Public Safety Committee on March 21st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Good morning, everyone. This is meeting number 77 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It is Thursday, March 21, 2013.

We are televised today, so I would remind all committee members and all those in the audience to please adjust their cellphones so that we don't have ringing cellphones in the middle of questions or presentations.

Today we are considering the main estimates of 2013-14.

In our first hour we have with us the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety and National Security. The minister is accompanied by his departmental officials, who will be our witnesses for this hour and also for the second hour today.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have François Guimont, Deputy Minister. Welcome back.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Commissioner Bob Paulson. Welcome.

From Correctional Services Canada, we have Commissioner Don Head.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Malcolm Brown, executive vice-president. Welcome.

From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Michel Coulombe, deputy director of operations.

And from the National Parole Board, we have Harvey Cenaiko, chair.

Our committee wants to thank the minister for making arrangements to appear before us during the estimates period. We also thank the departmental officials for making themselves available to accompany the minister today. Our committee very much appreciates that the minister and his officials all respond to our committee's invitations to appear from time to time—and indeed many times—and assist in our deliberations. Canadians are pleased and proud of all of you for the fine record of public service.

I invite the Minister of Public Safety to make an opening statement, and then we'll move into the first round of questioning.

Minister, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, it is my pleasure to be here to again share an hour or so with all of the members of the committee. I want to thank my officials, both from the department and from the various agencies that I'm responsible for, for being here as well.

I'm pleased today to speak to both the 2013-14 main estimates and the 2012-13 supplementary estimates (C).

Mr. Chair, responsible governments must ensure that they use taxpayers' dollars in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner, and that's exactly what we have done over the past seven years. Since 2006, our government has acted consistently to help create jobs and spur economic growth. We have made responsible decisions that have strengthened our economy, while ensuring that we are keeping Canadians and Canadian interests safe. We believe that committee members will find this evidenced within the pages of the supplementary estimates (C) and the main estimates.

As the committee's motion specifically mentions supplementary estimates (C), I will turn first to these, which sought minor adjustments to spending authorities within three of the portfolio agencies: the Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The total net increase in authorities for 2012-13 for these three portfolio organizations equals $4.2 million, or 0.04%.

Mr. Chair, this represents a small increase in the total funding approvals for the Public Safety portfolio for 2012-13. For example, the Canada Border Services Agency has sought an increase in its voted authorities of $10.3 million to support initiatives within the beyond the border action plan. There is, however, no net change in the CBSA's appropriations, as those funds have been offset by a transfer of authorities that had been previously allocated by the Treasury Board.

The supplementary estimates (C) also indicate a net total increase for the RCMP of $3.7 million, which is the result of transfers of funds to the RCMP from Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Department of National Defence.

Finally, we saw a net increase in authorities for CSIS in the amount of $550,000, or 0.1%, of its authorities to date.This amount stems from a transfer from DND to CSIS for the acquisition of technology related to the Canadian safety and security program.

Mr. Chair, let me now turn to the 2013-14 main estimates, which represent a fiscally responsible way forward in our efforts to keep our streets and communities safe while strengthening our economy and supporting families.

For the overall Public Safety portfolio, the 2013-14 main estimates represent an initial funding approval of $8.049 billion, which is an overall decrease of $322.1 million, or 4%, over the previous fiscal year. This funding will be invested into priority areas that are helping us fulfill our commitment to keep Canadians and their communities safe.

Among the overall portfolio funding increases are the following.

The amount of $329 million to the RCMP related to the renewal of the 20-year police services agreements with the provinces, territories, and municipalities.

I want to specifically thank the RCMP for its work on that file and for departmental officials who did an excellent job in working together with the provinces and the territories. These are very, very complex negotiations, but we're very pleased with the work that was done, and the cooperation we received from the provinces and the territories. I think they recognize that the RCMP is the best value for taxpayers' money, and agreed, indeed, without any concerns about that principle, that the RCMP are the best service for their money. That's a real tribute to the RCMP.

Also, $38.2 million goes to Public Safety Canada to provide funding for permanent flood mitigation measures for provinces and territories hit hard by the 2011 floods, and $24.1 million goes to the CBSA to improve the integrity of front-line operations at the border.

Mr. Chair, these increases are offset by a number of decreases, including among others a $65-million decrease to CBSA funding for the arming and eManifest initiatives, which are sunsetting in 2013-14 as part of a loan repayment schedule, and a $31-million decrease to the RCMP related to a transfer of funds to Public Works for the new RCMP headquarters building in Surrey, B.C.

Committee members will also see adjustments to the Correctional Service of Canada's spending authorities, with a net decrease of $428.4 million from the previous year due mainly to the return of funds related to projected inmate population growth, which did not materialize despite the wild predictions of the opposition parties.

You'll remember, Mr. Chair, that it was the NDP that said that, as a result of Bill C-10 and other bills, there would be an increase of $19 billion in infrastructure alone. That was clearly false. It was fearmongering of the worst kind. In fact, as you know, we returned to the fiscal framework almost $1.5 billion because of the prisons that we didn't have to build. This decrease is due to that and as well to the savings measures outlined in budget 2012.

The main estimates also include a $370.7-million decrease in the total Public Safety portfolio spending authorities, related to deficit reduction action plan savings measures announced in budget 2012.

Mr. Chair, before we turn to questions from the committee, I will touch on some of those numbers as they relate to our work to keep Canadians and their communities safe.

Looking at just Public Safety departmental funding, we are requesting increases that include $2.9 million to continue our work to make our cyber-network secure and resilient, as outlined in Canada's cybersecurity strategy, and $2.5 million to implement national security and emergency management initiatives under the beyond the border action plan.

These two initiatives remain top priorities for our government, and we continue to seek evidence of good progress in both areas. In fact, just last week I signed a memorandum of understanding with my U.S. counterpart, Janet Napolitano, that paves the way for a United States Customs and Border Protection truck cargo pre-inspection pilot project on Canadian soil.

As you know, there has been some concern about what sequestration will mean for the movement of Canadian goods into the United States. We are very concerned about that but recognize that it's primarily an American budgetary issue, which they are going to have to resolve. But this kind of pre-inspection initiative, which will help clear trucks before they get to the border and then get them through, will help us in our just-in-time deliveries.

I was told—and maybe you don't know this, Mr. Chair—that in some cases, one automobile goes back and forth across the border 40 times during its production. You can see that if you increase the delay in crossing borders from 20 minutes to 40 minutes or an hour, production is significantly impacted, with of course significant impacts upon the jobs of those in the auto sector, for one example.

The pilot project that we're working on aims to enhance our security while accelerating the legitimate flow of goods, people, and services at the Canada-U.S. border.

As I mentioned earlier, Public Safety Canada seeks an increase in its departmental spending authorities of $38.2 million to provide financial support to provinces and territories for 2011 flood mitigation. These funds are part of our government's commitment to provide a one-time, 50-50, cost-shared investment in permanent flood mitigation measures taken by provinces and territories, specifically related to 2011 flooding. Strong, resilient, and prepared communities are critical to our nation's security and economic strength, and these investments in mitigation will help to ensure that communities are able to recover rapidly after a disaster.

In addition to being prepared for and recovering from natural disasters, resilient communities are also able to identify and resist violent, extremist ideologies and have the capacity to react to events in ways that prevent further harm. As such, committee members will see a request for an increase to Public Safety Canada departmental spending authorities for $1.8 million related to funds for the Kanishka project. Launched in 2011, this five-year, $10-million initiative aims to create a network of scholars who can undertake critical research into how Canadians can prevent terrorism and counter violent extremism. Again, this is an issue and concern that I've discussed with the Homeland Security secretary and something that we share a common interest in.

Finally, the main estimates include a decrease in Public Safety departmental spending authorities of $7.9 million, which reflects the sunsetting of the funds for the ex gratia payments to the families and the victims of Air India flight 182. I am pleased that our government has been able to fulfill this commitment to these families.

Mr. Chair, in summary, our government remains committed to using Canadian taxpayer dollars in the most efficient and most effective manner, and we will do so while moving forward with our plan for safe streets and communities while focusing on strengthening legislation, tackling crime, supporting victims' rights, and ensuring fair and efficient justice.

To this point, on March 4 I was pleased to announce that our government will maintain stable funding for policing agreements with first nation and Inuit communities under the First Nations Policing Program. For the next five years I will be seeking these incremental authorities through the supplementary estimates.

Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Minister, for that in-depth report.

We will now move to our first round of questioning.

We'll go to Ms. Bergen, please, for seven minutes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here, and thank you to your officials as well, each of you, for being here, and to all of you for the good work that you do.

Minister, I want to talk specifically about flooding. You and I both represent ridings in Manitoba that deal with flooding. In 2011 the city of Portage la Prairie, the diversion, and many of the communities around Portage la Prairie were affected very severely by flooding, some of it natural and some of it because the province of Manitoba had to make some very difficult decisions because water was flowing in from Saskatchewan and flows in from our neighbours to the south. My riding in Portage—Lisgar experienced some very devastating flooding, some because the province had to deal with water that could probably flood a greater population in Winnipeg.

The province of Manitoba is known to deal very well with flooding. You yourself representing Provencher understand this clearly. The whole area of the town of Morris and the municipality of Morris had severe flooding as well. The interesting thing is that, after the new boundary changes, it looks like Morris will also be in the riding of Portage—Lisgar. So Portage—Lisgar will be a riding that has historically had to deal with a lot of flooding.

My concern, Minister, is that there has been a lot of snow in Manitoba. Two weeks ago some of my riding got almost 60 centimetres of snow. Just this last weekend we had another 30 centimetres. Almost every weekend there's water. Now, thankfully, a lot of that water will be absorbed but, depending on where water is coming from, whether from Saskatchewan or parts south of us, we know that there could be a lot of water coming once again.

Two fronts I want to ask you about. As it relates to the main estimates, you mentioned almost $40 million of extra funding specifically for flooding. I was very disappointed when that was not supported by the opposition. I definitely think that natural disasters and certainly flooding are not a political issue. It's our job as the federal government to support projects that mitigate the effects of flooding, and so it was disappointing not to have that support from the opposition. But I'm very grateful that your ministry, that Public Safety sees the importance of dealing with flooding in a responsible way.

I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about mitigation efforts and why you, the government, and our Prime Minister felt... He was there for 2011, he saw the flooding in Portage la Prairie and he saw the devastation of the farms that were destroyed. Would you talk about the importance of mitigation and working together with a province like Manitoba, which has done an excellent job over the last 25 years to deal with flooding?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

The issue of mitigation is a very important one. It's something that we looked at after the 1997 flood in Manitoba. I was in the provincial government at that time. We worked together with the federal government at that time to bring forward a mitigation program. As a result of that mitigation program—which was essentially 50-50 funding—we were able to protect communities by way of ring dike and enhance the protection for roads and other infrastructure.

As a result, since 1997, I might be mistaken, but I don't believe that there's been one home flooded since 1997 along that Red River valley. Other damage has taken place but we've been able to protect residences.

So instead of the federal government through DFAA paying 90-cent dollars every year when the flooding occurs, we are able to ring dike those homes, those communities south of Winnipeg. There may have been a couple of homes south of Winnipeg. But that was for other reasons that they were flooded.

Some of the areas north of Winnipeg do need to be addressed in the same way and of course some of the areas in the western part of the province, including your riding.

So mitigation in the long-term benefits the taxpayer, not just the people who have been flooded, but it benefits the taxpayer that we don't have to react after a flood but that we can take proactive action to prevent the damage of flooding in these widespread areas. We've seen quite a bit of snow in Saskatchewan. I don't know what it is in North Dakota. I know a couple of weeks ago the flood forecast was fairly benign, but with some of the added snow...I think Miami, Manitoba received the highest amount of snow in Manitoba in your riding, as opposed to Miami, Florida.

But this snow will melt, will become water and we hope that the efforts of the emergency measures people will prevent damage. But in the long term, mitigation is what is going to protect these communities in a much more substantive and ongoing way.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I definitely appreciate that kind of foresight and I agree with you. I think it's a much more responsible use of taxpayers' dollars that will save money in the long run.

Another area of importance to me personally in the riding of Portage—Lisgar is the border. We have a number of border crossings in my riding and certainly for all of us, clearly the CBSA plays a very important role, especially with our neighbours to the south.

I'm wondering.... You did mention a couple of things. First of all, there's an increase for front-line border security. I know that we've had a bit of fearmongering unfortunately from some of the unions regarding some of the cuts that were made under the deficit reduction action plan, but that was not made to front-line officers. I think that's something that needs to be very clear and on the record.

I'm not sure how much time we have left, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Fifteen seconds.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Okay, I'll just give you time.... Thank you very much.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Very quickly, the decrease in front-line officers was about 26%, again as a result of our beyond the border initiative. We're working very closely with the Americans to see how we can become more cost effective at the border, securing our borders, and yet allowing for a more rapid transfer of goods and services.

There are a number of pilot projects that we're involved in that we're quite pleased about. I mentioned the pre-inspection and others that I think will help minimize the impact of the sequestration issue in the United States. But that still is a significant issue, the sequestration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll move to Mr. Garrison please for seven minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the minister and officials for being here. Whenever the minister and I deal with each other, I feel the obligation to talk about some things he'd like to talk about first before he does so.

I do want to say that nothing we have to say today implies any criticism of our front-line staff in the public safety areas, who we believe do their best to keep Canada safe, in all those agencies. The second thing is: know that we do not believe dollars are always the fix, but we are talking about the budget today, so we will be talking about dollars. The third is the kind of reductionism that Ms. Bergen just engaged in by saying that because we voted against the budget, there should be no federal government. We obviously will differ on priorities and may end up voting against the budget. It doesn't mean we oppose absolutely everything that's in the budget or absolutely every dollar devoted to public safety. I just wanted to get those off the table.

Yesterday, we had the tabling of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's expenditure analysis of criminal justice in Canada. What that analysis, I think, shows is that the government is pursuing policies that are driving up costs in public safety, both for the federal government and also for the provinces. Yet we have estimates before us today that show significant costs coming in Public Safety. I'm looking at that contradiction and asking the minister which policies that are driving up those costs—like additional mandatory minimum sentences and those kinds of things—is the government prepared to give up? Or which of the major challenges in public safety are we not going to tackle?

At some point, this just doesn't add up. The costs are increasing. The number of people in prison, whether it's the projections or not, is still at an all-time high. Yet we're going to have reduction in the funding for those things. It's hard for me to see how you square the circle there by pursuing those same policies that drive costs up. When we look at overall Public Safety in the estimates and the supplementaries, we're going to be down about 30% from last year.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As I've indicated in some of my opening comments, the reason why a very large part of it was down is because the department had anticipated there would be much a greater increase in the number of prisoners, and we simply did not experience that rush. When I became the public safety minister, I reviewed any spending in that respect. I simply said that we did not need new prisons. What we did, in fact, was build new units in existing prisons, and we were able to shut down two prisons, one of which the unions have been asking to shut down for an awfully long time in Kingston. Kingston should have been shut down perhaps 50 or 60 years ago. We were able to do that.

The estimates by my own department were that by this time, there would be over 18,000 prisoners in our prisons, as opposed to the 14,000 who were there in 2010. In fact, we're just a little over 15,000, so we have about a quarter of what our own department estimated. With all due respect to your party, this was thousands and thousands fewer than was predicted by the NDP. The NDP made the comment that we're going to have to have $19 billion in new infrastructure. In fact, the total new infrastructure was about $600 million, and we were able to shut down Kingston and Leclerc. I can't remember what the net saving was by shutting down Kingston, but it's quite significant.

The doom and gloom that was being preached by individuals who had absolutely no understanding of what's going on in the criminal justice system simply didn't materialize. We believe that what our tough on crime policies are doing is simply telling those individuals, who usually got out earlier or weren't even sent to prison because they were on home arrest, that they don't get a holiday anymore. You serve your time. These individuals are in for longer periods of time because judges have sent them there, and that's where they belong. We will continue to work with those individuals when they come to prison, in terms of giving them training and other things that I think they require, but my first priority is to make the streets safe. That is done by keeping these individuals off the streets by incapacitating them in their ability to commit further crimes and victimize ordinary citizens.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Of course we do have a different philosophy about how you actually keep the community safe in the long term.

I have a very specific question. Does this budget require reductions in operating expenditures for the RCMP, for Correctional Services, or for CSIS? Does it require operating budget expenditures in this next year?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I can turn to each of the agencies, because you've asked me about four agencies. My understanding is it does not.

Why don't we start with the RCMP?

[Commissioner Bob Paulson, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I can say that in these main estimates there is a net increase for the appropriations to the RCMP, attributable to the new contract policing model. We have about an 8% increase going into this year.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

In your actual operations day to day, then, you won't see any reduction in expenditures in this fiscal year.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

It's a pretty big, broad brush on our operations. Whatever we've done in the last year or two to make our operations more efficient has been behind operations. The idea is that we're not impacting operations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Perhaps some of the other departments, Corrections and...?

Commissioner Head.

[Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

From a Correctional Service perspective, the reductions in our area are broken down. Of the $428-million reduction this year, $203 million is the moneys, as the minister has pointed out, that are just a return...moneys that were not in our budget for expenditure, based on populations that did not materialize, and so have no direct impact at all. Another $170 million is in relation to our deficit reduction action plan, which addresses the effectiveness and efficiency issues that we set out last year.

We have no plans to reduce a direct line of service delivery as it relates to correctional programs, for example. We will be closing the three institutions: Kingston Penitentiary, which includes the Regional Treatment Centre in its existing form, and the Leclerc institution. Those operations will stop, but the rest of our front-line delivery will continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We'll have to get the other two in maybe a little later, because we're out of time.

We'll move to Mr. Leef, please.

Mr. Leef, you have seven minutes as well.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses.

Minister, Mr. Garrison probably stole a bit of my thunder. I was going to ask about the corrections issue.

Of course, two years goes by rather quickly. I remember well that in the general election in 2011 the NDP were making much ado about a prison agenda that we were trying to drive. You certainly cleared the record quite well.

But you talked about $428.4 million in net decrease due to a lower projection of inmate populations. Those, of course, were the projections that your own department made. Mr. Garrison points out that there are higher numbers of inmates in the correctional system now than in the past, but I think it would be safe to say that they are relative to the increase of the Canadian population generally. Can you quickly touch on this?

Then I'll ask a totally different vein of questions. You touched on $1.5 billion saved in prisons that weren't required. Can you expand a bit on that aspect?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That was essentially the money that we returned to the fiscal framework. It had been set aside for the construction of prisons because of the estimates of both my department and the opposition that there would be very substantial increases required.

I took a different view; I said we will not see increases like that, because we're not dealing with new people; we're dealing with the same old guys, who usually go out on vacation, commit a few more crimes, and get sent back to jail. It's the same old people. When you see an increase of 1,000, it's not as though we're getting many new people; it's the same old guys doing a little more time.

Basically, we just built the 2,700 units, which will all be coming on stream in this year and in 2014. At this point, we simply have....I was speaking to the commissioner just yesterday. I think he was saying that there are 300 or 400 empty beds at any one time in the overall system. This doesn't mean that there aren't pressures in particular areas because of gang issues and the intake issue, which is something that I think the commissioner is still working on. But in terms of overall beds compared with numbers of individuals, we still have some room and we still have more units coming.

I want to mention one thing. I want to thank you, first of all, Mr. Leef, for your service to the RCMP and to the correctional service. I know you come at this area from both of those. As I recall, Mr. Leef, you were a member, were you not, of Troop 4 in March 1998, when the Liberals in fact shut down the training facility? Yours was the last troop, and they actually shut down training. I was the provincial attorney general at that time in Manitoba. One half of all of the RCMP were eligible for retirement in five years, and the Liberals shut down Depot.

Can you tell us a little bit about that experience, Mr. Leef?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Minister, we brought you here today so that you could answer the questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Continue, Mr. Leef.