Public Safety Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our six distinguished senior public servants for being here. Thank you for your service to the nation, and my thanks also to your colleagues, the women and men who are in the field keeping us safe day after day who are not here today but through you are represented here.

I have two questions. One of them is specific and the other is more general. I'll start with the more specific one.

In our ridings I think many of us parliamentarians around the table and colleagues who are not here will have received questions over the past months on the issue of marijuana. I've had folks come to me from the production side, people who are interested in holding licences to produce medical marijuana, people from the consumer side, people who are beneficiaries of medical marijuana. Also there are the pros and cons of the recreational side.

I'm wondering if you could give the committee, and through the committee the Canadian public an update on the current legal status of marijuana.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Me?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's for anybody who would like to comment, anybody who has relevant information to give.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

I can say that the current legal status is unchanged from where it was before the new government came into power.

I can say that we've had a struggle in the police community broadly in terms of being discretionary in recognizing the stated objectives of the government, while having to recognize the existing laws. In other words, the medical marijuana regime, and frankly, the explosion of dispensaries in many cities across the country present a number of technically challenging legal conundrums.

Certainly, we in the RCMP have applied our discretion to enforce where circumstances are exceeding the scope of the existing legislation around medical marijuana, in other words, aggressive marketing, on the street, near schools, and so on. In some communities they're even contemplating taxing and licensing.

I might point out, just technically, not as a stated intention, there's an argument to be made that licensing some of these illegal dispensaries amounts to receiving the proceeds of crime.

It's a bit of a mess right now, to be honest. Our approach has been to use our discretion at the front line to make decisions while the government sorts out their stated platform.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Is it fair to say that you have changed your enforcement strategy in the wake of recent platform policy announcements, or is it the same as it was a year and a half ago, let's say?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

No. I would say it's fair to say that we've changed. We understand the platform. We understand the existing laws, but we also see a proliferation of patently unlawful behaviours that need to be held in check while we get to a point where a more coherent legislative regime is in place.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you for that.

My second question, as I said, is a more general one. I'd like to address it to as many of you as would like to comment. I think, if we look back on this conversation this morning, what connects all our questions and the answers that many of you gave is the idea of trust in our public institutions.

The minister said we're balancing the provision of effective security against or with our charter rights, and when we do that well, we earn the trust of Canadians. So the maintenance of trust, the strengthening of trust in our public institutions is not unique to public safety and security, but it is perhaps something that we should look at emphatically with respect to the area of public safety and security.

I'm wondering if each of you could comment briefly on how you are working to maintain and strengthen the trust of Canadians in the various organizations that you oversee.

[François Guimont]

Maybe I could say a few words to start. Trust is important for sure in the institution and Canadians can step back and look at the portfolio partners and be convinced, and I mean that truthfully, that we are professional and we do our best.

We wake up in the morning, and come to work to do a good job. A good job means we're on all the time, because this business that we're in doesn't stop at five o'clock or six o'clock.

The second point is that people are very lawful, very mindful of the legal framework in which we work. I would say as well it's a function of teamwork. We work very closely with the commissioner's people when we need to, Commissioner Paulson, and Michel Coulombe, the director of CSIS. We have ongoing discussions, relationships, built on trust, and that trust inside projects outside in the sense of Canadians. I think they can feel that we're doing our best to earn and keep their trust.

As I said, we work within the legal framework and we work within the policies and the operational procedures that we give ourselves.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Erin O'Toole]

Thank you very much, Mr. Guimont.

Three minutes for Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is addressed to Mr. Head. In fact, I would like to go back to the topic I raised the last time he came before the committee.

The Ontario Human Rights Commissioner has spoken out about solitary confinement. That is not the preferred term, but I am going to continue to use it nonetheless. She mentioned that this practice should be brought to an end in provincial prisons or should at the very least be restricted. I continue to insist that this committee should study this matter. I know that my colleague Murray Rankin shares my opinion.

What do you think of the commissioner's statement? Does it reflect reality in federal penitentiaries?

[Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada]

Thank you for the question.

As I briefly mentioned at the last appearance, we've made a lot of progress at the federal level in terms of how segregation, or solitary confinement, as some people call it, has been used. We have put in place a series of additional, internal, oversight processes. We have also put in place different alternatives for housing offenders other than in the institution where they're being segregated or held in special confinement conditions.

I have to say that in comparison to the provinces we have a little more in terms of resources to do some of the work that we've been doing. Even in the last year, we've been able to reduce the segregation population by almost half. We've gone from just under 800 down to 396 people who are in segregation on any given day. The challenge that the provinces have is in relation to resources and a population which is not comprised of individuals who have longer-term sentences with whom they can work to deliver programs. The provinces have a little more of a challenge than we do at the federal level.

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

Mr. Chair, do I have a little time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have one minute left.

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

I have a quick question for Mr. Paulson.

I am wondering about the criminal database backlog which the Auditor General has raised a few times. I think we're closing in on seven years since this has been brought to our attention.

Can you give us an update on where that is, or do we have to wait for the Auditor General to report on it again?

[Commr Bob Paulson]

No, I don't think you have to wait for the Auditor General again.

We have implemented a plan to reduce the backlog on a cascading priority level, while recognizing that the transition to electronic reception into the system, the taking of fingerprints and biometric data, is a tough transition, not necessarily just for the RCMP, but also for other police services. That transition is making it difficult, but we are trying to prioritize our updates to the record database so that courts are properly informed as to what they're facing when criminal records are presented, and so that police officers, perhaps more importantly, are aware of who they're facing when they are doing their jobs.

The plan is in place and it's a massive undertaking to digitize that whole approach. I'll undertake to provide an update in more detail if you'd like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Paulson.

Mr. Erskine-Smith, for seven minutes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to deal with the estimates themselves. I'd like to start with the Canada Border Services Agency. There's a line item of $21 million in funding to improve the integrity of the CBSA front-line operations. It's one of the largest line items we have before us.

Could you give us an explanation as to where those monies would go?

[Nada Semaan]

Absolutely.

This is money that has been provided since 2011. It serves to help with the program integrity in three areas. First, once we became an armed workforce we could no longer utilize students on the land borders, so we now need to supplement that in peak periods with regular officers, which is an increased cost. Second, with small and remote ports, we needed to double up our officers for safety and security purposes. That required an additional workforce in all of our small and remote ports. Third, when we became a department or an agency, we came from a number of other agencies, one being the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency. The conversion of their status at CRA to a border force officer also required additional money. That's basically all it is.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

My next question is for the Correctional Service of Canada.

I note that since March 2005, the federal inmate population has increased by 17.5%. Could you comment, Mr. Head, with respect to whether funding levels have matched the increase in federal inmates?

[Don Head]

There are a couple of components to that.

Actually, over the last year or so the population has been coming down. As of this morning, the incarcerated population sits at 14,613. This is down from a peak when it was at just over 15,200, so it has been coming down over the last year.

We did receive money over the last three or four years for the building of additional cells and additional accommodation space; however, we did not receive additional monies to increase programming capacity. We had to find some measures and implement some streamlining efficiencies to keep the level of programming going.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

If I can, I'll jump in there.

On programming specifically related to the aboriginal inmate population, which is excessively high, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendations called upon the federal government to provide more supports for aboriginal programming, halfway houses, and parole services. Under your current funding model, are you able to provide those services?

[Don Head]

Under the current funding model, in order to go forward I would need additional funding.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

My next question is for the Parole Board of Canada.

In your 2015-16 report you note that there's “a risk that key activities and functions could be adversely affected unless the Board is able to recruit, stabilize, strengthen competencies and capacity, and retain its workforce while ensuring employee wellness”. I note that there's not a significant amount of new funding. In fact, the funding is going to implement the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

I wonder if you could comment on whether you are receiving sufficient funding to do your job.

[Harvey Cenaiko]

That's a good question. The funding we're receiving in the supplementary (C)s is really to assist us with the web portal that the Correctional Service of Canada is going to be providing us.

With that, we'll be able to provide victims with an electronic means to register and to get information for themselves. In addition, though, on our own, for those individuals who don't have the Internet or for remote communities or indigenous communities where no Internet is available, we want to ensure that victims who cannot attend a hearing personally can have the ability to access a digital recording of the hearing so they can in fact hear it themselves.