Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2018

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Yes, sir.

I have one last question.

Let's talk about the deportation of illegal refugees. We learned that last year 26,000 people had illegally crossed the border. Last Monday in Montreal you told us that 90% of these people were not granted asylum.

Do you have the necessary budgets to deport 24,000 people? I know that when immigration refuses to deal with them this falls into your court. You have the mandate, with the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, to send people back where they came from.

How much will this cost?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The legislation says that if a person is determined to be inadmissible, they are to be removed as quickly as possible. That is exactly what CBSA strives to do in every case. Part of the new money we've referred to here would increase the capacity of CBSA to move forward on those removals.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Can you give us an idea of the costs?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Paul-Hus, your seven minutes are up.

Mr. Davies, welcome to the committee. You have seven minutes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to express our condolences to all colleagues, particularly my colleagues in the Conservative Party, on the passing of Mr. Brown. He will be missed.

I also want to take this opportunity to offer, on behalf of our party, our warmest congratulations to Commissioner Lucki and our best wishes for her as she takes on this important role. I must say, for the record, that I had the good fortune of attending high school with Commissioner Lucki and, out of an abundance of chivalry and to set the record straight, that I am older.

Minister, thank you for being with us.

The departmental plan indicates a planned decrease in funding related to the grant to compensate RCMP members injured in the performance of their duties in 2019-20 as compared with 2018-19. Can you explain the reason for that decrease?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I would have to ask Mr. Brown or Ms. Lucki to comment on that. Obviously, the funding is related to the need, and the force would always want to be in a position to provide the appropriate support for those who are injured in the course of their duties.

As you know, these estimates provide only a snapshot at a certain location in time. If additional funding is required to deal with a need that has not been anticipated in these estimates, that would be accommodated in the supplementaries.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you. That's good to hear, if that unfortunate event does come to pass.

The departmental plan also indicates a long-term reduction in staffing for the Security Intelligence Review Committee, reducing the number of full-time positions from 24.5 in 2018-19 to 13.5 in 2020-21. It is also indicated on the government's website that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency will replace the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.

What kind of budget is NSIRA expected to have, compared with SIRC and the CSE, to ensure that we are not weakening and diluting our national security review process and oversight by giving the new agency a much broader mandate and more departments to oversee without the commensurate resources to match its new mandate?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Davies, I would love to answer that question in excruciating detail. The problem is that the review function is now being vested in the Privy Council Office. That's obviously to avoid any conflict of interest with the operational agencies. The principle is that the review function is separated from the operational function so that the review can be independent, impartial, and comprehensive.

I can tell you that, as this new structure was devised, we took great care to determine to what extent the new review function could be covered by a transition from the old review agencies, and to what extent there would be a new burden on the new review agency, because its mandate would be broader and there would be interdepartmental connections.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

You're not, then, concerned about any weakening or dilution of the oversight.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Absolutely not. We have been meticulous in making sure that it is stronger, not weaker.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I want to turn to the impending cannabis legalization. If you believe the government's statements about July 1, then we're a matter of seven weeks away from cannabis being legalized in this country.

We New Democrats have been raising the issue of having an agreement with the U.S. to protect Canadian citizens from peril as they approach the border. This week, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Bruce Heyman, said:

I actually think Canada has to negotiate this out. This is not something [where] one person should be making...individual decisions. I think CBSA and...U.S. Customs and Border Protection...need to have an understanding as to how best [to] approach it.... We really need to figure this out more government to government...so that you don’t have one-off operations...[at] 117 border crossings.

This was followed up on yesterday by U.S. immigration lawyer Len Saunders from Blaine, Washington, who warned that without an agreement, this approach is dangerous and “is going to create many, many, many border crossing issues for many, many, many people”. Canadians could be barred for life from entering the United States for simply admitting that they've consumed cannabis, legally or otherwise.

Minister, do you have an agreement between Canada and the United States that will protect Canadians and their travel and business interests once cannabis is legalized in Canada?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Davies, the dialogue between Canada and the United States has been ongoing on many issues, but specifically on this issue, for quite some time. We have wanted to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security and all the agencies that function under DHS are well aware in great detail of how the Canadian law will change and why that change is appropriate. The flow of information has been going back and forth very effectively.

One thing we point out to the United States is that cannabis crossing the international boundary in either direction is illegal today and will remain illegal after Bill C-45 is enacted. Nothing changes in that regard.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I don't mean to interrupt you, Minister, but I'm talking about the consumption, not the transfer of cannabis across borders. If I admit that I've smoked marijuana in the past, and that's against U.S. federal law, can you assure me and other Canadians that once it's legal here, this will not affect my ability to enter the United States, yes or no?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

You should always answer questions at the border truthfully. The best advice one can give is that Canadians should be aware, when they come to the border, that they are entering a country that has a different federal law. You should not engage in behaviour that would provoke or prompt an American border officer to be suspicious about your behaviour.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Davies. I am somewhat curious as to what your high school yearbook says about who was most likely to succeed.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Dabrusin is next, for seven minutes, please.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for coming here today.

I was happy that you highlighted in your opening statement the additional funding that's going to first nations policing. Could you perhaps talk a bit more about what is being done with first nations policing and why it's important? We're clearly making some significant contributions to increase that program. What's the benefit of this program, and where do we see it going?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The benefits are very clearly proper public safety and proper policing in all parts of Canada. Regardless of where Canadians live, they should be entitled to expect equality of service from the police agencies that have jurisdiction.

The existing first nations policing program, if memory serves me correctly, covers about 430 communities, and that represents some 400,000 people. The increase we have made in funding is the largest contribution to that program since it was first invented in about 1991. The funding would allow for improvement in the officer ratio, and so for an increased number of police officers; better pay for those police officers; better working conditions for the police officers; and safer conditions, so they can deliver their services to the communities in which they operate in a safe and secure manner.

The program has done good work in the past. The statistics show that public safety is higher and crime rates are lower in those communities that are served by the first nations policing program. We can, however, always do better. The local chiefs of police and the first nations chiefs have indicated to us repeatedly that the program needs to be upgraded. They need more officers, and their officers need to be paid on par with other police forces in the country. They need to have better equipment, operating procedures, and so forth. They also need to have their infrastructure upgraded.

We've been working on all these fronts with the first nations leadership nationally and with individual communities. We are now nearing the end of the negotiations, community by community, to implement the new funding. It will flow over the course of the next five years.

There are two very good things about this funding that are new and different, apart from its being more. First of all, going forward the funding will be indexed; there is an inflation factor built in to protect against rising costs. Second, the commitment is not just for the first five years but is ongoing at this level.

We may well need to negotiate improvements and increases to the program on top of this base funding. This is now all in the base, and it is on a go-forward basis so that it doesn't expire when the next five years come to an end. It has longevity attached to it.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

The other thing I noted when you made your opening remarks was about funding in the main estimates for vulnerable offenders in the correctional system. As you know, this committee recently studied indigenous incarceration specifically.

Could you speak to what this money is going to go to? How is it going to help our vulnerable offenders?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The funding that has been identified in the last couple of budgets, part of which is specifically referred to in the estimates, is aimed in particular toward indigenous offenders, toward those with mental health issues, and toward women in the correctional system.

The correctional service has been working very hard to make sure that its services to vulnerable population groups are increased and are more effective at treating those groups of people appropriately within the system, increasing their chances of rehabilitation and therefore the likelihood that they can be ultimately reintegrated into society in a safe manner.

This is Anne Kelly's first opportunity to appear before this committee.

Anne, I wonder whether you have a word or two to add about the innovative approach that the correctional service is taking in dealing with those vulnerable groups—indigenous people, women, and people with mental health issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There's not much of an opportunity, but please, go ahead.

[Anne Kelly, Interim Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

Thank you for the question.

As I've mentioned before this committee, one innovative thing we've done is to establish aboriginal intervention centres. What this means is that aboriginal offenders will get earlier access to programming. Once they successfully complete the program, there's a review of their security classification. What we're noticing is an increase in the number of offenders who are getting a minimum security classification and therefore are going to lower security. The other thing is that, because of their accessing the program earlier, we hope their cases are going to be prepared for presentation for decision by the Parole Board of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about 40 seconds.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

When I looked at the main estimates, I noticed that there is additional funding for the security infrastructure program as well. I've heard considerable interest about that in my community, so I want to thank the minister. We have only 20 seconds, so I'll leave it at that, but thank you for having that extra funding. I'm happy to see it.