:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the government's spending plans for the public safety portfolio as laid before Parliament in the main estimates.
I have brought with me today an entire posse of senior officials from the portfolio. I have Mario Dion, chairperson at the National Parole Board; Marc-Arthur Hyppolite, who is senior deputy commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada; Stephen Rigby, president of the Canadian Border Services Agency; Myles Kirvan, who is associate deputy minister of public safety; James Judd, director of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; and William Sweeney, senior deputy commissioner of the RCMP.
While I have to leave at 10:30 a.m., as does the associate deputy minister, I do believe the other officials will be able to remain for the last half hour--and I hope I'm correct there--if there are any questions.
[Translation]
The main estimates 2009-2010 for the public safety portfolio total $7.3 billion, which represents a modest 0.5% increase over the budget for the previous fiscal year. Subject to Parliament's approval, the Government of Canada will use these funds to fund programs to protect Canadians' safety and to continue the efforts begun three years ago to increase security in the streets and communities for all Canadians.
You can obtain more information on our priorities in the reports on plans and priorities presented to Parliament on March 26.
[English]
These main estimates reflect the government's decision to invest this year in new measures to enhance public safety, including renewal of the national crime prevention strategy, federal security responsibilities for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, continuing the transformation of corrections, and additional resources for the RCMP to focus on law enforcement priorities such as drugs and border security.
[Translation]
The main estimates also include government investments in public safety since 2006.
Since coming to power, the government has paid considerable amounts to improve border security, emergency preparedness and youth crime prevention, as well as to hire 1,500 new RCMP officers and reform of the Correctional Service.
[English]
Budgets since 2006 have invested in programs to help protect children from sexual exploitation over the Internet, funded the national anti-drug strategy, and established funds for the provinces so they can hire more police officers. The cumulative effects of these investments are that there are more police on the streets; there is a greater and more focused emphasis on crime prevention; we are getting tougher on gangs and drug-related gun crimes; and we have just introduced new legislation to create stiffer penalties for many of these offences.
[Translation]
We are transforming the federal correctional system and strengthening Canada's national security capability. We have also reinforced the border by making it more effective and secure. We have reason to be proud of all these achievements.
[English]
The security and integrity of Canada's borders remains an important government priority. These estimates reflect additional funding for the Canada Border Services Agency's basic operations, border security and Olympic security. In fact, the government is investing $345 million over the next four years to ensure that the Canada Border Services Agency has all it needs to meet its mandate. I was pleased this week to announce expansions to publicly funded services provided by the Canada Border Services Agency at airports across the country.
[Translation]
With regard to the RCMP, the main estimates provide for an increase of $48 million in spending power for 2009-2010. Furthermore, through the supplementary estimates (A), the government will seek an additional amount of $130 million to bear the federal share of costs related to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and to provide for other budget allocations for police activities.
[English]
In brief, we are managing prudently. We are keeping our commitments and we are ensuring our agencies have the resources they need to carry out their mandates.
Now, since I appeared before you last, I understand this committee has been studying border security. I would like to report to you on my recent visit to Washington, where I met with key officials from the Obama administration and Congress, including both the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder. I reminded them that Canada is America's closest friend, most trusted ally, and most important trading partner.
[Translation]
As part of my discussions with Secretary Napolitano, we have agreed to seek opportunities to cooperate and work together to achieve our common objectives of reinforcing security and developing trade. We have also decided to meet twice a year on an official basis to manage border issues.
[English]
These meetings will help us develop measures together. They give us greater security and facilitate trade. We will work to finalize details on initiatives that allow Canada and the U.S. to work more cooperatively on border issues. One such initiative is the shiprider program. On that front, we spoke about the need to finalize a framework agreement that will allow both countries to implement the program on a national basis. We also agreed to again explore the possibility of moving forward with land preclearance.
[Translation]
Later this month, I will be meeting with Secretary Napolitano once again. The positive and constructive discussions I have had with my American counterparts are encouraging. In my opinion, we have the opportunity to work with the new American government to move matters forward and develop effective approaches to solving common problems.
[English]
National security is an important concern for our government. Terrorist activity continues to take Canadian lives in Afghanistan. Extremist and terrorist activity proves to be an enduring threat around the world.
Canada has been working closely with our allies to combat potential threats to our security. However, I believe the concerted effort that has been applied since 2001 has been paying off. While the risks remain real and incidents are still frequent, I believe the world is a safer place today. The collective counterterrorism efforts of Canada and our allies have made a difference.
Here in Canada we've had the first successful prosecution of the Toronto 18 extremist group. The recent conviction here in Ottawa of Momin Khawaja was the first successful prosecution under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act. These are tributes to the successful efforts of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, but it's also a reminder of the reality that extremist and terrorist threats are very real and we must remain vigilant.
Another significant national security issue we face is cyber security. We've recently seen cyber attacks on the countries of Estonia and Georgia. The recent report from the Munk Centre at the University of Toronto is not a surprise to the government. Not a day goes by when someone, somewhere in the world, isn't trying to breach the security of our systems.
Our government will continue building on our work in this area. We will be working with our allies to meet this challenge, a challenge that changes and grows daily. We will also be encouraging the private sector to seriously engage on this issue, as it represents a potential threat to our economy, security, and stability.
Before we go to questions, in preparing for my appearance here today, it came to my attention that when I appeared before you last, there was one question to which I needed to correct the answer. There was a question, which I believe came from Mr. Harris, regarding funding in the supplementary estimates, an item totalling $1.142 million for the security and prosperity partnership. I had indicated in my initial answer that it related to the security priority of the five priorities of the security and prosperity partnership, which is called smart and secure borders. I then consulted with officials, came back, and told you, no, it wasn't that. It was in fact for the Montebello summit. My initial answer was in fact the correct one. Having had it drawn to my attention last night when reviewing these notes, I wanted to clear that up for the committee so that you have a clear understanding and record of it.
I know the committee has a busy agenda to examine a range of issues. I know how broad and expansive the jurisdictions and issues in front of this committees are. I appreciate your efforts. My officials and I are happy to support your work by appearing before you. I appreciate the considerable effort that this committee puts into that broad range of very important issues for the safety and security of Canadians.
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. I apologize again in advance for having to depart at 10:30. Hopefully, we can get a lot done by then.
:
Of course, in government we're always choosing among priorities, and one of the ways we do that is through the strategic review process, to look at making savings where we can and apply resources where they're required more significantly. Correctional Services has gone through a strategic review process like that this past year, which is reflected in the current numbers, and it was one of the reasons why what appears like a relatively modest increase is actually a much more significant increase in the very priority areas that you indicated. Savings have been made in other areas where things were not done efficiently, or programs did not work well, in order that resources could be redirected to much higher-priority areas.
For example, on the mental health front, we will now be having assessments in the first 90 days after intake into a federal penitentiary for all individuals. Previously we didn't have that kind of mental health assessment of every individual going into our prisons. That's a new program that will be introduced. I think that is actually coming on stream this month across the entire penitentiary system. For example, in that 90-day intake period there was never any programming offered, and with shorter penitentiary sentences overall, that meant less treatment and less rehabilitation for prisoners.
A lot of what the strategic review did was provide some money to begin to introduce programming into that first 90 days. As well, there was an overall look at the relevance of programming. There has been some attention, for example, to the closure of the prison farms. Those were costing a net loss for six farms of $4 million a year. We felt that money could be more adequately redirected to programs where people would actually gain employable skills, as virtually nobody who went through those prison farms ended up with employable skills, because they were based on a model of how agriculture was done 50 years ago, when it was labour intensive, and not capital intensive, as it is today. That might have been fine while they were in prison, but it didn't provide usable work skills. We are taking that money and redirecting it again to programs that are more likely to provide employment-based skills. This will continue.
One of the difficulties, particularly on the mental health front, is that the challenge is in part money and that more resources are being provided, but part of it is the simple ability to hire the skilled personnel. There's a need for psychiatrists, psychologists. We could give them all the money they want, but it's simply difficult to find enough available in the marketplace who are willing to work within our prison system. There is a shortage of that, so Corrections Canada is placing increased focus and attention on recruitment and retention of mental health workers, whether it be nurses, psychologists, or psychiatrists. It will take time for that to have an effect.
Thank you, Minister, and your officials for coming this morning. I'd like to touch on something that concerns me. It was the Munk Centre report on cyber espionage, which, as they stated, is an issue whose time has come. I'll just read you a few excerpts from their second report in the Information Warfare Monitor, and then I'm wondering if you and/or your officials can comment on the issue and how we're preparing to deal with it.
The investigation ultimately uncovered a network of 1,300 infected hosts in 103 countries. Up to 30% of the infected hosts are considered high-value targets and include computers located in the ministries of foreign affairs, embassies, international organizations, news media, and NGOs.
They say--and I think they're correct--that this raises more questions than it answers. It does point to a particular area of concern to many in the world and to me. We must be careful to say that they're all allegations, but there is some weight to them. It says that some may conclude that what we lay out here points definitively to China as the culprit, and of course they talk about strategic domains in cyberspace that redress the military imbalance between China and the rest of the world, particularly the United States. Then they quantify it by saying that China has, of course, the world's largest Internet population, and then they say something that I think we all need to know, which is that the Internet was never built with security in mind.
I'm just going through some of the issues. They say:
This report serves as a wake-up call. At the very least, a large percentage of high-value targets compromised by this network demonstrate the relative ease with which a technically unsophisticated approach can quickly be harnessed to create a very effective spynet.
I wonder if you and/or your officials can comment on that.
:
The question of cybersecurity and cyberwarfare is really the new frontier. It's the new frontier in national security, and it's the new frontier in defence and military issues. It's one that governments are going to have to pay increasing attention to. It is also the new arms race. It's where every time you come up with a solution or a defence, there's someone on the other side trying to match you step for step.
I think it's fair to say that the Munk Centre report is really just the tip of the iceberg. There are very major problems out there in the private sector and in the public sector. Canada has been working through the Communications Security Establishment, and I think we have been very diligent in working with government departments to ensure that measures are taken to provide optimal protection.
I have a greater concern for the private sector. Some of our big institutions, the banks, have done a good job. But when you get further out there, not all, I think, are sensitive enough to the issues. You can understand, in challenging economic times, even in unchallenging economic times, that the notion of diverting significant resources to defensive protective measures in a business that's trying to make a go of it is not always immediately obvious. So I think we have a role as a government in trying to assist and persuade and heighten awareness on that front.
We have been working on developing a national cybersecurity strategy, which you will hopefully see sometime in the next year. A lot of it will be cumulative and will include what's already going on. There is a lot of activity already going on. But I believe there will also be new initiatives and directions in which we need to go. This is a major concern. It occupies us and our allies. The Americans are engaged in a very similar, almost identical parallel exercise, as are many other countries in the world. It will be something that will occupy us I think for years to come, because as we know, technology keeps changing.
We just saw--well, we may not have seen, since it may have become dormant, for obvious reasons--that virus yesterday. The architecture behind that virus is an example of the things that can be done and are done on the Internet today that we have to be aware of, especially as our business sector and our economy becomes more reliant on the Internet for business mechanisms for our financial systems, and frankly for things like our critical infrastructure.
This next question has to do with the Correctional Service of Canada, so the minister or the deputy can respond to it.
In my riding, I have Canada's largest federal penitentiary: Warkworth. I have been there several times and have taken an extensive tour of the facility. I must say, we hear a lot of negative things. There is, of course, justification for some of them, but what we don't hear is some of the positive things. I'd like to hear some comment on that.
One of the positive things is the repair of some of our larger military vehicles that is occurring there. Of course, there's CORCAN. They're making furniture, which helps to raise some funds and, more importantly, teaches trades to people. On the tour, one of the trades being taught was sandblasting. I was told by the instructor that save for one person, every single man--because it's a men's prison--who has received his certificate in sandblasting has had a job, often before leaving prison, and we never see him again. I wonder if you could comment on that and on what we're doing as a government to expand on that to help people, first, to get an education, because we know that one of the common denominators for criminal behaviour, of course, is the inability to read and write appropriately, and then, of course, there is getting a trade so that you don't have to rely on a life of anti-social behaviour.
I wonder if you would comment on that.
:
I already indicated that what may appear as a budget reduction is simply a re-profiling of money because of issues like eManifest implementation. All of this money was patterned to be flowing out in this year, at earlier stages. It's now being re-profiled to appear in later years.
In terms of the actual operations of the borders, in the personnel at the borders, in the Canadian border service officers who are there, there is no reduction. In fact, we continue to look at improved service and increasing what we have there. We're eliminating work-alone situations, for example, at some of our border crossings, so there is not a shortage of resources there. It's simply a re-profiling of money.
There are also significant capital issues from year to year in terms of their budget, and those really are a function of what projects, what border crossing facilities, you would be building in any particular year.
In terms of the actual operations, you will find that the funding is continuing to grow in pace with the needs.
Did you want to add anything to that, Mr. Rigby?
Thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you to all your officials for their appearance here today. And thank you for the roles your respective agencies play in keeping Canadians safe and secure.
I do have a couple of questions about the main estimates for 2009-10.
The first, Mr. Minister, deals with credit for time served and what the Minister of Justice accurately refers to as truth in sentencing. As you know, Bill C-25 was introduced into the House of Commons last Friday. It is going to severely restrict judges' discretion in granting two-for-one and occasionally three-for-one credit for time served in pre-trial custody allegedly because of the content of dead time and the alleged overcrowding in the provincial remand system. That's a bill and a purpose that I support very strongly, and I'm glad to see it.
It's going to have some ramifications because it's going to move people through the remand system quicker, and ultimately, if they're given longer sentences, that's going to create some pressure on the federal penitentiary system.
Could either you, Mr. Minister, or Mr. Hyppolite--we have not heard from you today--comment on whether the federal government has the plan and the resources in place to deal with the ultimate changes that are going to occur once Bill C-25 is passed and implemented?
My second and final question is with respect to gang violence and organized crime. There's a bill before the justice committee, Minister, that you'll be aware of, Bill C-14, which is an act to tackle organized crime.
We heard testimony before committee yesterday, and previously, from criminologists and defence lawyers who question the deterrent effect that bill might ultimately have. I disagree with her assessment. I think it will be an effective bill.
I want to talk specifically about youth. I think it's well accepted that individuals who are not yet embedded in a life of organized crime, but perhaps are being pressured into doing so, may very well be deterred from entering organized crime by the stronger sentences.
I was wondering if you, and perhaps Mr. Sweeney, might comment with respect to plans or your views on how you're going to deal with youth and any preventative measures to keep them out of a life in organized crime.
:
The federal government has significantly increased our investment in programs aimed at diverting young people from involvement in street gangs and in organized crime. Increasingly, young people are used for a series of reasons by criminal gangs, by drug gangs. That has been a focus for us, and that's why the funding was increased so significantly. A commitment list from the last election is being provided. That is done largely through programs in the community.
For example, in January I announced five different ones in Vancouver that were aimed at gang diversion, some at aboriginal youth, some at other at-risk youth, and they are programs that target at-risk youth. For example, they will work together with the school, try to identify young people who are at risk of getting in trouble, and then encourage them to get involved in programs that give them other positive activities to be involved in. Those social activities also reinforce the undesirablility of poor choices in life and encourage them to make the right choices.
I think that kind of investment, if successful—and we will be measuring very closely the results of programs like this to see if they pay off in the long term—are certainly far more efficient and far more effective than any deterrent value in any mandatory prison sentence.
Frankly, I'm one who believes the deterrence value of sentences is fairly limited, because not a lot of young kids go around with a copy of Martin's Criminal Code in their pocket. What they're concerned about is: Are there enough police? Am I going to get caught? Am I going to get away with this?
By the time they're worrying about what's in the Criminal Code, they're already pretty deep into it. So we want to keep them from getting there in the first place.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today. We certainly appreciate your taking the time.
Like my friend, Mr. Rathgeber, I'm certainly happy to see the emphasis our government has put on dealing with serious crime and bills like the ones we've brought forward now to deal with drug crimes and gang crimes, and of course the important truth-in-sentencing bill. When he and I visited the Alberta Solicitor General, I know that certainly that bill in particular was something they specifically identified they wanted to see us address, and I know other provincial ministers do as well. So it's very good to see we're doing that. I'm certainly hoping the opposition will end its pattern of blocking, delaying, and stalling legislation that deals with serious crime and help us to pass those important bills.
I'm also happy to hear there are plans and thoughts on the process of how that will affect our federal prisons.
I know the last time you were here at the committee, and in response to one of my questions, you mentioned our mental health strategy in the prisons as well. I'm happy to hear there's been thought put into how we'll deal with mental health issues and some of the new processes being put in place to improve the screening and address mental health issues in the prisons.
My questions will relate to prisons and to mental health, because as you're well aware, this committee will be doing a study on mental health issues in the prisons. I'd like to hear your comments and suggestions, or any requests you have of this committee, in terms of areas you'd like to see us address with regard to mental health issues when we're looking at that study. Maybe at the same time you could highlight and focus a little bit on the continuing transformation agenda we see with Corrections Canada as well, and some of the things that are being done and will be done.
:
Well, I could go all day on all these. Let me just talk about the mental health part of it, because it is an important one in my view.
What I would like you to study is not specific questions, which I think Corrections Canada is doing its best to respond to on a program level, in terms of what there is in the prison to deal with a psychiatric patient. A lot of changes have been made. We're going to have to evaluate them, see if they're the right changes, whether there are enough resources, and so on.
It's the broader problem I'm more interested in. Why is it that we're having to convert our prison system into a mental health hospital system? Why is it that people are ending up in prisons who shouldn't be? The fundamental problem is this. Why are we not getting adequate health care to individuals? Why, when they have their first couple of encounters with the courts, do they still not get adequate health care?
There are some significant differences in different parts of the country on how this gets dealt with. Some places have pretty good interventions through the courts, which might divert people away from the courts toward the mental health system. In other places there are none. The Ashley Smith case, for example, falls into one of those problematic areas.
Understanding how you get there is important, because by the time someone has had serious enough problems that they're in the federal penitentiary system, it's pretty hard to put the puzzle back together again. What we want to do is find ways to deal with it well before that happens, and that's better for society. It's better for the individuals involved; it's better for the taxpayers; it's better for our prison system. I'd like our corrections system to be a corrections system, not a mental health system.
:
I am very impressed. You're very familiar with the things that are happening in the penitentiaries.
Obviously, as the minister mentioned, we have serious challenges with respect to gangs, substance abuse issues, and organized crime. In some parts of the country it's more serious.
On the transformation agenda, we have made some very, very significant wins. There are quick wins in the area of employability and drug detection. We have an entire drug strategy. We also have adopted a series of static and dynamic measures such as ion scans, drug detections, staffing to eliminate the entrance...to eliminate throw-overs. We also make sure we have a communications strategy so the visitors know about our zero tolerance against drugs. We also make sure we have interaction and partnership with law enforcement, so that when visitors get caught introducing drugs, there are normal prosecutions that take place as a deterrence.
Our staff, obviously, receive information, and then we monitor all these activities seriously. We've seen an increase in terms of violent incidents, drugs, and gang activities as well.
:
I, too, want to express my thanks to the minister and the officials here today.
I want to get it back on track as to why you first came here, which is about the main estimates. It has been a short six months, approximately, that I've served as a parliamentarian, and first I want to comment that I truly appreciate, Minister, your work in strategic review of programs, expenditure, and operations.
Because I have a small business background, it surprises me immensely, as a newcomer to this environment, that it seems that the order of the day is to automatically accept increases to expenditures instead of decreases, when operations can be streamlined and efficiencies met, and how political that becomes for the opposition in terms of always saying we have to increase the spending.
I truly appreciate the review. It's my understanding that this is done on a frequent basis. Can you answer, Minister, how frequently that strategic review process is done?
:
I believe it's every fourth year. Every fourth year agencies are subject to it, and all government departments. In our case, the National Parole Board, the Correctional Service of Canada, and the RCMP went through it last year. There will be a new round this year from within the department.
The credit for the effectiveness of those strategic reviews should really not lie with me. It should lie with those agencies that were responsible for their own internal reviews and that did, I think, a very, very good job.
The thinking was creative. The efficiencies that were achieved reflected the right kind of thinking: let's stop doing things the way we did in the past just because that's the way we always did them. For example, at the Parole Board there was a particular type of hearing where the decision was always yes. It was always the same thing. It could be decided on paper. Why do you need to hold a hearing when it's always the exact same decision, to continue residency? They said, let's just do that on paper. Staff can review the stuff on paper, and we'll save all kinds of money that way. That kind of creative thinking makes sense.
They also had a situation where they were always having hearings with panels of three people. Agencies and tribunals at the provincial level, which I'm familiar with, had long ago gone to two- and one-person panels. They said the third member doesn't make a difference so let's use our resources more efficiently and have two-member panels; they're not going to make any worse decisions. In fact, statistically, if you look at how the members on those panels determined matters in the past, it would never have made a difference if there were two or three members. So they said, “Let's be efficient; let's spread them out; let's have more return for our dollars.” It's that kind of practice that has allowed reinvestments in things that do matter, that are priority areas.
I can tell you, all the agencies under the public safety portfolio represent priority areas for this government, because we believe that national security and public safety are very significant priorities.
:
My question is for Mr. Sweeney from the RCMP.
I see that this year your budget has been cut by a further $30 million or even more. Some services assigned to the RCMP could very well be assigned to another agency, such as the DNA analysis service, for example. Only 1% of cases are considered urgent. It takes a considerable amount of time to handle all the other requests, far more than the deadlines given.
In addition, very simple requests are submitted to you, such as those to determine whether someone has a criminal record. A person may need this kind of information to prove that he does not have a criminal record, in order to get a job or to travel outside Canada. However, it takes about a year to respond to these requests.
Will you be trying to cut down those time periods or will you continue trying to convince me that an agency like a forensic laboratory would enhance its credibility and efficiency if it were detached from the police forces? If it doesn't increase its efficiency, we could at least give it budgets that would enable it to do so.
In view of this cut to your budget, wouldn't assigning all these other functions to other agencies be a better solution?
:
I have two comments, sir.
First of all, to clarify, Mr. O'Brian is not our legal adviser. He works on legislative issues. But legal counsel is provided by the Department of Justice, which has a large office of lawyers working in the service.
With respect to the issue of confidence, I would say to you the following. CSIS is the most reviewed intelligence service in the world--externally reviewed. It may be the most reviewed agency of the Government of Canada. We are subject to review by all the various agents of Parliament, including the Privacy Commissioner and the Access to Information Commissioner. We have two statutory independent review agencies: the Inspector General, reporting to the minister, and the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Both conduct annual reviews of our operations and both report on those and any instances of non-compliance with the law or policy.
In addition to that, in the just over four years I've been with CSIS, we have been involved in four major inquiries, one of which has yet to report. They were conducted by Mr. Justice O'Connor, Mr. Justice Iacobucci, Mr. Justice Major, and the fourth one was conducted by Mr. Bob Rae on the Air India issue. So we have internal measures, policies, and so on, to deal with these issues. We have a large body of Department of Justice lawyers acting as legal counsel to us in virtually all our operations. And annually two external review bodies, over and above whatever independent inquiries are called, look through everything and anything we do and report on that.