:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, I'm pleased to have this opportunity once again to speak to this committee today, in particular about my portfolio's supplementary estimates (C) for 2017-18, as well as our interim estimates for 2018-19. I would be remiss if I didn't also include a few brief remarks about some significant new investments that were announced this week in budget 2018.
The team, Mr. Chair, includes deputy minister Malcolm Brown, whom the committee is very familiar with; the president of CBSA, John Ossowski, who is with us once again; and Dan Dubeau, the acting commissioner of the RCMP. Dan has appeared before this committee in a number of capacities over a great many years, but I would note that today may or may not be one of his final appearances. He has been serving as the acting commissioner since last summer—about an eight-month period, I believe—a tremendously important, difficult challenge, which he has discharged with great skill and ability.
Dan, thank you very much for your service over many years in the RCMP.
:
Karen Robertson is here, deputy directory of administration and the chief financial officer of CSIS.
Anne Kelly is with us once again, representing the Correctional Service of Canada, previously as assistant commissioner, now as newly installed acting commissioner. She is replacing Don Head who retired a few weeks ago. Anne is assuming the top responsibilities in the CSC while the search process goes forward for the new commissioner.
Finally, we have Jennifer Oades, who has just been appointed as the new chairperson of the the Parole Board of Canada, replacing Harvey Cenaiko.
You have a team who has partly been here before and partly brand new. We're glad to have the opportunity to present today.
As usual, our priority is keeping Canadians safe while simultaneously safeguarding rights and freedoms. That's why I was pleased with a number of elements in the budget last Tuesday, because it includes significant investments that will advance both of these objectives.
Some of those initiatives over the next five years include $507 million for Canada's first comprehensive cybersecurity plan; over $50 million in research and treatment for post-traumatic stress injuries among public safety officers; $33 million to help border officers stem the flow of opioids into Canada; $14.5 million to set up a hotline for victims of human trafficking to access the help that they need; $20.4 million in mental health supports for women in correctional facilities, over one third of whom are indigenous; $173 million to ensure we can continue to securely and effectively process asylum seekers in accordance with Canadian law and all of our international obligations; and $4.3 million to reopen penitentiary farms at Joyceville and Collins Bay correctional institutions. This was a valuable program that was unfortunately shut down between 2009 and 2011. There has been very substantial community support for reinstating the farms near Kingston, and I look forward to showing what they can achieve for rehabilitation of offenders and therefore better public safety.
I look forward to returning to this committee in the future with funding details related to to all of these issues. For now, let me turn to the estimates before us and use the remaining time to discuss some of the highlights.
To start with, we are upholding our commitment from last year's budget to establish a grant program, beginning in 2018-19, to support the families of first responders who fall in the line of duty. The memorial grant program for first responders will provide a lump sum, tax-free, direct payment of up to $300,000 to the families of police officers, firefighters, and paramedics who die as a result of their duties. The effective date for that program is April 1. That includes volunteers, auxiliary members, and reservists. In the coming year, we'll be seeking $21.9 million for this important new grant program. Supporting the families of public safety officers is the least that we can do when their loved ones lose their lives protecting all of the rest of us.
We also have to ensure that the brave women and men who keep our communities safe have the resources they need to do their tough jobs. To that end, we are seeking $70 million through the supplementary estimates (C) in program integrity funding for the RCMP. I would note that this week's budget includes an additional $80 million for the RCMP in the coming year. We are providing this funding as we undertake an integrity review of the force to ensure that the RCMP have the resources they need and where Canadians need them.
On a similar note, the CSC, the Correctional Service of Canada, is requesting a funding increase to maintain operations that were affected by budget cuts in 2014. As you may recall, that budget imposed an operating freeze for fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16 on all departments. During that period, departments were not funded for increases in salary expenditures resulting from collective agreements and the ongoing impact of those adjustments. Financial implications from the collective agreements process amount to $105.7 million for fiscal year 2017-18. That is what the Correctional Service of Canada is now seeking to cover that shortfall.
Supplementary estimates (C) also include a request for $144 million related to security for Canada's presidency of the G7, including hosting the leaders summit in Charlevoix this spring. Security operations include advance planning and preparations well in advance, including site visits, scenario developments, and risk assessments. I know the RCMP is working with the community to ensure that residents are properly informed and to ensure that the security of participants and the public is properly protected.
Mr. Paul-Hus, I know you have a request outstanding for the appropriate briefing for you with respect to these security arrangements, and we will make sure that information is provided to you.
Also, while it is not technically funded within my portfolio, I want to note that the new multi-party national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians is now up and running. These estimates include $2 million for the Privy Council Office to support the establishment of the committee's secretariat. I have heard anecdotally from a variety of members on that committee that they are pleased with the way it has started its work, and I certainly look forward to the good work that NSICOP will do.
There is much more that I would like to discuss this morning, but to close my remarks let me just focus in on two particular points with respect to Bill , the national security legislation that is moving closer to clause-by-clause consideration.
One of those points is this. There is, I believe, a drafting error that has come to our attention, and it has to do with CSIS querying the datasets in exigent circumstances when they are properly authorized to do so by the director. The threshold in the legislation as drafted says that such a search could be conducted if it would in fact provide the desired intelligence. Of course you can't know that with 100% certainty in advance, so we would propose a change in the language that would talk about a threshold of likely to produce. That would enable CSIS to perform the queries in exigent circumstances, and of course all of that is scrutinized after the fact by the new National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.
The second matter relates to testimony I read regarding ministerial directives on information sharing. As you know, I released those MDs last fall for the first time. Some of your witnesses expressed an interest in having a legal requirement that the ministerial directives be made public. I think it is an excellent idea, and I would encourage members of the committee to consider making that change in the legislation.
Mr. Chair, my officials and I are proud of the important work that we all—and when I say “all”, I mean to include the vigilant members of this committee—continue to do to ensure the security and safety of Canadians and we're happy to try to address your questions pertaining to the estimates.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Minister, thank you for being with us again, and to all of your officials thanks not only for being here, but for the fine work that you do for our country. It's much appreciated.
I'm guessing you probably have some idea about what my question will be, because I usually ask you about this when you come to committee. As you know, our public safety officers risk their mental health when they come to work every day. It's something this committee has been seized with, in terms of our report, which was unanimous, and it's certainly something I've been seized with since I was elected. So I was quite excited, when I read the budget, to see there was $20 million going into funding to support our public safety officers' mental health.
Minister, I first want to thank you, because I know that's something you personally have been working on since you were first appointed. I wonder if you could speak just a little bit about the importance of the work that's going to be done. I realize it's not in the estimates, but it is something that we've talked about a great deal here at committee.
:
It's a very important field of public policy, Ms. Damoff. You point out the very good work that was done by this committee and the report that was drafted, and I know you had a strong hand in doing that.
There have been motions on this topic that have been presented in the House of Commons. I presented one in the opposition four or five years ago. from the opposition—and I hope he's recovering well from his illness—has presented one as well.
I think this is an issue that completely transcends any partisan considerations. We all share the earnest desire that our public safety officers who put themselves in harm's way to defend the rest of us.... In the course of what they do they are exposed to some very tough situations and some pretty awful things that they have to see, and it takes a toll. PTSI and other conditions are very likely to result from what they are called upon to do in discharging their official functions. The statistics indicate very clearly what the toll is.
What we have provided in the budget, working with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment—the short hand is CIPSRT—and my department of Public Safety, is to make sure we have the knowledge, intelligence, and research in place to fully understand PTSI among first responders and public safety officers.
We think we know it pretty well among Canadian Forces personnel and veterans, but first responders have pointed out that some of their circumstances are different. It might appear to be the same thing, but it's important to understand the nuances and distinctions when PTSI affects public safety officers. We're putting forward the funding for the research and the analytical work that needs to be done.
In addition to that, there's a further $10 million to go toward the online provision of services. As you know, some of these people are called upon to operate in remote locations. They don't have access to some of the services and facilities that are available in our more urban locations. They need to be able to access the treatment they require in various forms, including online.
The money is there for that purpose, to do the research, collect the data and knowledge, do the analysis, and provide the treatment facilities. It's $30 million in total over a five-year period.
I must say, of all the things that affect my department coming from the budget—and I listed quite a long list at the beginning—this is the one that has prompted the largest response. The no-fly list with respect to children is a very close second. The two of those have prompted a very big reaction. There's obviously a lot of Canadian support for making sure our public safety officers are properly treated from a mental health and mental health care perspective.
:
As you know, Minister, it's often something that's taken for granted in terms of keeping Canadians safe. It's critical. I, too, have heard a number of comments from public safety officers, and they are extremely grateful.
One of the things we heard at the status of women committee was the fact that marginalized women often are hesitant to come to the RCMP or the police, in particular indigenous women and other marginalized groups, because of perceptions that they won't be treated as well as they should be when they come forward. One of the recommendations that we made was for better training for federally regulated law enforcement officers in dealing with people who do come forward respectfully.
You've committed $2.4 million over five years, as well as ongoing funding, to the RCMP for cultural competency training. Again, this is a recommendation that we're seeing in the budget that we're quite pleased about. I'm wondering if you could speak about the importance of that and how it will make a difference for indigenous women, in particular, who are coming forward with complaints.
[English]
Minister, thank you for being here. Although we often have our differences and some robust debate in this setting, I want to thank you for the money that will go towards the redress system after the advocacy of the no-fly list, because that's something very important. We will wait and see, because the devil is in the details, as they say, but at the same time I think we can agree on that. I will share my appreciation for that.
[Translation]
I have a few questions.
You mentioned the G7 Summit. I don't know if you received a letter from my colleague, Karine Trudel, who wrote you in order to find out what support would be given to municipalities in the Saguenay, given that heads of state, such as the American President and the German Chancellor, will be flying into Bagotville. In addition to this, many of the people attending the G7 Summit will have to stay in the Saguenay region during the conferences, given that space is limited in Charlevoix.
Could you explain to me what support municipalities will receive so that they don't find themselves saddled with a huge bill at the end of the summit?
Thanks, first of all, for your comments about the passenger protect program and the changes we're making there.
With respect to Charlevoix, security, and the G7, as you will understand, this is a very complex and detailed operation. I mentioned in my remarks that Monsieur Paul-Hus had asked for a briefing with respect to all of the details, and certainly, that same briefing can be made available to you to ensure that you're properly informed about all of the arrangements that will be put in place.
These events are big, and they have disruptive impacts in the local communities in which they are held. We want to make sure that is properly addressed, and I will make every effort to respond in detail to the letter from Ms. Trudel. I haven't seen it personally yet, but I will be following up.
:
Thank you, Minister, for being here. Thank you to all the officials as well.
Minister, as you know, about a week and a half ago, there was very serious flooding in southwestern Ontario, in the communities of Brantford and Chatham as well. Both declared a state of emergency. I represent part of London, Ontario, in Parliament. Brantford is just down the road, as is Chatham.
I notice in the estimates that there is funding for the Government Operations Centre. When most Canadians hear something like “Government Operations Centre”, I don't know what they think—perhaps bureaucracy. They think of something just out of their reach and perhaps not intelligible.
Can you tell the committee and Canadians in effect how critical the Government Operations Centre is in situations of national emergency? What exactly it does? How it works with the provinces and municipalities that have declared emergency situations?
:
The GOC is a little known agency within the Department of Public Safety, but it's an extremely important one. It's there to provide 24-7, 365 awareness on the part of the Government of Canada of any significant event that may require a response by the Government of Canada.
Its first job is simply to be in touch with everything that is happening across the country and to make sure that, to the maximum extent humanly possible, nothing pops out of the blue as a total surprise, such as “We haven't heard of the flood”. That sort of thing you definitely want to avoid.
The GOC then has the capacity to bring all of the federal family together, every department and agency of the Government of Canada that could be relevant to that situation, and make sure they are ready if they are called upon.
They also have the ability to reach out to provinces, territories, municipalities, the private sector, indigenous organizations, auxiliary groups like the Red Cross, and so forth, so that as a situation develops and perhaps gets more serious, you have all of the relevant players quite literally in the same room.
:
The RCMP has faced, over the last number of years, a very significant challenge in that the workload on the force has been constantly increasing, while their resource base has been constantly decreasing. Between 2010 and 2015 something very close to $500 million was withdrawn from the base funding of the RCMP. So when you have the workload going up, the budget allocations going down you put the force in a pretty invidious position.
You may remember when the crisis happened on Parliament Hill in the fall of 2014, Commissioner Paulson at that time had to reassign something like 600 officers in the space of just a couple of days. They were pulled off of organized crime investigations, drug investigations, border issues, and so forth, and they were brought to deal with what was then a very urgent national security crisis.
We can't have the force in the position of constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul.
An analysis has been ongoing for the last number of years, involving Treasury Board and the RCMP and the public safety department and external financial consultants and advisors to assess the resources available to the RCMP compared to what they're being asked to do in their mandate, and trying to bring those two things together. The funding in the estimates is to address the first portion of a solution. As I said, there is another item in the budget that will take another step towards that. What's going on here is a full program integrity assessment to make sure we're providing the RCMP with what they need to do the job that Canadians ask them to do.
:
The fact that the airlines have been dealing with it for the last decade or so is in fact right at the root of the problem. Most no-fly list systems that are set up around the world are stand-alone, government systems in which the government maintains the list, the airlines supply the manifests, and the government checks to see if any of those names send up a red flag on the government list.
They have built right into them an interactive mechanism such that if a red flag comes up once and it's a false positive, then the person who triggered that false positive can be given a clearance number and every time thereafter that they go to get their boarding pass, they enter that clearance number and they're automatically passed through the system. It has to be interactive and totally automated. If the government sets up the system, we can design it that way.
If the airlines are asked to run the system, then you have to kind of piggyback onto their system and tailor the security arrangements to suit the airline manifests. That's backwards. We need to turn it around, and that's what this money will allow us to do.
Three things are required. We need to get the legal authority to deal with this private information. The authority to do that is in Bill . We will need to adopt new regulations, which we will work on as soon as we get the legislation passed. Then we have to build this new computer system from the ground up. That's where the largest bulk of the money will go. The architect of that will be largely CBSA, obviously in conjunction with Transport Canada, because they have a very important role as well.
:
Thank you for the question.
The training itself is really focused, based on our GBA+ analysis, on our ability to approach individuals from any community with the respect that they need. That's really been our focus. As you know, we have a bias-free policing policy on that, and we have tried to reinforce that throughout the organization to ensure that as our members deal with sexual assault or any other type of issue, they are approaching the members of our diverse communities with the respect that they need. Part of that is also ensuring that, as we recruit across the force, we're recruiting more and more diversity into our organization. We are hoping that at a certain point you get a tipping point and you become more diverse as you're more and more exposed to our different communities.
That is really our main focus. The training itself is really focused on our front-line police officers, so when they are approaching any type of situation, they're approaching it in a respectful manner.
:
Great. Thanks very much.
Mr. Chair, my next question is back to the no-fly list. As you heard earlier, there are a number of us who have had concerns about it and a number of us who are very grateful for the budgetary commitment. Can we ask for a bit more detail on what has to happen next? The minister mentioned regulations and he mentioned a computer system and, of course, of Bill , which is in the pipeline.
What exactly would the regulations look at and what would be the key components of that computer system, including its intersection, presumably, with other databases? What are the concerns about privacy, and specifically concerns about protecting young Canadians who are, in large part, as we heard, from the testimony of the #NoFlyListKids advocacy group, caught by this system?
Thank you for your question. I would just like to say at the outset that we have in no way reduced our security measures.
The time frame that you referred to is for risk and threat assessment, a security process that takes place immediately after the screening done by the RCMP which can also take a few hours, before we effectively take control of the person. What has changed in the process is the second part: evaluating the screening results and eligibility.
That part of the process is suspended, to be finished later outside of Lacolle. It still takes from five to six hours; nothing has changed there. The focus is on the security of Canadians as well as asylum seekers. That said, we have not reduced security controls at all.
:
Thank you for your question.
Over the course of a strategic review that took place several years ago, we looked at our programs and activities. A decision was made at that time to shut down the farms. As the minister has announced, however, those farms will be brought back into operation.
[English]
For us, it means we'll be able to keep offenders productively occupied. They are going to learn some of the soft skills, like getting up and having a routine during the day, and it's going to be good for their rehabilitation. Those are transferable skills when they get into the community. There's going to be on-the-job training.
It was just announced in the budget, so CSC has to work with the Department of Finance and Treasury Board to get the details of the funding and the impact on its day-to-day operations.
I have another question, which is for the RCMP representatives and concerns the integrity program.
I will sort of follow up on my colleagues' comments on the recent immigration incident. A lot of resources had to be mobilized, given the change in the level of emergency. Of course, there is a terrorist emergency, although the threat level has not really increased in a number of years. In fact, that level has been at B since 2014, which is average. The fact remains that the incident required a significant mobilization of resources.
What is the main objective of that integrity review? Is it to assess the relevance of programs or, rather, to better define the distribution of our resources?
:
That's a very good question.
As the minister said, the review covered everything—so programs, staff, and so on. It covered the way the RCMP can play its role of a federal police force.
[English]
The full review was on the full scale of all our programs in the organization, the best way of going about it, and even questions about what we should be in, what we should be doing as an organization.
On the federal piece with the integrity money that you see here, that is to allow us to continue doing certain activities while we're developing our full departmental review submission for our minister to take forward in the fall.
What you're seeing in the supplementary estimates (C) are things like this. There's money going towards our recruiting, our force generation. That's so we can hire more police officers to fill some of our vacancies, so we can release our seasoned police officers over to the federal duties where they should be. That's a full review now that's ongoing, with a response to come in the fall to the government.
:
That's a very good question. I think the deputy commissioner, Gilles Michaud, has talked to you.
The RCMP's challenge is to figure out how to perform its role of a federal police force.
[English]
When I'm talking about how we're going to do federal policing in the future I'm saying federal policing members in the future may not all be police officers. You're going to see a blend of different civilian employees working with us, and the public servants working with us, because the world has changed so dramatically. You see cybercrime and cyberterrorism, and you see all of that going virtual. We have to have a new force generation model.
That's exactly what we're looking at, at what is the right blend. We have great training at Depot. We have world-class training, I would say. But we may look at training in other places, too, such that you get some of the basics at Depot, but maybe there will be some direct entries, if we're looking for somebody who has a certain skill set, right into our organization. How can we train them up quickly, from a federal perspective, so as to allow them to deploy onto investigations? We're open to everything, and that is something that Gilles Michaud is leading on our behalf. It started under Commissioner Paulson, and right now is the time to really develop that model.
:
Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
That concludes our questioning of the witnesses.
I want to thank each and every one of you for your contribution.
I want to go to the votes.
Do I have unanimous consent to vote on all items at once?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the votes on supplementary estimates (C) pass?
CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
ç
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$3,267,327
ç
Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$18,042,576
(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to on division)
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures, grants and contributions..........$105,897,636
(Vote 1c agreed to on division)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
ç
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$2,649,033
ç
Vote 5c—Grants and contributions..........$18,859,241
(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to on division)
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
ç
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........$224,519,870
ç
Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........$22,715,260
ç
Vote 10c—Grants and contributions..........$4,500,000
(Votes 1c, 5c, and 10c agreed to on division)
SECRETARIAT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS
ç
Vote 3c—Program expenditures..........$1
(Vote 3c agreed to on division)
The Chair: The second vote is on interim estimates. Again, do I have unanimous consent to vote all at once?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We will vote on the interim estimates.
CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$360,510,970
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$49,482,619
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$130,362,948
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
CIVILIAN REVIEW AND COMPLAINTS COMMISSION FOR THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$2,416,995
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$506,656,428
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$47,285,431
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$34,577,874
ç
Vote 5—The grants listed in any of the Estimates for the fiscal year..........$251,966,227
(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to on division)
OFFICE OF THE CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR OF CANADA
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$1,032,456
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$10,614,402
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
ç
Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$843,868,844
ç
Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$72,383,989
ç
Vote 10—The grants listed in any of the Estimates for the fiscal year..........$63,418,371
(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to on division)
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$1,436,174
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
SECRETARIAT OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTARIANS
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$823,687
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
ç
Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$1,151,874
(Vote 1 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We would normally go in camera for the third item, but I don't really see the point, unless people really are keen on this. It is the request for the travel budget in order to be able to go on our study of indigenous people in the correctional system. This would be visits to Donnacona, Saskatoon, and Medicine Hat. You have it in front of you. It should be with your package of stuff.
Is there any debate?
I just want to make sure that everybody has seen it.