Public Safety Committee on May 15th, 2007

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Right. Can I just skip through for a moment, because my time's limited?

In terms of all of these allegations that we've heard on the mistreatment of detainees, based on the information that you have, do you think it's exaggerated? Do you think there's anything there? Is there any reason that we should be concerned about this as parliamentarians?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Well, there are two things. First, I think it's important to step back and realize that in Afghanistan we're talking about a feudal society that has existed for centuries, with successive regimes having little or no respect for human rights, and within the period of about two to three years, there's now an Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. They have independent inspection of their facilities. The change has been remarkable.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

With respect, Mr. Minister, in—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You have asked a question. With all due respect, do you not want an answer?

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, but I don't want a history lesson. I want an answer to the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think this is a very good answer, and I think if you were to listen—

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chairman, with respect, you have nothing to say about it, okay? I asked a question and I'd like an answer to that question.

Do you think we, as parliamentarians, have any reason to be concerned with the treatment of these detainees? And do you feel the allegations that have been brought up in the House have any substance at all, yes or no?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

The history is very important, and yes, we have reason to be concerned, just as we have reason to be concerned about any jurisdiction in which we have involvement related to prisons, our own or another country's. The history is important because it is rarely noted that improvements have been made--significant improvements--in two to three years. That's rarely noted.

Secondly, the information I have, in talking with our officers, is that they have not seen visible evidence of any of that, neither on the physical being of the suspected terrorists who are there, nor of any kinds of equipment or things that would lead to that. All they're saying is they have not seen the evidence of that. They have seen—

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Are you satisfied with that, Minister?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'm satisfied that we have ongoing access. I'm satisfied that they can report back. It's an open door policy now. I'm pleased with the progress, but always looking for—

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Are you satisfied based on the reports you've gotten that there's no reason for us to have the concerns that have been expressed in the House, just as the minister responsible for this file? It's important for us to understand whether you are satisfied, completely satisfied, with the level of information we've gotten or not.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'm satisfied that our officers have open access now, that they can see and talk to prisoners, that they can look at the registry to see who's there and all of a sudden to see if somebody's missing. They can verify that.

I'm very pleased to see the progress. I wish it would be reported more, but there's a lot still to do, a lot to learn, and more progress to be made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll now move over to Mr. Carrie, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister for being here today. I represent Oshawa, and one of the amazing things about Oshawa right now is it's growing like crazy. On the ground, I'm getting very enthusiastic support for the direction the government is taking with our youth. It was brought up by my colleague from the Bloc.

Could you expand a little on these youth at risk programs, this initiative you've taken?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'm very encouraged when I see the level of quality of the programs that are being approved. I have to say that in the past--and this is not meant to be pejorative in any sense about people running other types of programs--there hasn't always been the same level of focus and intensity of focus that I would like to see on practical programs that work. There is a preponderance of requests for research, and I think there are other avenues of research that can be pursued; research is always important.

Largely, I think when it comes to criminology, if you have a particular philosophy about rehabilitation or prevention, whatever it might be--as you know, there are different philosophical approaches--there will be a substantial body of research to support that. That's why the criteria have to be local programs, developed by people on the ground locally and not imposed from Ottawa, but they've got to show that they integrate a number of things. They've got to show the prevention aspect of it. They have to show results. Some people say you can't measure results of a social services type of programming, but I believe you can--there are audit programs out there that help you to do that. They have to be effective. Those types of programs will get funding, and they have been getting funding.

When I see the level of ingenuity involved in intercepting young people, the continuum of service that is brought into play for a young person at risk, I believe it should always include the family of that person. Whether there are two parents or one doesn't matter, but they have to be pulled into the system and the support groups. Along those lines, we're seeing some excellent programs at work. They are showing positive results, and that would include your area also.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a second question.

Coming from Oshawa, we build cars, and we've been hearing about the importance of the border and of manufacturing. You mentioned just-in-time delivery earlier and the concern manufacturers have if anything goes wrong at the border. How will the government policies improve safe border crossings but also ensure that the border crossings occur in a timely manner?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

One of the references raised by the member for London West was in terms of the increase in technology and in spending on technology at the border. Technology can be of great assistance. I announced a few months ago at one of our borders some $431 million for a cross-country increase in technology, and approximately $396 million of that is going just into the increase in the eManifest program. This is a huge leap forward, in the sense that trucks approaching the border have already eManifested who the driver is, who the brokers are, who the people are who load the trucks, who they deal with, and what the product is. That is so time-consuming. When that truck hits the border, the officer there already has that on the screen.

Technology is always important, but human intelligence and human sensitivity have to play a part. At that point it's up to the border officer to decide if that truck is going to go to a secondary for further risk assessment. At some point in time, 100% of trucks may be subject to the VACIS machine. That's the gamma ray that can spot something as small as a pen inside a tractor-trailer truck.

That's the technology side, and that's where you're seeing the increase. It's those types of things that help just-in-time delivery, for instance. Along with that, if you do have an incident and a border closes down for reasons related to crime or terrorism or some natural disaster, we've committed over $9 million just this year for business resumption plans. In other words, each border point has to come up with their emergency plan. Yes, you've had an incident, and yes, you have a problem, but what are you immediately putting in place, not just to cordon off an area and not just to shut things down, but to begin the rerouting of traffic, with a focus on the commercial traffic? It's a combination of technology, planning ahead for the incident if it happens, and being able to continue to move quickly with low-risk travel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

This will be your final question.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

We were really excited with the government's announcement of $400 million for a new crossing at Windsor-Detroit. I was wondering if you could let us know what the role of your department is with this new crossing so we can get this up and going and have the most efficient border crossing in the world.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I think eventually it will be that. You may be aware that at that particular border crossing, that one bridge, more trade crosses than the entire amount of trade the United States has with Japan. It's huge, and we can't afford problems there.

As you know, and as members from that area know better than I, there's been a lot of discussion at the local level on what the best approach is going to be: tunnels, bridges, or pre-clearance areas. We have to let that process finalize. We'll have input there in terms of the expertise; we have that input in terms of our assessment on what would be most effective, but we have to respect what's happening at the municipal and provincial levels and let that decision-making process go forward. We're there to provide our assessment from our point of view on expertise. We'll be there in terms of funding and infrastructure, but there are local issues that have to be decided. Frankly, I'm glad it's other people right now who are involved in that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. We'll now go to the fourth and final round.

Mr. Cullen.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, it's reassuring to know that a lot of these programs that seem to be cut.... Page 8 of your estimates shows the overall portfolio spending going from $6.7 billion to $6.583 billion. But perhaps with some creative accounting and off balance sheet or off income statement presentation, you will reassure us when you write back that in fact emergency management and policing have not been cut back, that CSIS has received a larger increase than is evident here, that the department's community crime prevention programs have been augmented, and that the RCMP detachments in Quebec.... The money had been put into the budget for those, but this is not apparent from this sheet.

Minister, I'm absolutely amazed that my colleagues from the Bloc have not asked you about the reopening of RCMP detachments in Quebec, because I know they were really hot about this in the last Parliament.

Regarding the land border pre-clearance, I'd like to ask two questions. I think there were some pilots going on in Fort Erie and Buffalo. Under our government, there was a tacit understanding that we were to proceed. I'm told now that this has fallen apart. Maybe you could either confirm or deny that, and explain why.

Also under our government, we launched a very worthwhile initiative, called the fairness initiative, to bring the same transparency to the Canada Border Services Agency, particularly as it relates to Customs, as when Customs was part of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, where taxpayers had rights and responsibilities. People coming through our borders should have rights and responsibilities.

I know you've told me, Minister, that if anyone has a problem at the border, they should call you. I'm sure you're more fully briefed now, and I'd like to know, are you supporting that fairness initiative to give transparency and recourse at our border?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Quickly, on the fairness and calling me, when I get incidents that come right to my desk—and people do call me to say they ran into a problem at the border and they don't feel they were treated correctly—every single one of those is looked into with a full, detailed report that comes to me and goes back to the individual. If required, corrective action is taken.

I could show you significant correspondence where corrective action needed to be taken. Maybe a border officer was not sensitive to a particular issue or what a person was carrying—whatever it might be. In other cases, maybe the situation was an agreement to disagree. But every case that is reported gets a very significant review.

Given our time, first, you will get the explanation where there appear to be decreases. For instance, on one of the pages you referenced there was a decrease, but because money had been asked for the year before, in terms of some new health information management modules, all the technology was purchased and everything put in place, so that amount wasn't required and it appears as a decrease. But I'll show you the subsequent increases in the other areas you mentioned.

On the last one--this is very important, and it's interesting that the member has raised it. I'm somewhat sad to report that the pre-clearance discussions have come to an end. In my view, pre-clearance offered some great opportunities. If members are not familiar with this, pre-clearance would give the ability for traffic moving from one country to the other to be cleared before it actually gets to the other border. Each country would purchase an area of land on the other side of the border where you can clear a lot of that traffic, and then it sails on through the border.

A lot of issues had to be worked out, because you're talking about our officers working on what is really U.S. soil and American officers working on our soil. Of course, we maintain that Canadian sovereignty has to be paramount. Then keeping that in place, we worked out virtually every problem that arose except for one. The U.S. was requiring that if a person came to the border point—on Canadian soil, but it's their border point in a pre-clearance area—and there was some suspicion, the person would be required to go to secondary and be fingerprinted. Our law states that Canadians can only be fingerprinted voluntarily or if they're being charged with a crime. Not being charged with a crime, you cannot be required to be fingerprinted. The U.S. side sees it a little different. They say that on their soil, once you show up at a border point and you're under some suspicion, you can be taken to secondary and fingerprinted. They wanted to maintain that same capability on Canadian soil.

We looked at alternatives. They pushed hard for that. I said I'm sorry, that's a basic Canadian right. It is charter supported, and as much as I would want to see pre-clearance go ahead, we are not going to diminish the right of any Canadian on Canadian territory.

I'm sorry, but it ground to a halt on that point. I regret that. I've asked them to reconsider their position, but they seem to be sticking with it.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Minister, we're running out of time, so I have a very quick point. Here's a chance to give your position on the RCMP detachment closures in the province of Quebec.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

You mentioned the Bloc. The Bloc MPs have been quite aggressive on this particular point, so much so that last year I met with the mayors involved on more than one occasion. Politicians don't give—I'm being careful because the commissioner is listening very carefully—direct operational instruction to the RCMP. As you know, that's not the way a democracy should work.

I assured the mayors that with the increased amount of officers—which you're going to see in the field, and we've already talked about those numbers—the concerns they have about what's happening at some of the borders, concerning drug trafficking, are going to be as tightly watched and managed as they have been. I gave them the assurance that this will happen. The RCMP is now in the process, with extra funding and extra officers available at the federal level, of making decisions regarding those detachments. I can't speak for them specifically, as to what they will ultimately decide, but I have the assurance from the commissioner that she and others are looking at that situation. That's respecting the limitations we have.