Public Safety Committee on May 15th, 2017

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes.

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

—we'll certainly try to meet the same—

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

To be exact, it's the number of persons prohibited from owning guns in the CPIC system. That's the question that was answered in 2006 and 2011 but not this year or last.

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

I'll try to get you an answer.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'd appreciate that.

The next question relates to the Anti-terrorism Act, Bill C-51. This was obviously a subject that the committee did look into. We heard from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, who made it clear that the offence of advocating for terrorism offences in general was important to crack down on radicalization and propaganda.

I know that there were also some contrary opinions, to be fair, but I'm asking you whether you would keep that provision in place. It's important to have the ability to disrupt terrorism networks and have those laws in place on our books.

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

We obviously want to have the capacity, the very effective capacity, to deal with terrorism threats and to make sure we're keeping Canadians safe. At the same time, we need to ensure that we're safeguarding the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We want to achieve both of those things simultaneously, not one at the expense of the other or with some kind of trade-off. Both of them need to be accomplished.

We will be presenting specific amendments with respect to Bill C-51. They're in the process of being prepared. I would be more than happy to have a full discussion on them when they're in the public domain.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I can promise you that we'll have that full discussion.

Thank you.

I think my time is up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have another minute, if you want it.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Really? Okay. I'll always take another minute.

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

The answers were very efficient.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Going back to our illegal border migrants issue, you did state, and your parliamentary secretary buttressed that statement, that it's not “a free ticket to Canada”. I appreciate that. You made that statement last time you were before this committee. We have learned, however, that according to CBSA's own documents, only 47% of the people who receive a negative finding from the IRB are actually removed from this country within a year.

I'd like your undertaking to increase that number, because if they are found not to be genuine refugees, as you said, they should not be in our country.

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

Mr. Clement, there's a process that clicks into place as soon as an asylum claim has been denied or rejected. The CBSA is under an obligation. I believe the law says, “as quickly as possible”. CBSA takes that responsibility seriously. There are due process considerations that apply. There are rights that have to be respected in the process. CBSA is assiduous, and is sometimes even criticized for being too assiduous, in making sure that the law is properly administered and effectively enforced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Dubé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Goodale, let me begin by thanking you for your department's response to the flooding. We went through a similar experience in my riding in 2011. That is why we understand that it is very important to be able to count on the federal government, which once again responded effectively.

Mr. Paulson and Mr. Coulombe, we face snags on certain issues from time to time. I would still like to thank you for your services which, as the minister pointed out, are far from easy to provide. I wish you all the best.

Mr. Goodale, you will not be surprised by my question about a topical matter that is of great interest to me. I am referring to the increase in civilian surveillance by the RCMP, which is one of the recommendations in Mr. McPhail's report which was published this morning. It seems as though we have been talking about the same issues for years and that they are constantly resurfacing.

I was especially bothered when I read in the report's conclusions that public safety is actually at risk now as a result of the repeated accusations of intimidation and harassment. In Toronto, there is a civilian surveillance mechanism that works relatively well right now. Other examples are cited in the report. You have already mentioned the possibility of examining this issue yourself.

What are your thoughts on that right now?

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

If you recall, Mr. Dubé, the issue of harassment within the RCMP was raised in our election platform a couple of years ago. In my mandate letter from the Prime Minister, the point was repeated to work with the force to eliminate this problem. The reason these two studies were conducted over the last year or so—one by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, chaired by Ian McPhail; the other by the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, serving in capacity as a special adviser to me—was in direct fulfillment of the point made by the Prime Minister in the mandate letter.

Their reports are now available. They have worked at this challenge over the last period of time, and have produced their findings and their advice for me. What they're recommending constitutes fundamental change in some respects. I have indicated in the past that I am open to considering their recommendations. They need to be considered very carefully because they will fundamentally alter the dynamics of the force.

People are concerned about the issues of harassment and bullying and so forth that have come forward. At the same time, I think people would want to be sure that the remedy for those things is carefully thought out and weighed properly. I intend to do that.

There is absolutely no doubt the that the Prime Minister is serious about finding the solutions as rapidly as possible, and so am I. We welcome the work of Mr. McPhail and Ms. Fraser. We will very carefully weigh their advice, and we will come forward as rapidly as we can with a detailed response to all of their recommendations.

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

Thank you.

With respect to civilian surveillance, I understand that you are saying “maybe”.

I would also like to talk to you about the choice of Mr. Paulson's successor. The choice was made quite quickly for CSIS. Can you give the committee an update on the search for a replacement for Mr. Paulson? There is indeed a lot of activity at the RCMP further to these reports. There is also Bill C-7, which is still being considered by the House. Mr. Paulson's successor will clearly play an extremely important role in achieving the objectives you just mentioned. How far along are you in the process of finding his replacement?

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

The agenda going forward is going to be hugely vigorous and complex, as I think it probably is all the time for the commissioner of the RCMP. It's not easy, but as you say, there will soon be the enactment of Bill C-7 that will establish a new collective bargaining regime. There will be the response forthcoming to Sheila Fraser and to Ian McPhail, and a whole variety of other very important and pressing issues.

The appointment decision with respect to the new commissioner is one of those that is reserved to the prerogative of the Prime Minister, but the work is well advanced now on assembling the selection committee that will represent the full breadth of Canadian society, senior people, who will have the capacity to do the search and recruitment and present the Prime Minister with excellent alternatives from which he will choose in due course.

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

I will have to interrupt you because my time is getting short. The other issue I wanted to touch on is solitary confinement. The government's being brought to court over the issue that there was a promise made in court about enacting real reforms, which are certainly also part of the Minister of Justice's mandate letter. I'm not sure if it's in yours as well. I don't have that photographic memory.

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

The short answer is yes.

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

Okay, thank you. That being said, I would assume so anyhow.

Is there a timeline? We were promised those reforms this spring, and we still seem to be behind the eight ball.

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

We're part way there. We haven't got the whole package completed yet, but you may have noticed that in the budget there were some specific items with respect to mental health services in the correctional system. There were four things that were involved in the public debate here. One was finding some way to cap the duration of administrative segregation. A second element was providing some form of independent expert oversight of the process. A third was enhancing the quality of confinement. The provisions that we have put in the budget have addressed the third of those three things, that is, enhancing the conditions of confinement, improving mental health services, and I'm sure—

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

Is there any legislation forthcoming to deal with duration and things like that, which the UN, among others, have talked about, and some of the issues that need to be dealt with there?

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

Those decisions have not been finalized, but I assure you that the work is ongoing.

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

Okay.

Really quickly, on immigration detention in Ontario being outsourced to the provincial government, it was an issue in a big Toronto Star piece. What's happening with that?

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

Last year we announced $138 million to improve the way we deal with immigration detention. One of the prime objectives there was to reduce dramatically the reliance on provincial facilities. The plan is unfolding, as we announced last summer. The investments are beginning to be made. Part of the answer is making sure that the federal facilities that are designed for immigration purposes have greater capacity so that you don't have to rely as a fallback on provincial jails, and therefore, intermingle immigration issues with criminal issues. We're trying to keep the two as separate as possible.

Second was to develop a suite of initiatives that can be alternatives to detention so that detention isn't the only game in town when you have a problem, Thereby, again, reducing reliance on detention generally and specifically the use of provincial facilities.