Public Safety Committee on March 21st, 2013

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

Thank you. I think that's important, because they like to say, “Well, we voted against something, but we didn't actually vote against what was in that,” and they did.

Thank you very much, both of you, for that clarification.

Mr. Coulombe, I'd like to go to you. One of the areas the minister spoke about when he was here an hour ago was the Kanishka project as it relates to academics looking into the issue of terrorism, of radicalization. I know that it's something that we look at in Canada, and at how we can address it, but clearly it has international implications.

I'm wondering if you can tell us how dangerous and what a threat terrorism is to us as a country, and radicalization as well, and how something like the Kanishka project, which again is a first under our Conservative government.... It came after recommendations from the Air India inquiry and the tragedy surrounding that. Can you talk a bit about what you're seeing internationally in terms of the threat of terrorism and how radicalization relates to that?

[Michel Coulombe, Deputy Director of Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

For this service, terrorism is still the number one priority in terms of threats to the security of Canada. Within that threat, radicalization, or what is known as homegrown terrorism, is the number one priority. As we've seen with the Toronto 18, it is something concrete that does exist here in Canada.

It's important to understand that radicalization is not an issue a security intelligence service or law enforcement can deal with themselves. First of all, we have to understand the phenomenon and what's driving young people to become radicalized. So a project like this is crucial. In our public report, we mentioned that our analysis branch did a study on radicalization. We're working with our international partners, trying to better understand what factors are driving young people to adopt a radical ideology and the willingness to use violence to promote that ideology.

In terms of the broader terrorism threat, the al-Qaeda ideology is still the number one threat facing not only Canada but also a number of our partners. The fact that al-Qaeda—and I'll qualify, the al-Qaeda core in Afghanistan, Pakistan—has been weakened, and that Osama bin Laden was killed, doesn't mean that the ideology is dead. On the contrary. What we're seeing more now are groups affiliated with al-Qaeda or who are adopting their ideology and representing more of a threat. We can certainly think of what's happening in Mali now with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb; what's happening in Syria with the emergence of groups like al-Nusra, who are directly linked to al-Qaeda; what happened in Libya, and the list goes on and on. So that is what the challenge is for the future: those groups adopting the al-Qaeda ideology and promoting that violent jihad ideology.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move back to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I would reiterate that there was no cyber-strategy before this government because, as the minister said, the issue cropped up rather quickly. The government's been in power so long that we were using UNIVACs at the time, but anyway....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Head, how much will we be spending on mental health programs in your system in 2013–14 versus the fiscal year ending and the fiscal year before? What's the trend? Are we spending more? What are the increases like? Are we spending less or the same?

[Don Head]

To use as a reference point, going back to 2006–07, when we started to see some investments coming, we were spending $67 million on mental health—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What year, sorry?

[Don Head]

It was the 2006–07 fiscal year. This fiscal year coming up, we will be spending $90 million on mental health.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What is it with respect to the current fiscal year?

[Don Head]

It was around $86 million.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Around $86 million, so it's really a very slight increase, I guess.

[Don Head]

Yes. Mind you, the increase is proportionate to the increase in the offender population, which is less.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is it directly proportionate?

[Don Head]

Yes. We're able to do the things set out in our community mental health initiative and our institutional mental health initiative, and no more than that. The funding allows us to address some of the issues I mentioned in relation to the previous question.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

But we also learned in our study on drugs in prisons, which you kindly appeared before the committee for on numerous times, that there's a growing proportion of inmates in the system with mental health or addiction issues, so I would just suggest to you that it may not be enough to keep things in direct proportion, but I'll leave that point.

I read something very interesting in the media a couple of weeks ago about the United States. There's a problem emerging in the United States' penitentiary system that actually reflects demographic trends in society, namely that there are now more and more older inmates who are obviously dealing with some of the challenges that come with age, whether you're inside or outside, including a higher incidence of Alzheimer's and so on. In the United States, they seem to be implementing programs, and I'm sure you've heard of this, where the younger inmates would help with the care of the older ones. As part of their rehabilitation process, those who are behaving well would learn to care for the older inmates and both would benefit as a result. No doubt, the younger inmates would be gaining skills they could use on the outside. Has CSC been looking at that, or might you go somewhere with that kind of idea?

[Don Head]

That is a very good comment and question.

This is something we have been looking at. There is no question that the aging offender population is an issue in Canada, as it is in many other countries. About 23% of our incarcerated population is serving a life sentence, which means they're going to be with us for 15, 20, 25 years. Depending on their age of admission...they're going to grow older while they're with us.

We have looked at the program that you're looking at in the U.S. We have done some of that on a case-by-case basis across the country, a peer support program, and it has been quite useful in certain cases. One of the challenges we have, as you can imagine, is just matching up the right offender with another offender. Charging an offender with another offender's care is a very sensitive issue. But when we have had the right matches, it's been very positive.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Oh, you've done it already.

[Don Head]

Yes, we've done it in some of the institutions across the country, especially with those individuals who are in the early stages of dementia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have 30 more seconds.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Then I'll leave it at that, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Scarpaleggia.

We'll move back to Mr. Leef, please, for five minutes.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Cenaiko, we haven't talked to you much yet today. Perhaps we can talk about what efficiencies the National Parole Board has found.

I notice in the main estimates for 2013-14 you're down a couple of million dollars from 2011-12. Maybe you could just touch on where those savings are occurring and what efficiencies you might have found. As well, maybe you'd be able to touch on the user fee cost for the National Parole Board and how that might be beneficial to Canadian taxpayers.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

Thank you very much. That's a very good question.

In the deficit reduction action plan, we've developed 14 projects or strategies in relation to providing our 10% reduction, of which 9.8%, I believe, was accepted by Treasury Board. This year it will represent the 5.5% reduction of about $2.8 million.

We've found a number of efficiencies in relation to how we do some of the work we're doing. We have a pilot project in the prairie region right now in relation to electronic files versus using hard-copy paper files, which obviously for offenders could mean volumes and volumes of documents. We are doing a pilot project with that right now. It is providing some major efficiencies for our board members.

However, the main area in which we've found additional funding is in video conference appearances versus travelling, especially in some areas, the prairies probably the most. Federal institutions are located all over, geographically, and obviously when you have to send board members and staff to attend the hearings in those areas, of course there are travel costs—hotel, per diem, food. So there are to be some major savings in video conferencing over the next two years; however, we've already increased.... The goal was to be at 20% by the end of this year, and we've already exceeded that. Some of the regions were beyond the 20% and into the 30%, and in fact even beyond the 30%.

We're really seeing a major increase in those, and there are no issues with the offenders. There are no issues in relation to having the parole officers at the other end of the video screen, either. It's been very productive and very efficient and effective for decisions and/or hearings at institutions.

The other main area where we're seeing major efficiencies is in relation to reducing quorum from two board members to one. That legislation came in last June and took effect December 1. It did reduce our quorum from two board members to one board member for all those offenders on post-release.

Let's say an offender was released from an institution, committed a criminal offence, and was sent back into the institution. Now, versus having a hearing, we have an office review done, and instead of having two board members review it, it's done by one board member. Just that alone will provide us with savings in the neighbourhood of $1.6 million per year.

These are some of the major costs we're going to be saving.

As well, the $631 in relation to record suspension—which is the new name for a pardon—was based on the User Fees Act. Through consultations that we did with the public, with NGOs, with other organizations, and obviously through the User Fees Act, the $631 amount was determined to be the administrative cost, the full administrative cost, for a pardon. Applicants pay that themselves, and thus taxpayers are not paying for a criminal offender's record suspension.