Evidence of meeting #44 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Commr Beverley A. Busson
We will be addressing that in further replies to the Auditor General's report.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
Commr Beverley A. Busson
Yes.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
Commr Beverley A. Busson
I will do that, yes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My quick question is possibly for Mr. Demers. It relates to the announcement about the panel to review the Correctional Services' business and operational plans, and so on. Can you describe, first of all, the mandate of that panel and the areas they'll be looking at specifically? Are there any areas they're specifically not allowed to address?
12:55 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada
In response to your question on the terms of reference, the area they're explicitly not mandated to review is the issue of privatization of institutions. That's explicitly removed from the terms of reference. If I can do it very generally, they're really looking at the soundness of CSC's business plans and its priorities, as well as its resource capability to carry out those priorities to achieve its objectives.
We have a major infrastructure problem. We have 58 institutions. Some were built in the 1800s. Most of them are over 40 years of age, and they need some fairly significant maintenance. The question the review will look at is whether we are looking at the issue of patching, or whether we are looking at a new approach, for example, to infrastructure. They've also been asked to look at some of the effectiveness of our programs in the community and in the institutions--the effectiveness of aboriginal programs, as an example.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Demers, a couple of minutes ago you talked about the situation at Correctional Service Canada as dire. Was that because of infrastructure, or what else were you referring to?
12:55 p.m.
Acting Commissioner, Correctional Service Canada
Infrastructure is certainly a major issue, but it's broader than that, simply in terms of being faced, for example, with a very significant change in our offender profile and population.
We're looking at inmates who have more extensive histories of violence and who are more problematic in terms of substance abuse. There are all kinds of problems in terms of mental health problems: 12% of our male offenders and 26% of our female offenders are assessed with a mental disorder upon admission, so we have to respond to that. We're working within a context in which we're now developing almost a bimodal offender population; almost a quarter of our population are lifers who are going to be with us for a long time, but at the same time the trend is to shorter sentences, so we're getting a tremendous increase in the number of offenders with two- and three-year sentences.
We traditionally have been geared to the normal distribution in terms of our program planning and delivery, and we have to find a way now to give effect to the correctional plans, particularly for those offenders with short terms, to try to get the maximum effectiveness of intervention within the time we have available.
Within that, over the years, of course, our resource situation has become more difficult. We have internally reallocated--which has been our past characteristic--as much as we can. We have held back on maintenance, for example, in order to use those resources to fund other sorts of priorities. This has exacerbated in some respects our infrastructure problem, so what was needed is now an emergency.
Our message to people clearly has been that if you're looking at us in the short term, we're broke. We're really struggling to maintain the results that we have been able to achieve within that. While we are awaiting the results of, let's say, the deliberations of the corrections review and whatever that may bring, the government has given us some two-year bridge funding that we need to at least sustain ourselves and carry out the very basic kinds of things. We are now developing an implementation plan that we will take to Treasury Board.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
It sounds like you have a lot to tell us. Perhaps I'll canvass my fellow colleagues and maybe we'll be able to get you back before the committee to elaborate even further.
I think the committee could have a role in this study. I put it out there. I think the minister could have asked this committee to do the study, as opposed to the outside panel. I think we had something to contribute there. I think we should be doing some follow-up on this.
I did talk about studies from this committee. We're doing a counterfeit study, and one of the things that surprised me when we looked over the estimates here is the national counterfeit enforcement strategy from the government, and this is in the public safety blue book, page 41. We're hearing testimony saying this is a big issue, and yet when you look at 2007-08, it goes from $0.2 million to next year down to $0.1 million. We've just heard how everybody thinks they have enough money. Yet we're hearing the problems here at the committee. We're doing a report on counterfeiting, and you've cut the enforcement budget. I just will note that right now. I'd like to know what's being cut on that. You can send it to the committee.
My final question is to Mr. Judd. I know Transport Canada and you are involved in the passenger protect program, which is the no-fly list in Canada that's being developed. The last time we heard about this in this committee we were told that there was no in-person appeal if your name gets onto this no-fly list and you don't really know why you're on the list. We've had some Supreme Court of Canada terrorism cases since that time. I think it was pointed out by one of my colleagues in his questioning in the last meeting we had on this passenger protect list that we might want to do a rethink on what we do on a technical appeal situation. Could you give me an update, Mr. Judd, on where you are with this? I understand it's coming up soon.
1 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I can't give you an adequate response because I'm simply not familiar enough with Transport Canada's deliberations on this. I do know that the issue you refer to is part and parcel of what's being looked at now to ensure that there is some form of recourse mechanism. I can ask my colleagues at Transport Canada.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for coming before the committee and supplying us with the information.
This meeting stands adjourned.
