Public Safety Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

There have been 130,000 from Canadians. You are aware that you can access that consultation from anywhere in the world?

[Bill Blair]

I had been advised by the officials who were overseeing its implementation that there were ways to determine the areas from which people are participating. I believe—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

It was from the IP address.

[Bill Blair]

No, there were questions that were posed to individuals on where they were. I'm also aware, Mr. Motz, that we had advocates on both sides of the issue who were encouraging people to respond, and perhaps respond multiple times. Those things happen in every consultation.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

You had no mechanism in place to ensure IP addresses couldn't be used over and over again.

[Bill Blair]

It's not a plebiscite, Mr. Motz; it was is an opportunity for Canadians to provide input. Even if they wanted to provide input over and over again, at least we would hear from them.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Blair, if you're using that for input and you have a consultation process, you would think that you would want that process to have a reliable base to it. If you're not using IP addresses to track and if you have limited ability to know who is completing your survey from around the world, then any results that you might be able to gather from that would be suspect, in my opinion.

Now, has the Privacy Commissioner—

[Bill Blair]

Mr. Motz, I want to clarify that we did not require people to identify themselves for the purposes of completing this survey.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

But you asked for gender, you asked for ethnicity, you asked for—

[Bill Blair]

We asked for identifiers because they were useful in the data collection, but we did not ask people to identify themselves. Quite frankly, we wanted to make sure that Canadians who wished to make a point had the opportunity to do so and that their voices could be heard. We didn't want to put any restrictions or limitations on Canadians' ability to have their opinions heard.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes. Go ahead.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Minister.

I'd like to come back to the cannabis issue. Two things, in particular, interest me. First, I'd like to ask about pardon applications, criminal record suspensions. As you well know, Minister, the NDP maintains that those records should be expunged. My NDP colleague Murray Rankin, whom you know well, introduced a bill to that end.

Beyond the issue of whether expungement or suspensions—in other words, pardons—are the right way to go, I'd like to know where the process stands? We heard a lot about it before cannabis was legalized, but hardly anything since. In the meantime, those with criminal records still have to deal with the consequences.

Can you give us an update on where the process stands?

[Bill Blair]

Mr. Goodale is the minister responsible for the records system, and he has made a commitment to bring forward the legislation that would be required to bring in the new regime. Without debating it further, it is a system of pardon for simple possession of cannabis that would make pardons more accessible and affordable so those individuals could have them.

By the way, I'd like to take the opportunity to briefly acknowledge the important work and advocacy of Murray Rankin on this thing. I've had many discussions with him. We have a fundamental disagreement on the best way forward, but we both agree that it's necessary to go forward.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I appreciate that. I guess the expression “let's agree to disagree” sums it up best. We will nevertheless continue to advocate the expungement of records, because we fundamentally believe that is the best approach. I'm taking notes, and I'll be sure to put my questions to Minister Goodale. I'm not always 100% clear on who is in charge of what when it comes to the cannabis file. You'll have to forgive me.

My next question may relate to more than one level of government, since the provinces do share some of the responsibility. This issue may be tied to how cannabis legalization was implemented. I don't know whether this information is anecdotal or fact-based, but the media has reported that some people are still turning to the black market for marijuana because of the short supply in a number of places. Other challenges are emerging as well. Ontario, for instance, is dealing with its own circumstances.

What are you doing about that? Are you working with the provinces to fix the problem? As far as I can tell, it conflicts with the government's stated goal of eliminating, or at least significantly reducing, the black market.

[Bill Blair]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dubé.

As I have said many times about this, it's a process, not an event.

On the process of the implementation, I've certainly acknowledged that some of the provinces—not all, but some—have experienced difficulties in their supply chain. In response to that, Health Canada has been working diligently when organizations and private entities qualify for a licence for the production of cannabis. On those licences, we've been moving through that process quite efficiently. A number of additional new licences have been granted. There's been about a 600% increase in the last 18 months in the growing capacity of those licensed producers. I remain confident that the system is capable of keeping pace.

We have seen a significant uptake. It appears that when you give Canadians a legal choice—a licensed, regulated, safe and socially responsible choice—they'll make it. They're demonstrating their willingness to embrace this new regulated system. I think that's why we're seeing perhaps higher than anticipated demand.

I don't have a precise estimate, but, quite frankly, every dollar spent for a legitimate source is one less dollar organized crime makes. On the very first day, several million dollars was spent in provincially licensed distribution centres, either online or in retail stores. That was several million dollars that organized crime didn't make that day. I think we're making significant progress. I'm confident that those supply chain problems will be worked out. I think the provinces that have had a good experience with us will be able to share their experience with those who are still in the process of implementation.

We know, for example, that in British Columbia and in Ontario they have not yet moved.... Well, in British Columbia there's only one retail outlet, and in Ontario there are none yet, but when those begin to open up, I remain very confident that those supply chain issues will be resolved and that Canadians will be given a better choice.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I don't have a lot of time, I'm going to stop you there. Thank you, though, for your answer. The other question I wanted to ask you was about the border. I won't be coming at the issue from the same angle as my colleague. I'd like to discuss the safe third country agreement between Canada and the U.S. Of course, you know the NDP's position on the matter: the agreement should be suspended so that people can file refugee claims at recognized border crossings in the proper way.

Figures and other factors are a frequent topic of conversation, but I would like to know whether you are still discussing the safe third party agreement with our American counterparts. Are you able to give us an update on that?

[Bill Blair]

The answer is yes, they have. I've reached out to the Secretary of Homeland Security. I have gone to Washington and met with their senior officials. We've made our position clear; our position is that we believe there are opportunities to enhance and improve the safe third country agreement that will be mutually of benefit to both countries.

It's an ongoing discussion. It's a complex one, but it's an ongoing discussion.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

What do you mean by enhance and improve? How do you plan to change or improve the agreement?

[Bill Blair]

We have seen in its application that it has had the effect of encouraging people not to attend at regular border crossings, the point of entry, but rather to cross irregularly. That has been a factor for both us and our reciprocal partner, the United States. We believe that there are discussions and ways in which that agreement might be enhanced to encourage more regular use of our border.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Very good. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Pierre Paul-Hus]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Ms. Sahota, you may go ahead for seven minutes.

[Ruby Sahota]

Minister, first I'll address some of the irregular border crossings and our asylum system.

I want you to walk us through a little about why you're seeing the numbers decrease, what methods you think have been working, and whether we are unique in this situation of having irregular asylum seekers or migrants, or whatever they'll be determined to be through the IRB. Could you walk me through that a bit?

[Bill Blair]

It's quite complex, obviously, as to why those numbers have increased, not just in Canada but all around the world in virtually every country. We've had a number of meetings with UNHCR, for example, to get an understanding of the entire global context of those who are fleeing persecution and seeking asylum.

In terms of some of the things that I believe have been quite effective, after last summer's surge when we saw a very significant increase through June, July and August of last year in the number of people who were presenting themselves irregularly at our border, there was a significant outreach that took place. We had ministers, senior officials, and even MPs who went down into those communities where many of these people were coming from to clearly explain Canadian law and how the system would work and to make it very clear that this wasn't a free ticket into the country. I think that has had a fairly profound effect.

We've also done some very effective work in online communications. We're communicating in the languages spoken in those communities. If, for example, they go out seeking information on a search engine or whatever, there is accurate, lawful information that clearly explains what the law is in Canada and how it will be applied, so people don't have misinformation that might induce them to come irregularly to our borders.

As well, and I think this has been very positive, we've been working very closely with other international authorities, particularly in the United States. It's important to acknowledge that. Some things they were doing with respect to their visa applications and authorizations and other things were having an impact on the number of people coming to us. As a result of the dialogue that has gone on between us, some very effective steps have been taken.

There's still a great deal more work to do, but we see a path of clear improvement in the number of people who are coming.

It's also important to remember that people conflate the issue of asylum seekers. Less than half—about 40%—of those who come to our country seeking asylum actually cross irregularly; 60% are crossing at a point of entry or making inland claims through the airports and so on. It's a smaller portion, and in fact, because of some very effective steps that our officials have taken, the number coming across irregularly is becoming less among the total number of asylum seekers.

Therefore, we are seeing improvements. There still is work to do.

[Ruby Sahota]

I'm glad to see that some action has been taken on the file.

I've said previously that it's definitely my perception that the Conservatives often prefer tough talk over action. Even though down south we've been seeing President Trump talk a lot of tough talk, they're still facing the same problem with migration issues and asylum seekers at their borders as well. Tough talk may not be all that's needed, so thank you for clarifying some of that.

Regarding the other issue I'd like to hit on, you've spent three decades serving in the police department and 10 years, another decade, as the chief of police, so you have a lot of experience in the area of gangs and guns. Is there anything you can highlight for us that you're looking to do in this area to help improve areas such as my hometown, which has been seeing an uptake in violent crimes using firearms?

[Bill Blair]

I have actually had the opportunity. I've been involved in most of the large, complex gang investigations that have been conducted in this country. I was previously chief of detectives before I was the chief of police. We did most of the big gang investigations in Toronto.

I will tell you that one of the things we've learned, which I think is appropriate and really informs a lot of the work we're doing now, is that it's important to do those investigations—because some of those individuals are very dangerous and society needs to be protected from them—but if that's all you do, the problem doesn't get better. One of the things we learned is that not only did you have to go in and deal with those individuals who were committing serious violent crimes and supplying guns and drugs into the community, but you also then had to go in and change the circumstances in the community to make it less vulnerable to gang violence.

For example, after we used to go and do these big arrests and take out the gang members, we'd flood the area with uniformed cops whose job it was to go in and restore people's sense of safety and security. We worked really closely with and supported the social services agencies, the schools and the youth workers who were working in that community to build up its own resilience and its ability to protect public space. They encouraged people to come back out and use their neighbourhoods. When we did that, we saw significant and sustained reduction in violence in those communities.

I will tell you from experience that it's a lot of work. It's a great deal of work, but it's effective. If all you're going to do is kick down all the doors and drag everybody out and have very big expensive trials, the problem comes back and it comes back very quickly, but if you make that significant investment in the community and sustain support for those communities, it makes a difference and it actually has the effect.

Frankly, during my tenure we saw about a 45% reduction in gun violence, and it was a direct result of not just the interventions and investigations of the police, but stronger supports for community and for kids. That's why we advocate for those investments as well.