Public Safety Committee on May 1st, 2014

[François Guimont, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Well, Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I'm coming here well prepared and I have my briefing notes. I did a sit-down with my staff and we went through everything. That one, I don't have.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[François Guimont]

I would simply and politely defer to what the minister said, quite frankly. The only observation I would make, and maybe the commissioner can add to it, is that law enforcement and public safety are a continuum. That's a fair statement. Municipalities play, the private sector ought to play, and we do have a role federally. This is not the type of situation where you specifically look to one jurisdiction only. That's the extent of what I can answer to the question.

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

Obviously that was my approach, that it's at least a shared jurisdiction here. If we continue to see these kinds of reductions, we are likely going to see the “bad guys”, as we like to call them, figuring out that we have a softer target. Just today, one of the unions sent me a picture of a company's new so-called armoured car. It looks a bit like a crew cab pickup with different paint. It's a serious concern given the large amounts of cash that are moved around to ATMs, which are refilled often at night under very difficult circumstances.

I guess I would ask the commissioner if he has run across this.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

No, I haven't, but I think it's perhaps symptomatic of the occupational health and safety angle being taken in our workplace. I think perhaps you can direct those people to start to research on how they're engaging in their negotiations with their employers, frankly, but—

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

They have previously filed with the Canadian labour relations board—some time ago—and did receive an opinion that the reductions in crews were potentially dangerous, but they didn't get a definitive one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garrison.

Now we will go to Mrs. James and Mr. Payne. I believe you're splitting your time.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you. I will be splitting some time with my colleague.

My question is for CBSA and Mr. Portelance.

It is within your mandate to remove those individuals who are here in Canada illegally. I think the statistics last year were that since the Conservatives came to government in 2006, it was roughly about 115,000 illegal individuals who had been removed from Canada. Do you have an update on those statistics? Has that increased? Or is that roughly still the same? Could you comment on that, please?

[Luc Portelance, President, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you for the question. That briefing note I do have.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's because it's within your mandate.

[Luc Portelance]

Enforcing the immigration act is a key part of our mandate, obviously. That number is based on the last 10 years of the existence of CBSA.

This past year, I've seen some recent numbers for the last fiscal year and I think we're still tracking at around 14,000 or so removals. On average, that's pretty much what we're removing per year, and that remains consistent.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You did mention our immigration system, so it's really twofold what you do. You're maintaining the integrity of our immigration system, but at the same time some of these individuals obviously have histories of serious criminality. They should not be here in Canada, so it becomes a community safety aspect as well for our families and our communities.

That leads me to the second question that I wanted to ask you before I pass my time over to Mr. Payne.

Just recently in Toronto, I had the privilege to join members from CBSA to do an announcement on additional individuals who were added to the CBSA's wanted list. I think that has been a hugely successful program in engaging the public to come forward with information regarding individuals. These are individuals who are here illegally in Canada. There are histories of serious criminality. Some of them have failed to show up to their last hearings and so forth. So it's very important, and you've engaged the public in this regard.

I'm wondering if you could talk about that particular program. I guess briefly because I do want to share time. But also, what are the numbers of actual individuals whom you've located, physically removed from Canada, or in some cases been able to prove that they've already left Canada and they're no longer a threat here on our Canadian soil?

[Luc Portelance]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

Just going back to the first part of the question, it's correct to say that at the upper end of the individuals we worry about most are the ones who have serious criminal antecedents who should be removed from Canada.

The CBSA last year set a target of removing 100% of individuals with criminal records who were ready for removal. That means people who have gone through the process, who are ready to be removed. We challenged ourselves to ensure that 100% of those individuals would be removed from the country, and we were successful, so that is a fairly high watermark for the CBSA.

On Canada's most wanted list or CBSA's most wanted list, in fact, that has been very successful. In terms of individuals that we've either located, removed, or demonstrated they'd already left Canada, it's well over 50. I think the actual removal number is just high of 40.

But these are individuals who are, again, either criminals or people who are war criminals, for instance, who have been removed as a result of the collaboration of the public, frankly, who have contributed to our efforts.

The program started almost three years ago. We will continue. We are continuing to add names, as you know. It's a very important component of our enforcement effort.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I would like to pass my remaining time over.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I probably only have a brief time, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have three minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, I have all kinds of time. Thank you.

First, my question will be to Mr. McPhail.

Mr. McPhail, obviously I talked earlier about the floods in Alberta, and of course High River was a huge issue there. In particular there were a lot of questions around the RCMP and the taking of weapons. I know that you're working on a report, and I'm wondering if you can give us an update on when we can expect to hear the report on the RCMP's issues in High River. I had a number of phone calls and emails as a result of that, and I'm quite a ways away from High River actually.

[Ian McPhail, Interim Chair, Chair's Office, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Payne. I'd be very pleased just to advise the committee that the terms of reference the commission established were to review the policing of public intoxication. The areas of interest involved the RCMP members' entry into buildings and residences, the search of those buildings and residences, the seizure of items, as well as the communications surrounding the incidents.

What we found was that we have reviewed some 15,000 documents relating to this matter. It's turned out to be a major undertaking. The documentation is found with detachments all over western Canada, because there were large numbers of RCMP members who did attend to assist with this emergency.

We've conducted numerous interviews in High River with people directly affected. We've conducted interviews with members of the RCMP. We've retained outside experts to review the issue of the legality of police entry into people's homes. We've retained a communications expert to help us with the review of the RCMP communications strategy.

I'm optimistic that our final report will be released to the public this summer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

You have just half a minute.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You're comfortable with that, okay.

We will now go to Mr. Easter, please, for seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, and welcome again, gentlemen—I guess it's all gentlemen.

My earlier question to the minister on the information released by the Privacy Commissioner on the 1.19 million requests is a fairly worrying matter in the public arena. We're hearing a lot of concerns about private information being made available through current technology. There was the metadata issue that was huge at airports; that was the Communications Security Establishment Canada. On March 25 there was a news story about 18,849 requests. I believe that was for the CBSA. Now we're hearing from the Privacy Commissioner about 1.19 million requests.

You may not be able to provide it today, but the minister said some of your agencies were involved. There is the RCMP, I suspect, and CSIS and CBSA. Can you tell us now, or can you provide it later, how many requests for information were made by those various agencies, and whether they had warrants or were they without warrants?

Who wants to start?

[François Guimont]

I will start, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you, Mr. Easter.

I will simply make two points that are worthwhile for the committee to look at, because they go in the direction of the question you are asking.

A question was posed to our minister, a formal question.

This is an information request addressed to the government. It is question No 233 on the Order paper.

I have it here, Mr. Chair, and obviously, it is available to you. This was not a brief answer. It was a comprehensive look at the type of information that we seek, why we seek it, and it provided numbers, which generated the questions on the CBSA side. I can file this with you. It's available, and I would encourage the committee to at least look at it. It's a start.

The second point I would make briefly, and this goes, Mr. Chair, to the specific questions about what is warranted and how many, is that Public Safety on a yearly basis makes public a document entitled “Annual Report on the Use of Electronic Surveillance”. This report, which was made public in 2012—if I remember, last August—will be updated and will be provided over the summer as well, the same way we've done it.

Those are two reference documents that will provide answers to quite a number of your questions, which are understandable questions, and I would really encourage the committee to have a look at this as a good starting point to understand the mechanics, because we cover why and how it's tied to the Criminal Code, our mandate, etc., the sections, and it also gives numerical information along the lines of what you're looking for.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you very much for that answer. In terms of some of the media coverage, though, and I might be somewhat wrong on this figure, it is stated—I believe it's 800,000 requests without warrant. Is there any legitimacy to that statement that there are 800,000 requests without warrant?