Public Safety Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Jim Judd]

I already said this publicly before Mr. O'Brian spoke.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

All right.

Minister, now I would like to talk about the Border Services Agency. You said a number of times that border security is a priority. And yet, you're cutting the budget by $12.1 million. We know that borders are the first place where firearms entering Canada are seized. That's the primary entry point. Ninety percent of illegal weapons come from the United States, and they cross the borders.

Don't you think that, by cutting the budget, you're further weakening the agency's ability to combat not only drugs, but also illegal weapons?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

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?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

A brief comment, Mr. Rigby.

[Stephen Rigby, President, Canada Border Services Agency]

The minister's explanation is quite correct. There has been a substantial movement of funds between years, which simply reflects the management of our large projects. In fact, the government has increased our operational budget by $50 million for the upcoming year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The chair wants to apologize. I've made a mistake on the order here.

We're now going to go to Mr. Rathgeber, followed by Mr. Richards, and then we're going to come over to Mr. Holland, because it was actually the Conservative's turn when I gave it to the Bloc. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Rathgeber, please, for five minutes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

First of all, that bill is obviously not law yet, so in considering legislation we've reviewed what resources are available and what will be needed. Should it pass, there will be additional resources needed.

The effect of the legislation is in fact a significant lessening of the burden on the provinces. They will have fewer people or shorter times in remand, so that's a cost saving. Likelier, people will come to conclusions at their trial sooner because there is less incentive to lengthen your time in pre-sentencing custody. That will result in a savings on administration of justice, for which provinces are responsible. Also, more people end up with sentences that are two years or more, putting them in federal facilities instead of provincial ones. So the provinces save tremendous amounts of money out of this.

That does of course mean, however, that there will be an increased federal burden. Our assessment is that with the existing capacity--and there is capacity within our prison system--any of this that may start flowing in this year can be accommodated. However, over the years that come there will be a need for additional investment. One can only give one's best guess at projecting what that is. We have done that, but we will have to be coming in the future to the House of Commons for additional funding to accommodate that.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Hyppolite, do you have anything to add?

[D/Commr Marc-Arthur Hyppolite]

No. The minister's position reflects the reality of our position as well.

Normally, if sentences are longer, that will probably enable us to act more quickly and give us the time to work on the social reintegration of inmates returning to the community.

We think the existing facilities...obviously, on a short-term basis we will have to make sure we have recourse to measures like double-bunking, so we have long-term accommodation, but the minister indicated that will require further investment in accommodation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

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.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Richards, please.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

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.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

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.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Great. Thank you.

In terms of the transformation agenda, I've toured some of our prisons recently, and I certainly heard from the prisons how happy they are with some of the changes that have been made in regard to drug detection, be it drug-sniffing dogs or ion scanners. I wonder if you would maybe just highlight a few of the things and the importance of some of those measures from the transformation agenda, and outline where we might be going in the future.

Mr. Hyppolite, if you have any comments you'd like to make on that as well, I'd welcome that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

The concern is that we have an increasing gang presence in prisons. That is part of the changing profile. As an adjunct to it, there is also an increase in the presence of drugs in prisons, if you can believe it. You wonder how they get in there, but apparently they do, and they continue to.

Part of what the Sampson report sought to do was identify ways in which we could limit that. It's a very important issue from the perspective of those who work in the prisons, for their safety and maintaining a safe prison population. The presence of drugs and their influence contribute to all kinds of difficult behaviours among prisoners, which put those who work in our prisons at risk.

Ion scanners have been introduced to deal with questions of visitors bringing in contraband, with some success. I'll ask Mr. Hippolyte to speak to that. Drug-sniffer dogs are not everywhere. They're not dealing with everyone coming in, but there is that resource available, and increasingly available in the prisons.

Perhaps you want to add to what I've said.

[D/Commr Marc-Arthur Hyppolite]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you. We'll have to follow that up on the next round.

Mr. Holland, please.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, these questions are for you specifically, if I could. Mr. Judd is going to remain; I'll follow up on some of this when Mr. Judd leaves.

This strikes me as remarkable. We had Mr. O'Brian come before the committee. This is a gentleman who has been a manager with CSIS since its inception in 1984. In fact, he had enough authority that CSIS sent him to come before this committee to testify for two hours. Now I feel as if we're being told to just pretend he wasn't here; ignore what he said.

Let me ask you very directly. Do you believe that information obtained by torture is unreliable and should not be used by the agencies under your ministerial control?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I'll respond to a couple of aspects of what you said. First, in terms of Mr. O'Brian's specific comments, my reading of them was that he was engaging in a kind of philosophical discussion of a hypothetical situation, not akin to what--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

It wasn't hypothetical for Mr. Elmaati or Mr. Arar.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

What Mr. Ignatieff responded to in his book, The Lesser Evil, where he went on at quite some length about the occasions in which torture--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Can you answer the question? It is a direct question about something very serious, and that is the use of torture. Do you believe it is unreliable? Do you believe the agencies that are under your direction should be using information obtained by torture?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

You've raised several issues.