Public Safety Committee on June 12th, 2017

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I understand that the numbers have levelled off at the border crossings. When the public safety committee was in Washington recently, I seem to recall that we got some information that it wasn't unusual for there to be spikes and decreases in those types of crossings. Is that correct?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

That is absolutely correct. We see at this point, relative to a couple of months ago, that things are sort of trending a little bit downward. But it depends in part on which border crossing you're talking about, because they are not all the same. For example, we continue to see fairly high numbers of people coming across the border near Lacolle, Quebec, for processing in Lacolle.

The other reality is that border traffic ebbs and flows and, relative to historical information that we have, the reduction at this point in time is not out of the ordinary, and that we then typically see another upward swing. Will history repeat itself into the future? I think that remains to be seen. But our expectation is that it probably will, based on historical trends.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

They also talked about how well they work with you in determining issues with certain countries, for example, that are letting people into the United States, who are then in turn making their way into Canada. So there's a lot of co-operation between our two countries in identifying any potential issues overseas and having the U.S. take action on its end to try to stem the flow from certain countries.

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chair, that's absolutely correct. I would say that, at an operational level, the Canada Border Services Agency has a very effective relationship with its counterparts at Customs and Border Protection in the United States. We definitely are working together to make sure that we understand what is happening along our shared border and that we're each able to take measures to mitigate some of that.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think I have only 15 seconds left, so I'll end it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I might take those seconds.

When I read your notes, I guess the concern that comes to mind is that it's not a surprise that it's the 150th anniversary, and I'm just trying to figure out why that's in supplementary estimates (A) and wasn't planned for. I can understand if the border things changed, because we have migrants crossing the border. I'm just honestly trying to figure out why.... The $200 million in supplementary estimates (A) is not an insignificant percentage of your budget for you to be coming at this stage looking for authorities for. I'm just wondering about the planning. Some of the other things around salary obligations and collective agreements are not surprises. Especially with the Canada 150, how did that catch you by surprise?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

I would say, Mr. Chair, that it didn't catch us by surprise, but the reality is that some of those things come and go. The Canada 150 is unique to this particular fiscal year, so it's not something that we would necessarily seek ongoing funding for. It's a reflection of a pressure that we're anticipating this fiscal year, and instead of putting that into our reference levels on an ongoing basis, we're getting supplementary funding for it, to address pressures in the year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

So, it's part of the programming that we do it that way.

[Tina Namiesniowski]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Mr. Clement.

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

My first questions are for acting director Yaworski.

You mentioned how some of the funding in the supplementary estimates (A) is going to foreign investment transactions review. I'm just trying to get a sense of how these things go, because we have this issue with Norsat International being taken over.

If we use that as a case study, are you notified by Innovation Canada, and then do you provide input into their analysis of the situation? Is that how it goes?

[Jeff Yaworski]

No, I think I would refer you to my comments on our role with respect to the Investment Canada Act and the reviews that we perform. At the end of the day, it's the Governor in Council who decides, based on the advice that we provide, what to do and whether to require mitigation measures on the purchase of her company with respect to possibly preventing the sale of a company. Our advice is part of a multitude of advice from the security intelligence community. I'd rather not get into the specifics of any cases, but generally that's what we do.

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

Generally, is there a difference between an analysis of the situation and a review of the situation?

[Jeff Yaworski]

I would say a review is a more thorough analysis, but analysis informs the review.

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

If there's no review, there still can be an analysis, but the analysis is taken by the Governor in Council and they make a decision not to review.

[Jeff Yaworski]

I would have to defer on a policy decision, probably to Malcolm.

[Malcolm Brown]

Would you like me to take a stab at that, Mr. Clement?

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

Sure.

[Malcolm Brown]

Your first question was about the process of how CSIS is informed. The act changed in 2009, I believe. It requires companies to inform the government. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn't.

With regard to the intelligence community, we have an organization in Public Safety that looks at these kinds of investments, and when triggers and questions are raised, there is a preliminary review. We work with the community, sometimes CSIS; sometimes DND; CSEC; and Innovation, Science and Economic Development. That's an ongoing process.

Then, there is a staged process where the final step would be notice and a full-blown—my phrase, not the legal phrase–review. There is a quite substantial review that is taken at every step.

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

Is this something similar that one would find with our key allies? Do they approach it in a similar fashion?

[Malcolm Brown]

That's a very good question.

The short answer is, not quite. Our American friends have a different process. The five allies have, to one degree or another, a process that reviews foreign investments. Thresholds and those kinds of things are different.

However, the detailed steps of the Canadian process are, as legislated, set by Governor in Council, and lay out a quite specific process. Essentially I believe it's a 90-day or a 100-day and.... I'm going to get the exact number of days wrong, but it's in the legislation.

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

I'm going to jump in for a second.

In the case of the United Kingdom, which also reviewed Hytera and Norsat—a similar situation there with the same investor—they came away with three pages of requirements and conditions for that deal to go through, whereas we came through without a full-blown, to use your word, national security review.

Would that be something you would have.... Let me put it in the general terms.

[Malcolm Brown]

Thank you.

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

Would you have regard for what your allies are doing before you make your recommendations to the GIC?

[Malcolm Brown]

As a general rule.... I'll answer it that way because I don't want to get into a specific case, and I think you understand that.