Public Safety Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2014

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Once again, I thank you for your question.

I would be really happy to see the NDP supporting more investment in increasing our national security measures. I must tell you that I would have really appreciated it if you could have supported providing more tools by supporting Bill C-44. I think we had an open debate in the House of Commons. I came here and brought very reasonable arguments. You had many witnesses. I would have liked the NDP to support Bill C-44, because I believe this is what this country needs to keep Canadians safe. This is about the tools, and when it comes time to speak about money, it is also time for the budget.

But let me tell you why I'm here today for CSIS and what is, if I can use the expression, their cashflow. In supplementary estimates (B), the net amount for CSIS is $5.2 million or 1% of authorities to date. CSIS has received from the Treasury Board authority to increase its voted appropriation by $5.3 million as follows: an increase of $3.6 million to recover proceeds from the sale of homes purchased under the home sale plan and of $1.2 million for parking fees, and $559,000 to recover costs related to the security screening of employees.

This is the increased authority. There's been a decrease from DFATD and DND. Actually, it's money that was transferred from CSIS to DFATD, DND, or the RCMP. These amounts range from $220,000 to $1.6 million. They are to provide support to the department staff allocated at missions abroad; an amount for the integrated terrorism assessment centre and for the Canadian safety and security program; and there's also a transfer from the RCMP for “software tools”.

What I'm asking for today is that the committee allow these funding transfers so that we can reflect the real expenses incurred. I certainly am looking forward to coming back to this committee to seek support for additional funding to increase our safety and for the evolving threat of terrorism.

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

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Minister, with respect, I want to go back to my point that you've cut resources for CSIS since 2012 by very significant amounts, which seems to have put you in the position of having to come back and ask for more money. It would seem to me that any reasonable person looking at this would say that you went too far in your cutting resources to CSIS. I guess that's what I see in the message of your being back here today, if you're asking for another $5.2 million.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to that. I'm saying that I think you went too far and you probably do need to add money back in that budget. If you listened to the testimony of your deputy director in the Senate, where he said he didn't have sufficient resources to monitor people who were a threat, then obviously you've gone too far in reducing the resources.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

As I told you, we've increased the budget for CSIS by one third over the course of our mandate. The amount we're talking about today is transferring funds. I indeed expect to face, to adapt to the evolving threat, and to come back for additional funding. I'm looking forward to having your support.

However, today is for the current ongoing operation of CSIS.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Now, Mr. Falk, please. You have seven minutes as well in this first round.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start off by expressing my gratitude to all of you who represent our different security agencies here in Canada: correctional service, border services, the Department of Public Safety, CSIS, RCMP, and police services. Thank you for the most important work that you do in providing safety and security for Canadian citizens.

Minister, you've already mentioned it in some of your comments here, that the NDP voted against the protection of Canada from terrorists act, and I believe you answered a House question yesterday on exactly that.

Could you comment further on the need for this very important law, Bill C-44, which clearly helps to clarify the law under which CSIS needs to operate?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Absolutely, and I thank you for this question.

Even as the bill was tabled, members were provided with the opportunity to get some technical briefings. Those who have benefited from those briefings then could clearly understand that due to some court decisions, it was important to update the CSIS Act, which has not really been updated for the last 30 years. This is exactly what the protection of Canada from terrorists act is doing, clarifying the authority of CSIS.

One important thing, which is now obvious to us, is clearly defining that CSIS has the capability to operate abroad. That seems very obvious, but this needed to be added to the CSIS Act. This is exactly what Bill C-44 achieves.

While we can protect witnesses, which is very important for an intelligence agency, there is a mechanism that anyone who could be accused under the information provided by those witnesses is entitled to a fair trial. Once again, there is the amicus curiae legal mechanism so that the law will help the court and help CSIS in its mandate while clarifying its mandate.

There are some other elements in that bill like improving and accelerating the removal of dual citizenship. This bill was already adopted, but now we are willing to move forward as the terrorist threat evolves. These are the measures in the bill. These are certainly measures that I would appreciate and seek support on from all members.

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out—through the chair, of course—I would have expected that the NDP support this important bill, especially as the terrorist threat is real. I was given the opportunity to highlight this fact, so were the experts in this area. Unfortunately we did not get support. I still feel that when we're placed in front of accurate facts, we should seek support.

You may recall that the NDP did not support the Combating Terrorism Act. I think we as Canadians can be very relieved today to know that charges have been laid under this new act. With the law we have in place in this country, terrorists are now prevented from committing a terrorist act. This is why it is important as legislators that we provide the tools to those who are there to protect us. This is why I intend to come back in the near future with additional measures that will fully comply with our Canadian law, but in the meantime will provide tools necessary for our national security agency and law enforcement agency to better protect Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Minister.

I find it very ironic that we're hearing from the NDP that they want your department to spend more money, yet they're voting against all the initiatives that your department is coming up with. They voted against the protection of Canada from terrorists act, and as you indicated they also voted against the Combating Terrorism Act. It would seem to me that when it comes to issues of national security, the NDP aren't getting it, and they're out of their depth.

You wanted to move this legislation along very quickly. Can you comment a little further on the seriousness of the nature of the threats that Canada is facing today? Why was it important to move the bill expeditiously?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

We certainly rely on our experts to assess the threat level. Certainly that can be done either now or in the second hour of this important meeting, but at this point I would like to stress that we have to adjust to this evolving threat.

We were witness to those actions here in this very Parliament. As you will remember, you and I were in that very same room not so long ago.

This is why we won't overreact to the terrorist threat, but we won't under-react. This is why we are moving forward. We are also looking at what other western countries are doing when faced with a similar situation. I was in France recently. They are implementing a measure such as the one we already have implemented or are contemplating it for the near future. We are not alone in the fight against these barbaric actions that are taken by terrorists, and this is why we will move forward.

There is certainly an important need—as the courts said—for Bill C-44, the bill that is in front of Parliament now. As of now, CSIS does not have the same capability it had in the past. So it's not about adding new powers, it's just about restoring existing authorities so they can exchange information about terrorists who are travelling. This is why I feel...and once again, I really would have appreciated having the support of this committee.

This bill has to move as fast as we can do it as parliamentarians, so that we can restore the capability of CSIS to protect Canadians. I am confident that this bill will go back to the House in the coming days and that we will be able to see it move through the Senate quickly to get royal assent, so that CSIS can protect Canadians by two means—making sure, when they are establishing a bond of trust with a witness, that they can protect the witness and the witness can have some confidentiality, and of course making sure that we can exchange information with our partners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Now, for the final seven minutes on the first round, Mr. Easter, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister and agency heads. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Carmichael mentioned this, Minister, but he didn't really include all committee members. I think you can be assured that all committee members, ourselves on this side as well, would certainly pass on our regards and best wishes with respect to the RCMP officer who was shot early this morning.

With respect to the last question, Mr. Minister, on exchanging information with other agencies abroad, and the interchange you just had, I was in Washington, D.C., yesterday. I met with the chair of the homeland security committee, among others, and this is one of their concerns. They're wondering where Canada is on that.

Bill C-44 doesn't deal with that issue, as I see it. I believe you were anticipating bringing in other legislation, but to my knowledge Bill C-44 does not deal with that specific issue. It deals with protecting informants and sources abroad in a number of other areas, but it does not deal with what we just talked about. That will require other legislation. Am I correct?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

You're right, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

That will be coming forward in other legislation, but I can tell you, having met the chair of the homeland security committee in the United States yesterday, that is a concern, and I'm well aware of it; I faced it when I was in your position.

Let me go back to the statement you made on October 8, where you said, “We know of about 80 who have returned to Canada”—meaning people who have been involved with a terrorist entity abroad. This is your statement, and I quote:

Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law, as passed by this Parliament in the Combating Terrorism Act.

You said they have violated Canadian law, Mr. Minister. You're the top law enforcement official in the country. That was October 8. Have any of them been arrested as yet?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

As you know, there have been many individuals who have been arrested under the current laws, and if we want to have more arrests, we need to make sure that our law enforcement has the appropriate tools.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

None of those 80 have been arrested, have they?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Let me make one point very clear. You have been in a capacity to know that there is a difference between having intelligence and being able to present a robust charge that will stick and bring an individual, or any terrorist in this case, to jail. That's why we have to look at the way our system is working, and we also have to look at the tools that we are currently providing to our law enforcement. Once again, we may feel that an individual can represent a threat but not necessarily have the evidence, because as you are well aware, we are in a state of law. We are proud of that, and this is how we conduct ourselves when dealing with terrorists. This is why we, as parliamentarians, have such an important role to set the rules, and this is why Bill C-44 and the coming legislation are so important.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

If it's an evidentiary shortcoming, then we, as a committee, need to know what needs to be done to fix that. You said yourself that they have violated Canadian law. If they have violated Canadian law, it seems to me that they should be able to be arrested.

Section 83.181 of the Criminal Code states:

Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada...for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.18(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

It seems to me that that section of the act should be able to be used with these 80 folks who have returned to Canada from fighting with what we have named as terrorist entities.

Has that act been used to charge anyone in Canada? I know one individual was charged six months after he left the country, but he isn't in Canada. Has anyone in Canada been charged under that section? If not, why not?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I can come back with more specifics because, as you know, the situation is evolving. Our police officers are constantly reviewing our terrorist files. As you know, there are accusations that have been laid under the Combating Terrorism Act, so these are new tools that have been provided to our police officers. I will be happy to come back with more specific details.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The reason I'm forceful on that point, Mr. Minister, is that, if at the moment anybody out there is thinking of going abroad to fight with ISIS or ISIL or anyone else, I think that being aware of the fact that somebody has been charged under this section would be a deterrent to going abroad and doing that. That's why. Do you want to add further to that?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Easter, depending on the time you still have in your question, and there will be another round, my expert officials will be happy.... Are we close on time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have about 15 seconds left, if you'd like to respond.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I think your question deserves a fulsome answer, and I suggest you address it to my colleagues in the next round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Easter.

Now, we move on to the second round.

Ms. Doré Lefebvre, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you and your officials for being here today to answer our questions. We greatly appreciate it.

My questions have to do mainly with the Correctional Service of Canada.

First, I would like to get the numbers straight. You spoke about a decrease in the prison population. However, in the past five years, there has been a 10% increase in this population. There are approximately 15,200 inmates a day in our prisons.

One other thing has increased, and that is double-bunking in the cells. There has been a rising trend in this respect in the past five years. There has been a 93% increase, which is huge. In the past five years, we have also seen a 17% increase in cases of assault and fights among inmates and a 6.7% increase in incidents of the use of force.

There are these incidents and problems among the inmates. This is of great concern to the officers from the Correctional Service of Canada and the Office of the Correctional Investigator, who submitted a report to that end.

Are you going to continue to let these numbers rise? Are you going to continue to use double-bunking, knowing that it is not solving the problems in our federal prisons?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you for your question.

I have the opportunity to appear fairly regularly before the committee, and I hope to come back again soon to discuss new legislation we are putting in place and to seek your support in the fight against terrorism.

To come back to your questions about correctional services, we are honoured to have the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada with us, and I will ask him to answer your questions.

Previously, I would have simply said that we are not seeing what we had predicted. I would even use the word “apocalyptic” because we had predicted that our penal institutions were going to be full. That has not happened. We are even implementing a plan for additional cells.

I will let the commissioner provide the numbers because, obviously, they are constantly changing. As far as I know, they are not as high as you mentioned. In recent months, we have seen a decrease in the prison population.

In terms of double-bunking, I would like to point out that it is a common and widespread practice in western systems. I have even visited detention centres that had dormitories. There are all kinds of accommodation—if I can say that—for inmates. We think this is a common practice.

Moreover, I would like to commend the correctional services officers for the important work they do.

On that note, I would ask the commissioner to provide an update.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If I may, I will have the opportunity to come back to this during other question periods. In fact, I have many questions to ask you about the Correctional Service of Canada. However, while you are here with us during this first hour, I would like to talk to you about your positions on certain matters.

When I speak with correctional officers, they often tell me about problems with the aging population. We see it; the populations in our prisons are getting a lot older. Often, the correctional officers have to be involved in palliative care for inmates.

Have you thought of a strategy to review the operation of the prison system? This is also part of what the Office of the Correctional Investigator is calling for. He is asking for clarification on this and for review of the plan on how to deal with these older inmates, who can no longer get around and who, sometimes, have oxygen tanks. Will a medical service be put in place or will we stick to having correctional officers distribute pills to inmates?