Public Safety Committee on May 15th, 2007

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

I can tell you there's progress.

I was joining you and others before we were in government—our group, not yours yet—in asking for this oversight. For years we asked for that and we didn't get it. In fairness, on the second Arar report, it's just been a matter of months. As I'm finding, the amount of consultation that has to happen just between departments alone in terms of establishing the reporting mechanisms that are going to be involved in oversight, consulting with other countries who have oversight committees, and I've been doing that extensively.... I'm telling you, as I said to our previous Liberal colleague, it's coming soon. You know we're not in the habit of making announcements before we can make announcements, but I'm going to have something for this committee to look at very soon. I don't want to prejudge how you will see it, but some of your input I think you'll recognize there. You and others have had good input there. So it's coming soon, but I don't want to pre-date here.

Once we were able to transfer the firearms registry to the RCMP, they've been able to apply some of their own methods of accuracy and data collection. As you know, the RCMP were the collectors of this data before, and you will see—and the commissioner may want to comment further, but I appreciate as long as I'm here that you want to have me comment on this—there have been improvements, I believe, related to the restricted registry. I think in fairness, though, that although the Auditor General did comment that accuracy in data is a problem across the board, the vast majority of that was with the long-gun registry. Having said that, the commissioner can comment further on improvements on the technical capability of assuring data on the other parts of the registry.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm assuming no work is being done at all, given the two amnesties, of trying to clean up the long-gun registry data.

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

I'll have to let the RCMP commissioner comment if there's any there. I would think, in fairness, they wouldn't be spending a lot of time on that, but they do have all the data that has been sent in. As to what they're doing with it, the commissioner can comment on that further.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Do you have any plans on bringing Bill C-21 forward so that we can have a vote in the House to deal with this issue, as opposed to unilaterally making these decisions?

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

Do you have any plans to support us on that?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Absolutely not. You know what our position is. Actually, our position is divided in our party. We would very much like to have a free vote in the House, which your party has also pushed for on a number of bills, historically.

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

That's true. I agree, you have some clear thinkers in your party, and we're looking forward to their—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

It's slowly changing, Mr. Minister.

You didn't answer the question, though. Do you have any plans on bringing it forward?

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

I'm working with the House leader on a number of pieces of legislation, and the House leader controls the agenda there, but there are some items that, given the spring agenda, I would like to bring forward for your consideration related to the gun registry.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

With regard to legislation, the amendments that are going to be--I'm not sure what your government is proposing. Are you proposing to bring forward amendments to deal with the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the security certificates?

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

Yes, we are.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Is there any timeframe for it, other than the year that they've imposed on it?

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

Definitely within that timeline, but my wish is for even sooner. Both the Minister of Justice and I have put together what we think are some good draft approaches to that, and again, not wanting to overly excite you with an imminent date, I can tell you that we want to get that done soon. It's subject to the House leader's agenda, but things are pretty close to being ready to present, and I'd like to get that to you as soon as possible. I'd like to get that to all members as soon as possible.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Does that mean before the spring session is over?

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

If I say “I hope so”, that could be putting undue pressure on the House leader. I guess I'd say we'd like to get our whole agenda done before we break. I'm being sincere with you on this. Both the Minister of Justice and I want these addressed. The Supreme Court said a year, but the longer we wait, the more risk we have that something might not move forward within that time. There are some cases that are pending out there, so we're moving as aggressively as we can, giving due consideration to what the Supreme Court has said, on the security certificates and on the ATA provisions.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Minister, with regard to—I don't know what to call it—the institution that's at Kingston to hold people who are subject to security certificates, can you tell us how much it cost to build that and how much so far we've spent on operational expenses? And let me finish with this. You only have one individual left. I assume at some point the courts will finally get enough gumption to release him as well. What do we do with the institution once it's vacant?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

That will be your final question.

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

Subject to correction—and I'll get back to you if this figure is wrong—$2.3 million, I believe, was the construction cost. The ongoing administration costs vary according to how many people occupy the facility. We'll get those to you on a graded basis—up to four people, or up to six people, or whatever it may be. If there is nobody occupying the facility, then you won't need the staff complement we have there now, so costs will drop precipitously.

On your comment about the gumption of the Supreme Court, I think the Federal Court and the Supreme Court have both recognized and have gone into some detail, and it's now a matter of public record, though I'm not going to speak to specific cases, saying that individuals—let's just say a number of individuals whom we've identified as security risks because of their terrorist involvement, which has been very clearly documented to date.... In most of the cases, the courts have wholeheartedly agreed with us about the extreme risk the people I'm talking about present generally to Canadians.

You see this in the very strict provisions the court has imposed on those who move out of the facility into house detention, including their phone lines being open and monitored, people wearing monitoring devices, and other very strict means. The courts have recognized largely that with security certificates we are talking about people who present a clear risk to Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We will now move over to the government side for seven minutes.

Mr. Brown, please.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Day, for coming. It's great to have all of your representatives of the various public agencies that help secure our country here in front of us today.

I have three areas. In fact, Mr. Martin asked the question on the security certificates. I represent a riding that has two border crossings, so I have a great deal of interest in how secure our border is, and in the Canada Border Services Agency and of course in the arming of our border guards.

Recently when the president, Alain Jolicoeur, was before the committee, I was quite aggressive in trying to get out of him why it was taking as long as it was to get our border service agents armed. I was quite concerned that in fact the agency wasn't carrying out the wishes of the government to see our border guards armed.

Minister, could you give us an update on how that's going, and the costing, and tell us whether you're happy with the speed at which it's happening?

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

Well, sometimes we cynically refer to the glacier-like speed of government. In this case, although at times I've had some frustration, it's evident there's a lot more to seeing officers armed than simply getting them sidearms. For instance, to keep costs down, we have embarked on and we're now fully engaged in a process of training trainers.

Along with the ability to have a firearm, a person also needs to be trained in a multitude of other tasks related to borders and transport of goods and apprehension of same, so the training has to be consistent with the broader training package. On the training of the trainers, just on that process alone--and it was very good uptake in terms of people who wanted to be raised to that level--the amount of time they have to go through for training and certification, psychological testing, and the emergency health training they have to take...that alone is a very extensive process.

Then there's the identification of facilities that can handle the increased amount of people who are being trained. There was a process that we've been involved in, in terms of getting the training package done. I wanted it done in such a way that once it's in place and once we have people being trained, and we have the trainers now, what you are going to see are that expressions of interest will be asked for from other agencies, other groups, who would like to provide the same training program, possibly in a more efficient way or alongside what CBSA is doing.

With respect to the identification and the construction of storage facilities for firearms--the officers will not be taking firearms to their homes, their residences, as they have to be stored properly--you can imagine the amount of regulation that goes on there. It had to be an open competitive bid process to secure not only the firearms themselves but also the holsters and the ammunition that goes with them. I can tell you that a firearm, a sidearm, has been identified and the procurement through an open process is happening.

The amount of ancillary instruction and support that goes with simply arming border officers is very significant. When you think about it, it has been a little over a year now, and this summer you're going to see those first officers across the country who are armed. Then you will see the pickup accelerate, because all of this preliminary stuff that takes so long and has to be painstakingly done will be cleared.

I'm pleased with how it's moving now, but I was having some frustration at the start of the process. There's no question in my mind that CBSA is moving along with this. They're moving along in an expeditious way, but it has to be done with all the appropriate care and regulatory processes that have to be involved in this.

It's actually consistent too with what we've seen when the U.S. did its arming. It's fairly consistent on the timelines, the things that have to be built into this process.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I'm glad to see that you're pushing that along. I know that the border service agents who live in my area and are at the border are very happy that the government is proceeding on that.

The other area in which I have a great deal of interest, of course, and you've mentioned it briefly, concerns the national security oversight committee. As we know, in the last Parliament, the former government brought forward legislation for that, and the subcommittee of this committee that reviewed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which I chaired, unanimously recommended that the government bring forward legislation to create such a committee.

I know you didn't say a lot about it. Is there anything else that you might be able to share with us at this point about when you might expect that legislation to come forward and any ideas that you have on how that might work?

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

As I indicated to our NDP colleague, there will be something for you to see soon, if I can keep things moving along on the broader agenda of the government. I don't think I'm being unnecessarily optimistic when I say that members will recognize some of their input on this. We also have had to tie that in with part two of Justice O'Connor's report. He gave some suggestions there. He, himself, admitted that he may not be the expert on this, but he gave some suggestions. We are tying that in with an analysis of what works in other countries, and this committee did a lot of that analysis also.

This is a monumental change--one that's necessary, one that we want to see, but I'd like to have it as close to operable as possible, and, frankly, it is there in the drafting stage right now. The finishing touches are being put on it, but I'd rather have it as amenable to you as possible. Clearly, there may be some changes that this committee is going to suggest.

I'm somewhat constrained in terms of what I can say on a date, but I am concerned about this. It is a priority. We've made it our priority in the past. Our party has. Others have made it that.

One of the benefits of this type of legislation is that although there's always partisanship that goes on in a democracy, because of the nature of this type of legislation, as we've seen even around the discussion table here, partisanship becomes limited as people realize safety and security are what we're talking about here. I think that will help to expedite it, once you see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

We'll have to bring round one to an end. We now will begin round two, which is five minutes.

Mr. Cullen, please.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister Day and all the officials.

Minister Day, when I look at your overall budgetary allocation for all the responsibilities--the department, the RCMP, CSIS, the Canada Border Services Agency--the budget is actually down in 2008-09 by about 3%. I know it's a large number. It's $6.5 billion. You referenced Budget 2006 in which you had some new allocations, but the last time I checked, organized criminals and terrorists hadn't checked in all their weaponry following the 2006 budget, so I have a couple of areas where I think your budget is missing something.

Before I do that, I'd just like to comment on some of the areas. Particularly with a government that prides itself, at least in the public's eyes, from the way they message it, as being a law-and-order government.... CSIS, for example, is flat-lined essentially at $6 million. The RCMP is down. Canada Border Services Agency is essentially flat-lined from 2007-08 to 2008-09. Emergency management and security is totally gutted. At a time of climate change, we should be doing a lot more in terms of loss mitigation, loss control, and I'm very sad to see that. Looking at the departmental budget, which is cut significantly, community safety is way down. I presume that means these crime prevention programs are being gutted--something that in my riding has worked extremely well to try to deal with drugs, gangs, and young criminals. Policy and law enforcement within the department is down from $36 million to $23 million. The Canada Border Services Agency, the security aspect, is down by about $40 million. In my judgment, this just doesn't stack up to a government that presents itself as law and order.

I'd like to address two things in particular. One of the things that I couldn't find in there, Minister, was the re-opening of the RCMP detachments in Quebec. The minister was on the record in 2005, twice in the House of Commons, to say first that we should stop the closures and then another time that we should reopen the detachments in Quebec. I know that he has an ally in that with Mr. Toews, the President of the Treasury Board, because he was also concerned about some closures in Manitoba. The President of the Treasury Board is a big law-and-order guy, the last time I checked.

Why is it, Minister, you can't get your budget through? There is no money in there to reopen the detachments, as far as I can see.

Secondly, on the Canada Border Services Agency and arming of the border guards, which I think is totally wrong-footed myself, we were told at this committee that it will be $1 billion over 10 years. I know that CBSA is a very efficient organization. But are you going to tell me that they're going to swallow $1 billion over 10 years? Maybe there's a line item in here, Minister, that I just didn't locate.

I wonder if you could comment.