with regard to a drug case, they might pass it directly to the RCMP.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

Ms. Saint-Laurent, I'd like to ask you a specific question about a plane that was used or is used by the solicitor general's department, specifically the Correctional Service, for the transportation of prisoners. It's also shared with the RCMP, as I understand it. Can you tell us how many times that plane has been used for either transport purposes or in joint operation with the RCMP?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: The plane is used regularly to transport inmates and also, in some cases, to transport some employees, as it is more economical than using standard transportation, because the places where the passengers have to go are not along commercial routes, or because the numbers warrant it.

The plane is operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and in exchange, they provide us dedicated service, especially for inmate transportation, which enables us to transport our inmates much more safely and without using means of transportation used by regular passengers.

I do not have the number on hand, but if you wish, we can get that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: You don't know the number.

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: No, I don't have the exact number.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Next is Mr. Macklin, followed by Mr. Lee.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to get some clarification with regard to the supplementary estimates. I notice that vote 1 refers to the integrated proceeds of crime initiative, and I also notice that vote 35 under the RCMP refers to the same thing. I'd like, first of all, to understand what you're doing with those proceeds, and, secondly, I'd like to know what we have actually netted from this process to date. This is supposedly a program that would bring funds into the system. I'd like to understand how that is functioning and where we are in terms of revenue versus expense.

Ms. Patricia Hassard (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Police and Law Enforcement, Department of the Solicitor General): I'll take that question first, Mr. Macklin, and then perhaps ask my colleague from the RCMP to follow up.

This program is operating, and it has recently been evaluated. So I do have some statistics to offer you as to how successful the program has been. We've had over 5,200 federal investigations involving proceeds of crime since 1996, and there have been 3,300 federal charges in the last year alone under the proceeds of crime provisions. There has been a significant integrated proceeds of crime role in the seizure of 215 million assets, and the IPOC program has been directly responsible for $86 million being permanently removed from criminals. Also, there have been IPOC referrals to the tax people in CCRA to the tune of $12 million. We've also referred IPOC cases to foreign jurisdictions, and this amount is $89 million.

So I think you have an idea that the program is substantive and that it has been getting results. At the moment the results are about equal to the cost of the program. But I think it is a program that will get better once we take into account the recommendations from the recent evaluation.

¿ (0940)

Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin (Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): If I could comment on the RCMP, our part of the program is approximately $41 million a year. We have IPOC units across the country. Our total cost is $41 million and our base is about $27 million, so we have a loan from the Treasury Board of approximately $15 million right now. Actually, we've been short approximately $6 million a year, which we pay back to the board. We get an advance, and then we pay it back the following year.

With regard to the issue that has been alluded to, investigations take time, and there is a long time between when the court process takes place and the proceeds actually catch up. So we're running a little bit behind. But we think it's a good program, and it's part of the investigation process.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Do you have any projection for when you believe you will at least go past the net even stage in terms of revenue and expense?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: We would hope soon. It's hard to tell what's out there and how long it takes before it gets through the process to collect eventually.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you.

I'd like to direct another question to Correctional Service with respect to vote 4 dealing with professional and special services. How much of that would relate to the educational component of in fact the correctional rehabilitation side, if any, in that service?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: If you are referring to the supplementary estimates, where reference is made to an amount of $29 million, I would say that a good part of that money was spent on various activities. I don't have the exact amount for training. However, the Correctional Service, in the course of this year, has spent quite significant amounts on employee training, but also on inmate reorientation. I would say that it is in the millions of dollars. About 20 per cent of all monies spent by the Correctional Service goes to inmate reorientation, for reintegration into the community.

[English]

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Are you able to break out the educational component? How much are we actually spending on the educational component within the Correctional Service that is raising the level of education?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Insofar as increasing the level of education is concerned, for example, we have courses that enable inmates to complete grade 12 and to acquire work skills. The training is highly diversified. There is also on-the-job training, for example, in our CORCAN workshops, where inmates learn trades so that they can return to society. Those amounts are not identified specifically. They are identified for each inmate within his corrections program: what are the needs of the individual inmate and what funds will be required?

I don't currently have the overall figures in my possession, but we can get them for you.

[English]

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Where is the decision made in terms of the allocation of budgetary needs for education? Is it made at the local institutional level? Is it a component of the whole; in other words, each institution makes a request specifically for the amount of money for that purpose? How is this established?

¿ (0945)

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: It is established based on the corrections plan for each individual. A determination is made as to the needs of each individual for training or other special programs. Based on that plan, a determination is made as to which programs should be provided to inmates in each institution, and what funds are required to provide those programs. Funding is allocated on a per institution basis, as well as regionally and nationally. In making the allocation decisions, various assessments are done, but basically, it depends on the inmates' needs. That is what budgetary allocations are based on.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Macklin.

For the three-minute round, from the Canadian Alliance, Kevin.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Going back to Mr. Elcock here, I want to go back to one question we asked before and that is about the process of listing these entities. Seven months after the bill was in place, we had al-Qaeda. Another four months later, so almost 11 or 12 months, almost a year, we have Hamas. When did CSIS first warn the government, or the cabinet, or the Solicitor General regarding Hezbollah operatives in Canada, and when have they last warned the Solicitor General regarding Hezbollah operatives in Canada?

Do you anticipate having a listing of additions to this list, of one or two, or do we wait until we have six or seven? Do we want to put forward only more than one group at a time? Are we going to wait three or four months?

More specifically, when did we first warn the government about Hezbollah operatives in Canada?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, the process of listing organizations under Bill C-36 is an onerous one, but it's not the only listing of terrorist organizations. As members of the committee will be aware, most of the terrorist organizations around the world are already listed under the United Nations--I've forgotten the exact title of the regulations, but under a set of regulations. The assets of those organizations, to the extent that there are any in Canada, are frozen, so to suggest that somehow they are not listed would be wrong.

The reality is, moving those organizations to a Bill C-36 list is an important thing to do because the powers under Bill C-36 are of course broader and in fact take you as far as seizing assets as well as freezing them. However, they remain frozen to the extent that they are here while we get on with that process. The reality of the process under Bill C-36 is that it is a criminal law standard. In other words, there must be reasonable and probable grounds for us to believe that it's a terrorist organization. It's not the relatively simple test that was true of the UN regulations. It is a much more onerous process.

The document we prepare in each case runs to sixty or seventy pages, and every one of those documents is backed up by a collection of documents about that high, all of which have to be checked by both us and our lawyers and then by the Department of Justice and a number of other lawyers to determine whether we have in fact met the criminal test and the documents are in fact accurate before they ultimately go to ministers. It is a relatively long and slow process, although all the groups that are now under the UN regulation and of course made frozen through that whole process....

We are adding names to the Bill C-36 list as quickly as we can, but it is an onerous process. In a previous discussion somebody asked me whether we could add them faster if we had more resources. Of course we could, but the reality is that it takes trained human resources to do that process. It's not as simple as just saying that I can hire 15 people off the street and the list will instantaneously be longer. It takes trained people, and most of our trained people are working on investigations.

We have a very competent team putting those documents together, but it is of necessity taking longer than one would like it to take. As I said at the beginning, all those organizations remain frozen on the UN list through that process, so if there are human resources there and if there are funds there, they will still be there when the organizations are listed under Bill C-36, and that process will go forward.

The honourable member asked about Hezbollah. We have over the years published a number of unclassified papers, or papers have been published with some deletions. I'm not going to go further in describing any of the activities of Hezbollah in Canada or the presence of Hezbollah in Canada. In respect of the listings, we of course will make recommendations to our minister, and at the end of the day ministers will have to make their decision not only on the basis of our advice but on the basis of other departmental advice as well, such as foreign policy advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs. That may have some bearing on which organizations are ultimately listed; that's a decision for ministers.

¿ (0950)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Before I turn to the government side, I want to acknowledge the presence of Michel D'Avignon, the director general of the National Security Directorate. Welcome.

We'll have three minutes for the government side. John Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): My question is to Mr. Elcock and is on the investigation of refugees. I may stand corrected, but let's say there are roughly 30,000 refugee applicants a year in Canada, some of whom of course will be children. Do you investigate each and every one of those applicants, and do you have the resources to do so?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Under the new screening program that's been instituted we do a check on each one of the refugees who comes to Canada. In some cases the reality is that just as before September 11, if somebody arrives without papers and essentially without a proven identity, it is by definition difficult to know who they are, what they are, where they came from, and what their backgrounds are. But certainly the process with the new program starts earlier; some will be screened out, and in some cases it may take us longer to actually find out who the individual is and what their background is. It's not necessarily an overnight investigation, one that allows you to determine whether somebody is or is not a problem.

Mr. John Maloney: What are the types of concerns that would red-flag an applicant?

Mr. Ward Elcock: It would depend on the country they come from. It could depend on the educational institution they'd attended in a certain country. There's a wide variety of factors that would cause somebody to be of interest to us or give us an indication that there might be something of concern there.

Mr. John Maloney: Once an individual is targeted, what is the process from there on in? At what stage does Citizenship and Immigration Canada get involved? Do you turn the files over to them or do you continue with them?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I'm not sure what you mean by “targeted”. We review the case of each refugee who comes into the country. That information is passed to us and we do a check on each individual. That's not targeting for the purposes of the service; our targeting process is a substantially different process.

We do the review of each refugee for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and in each case provide them with an assessment based on whatever information we have on each individual. In some cases there will be a lot of information and we'll be able to either give people a clean bill of health or say there's a problem. In other cases it may take us longer to determine who the individual is and to collect enough information to know what we're looking at.

Mr. John Maloney: If there is a problem, then it's up to Citizenship and Immigration to deal with it?

Mr. Ward Elcock: At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, it is for Citizenship and Immigration to make the decision. We simply provide them with information and intelligence, if we have it, on who the individual is, what their background is, and whether or not the individual is of concern.

Mr. John Maloney: Since you've assumed this responsibility, can you tell us how many refugees have been of concern to you after your investigation?

Mr. Ward Elcock: It's a relatively small number of people. I don't off the top of my head remember the number. I think we've done something in the order of 20,000 or 30,000 refugees over the last year, and the numbers are not huge. But then I've never suggested that the number of individuals of concern was huge. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have targeted roughly 350 individuals and 50 organizations in the counter-terrorism program. That would not suggest that there are thousands of terrorists around, but there are individuals of concern who come to our attention.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I have only one question, and it is for the Solicitor General's representative.

Since the attacks of September 11, we keep hearing over and over again about the funding and staffing needs of organizations responsible for security like the RCMP and CSIS. However, in her 2001 report, the Auditor General stated that 3 of the $35 million allocated to the First Nations police services program has, according to the program criteria, been spent without sufficient justification.

I would like to know whether the department of the Solicitor General has investigated this waste uncovered by the Auditor General. If so, what are the findings of that investigation and what steps have been taken so it doesn't happen again?

¿ (0955)

[English]

Ms. Eva Plunkett: I think my colleague, Chantal Bernier, who's responsible for the program, is going to come up to the microphone.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): For the purposes of the record, would you identify yourself and your role, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Chantal Bernier (Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Strategic Policy and Programs Branch, Department of the Solicitor General): My name is Chantal Bernier, Assistant Deputy Solicitor General for the Strategic Policy and Programs Branch, and I am responsible for the aboriginal policing program. If it's okay with you, I think the question needs restating.

What we're dealing with here is not a problem of wasted money; in fact, we asked for a careful evaluation of the program management method. The aboriginal policing program, in fact, is a success. Our last evaluation was done in 1995; it was therefore necessary to do a second evaluation. The process has already begun. A comprehensive evaluation should be complete in 2005.

For the time being, I can tell you that in a good number of communities, it was clear that only the aboriginal policing program could truly maintain order in a culturally appropriate way.

That said, we are still fully responsible for making sure the program is well managed, the spending is justified and the return on investment is constantly improved.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: What I want to know is about the $3 million the Auditor General mentioned. She said that under the program criteria, the $3 million had been spent without sufficient justification. So I would like to know what steps have been taking with respect to that $3 million. Has there been an investigation, and, if necessary, what steps have been taken so that this doesn't happen again?

Ms. Chantal Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the program is subject to ongoing audits. The auditor highlighted the insufficiency of the administrative procedure, and that has been fixed. I would be pleased to send you a letter detailing the steps taken to ensure sound management of the program.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would like to get that, Mr. Chairman, please.

Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): You have three minutes, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): This is to Mr. Elcock, but the Solicitor General or another party might have the answer.

Since September 11, it has probably been necessary for CSIS to establish new relationships or linkages, or to renovate relationships, with some police forces across the country, where the objective is protection of infrastructure from possible attack. I'm just wondering if CSIS has found it necessary itself to renew those relationships, renovate them, construct them, or whether CSIS would rely on the RCMP or another government agency to establish the appropriate type of information sharing or collaboration on the ground from time to time, as needs might arise.

À (1000)

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, we've had long-standing relationships with police services across the country. From our point of view, in reality, we probably work with major police forces across the country even more frequently than we do with the RCMP, given that the major police forces are responsible for Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and a number of other major Canadian cities. We work with police forces across the country and have traditionally done so. We have traditionally had good relationships with most of them. We haven't had any need to reconstruct them or to rebuild them. They have been very good all along and continue to be good.

Mr. Derek Lee: Do you ever have any difficulties on the issue of the sharing of information because you're dealing with police forces that are part of another level of government? Do you have MOUs with these police forces?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Not generally, Mr. Chairman. We have not had much of a problem with sharing information with police forces. There are occasions where, if it's classified information, there may be some difficulty in providing it to them in a form they can hold. They may not even have a safe in which to put it, which can sometimes make life complicated. But the reality is that in terms of passing information, we've had relatively little trouble with the police generally, across the country. There's been more difficulty between us and the RCMP, but that may be because we share the same lawyers.

The reality with the force has been a concern on the force as a result of a Supreme Court decision and whether or not information that they have from us must be disclosed. It can lead to difficulties in the prosecution of a case if we refuse to disclose the information. I think that was the rationale for the inclusion in Bill C-36 of the new provisions in and the amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, which ought to provide the courts with more discretion and a broader ability to deal with cases of information--intelligence agency information or even, indeed, police information, in some cases--that is very sensitive.

The court will now have some broader powers in terms of looking at that information and deciding whether or not it needs to be provided to the defence, or in what form it needs to be provided to the defence, than would have been true in previous cases.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Lee, your time has expired.

Our clerk suggests that if there is any renovation that needs to take place, it take place in the local Home Depot.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. MacKay, for three minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have just a very quick and somewhat specific question. With respect to aboriginal policing, are you aware of any discrepancies over the office space rental, the square footage allotment, that is made on reserves for first nations people compared with the rental space in municipalities, for example? Are you aware that there is a bit of a dispute over that? What efforts are being made to resolve that, if you're aware of it?

[Translation]

Ms. Chantal Bernier: That is a very specific question. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer that in the same letter in which I will provide further information with respect to a previous answer.

I would just say that the police infrastructure on reserves is a very real problem that we are currently looking at in an attempt to come up with a practical solution.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much.

[English]

I have another rather specific question for Corrections Canada. Are you aware, with respect to these supplementary estimates--I don't see it earmarked anywhere--of plans afoot to have a national victims' ombudsman's office, that is a national office modeled after the Ontario victims' office, that will be a general source of information for victims across the country? Is that in the works, that you're aware of?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: No, I am not aware of any such plan.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Specifically with respect to a treatment centre in Morell, Prince Edward Island, are you aware of any cost overruns associated with that infrastructure investment?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: No. At present, the report I have received indicates that the centre will stay within its budget.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a question to the parole board.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Final question, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's listed here: capital, acquisition of machinery and equipment. What sort of equipment is the National Parole Board investing in?

And are you aware of any instances where inmates were eligible for employment insurance immediately upon release?

À (1005)

Ms. Hélène Chevalier (Executive Director, National Parole Board): I'll start with your last question. The issue of employment insurance would fall under the purview of Correctional Service, which supervises the offender once they're released, rather than on the board.

In terms of acquisition of machinery and equipment, it would have to do with informatic issues.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, will she be permitted to answer that question?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Yes.

Ms. Louise Saint-Laurent: Could you repeat your question? I'm sorry; I didn't get it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. Very simply, there has been an allegation that certain inmates were eligible for employment insurance immediately upon release. It seems like a complete aberration. Maybe it's a question more for HRDC, but are you aware of that situation?

Ms. Louise Saint-Laurent: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Merci bien.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Apparently, colleagues--I'll just share this with you--some of the officials were told that this meeting would end at 10 o'clock, and of course our meeting is scheduled from 9 to 11.

Which officials are under any compulsion to leave earlier? I apologize for any miscommunication on our part, but this meeting is scheduled to go to 11.

So we'll just continue then.

Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr. Elcock...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...in terms of how you decide what to do and perhaps when to do it. In light of the bin Laden tape that identified Canada and other western countries, how serious are we to take that?

Mr. Ward Elcock: The reality, in our view, was that it really was of some interest that bin Laden would in fact identify Canada, but I think given our participation in Afghanistan, given our close relationship with the United States, and given our status as a western country, we had already assumed that the potential threat to us, although perhaps probably lower than the threat to the United States, which has been the primary bin Laden target, was relatively high.

So at the end of the day, it didn't dramatically change our estimation of what the threat was or was not.

Mr. Lynn Myers: And you're confident that everything is in place that would be required in case something should happen.

Mr. Ward Elcock: We've certainly made every effort to do that--but if I could find a piece of wood to hug, I'd do that at the same time as I say that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Elcock, you're probably in the best position of anyone, given your role and the role of your service and such, to maybe comment on this, although maybe you don't want to, and I respect that. But it's often struck me that if I were an American, I'd feel terribly embarrassed in terms of the people, the terrorists, who were allowed in under visitor visas and who ultimately went on to train in the United States, specifically Florida, for air flights and such. So it strikes me, when I hear Americans say that Canada has a very porous border and Canada is a problem. And we hear that from some quarters even within our own country.

Is that in fact the reality? Is it a legitimate claim that Americans, or even Canadians, can say that Canada has a porous border and we're as much at fault, it would appear, according to these people anyway, as anyone else?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I think, Mr. Chairman, to some extent all western democracies have those issues of concern. The reality is as countries we have prospered on the basis of the free movement of people and the free movement of goods, and by definition when you have free movement of people and goods, you have risks. I think it's quite clear in the United States that dramatic changes have been made in the system within the United States. The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in the last week or so is an indication of that.

The transformation that's taking place at the FBI to move it from looking more like a police force and investigating issues as a police force, to moving much more to look like an intelligence service with a highly centralized organization, centralized investigations, and a centralized database, none of which the FBI has had in its previous history, is another indication of enormous changes in the American system, which are undoubtedly a reaction to the events of September 11.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to refer a question to Correctional Service, possibly the parole board but Correctional Service in particular. I'll use a specific incident that I think is indicative, or could be indicative, of a larger problem. I refer to the case of Robert Noyes in British Columbia, who was convicted of seven first-degree murders spread over a period of nine months while he was on day parole.

You'd think that somebody on day parole would be under some pretty strict supervision. First, I understand there's an investigation going on into that, and I'd like to know what is the progress of that investigation. But in the larger sense, I'd like to know if there is a problem with the resourcing in supervising these offenders on day parole, because seven murders spread over nine months for somebody on day parole seems a little ludicrous.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Before you respond to that question, are there any legal considerations with respect to any response? I just ask you to avert your mind to that issue, because I would understand this specific case to be before courts.

So it is okay? I just didn't want us to blunder into something.

Please, feel free.

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I am not the resource person who should answer those questions. Given that I am the senior financial officer of the Correctional Service, I am not involved in specific correctional issues. I am unable to answer your question, unfortunately.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Do you have anyone with you who could respond to Mr. Cadman's question?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: No, unfortunately.

[English]

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: What I can say is that there is indeed a board of investigation ongoing on that case. As we do with all the other reports, once it has been vetted under access to information and the Privacy Act, and once we've verified with the Crown that they're comfortable with releasing it, it is released publicly and will be released to the members accordingly.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Is there some way to find out, though, if there is a problem with the resourcing? I'm just using that specific case to highlight what may be a problem in the resourcing of the supervision of these offenders. I'd like to have something come forward or somebody to answer, is there a resourcing issue here?

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: That answer I couldn't provide you here.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for the parole board representative.

Are you comfortable with the caseload that your parole officers have?

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: Maybe I can direct the question to CSC. They are the people responsible for the supervision, so they are responsible for parole officers, not the National Parole Board.

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: No. The Correctional Service feels that the current ratio of offenders to supervisors is appropriate. According to our information, the rate of recidivism is really very, very low and compares very favourably with correctional services elsewhere in the world.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Grose: You brought up an interesting point here, about the ratio of recidivism. How far do you track these people? Are you just referring to people who are on some kind of supervision, and then at the end of the supervision, you lose track of them, or do you continue keeping track of whether they reoffend or not?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: We keep tabs on what happens to our offenders right up until they have completely been released from their sentence. After that, naturally, they become citizens like any other, and we do not continue to supervise them. Once the supervision is over, it's over. We have no other information afterwards.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have a question for Mr. Gauvin. I'm not sure whether this would be in your purview or not, but with respect to the intended addition of the ballooning budget of the long gun registry, which seems absolutely destined for collapse, adding that to the CPIC registry system is the intended part of the program. I'm wondering, given the current caseload on CPIC.... A few years ago we were told that the CPIC system itself was drastically in need of an upgrade, and I understand that has taken place, but can you give us any information on how that effort is going?

I mean, it seems to be a complete and utter disaster everywhere else. The AG will be reporting on it today. Can you tell us how that effort is going in terms of having the CPIC system being given the additional weight of this farcical gun registry?

À (1015)

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Yes, the CPIC has been going under a whole revamp in terms of technology. We received, approximately three or four years ago, $115 million to do that. We've been busy doing that with our technology people, and we're at the stage now where most of the technology has been upgraded.

This is a 30-year-old system. It was based on really old technology. We've encountered some difficulties along the way, but none that were insurmountable, and it's continuing to improve. We have millions of transactions a year, as you know, off CPIC, and there has been very little or no interruption whatsoever.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Specifically, am I correct in suggesting that the intention is to have this gun registry also included on CPIC?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: CPIC does some checking for the registrants, but as you know, the gun registry is really operated by the Department of Justice. Our role in that was strictly to set it up and then do the checks.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Is it going to be a stand-alone computer system?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Eventually, I believe, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: At some unknown, uncosted point in the future?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: You'd have to ask the Department of Justice about that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Similarly, I have a question with respect to the DNA databank, which seems to me, of course, a far more logical and common-sense approach to registering criminals, as opposed to some objects. How is that integration going? Is that being added to the CPIC, or is it the intention that it be a stand-alone system as well?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: The DNA databank is a stand-alone system. It's working exceptionally well.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can you tell us whether that's operating within the budget allotment?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Yes, it is.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So is there any need or any request for additional resources there?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: No. That program was set over a certain period, and that period will expire at the end of this fiscal year. We will be asking for an extension in future operation. It's been very successful. It's helped in a number of cases, and we hope it will continue as such.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Particularly the unsolved murders. Is that correct? That's the area that you're suggesting is most successful.

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Gauvin, there's been some talk about a sex offender registry. The previous Solicitor General said we had such under CPIC. Do you have the resources for a separate, stand-alone system, and how might that be different from what is being utilized now with CPIC?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Mr. Chairman, the sex offender registry will be an offshoot of CPIC. We will basically be using the information from CPIC and doing an index of sex offenders.

Mr. John Maloney: So it will not be a stand-alone system?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: No, it will be part of CPIC.

Mr. John Maloney: How will that change from what we have now?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: There will be a spinoff and there will be a separate listing of names kept on a regular basis.

I believe at the last federal-provincial meeting, it was agreed by all the provinces and the federal government that this would take place, and it's being done as we speak.

Mr. John Maloney: It's in fact being implemented now?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: The separate offshoot system is being developed.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'd like to ask my next question to the deputy solicitor general, either Ms. Plunkett or Ms. Hassard.

In 2000, the subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act put forward a report, I guess it was. They called on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to come up with this report, a work in progress. In that report they came forward with 53 recommendations to improve the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Our Solicitor General at the time, after reading the report, actually gave it quite high praise. He called it a welcome addition to the information, research, and knowledge that was currently available. Then Mr. MacAulay went on to say that he was looking forward to implementing 46 of the 53 recommendations he had.

I've tried to get information from the Library of Parliament and from other places as to how many of the 46 recommendations have been implemented, how many of those recommendations have been adopted and are being incorporated into the so-called act today. I haven't been able to find that any of the recommendations have been used. Am I correct in assuming that those 46 recommendations are in place, or have they not been implemented?

À (1020)

[Translation]

Ms. Chantal Bernier: In fact, Mr. Chairman, this question is also addressed to me. The reason why you could not get all the information you want is probably that the recommendations and the measures to be implemented are still being studied and it is up to the minister to announce them. All I can say, is that we are about to implement concrete measures. Unfortunately, this is all I can say for now.

[English]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Our concern here is that we see so much being diverted to committee work. We see a lot of issues that, personally, I believe ministers don't want to touch, so they send them off to committee.

Here in 2000 we had a committee being struck, travelling across Canada, and coming up with 53 recommendations to improve conditional release, to improve something I think all Canadians believe needs to be improved. The Solicitor General gives the committee and the recommendations high praise and says that 46 of these need to be implemented or acted on. Two or three years after that release the department doesn't seem to be satisfied yet. So when we have a Solicitor General who stands and gives it high praise, what's the holdup in the department? Who's running who here?

[Translation]

Ms. Chantal Bernier: I think that you can understand by my answer that I am bound to keep this matter confidential. All I can say, is that we did in fact carry out an in-depth study in order to carry out a concrete task. I hope that we will be able to announce very concrete measures shortly.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Are there any questions on the government side? Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to pursue this record keeping. When a person is paroled or is in any kind of a release program, he's still serving a sentence. When he finishes that sentence--as you said, and you put it very well--he becomes a regular citizen, supposedly. If he reoffends and comes back into the system, we have no way of tracking him. What I'm getting at is, we don't know whether our programs are working or not. They may be working reasonably well while he's under supervision, but are they working well after he's released from supervision?

I think that's the downfall of our whole system, because we don't know whether or not what we're doing is working. We're spending a lot of money on programs, but do they work? I can't get an answer on whether or not the reoffend rate is good, bad, or indifferent.

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: In fact, the National Parole Board's yearly performance monitoring report does track the results of offenders once their warrant expiry date has been completed. But we only have the information in respect of federal sentences, additional sentences returned in the federal system. What we find is that for offenders who've been released on full parole and who complete their warrant expiry date, one out of ten will come back into the federal system. For individuals who've been released on statutory release and have completed their statutory release, the number goes up to three out of ten who will come back. And for those who are detained until the last day of their sentence under the detention provisions, it's five out of ten who will come back. Those are the statistics for when we track back, obviously from the federal perspective, as to people who come back into the federal system.

À (1025)

Mr. Ivan Grose: I have one further question on that. How far out are you tracking? Does this go on forever, for the lifetime of the individual?

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: Yes, because if they re-enter, then we have the information in terms of the FPS, the fingerprint sheet. It's the same with the fingerprints and all that, so we know that it's the same offender who comes back. That's a study that's been done over many years.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Are those figures available now?

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: Yes, they're in our performance monitoring report.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Grose.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I have a question for the RCMP, and I'm going back to Madame Venne's issue about communication.

I refer to an incident or a specific problem we saw occur where we had an individual who was wanted by Interpol. There was a warrant out for his arrest as a failed refugee claimant, yet the RCMP in British Columbia had been watching him for up to a year. They eventually nailed him for running one of the largest auto theft rings in British Columbia, yet we were not aware of a deportation order and an arrest order that had been issued some two years earlier.

So again, I'm just wondering, with respect to this communication problem, does one exist? Obviously a problem existed in that case. Is this a general thing, and is anything being done to address it?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I'm the financial person, so I'm not really into operations. I couldn't comment on any individual case, but if you want to submit it, we'll try to get you an answer.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I wasn't looking for a comment on the individual case, but just in general there seems to be a problem with communication between the RCMP and, in this case, immigration. I believe there may have been...because Interpol was involved in this. It seems there's a real breakdown.

Is there anybody who can answer?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Just as a general comment, there is a lot of interaction between various police agencies, and Interpol, and other federal departments. I guess you always can say that it could be better, but there is a lot of activity and interchange in terms of data, intelligence, or other types of information.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Anybody else?

I guess not.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Myers.

Are there any others on the government side?

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: If a prisoner completes his sentence within the institution, then does he come into your tracking?

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: Yes. Those are the people about whom I indicated that if they're detained until their warrant expiry date in the institution, then on a long-term basis the recidivism rate is 5 out of 10.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a quick question for Mr. Gauvin. This may be along the same lines as the previous questions that are too specific or of a nature that you can't answer, but are you aware of any projected requests for additional budget for compensation along the lines that we've seen for the residential school program for victims of Karl Toft, who is currently in the Edmonton area, as I understand it, on parole?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Not specifically. I think that would be a question that should be addressed to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Peter MacKay: As a representative of the RCMP, you're aware that there are still ongoing investigations outstanding?

D/Commr Paul Gauvin: Yes, definitely.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to come back to the Department of the Solicitor General on this issue of an office for victims.

I'm looking at the supplementary estimates here. Is it a correct reading to say that the Office of the Correctional Investigator had its budget ameliorated or increased for this year?

Ms. Eva Plunkett: I'm probably in the best position to answer that.

Yes, in fact the Office of the Correctional Investigator did have a budget increase this year. It was based on a business case that had been put forward indicating they had need of additional resources due their workload and the backlog of cases they were addressing. So it has been increased.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's now in the range of $2.6 million.

Ms. Eva Plunkett: I don't have the book in front of me, but, yes, there was a significant increase this year.

À (1030)

Mr. Peter MacKay: And that's due to increased caseload and backlog.

Ms. Eva Plunkett: It was a situation that had developed over a period of years. As I say, there was work done with the Treasury Board, a business case put forward based on a report that had been done by the Auditor General some years previously that there was a workload issue there and it's now being addressed by the additional resources.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So there is one central office with an operating budget of $2.6 million for inmates around the country to complain and the Solicitor General's department has no budget and no central office for victims. I want to be clear on that point. Is that correct?

Ms. Eva Plunkett: The Department of the Solicitor General?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Ms. Eva Plunkett: No, we do not have a dedicated office for victims.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Or the Correctional Service, there is no office specifically earmarked for victims nationally to go similarly to make complaints about the system, but there is one for inmates?

Ms. Eva Plunkett: I can't comment on the budget.

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Our community work sector also deals with the victims' files. There is no office specifically meant for the victims.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. MacKay, and thank you to members on the government side.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I'm just following up on what Mr. MacKay said. First of all, one of the recommendations in that CCRA report was that:

(a) the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended by adding part IV to establish the victims' information and complaints office, to have jurisdiction over victim-related activities of both the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board; (b) this office be empowered to both provide information to victims as defined in the Act and to receive, investigate, and resolve individual and system-wide victim complaints; and (c) the office be empowered....

And it goes on and on and lists other things.

Obviously, what we're frustrated with is that the department refuses to move on some of these recommendations that came forward two years ago. In fact, in the government's response, the Solicitor General's response to the report that was tabled, he talks about the 53 recommendations. He says:

The Committee undertook a thorough review of the provisions and operations of the CCRA and made 53 recommendations which reflect the views of many of those consulted. The Government will make every effort to fulfill the spirit of the recommendations in a timely and effective manner.

I think the statement that's just been made by the deputy minister clearly demonstrates how the federal departments are running the government, and I--

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Mr. Sorenson is making some very interesting points here, but as parliamentary secretary I just wanted to intervene by saying that in the very near future we'll have the department heads in here on precisely the issues he is raising.

So this is a legitimate point of order. These are more financial people, Mr. Sorenson, and you want your questions directed to the people who can actually answer them.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes, I realize that, and you will remember that when I brought my motion forward a number of weeks ago, the discussion was that they would be here to talk. Part of my motion was about dealing with the CCRA and the report that came forward, and the response from the government side was that they would be here at supplementary estimates and that then would be the time to ask the questions.

Well, we're asking those questions today, and to be quite frank, I think Ms. Venne and a number of others are quite frustrated with the lack of answers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I'm not sure it was specific to the supplementary estimates as to whether or not those questions would be answered specifically. These are supplementary estimates. It's more financial than anything else.

But I repeat, knowing your concern in this area and the concern of all members, including the chairman, we will have an opportunity in the very near future to quiz the department and agency heads, who will be able to specifically answer the points you're raising.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Myers.

Mr. Sorenson, you may have another two minutes to complete your questions.

À (1035)

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you for that point of order, Mr. Myers.

With respect to one of the other admissions you made today, Mr. Elcock--and I don't know if it was done more tongue-in-cheek--you mentioned that in some cases you had more difficulty with local police or with the RCMP than you had with other police forces around the country. Then you mentioned that part of the problem is that we have and we share the same lawyers.

This is kind of a frightening admission in that the security of this country is based on the two frontline defences being CSIS and the RCMP, and the imperativeness or the importance of them working closely together. I was just wondering if you would elaborate a little bit more on the difficulty between CSIS and the RCMP.

Mr. Ward Elcock: I don't think I said there was a difficulty. I was referring only to the fact that there is a Supreme Court decision on Stinchcombe, which has implications for the disclosure of information to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Under the Stinchcombe decision, the amount of information the police are required to provide, as part of the prosecution, can sometimes create a problem if they hold information that is classified, not releasable, or that nobody--neither we nor another foreign agency--is prepared to release.

The same thing can apply to police information. The police may have information, from their investigation, about a human source or a certain activity that they may not want to put out in the course of a particular prosecution. The Stinchcombe decision made it difficult for both the police and ourselves to allow that information to be used. That was why the decision was taken to bring forward the new provisions, which were part of Bill C-36, to the Canada Evidence Act. In a sense, that incorporated into Canadian law the CEPA provisions from the U.S. law, which the Americans have had for some years and allows a broader set of rules in dealing with the disclosure of confidential police information, or intelligence information, or highly classified police or intelligence information. It allows the courts more tools to deal with that.

Before, it was an either up or down decision. If the court said the information had to be released, then you either decided to release the information or you lost your prosecution. It was an either-or situation. The new rules under the Canada Evidence Act will allow the courts to look at the information and make different decisions about what information needs to released, the form in which it will be released, and so on.

It'll be some while, perhaps, before the courts get used to those provisions, but they ought to allow for an easier process for the disclosure of information in those cases. They won't hinder the sharing of information with the police on threats, specific incidents, or anything like that. It's really only in the ultimate case of a prosecution that one will face a problem.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. Sorenson.

Will there be any questioning from the government side?

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Elcock, on this issue of recruitment that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is currently undertaking, is it fair to say there is a specific need right now for CSIS to look for individuals with--how do I say this with political correctness--certain cultural and language skills?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I don't know if you're referring to the recruitment that was mentioned earlier, which was not by CSIS. That was by CSE, which is--

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm referring to CSIS recruitment.

Mr. Ward Elcock: On our recruitment, it's always been of concern to us to have a service population that is, in some sense, made up of the people of Canada--from all ethnic backgrounds, in other words. But the reality of our investigations is that you don't go out and recruit a specific ethnic group to investigate a specific ethnic group. It doesn't work very well, and people are often unhappy about being forced into a box, in which they're only there to investigate the particular ethnic group from which they came.

It really doesn't, at the end of the day, make any difference to us one way or the other. We need people because we need the different ethnic backgrounds. We need the different language skills, and so on, but we don't recruit a specific ethnic group to investigate a specific ethnic group.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I guess what I'm getting at here--

Mr. Ward Elcock: We don't operate like the police, in the sense of having undercover officers who work in a specific milieu and provide us with information. We recruit sources who will do that for us, and in some cases it's helpful for the people who recruit the sources to have the language skills, but they don't have to come from a specific ethnic group to have them.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure. But post-September 11, has there been an effort by your department to look for a certain skill set to assist in all the work CSIS does, whether it's seeking out sources, or any form of investigation?

À (1040)

Mr. Ward Elcock: It hasn't changed our view of the kind of people we need as officers. In reality, we need people who have both analytical skills and the requisite personality skills to allow them to function as fully effective intelligence officers. We probably have less specialization than a much bigger service in, for example, the United States. But that's simply a reality of being a relatively smaller service. So we look for people who are more general in terms of their backgrounds--both their analytical skills and their interpersonal skills.

Inevitably, people will specialize in some areas rather than in others, and may spend more of their time operating as source recruiters than analysts, but those are the realities of their careers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I want to return to Mr. Grose's question on the tracking and the recidivism rate of offenders.

I'm not sure to which one of you this applies, perhaps Madame Saint-Laurent or the National Parole Board's executive director. But W-5 had a very frightening report awhile back on about 800 parolees who are currently unaccounted for in this country. The report went on and talked about having no idea where these men and women are and the fact they've almost disappeared—“into thin air” is I think the way they mentioned it in the report.

To the National Parole Board, my question is, does the board take into account the fact that there are not enough parole officers to keep track of these individuals who are being put out on parole? In other words, when you decide whether or not you're going to grant parole or when you bring the parolee before the board, do you take into account the fact that they may not have the resources and the ability to supervise these individuals in a way that upholds the whole concept or principle of the protection of Canadians? Do you still grant parole?

Ms. Hélène Chevalier: When the board reviews a case for consideration for release, we obviously receive information from the Correctional Service on where the individual has been and what he has done to address his risk and needs, and also the release plan and how the Correctional Service is proposing to perform the supervision. So it's on this basis that we make the decision.

Madame Saint-Laurent was saying that in their estimation--you may want to talk more about this--there is a sufficient number of parole officers in the community to conduct the supervision. So on the basis of the information we have, we look at each case and the release plan and what's being proposed in terms of supervision. It's on this basis that we release.

So we don't necessarily make a judgment in terms of how many parole officers will be available, because it is really the responsibility of the Correctional Service to allocate resources for supervision in the community.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: If Madame Saint-Laurent believes there are adequate parole officers to supervise those parolees, and if we are losing 800 out there—I mean, if these are accurate figures—then why are they doing such a poor job?

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: I'm really not in a position to be able to comment on that. But I can tell you that, on any given day, we have over 8,000 people on parole who are supervised. In some cases—

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: We don't know where 10% of them are.

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: I cannot comment on that number. I'm not aware of that number.

But in certain cases there are certainly some parolees who go unlawfully at large. Then we immediately put in place measures with police entities to try to track them down and bring them back. When we bring them back, we usually send them back to prison.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I can say at this point.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. MacKay.

À (1045)

Mr. Peter MacKay: On that, I guess I just have a general departmental question. I'm looking at the new capital projects. I could be wrong, but I don't see a great deal of proportional allotment for prison improvements. I'm wondering if that is in fact the case, and if there are any initiatives in the works that would entail the expanding, or even the building, of new prisons in this country.

Ms. Eva Plunkett: I would see that as going to the Correctional Service.

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Could you just repeat it?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Sure.

As a general question, I'm just wondering whether there are any plans afoot to expand the current capacity for the inmate population, either with current facilities or to build new prisons in this country.

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Our studies show that our institutions currently have us enough space to house the entire inmate population. On the other hand, we also intend, in some cases, to renovate some of our institutions, either because they are becoming obsolete, or because they can no longer provide the needed services according to the correctional program, but on the whole, our current capacity is enough to meet our needs. On the other hand, in some regions, capacity has to be adjusted to various security levels. This is why there have been some reassignments.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Elcock, I know you would be disappointed if you didn't get this question, because it's asked every time you appear. I may have missed it; Mr. Lee may have asked it before I arrived. The question is, on the capacity of CSIS to operate abroad, is that something that you personally, with your lengthy experience in your capacity as director, feel that Canada should be examining in terms of our operating outside our Canadian borders?

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, that seems to be a more complicated question to answer than it actually is, in my view. The reality is that with respect to threats to the security of Canada, the service has always, almost since its inception, operated abroad. The reality of our evolution as a service is that we operate much more extensively abroad than we did in 1984, when we were created.

The reality is that we do operate abroad now. We likely will continue to operate abroad given that most of the threats come at us from abroad rather than being endemic to Canada. That's simply a reality of how most effectively to deal with the problems.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I believe William Head prison has been recently reclassified, and I can't remember whether it went from medium to minimum or the other way around.

Can you tell us how much it actually cost to transfer those inmates who had to be transferred? If it was reclassified as medium, then obviously there were inmates who had to be transferred back to minimum. What was the cost of that?

[Translation]

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Recently, the minister announced that the William Head Medium Security Institution was going to be turned into a minimum security institution. The main reason for this is that the geographical location of the institution does not provide for a security perimeter that meets the standards of a medium security institution. Thus, because of the perimeter, we decided that this should become a minimum security institution.

Now I cannot tell you the total cost of this change, but the transfers will probably happen gradually. We are expecting this institution to be able to operate at a minimum security level by the end of the current calendar year. Individuals who must be placed in medium security institutions will be transferred to other institutions in the region in order to minimize the cost.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): That's fine, Mr. Cadman?

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a final question in follow-up to my previous question to you, Mr. Elcock. What I'm getting at is, has there been even what I would describe as a philosophic shift within your department to do more on the preventative side outside of Canada?

I know we have the capacity currently to operate in some instances at a certain level outside of Canada and it certainly, as you've indicated many times, is part of a collaborative effort with other security services, but is this something that Canada could be doing more on the preventative side, and would that require additional resources, since this is the central focal point of our questions today?

À (1050)

Mr. Ward Elcock: Let me try it another way, Mr. Chairman.

Most of the problems we confront on the terrorism front are problems that come at us from elsewhere. We have historically always operated abroad. We've operated in conjunction with other services. We also operate independently from other services in running operations abroad.

I'm not going to get into the kinds of operations we run abroad, or describe the kinds of operations we run abroad; that wouldn't be helpful in terms of alerting people to the kinds of things we do. But at the end of the day, if I can't run sources in Afghanistan, I can't really target al-Qaeda. If I can't run sources out of other parts of the world, then I can't really target the terrorist groups that are a problem in that part of the world, and their implications for Canada.

We have done that over the years. We'd do more of it. More resources means you can do more of it, and we indeed do have more resources and likely will spend more time in operations abroad than we have historically. But we have done them for years.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, as head of the secret service, you do a very good job.

My final question is, have you seen the new Bond film, and what do you think of it?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter MacKay: Or can you answer that?

Mr. Ward Elcock: I think he has more fun than we do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Peter MacKay: And certainly more resources.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Grose. And what do you think about the new Bond film?

Mr. Ivan Grose: Mr. MacKay opened a new door, something that's very difficult to do in a prison.

On the capacity, do we have any dormitories or double-bunking?

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: Yes, we do have double-bunking in some of our prisons. We still have. We are trying to limit that, reduce that as much as possible, but in some cases, yes, we still have that.

Mr. Ivan Grose: That then begs the question, how do you limit it or reduce it, through early parole or...? It's not within your control how many people come in. You just have to accept whatever comes. So how can you attempt to limit that if we're not building any new institutions?

A/Commr Louise Saint-Laurent: We're not building new institutions, but in some cases we are expanding some of the institutions that we have right now, so by using those capacities....

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Thank you.

Mr. Sorenson.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: To the Deputy Solicitor General, who has promised that there will be a response coming to the proposals of the CCRA, are we to expect that in weeks or in months? Approximately what timeline are you working on here?

Ms. Eva Plunkett: I love the promotion to Deputy Solicitor General....

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Or whatever your title is.

Ms. Eva Plunkett: Actually, it was Madame Bernier who responded to this area of questioning.

[Translation]

Ms. Chantal Bernier: I think I have answered those questions adequately. I am sorry, but I would really like to stand by my previous answers.

[English]

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Could you repeat your answer?

Ms. Chantal Bernier: Please repeat your question, but I feel that I've answered as much as I could.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Well, no, the question is just that in your response you mentioned that, in a timely way, the department would be coming and responding to the recommendations of the CCRA. I'm just wondering, what's your definition of “timely manner”? Is it going to be weeks, or months? What timeline are you operating on there in that department?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): Mr. Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Sorenson raises these very important issues. As I indicated, we want to get responses for that.

I would think that early in the new year we'll be able to assemble the people who are required to answer your questions.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McKay): I don't see any further questions. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here this morning and for their very fulsome answers.

The meeting is adjourned.