Public Safety Committee on June 12th, 2017

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I understand that, but—

[Tina Namiesniowski]

—so with the new funding, we'll have a bump up to that. Our overall annual attrition of border services officers is about 5%.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here. You say that regularly train 300 a year.

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Yes.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

If you normally bring in 300 new ones a year, is that all through attrition? I'm gathering that it isn't, by your comment. You stated that you're going to bring in some new ones, which I assumed, by the way you said it, that you were going to end up with an increase in the number of actual officers from what you had before.

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Yes, we will.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay. Can you break that down between what is through attrition and what is—

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Right. That's where I said I'll need to get back to you with respect to the specific answer.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Oh, I see. I thought somebody was looking that up.

Okay, we'll move on from there.

Something that bothered me a bit in here was when you were talking about maintaining the integrity of the border. That implies to me that the integrity of it has been breached. What I want to tie this in with is the plan by the government bring in so many refugees. Fine. And then we had a bunch of people, whom I think most Canadians would not call refugees, coming in from the U.S., basically with the assistance of the RCMP. Is that part of that loss of integrity, or what have you, that you're talking about at the border?

[Tina Namiesniowski]

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the label that's been applied to the level of funding that we're seeking under supplementary estimates, it should not imply that we've had a loss of integrity. The amount of funding that's being requested is to ensure that Canada can maintain the integrity of its border operations. As I attempted to explain, the reality is that we work in a changing environment. We have seen increased volumes, and our ability to maintain the integrity of the border operation means that we have to be able to deal with our changing environment, which includes increasing numbers of people coming to Canada, whether as permanent residents or, potentially, as regular migrant claimants.

In relation to the irregular migration that we're seeing coming across our borders, as our minister stated when he was here in May, if we come to him with a request for additional funding—which we have not done at this point—he would certainly advocate on our behalf to solicit additional funding over and above what we're seeking in supplementary estimates (A). When we decided to make the funding request that is currently before you, it was unclear and remains somewhat unclear, given the reference earlier to the fact that volumes go up and down and, as a result, so too the question of whether or not we're actually going to need additional funding to deal with that pressure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Spengemann.

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

Mr. Chair, I won't be using my entire five minutes. I have a comment, and I understand it's on an issue that was already raised earlier in an exchange with my colleague Ms. Damoff. It's the issue of the passenger loads at Pearson airport.

I just wanted to reiterate the concern, both from the perspective of having dealt with the GTAA as a stakeholder and representing a riding that is very Pearson-focused, both in terms of business and leisure travel. We're told that the loads are in excess of what they were projected to be. That may be partially because it's summer. It may be partially because it's the year of Canada 150. But there also is a trajectory for this particular airport, which is now the second-largest in North America for inbound international travel. I'll reiterate the point that staffing levels at all levels, including the CBSA, from a passenger perspective, and throughput perspective, are paramount.

With that comment, Mr. Chair, I will delegate the rest of my time to Ms. Damoff.

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

Thank you.

I'm not sure to whom this is best directed, so I'll just put it out there.

I had a meeting with the Canadian Electricity Association recently. They were talking to me about copper theft from power stations, and the fact that it was resulting not only in loss of life and power, but also of the infrastructure itself. I noticed that you have $1.09 million to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure in Canada. I guess I have two questions. Is our electricity grid considered critical infrastructure, and is there anything in the numbers to assist with this issue of copper theft from these substations and power stations?

[Malcolm Brown]

The short answer is yes, most assuredly, the electricity sector—the energy sector—is critical infrastructure.

In terms of funding specifically for the question of copper theft, no. The funding supports assessments where a power plant would look at their full scope of risk, and if within that there are perimeter security issues, then that's what would be identified. Advice would be given, and you'd address it that way.

From a perspective of copper theft, that is primarily a local law enforcement issue in terms of the specifics around copper theft. It is a well-known and kind of widespread phenomenon in construction sites elsewhere that because of the price of the commodity, it becomes an attractive target. I hope that answers your question.

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

Yes, it does, and I think the chair would like a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It's dangerous when I read my notes.

I want to go back to the foreign investment reviews issue. If I'm reading the supplementary (A)s correctly, CSIS is requesting an increase of $275,000. The department is requesting $735,000 for what seems to be the same work, at least according to our broad notes.

I'm trying to understand what the relationship is, maybe very practically, between the department and CSIS on foreign investment review. Also, is this new money being required because you're anticipating more interest in the economic well-being of Canada because our economy is performing so well now, or has something else changed?

[Malcolm Brown]

I'll answer for Public Safety, and I'll let Jeff respond on the CSIS side. You will notice in previous estimates for previous years, a similar amount of $700,000 for Public Safety for this function. This is, in essence, allowing us to continue to maintain the current capacity.

The nature of the work is that it is a small group coordinating the work across the portfolio and beyond, because the partners each play a unique and distinct role in the assessment. For example, the assessment will potentially, sometimes—depending on the investment—implicate CSIS significantly. In other cases, it might be National Defence, or ISED, or Global Affairs. Each of the partners has resources that they've dedicated to this, so the nature of the work is actually quite distinct. We might both have staff working on the same file, but doing very different and—in the context of CSIS—very specialized work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay. That's good. That's what I wanted to know.

I guess the technical question is, if it's in the supplementaries every year, when does it get put into the budget? Why would it not get into the budget? Why would you come every year for supplementaries?

[Malcolm Brown]

Now you're asking me a question that's really a conversation between me and the minister, or between you and the minister. It's not the first year; I believe it's really been the last two to three years.

I can assure you that there is pretty good value for money for this relatively modest investment, and we're managing pressures because of the significant foreign investment that's in—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think you'll have a case next year.

[Malcolm Brown]

I'm sure we'll factor that into the assessment that's put before cabinet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to all of our guests here today. As someone who previously worked for GAC and served as the security officer for missions abroad, I certainly have great appreciation for what you do.

I'm going to build upon the questions of my colleague, Ms. Damoff, in regard to energy infrastructure.

Mr. Brown, I guess my question would be for you. I feel you are being asked a lot of questions, but I am going to add to them. It's in regard to the investment of the $1.1 million. Is oil and gas energy infrastructure referred to as part of critical infrastructure within this?

[Malcolm Brown]

Yes, absolutely.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay, excellent. What would you say are the criteria specifically for critical infrastructure? I'm just very interested, given the recent legislation we saw in Oklahoma.