Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of March 17, 2010
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2009-10 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. Welcome, everyone, on this St. Patrick's Day evening.
This evening, we will continue the study of the Supplementary Estimates (C), 2009-2010, which were referred to our committee last week.
Yesterday morning, we heard the testimony of the officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, who provided us with an outline of these supplementary estimates and an overall perspective.
[English]
This evening, we will be focusing our attention on specific programs. In our first panel this evening, we will be focusing on Canada's initial response to the earthquake in Haiti. In our second panel, we will turn our attention to the policing and security, in particular, in relation to security at the Olympics and Paralympic Games and the planning for the upcoming G8 and G20 meetings.
For Canada's initial response to the earthquake in Haiti, these supplementary estimates include requests totalling $176 million from six different departments and agencies. We are pleased to welcome representatives from three of those departments that played an important role in that very important initiative that made all Canadians proud in the way Canada participated and was able to respond quickly.
From the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, we welcome back Margaret Biggs, President, Canadian International Development Agency. She is accompanied by Jim Quinn, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Officer Office; and Diane Jacovella, Vice-President, Multilateral and Global Programs Branch, both also from the Canadian International Development Agency.
From National Defence, DND, we welcome Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette, Director General, Operations, Strategic Joint Staff; and Brigadier-General Claude Rochette, Director General, Financial Management.
Finally, from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, DFAIT, we welcome Ms. Kerry Buck, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Departmental Security.
Colleagues, we only have one hour for this panel and then we will have another panel dealing with the G8 and G20.
I will call on our guests now. Ms. Buck, you will start out. Ms. Biggs, do you have a few words? I ask you to keep in mind the time limits that we have. Senators like to pose questions and get into dialogue. For the points that you may wish to make, you will have an opportunity to make those when the questions are posed.
We will begin with Ms. Buck.
Kerry Buck, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs and Departmental Security, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: I will touch on two aspects. First, on our whole-of-government approach that was and is the backbone of our Haiti contribution. I will do this on behalf of the whole team and other government departments. I will then touch on the DFAIT activities.
[Translation]
By way of providing some context, the earthquake, measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale, was the most violent earthquake in Haiti in more than 200 years. Some 230,000 people were killed and another 300,000 injured. In addition, three million victims are in need of some form of international assistance.
[English]
In the minutes and hours immediately following, the Government of Canada mounted a rapid and comprehensive humanitarian and consular effort.
Although it was coordinated through DFAIT, our Interdepartmental Task Force on Natural Disasters Abroad, it involved a wide range of government departments that mobilized immediately. Our objective was to support the Government of Haiti and the UN and to ensure that the Government of Canada could deliver immediate humanitarian relief to Haitians and meet the urgent needs of Canadians on the ground.
The evening of the quake, at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the joint DFAIT, CIDA and DND interdepartmental strategic team left for Haiti and were there within 20 hours of the quake. They were accompanied by the Canadian Forces Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART reconnaissance mission. Starting the very next day, our team members on the ground did a rapid humanitarian needs assessment. They worked with the Government of Haiti and other donors, international organizations and NGOs on the ground, to define the needs and to help form a Canadian response. They came back to us with recommendations for what turned into an extremely robust Canadian response.
In the days and weeks that followed, we deployed experts from DFAIT, DND, CIDA, border services, immigration, RCMP. These included search and rescue technicians, medical and logistical personnel, engineers, disaster victim identification experts and humanitarian experts.
In essence, the size of the quake was such that we deployed all the components of our disaster response that we spent years honing, and we did it in a coordinated fashion: relief supplies, expert advisers, Canadian Forces assets, special immigration measures, assistance to Canadians; and this required a truly whole-of-government approach. Ms. Biggs will be speaking in more detail to CIDA's contribution.
One of the more visible components of the Canadian effort was the deployment of some 2,000 Canadian Forces personnel under Op HESTIA, in support of the international humanitarian relief efforts. My colleagues from DND are here to elaborate on their effort, but I must say, from our up-close-and-personal perspective on the ground, particularly in Port-au-Prince, but also particularly in Jacmel and Léogâne, their presence and the support of the whole-of-government response made a real difference on the ground.
Alongside Canadian Forces, we had humanitarian experts from CIDA and DFAIT deployed to work with local authorities, the UN and NGOs. They have been there throughout clarifying needs, gaps and ensuring the right coordination is on the ground and working, as I said, with the UN, Red Cross and NGOs to ensure good coordination, to ensure we were meeting Haitian needs in the immediate post-quake period, but also as we work through a drawdown of the Canadian Forces assets to ensure that the right handover to civilian hands happens.
On the political front, we have also played an important role in the support of the government in Haiti as it focuses on early recovery and transitions out to longer-term reconstruction. We hosted a ministerial preparatory conference in Montreal on January 25; this was a couple of weeks after the quake. It was an enormous effort, and the conference declaration was a strong one. It set a clear and common vision, shared by the Haitian government and the international community, for early recovery and for setting the stage for longer-term reconstruction of Haiti. This has been followed by visits to Haiti by the Prime Minister and the Governor General to underscore Canada's commitment to the country and our longer-term reconstruction commitment to Haiti.
In terms of the DFAIT response, I will do a quick run-through of the DFAIT activities for which we are accountable. First, my team led and coordinated the whole-of-government response to the crisis. Our consular affairs folks were engaged, passports, property, infrastructure issues, security issues at our embassy, diplomatic relations and programming. Literally, in the days following the quake, hundreds of folks were redirected to work on the Haiti response.
Crisis unit and DFAIT's consular services and emergency management branch was operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They took over 45,000 phone calls from concerned Canadians. We had a family liaison and assistance group in place, phoning folks and keeping in constant contact with them as they were looking for their loved ones. The Haiti children liaison unit helped bring orphans home. Consular officers arranged for local accommodation, transport, food, shelter and medical care.
Just to give you a picture, we were up to 600 people sleeping on the compound in Port-au-Prince at one point — Canadians who were transiting looking for evacuation — and they were sleeping outside of the compound because of the structural damage sustained by our embassy. Hundreds of people would be lining up at the gate seeking access visas. It was a full-scale, robust operation. We had to turn around on a dime. It was not DFAIT doing this alone. We were leading the coordination, but it was a whole-of-government effort with Passport Canada and my colleagues here, and others not at the table.
I have spoken about some of the physical property issues at the embassy and our Supplementary Estimates (C) ask for some money on those elements. We are also redirecting our programming. We have been programming in Haiti for a long time on security sector, and Ms. Biggs will talk about development and reconstruction work done by CIDA, but we have invested much over the years on security sector reform in Haiti. Much of our infrastructure projects were destroyed in the quake. Therefore, we have had to re-calibrate our multi-year programming, move in quickly to start rebuilding that infrastructure in areas such as community security, mobile courts, Haitian National Police because it is really important to instill security in the immediate post-quake days.
We will be augmenting our programming next year as well to make up for what was lost and accelerate work in security sector and work with the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH. An important element of this is our police deployment to help mentor the Haitian National Police.
In sum, the provision of emergency humanitarian relief by the UN, Government of Haiti and NGO partners will continue and will continue for a while. Our support for these efforts is unwavering. As we move into recovery and reconstruction in an effort to build back better in Haiti, Canada will continue to stand behind the international effort. The whole-of-government effort put in post-quake has been really informative, really strong and will carry us forward to the next step, which is the New York conference on March 31 where the longer-term plans for Haiti reconstruction will be set by the international community and Government of Haiti.
[Translation]
Margaret Biggs, President, Canadian International Development Agency: Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you on the Supplementary Estimates (C) and the Canadian International Development Agency. I have here with me today Ms. Diane Jacovella, Vice-President, Multilateral and Global Programs Branch, and Mr. Jim Quinn, Chief Financial Officer.
Last November, I made a presentation to you on the methods used by our agency to make our international assistance more focused, more efficient and more transparent.
[English]
Budget 2010 ensures Canada will meet its commitment to double its international assistance by 2010 by increasing the international assistance envelope by 8 per cent, and this will bring our overall international assistance effort to $5 billion a year.
In CIDA's Supplementary Estimates (C), 2009-10, a number of proposed net increases to our grants and contributions budget of $94.3 million and a decrease in our operating budget of $45,000 can be found. The main item and the main request included in supplementary estimates is for $90.6 million in programming in support of Canada's response to the humanitarian crisis in Haiti that Ms. Buck just outlined.
This allocation was sourced from the Crisis Pool of the International Assistance Envelope to respond to the call for assistance from the Haitian people and the Haitian government in a timely manner. The Crisis Pool is an instrument with which the government equipped itself based upon the lessons learned from the Indian Ocean tsunami to position the Government of Canada to be able to respond in a very quick and timely way to major unforeseen crises around the world — crises that would exceed the capacity of our existing programs to respond.
As Ms. Buck indicated, Canada has played a leading role in the international response to the crisis in Haiti, and we have been working closely with the Government of Haiti, international partners and non-governmental organizations, and we have colleagues currently in the Dominican Republic working with the Government of Haiti and all the other international partners on the technical preparatory work for the New York conference on March 31.
Canada was one of the first donors to respond to the earthquake of January 12 in Haiti, pledging $5 million for immediate humanitarian need within 24 hours — funds that helped provide urgent medical services and relief items, such as water, sanitation and shelter. A week later, on January 19, CIDA announced a further $80 million in humanitarian assistance. Of this, $60 million went to services provided on the ground by the first responder United Nations organizations, such as the World Food Programme; $10.5 million went to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for humanitarian assistance; and $14.5 million went to support the disaster relief efforts of Canadian non-governmental partners.
Following the international conference that is coming up on March 31 in New York City, we will take stock of our next tranche of programming on the early recovery, reconstruction and development side. This will be based upon the priorities and the plan that the Haitian government puts in place.
The other major item in the Supplementary Estimates (C) is for Canada to fulfill its long-standing commitment to provide debt forgiveness to the Pakistan government, subject to the conditions of a memorandum of understanding, MOU, signed by Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was already announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2001. In return, Pakistan will invest in teacher training for its primary schools. This is an innovative measure to leverage debt relief for productive investment in the all-important education sector that Canada and CIDA are championing.
[Translation]
A number of small fund transfers would help address various operational matters; I would be pleased to examine these matters with you more closely.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I am glad you added in the forgiveness of that roughly $250-million compilation of loans to Pakistan. That was a matter of some discussion here yesterday morning. We were wondering about the oversight and how you know that the forgiveness of the loan in flipping it into a promise by Pakistan to build schools will actually happen. We understand that the first audit indicated that nothing had been done. Can you tell us who will be overseeing that, and how we will know that our $450 million will bring that about?
Ms. Biggs: It translates into about $132 million in its present value. A very strong accountability regime is in place, starting with the MOU. It involves the auditor general of the government of Pakistan. Terms and conditions have been put in place upon which the government of Pakistan puts the money toward the ministry of education.
We, at CIDA, have an independent audit and validation exercise and mission that we will send out. It has been a little slow to get going because of the actual mechanisms that we are putting in place to oversee the arrangement. Therefore, not much programming has been coming out of this yet, although it started last June.
We have an extremely rigorous mechanism to oversee the flow of those dollars and the purposes to which they will be put.
Senator Eggleton: I am glad that you raised Pakistan forgiveness matter. In terms of the accountability, have you laid down any criteria for the spending of this money? We will forgive this debt. We want them to put the money in education. It is a good idea. However, are there any criteria?
For example, that part of the world always has a problem with girls and women being educated. Have you set down any criteria for that?
Ms. Biggs: Those are good questions. The agreement to forgive the debt was done some time ago. We have translated that into some good programming, particularly focusing on teacher training and building up the education ministry's ability to provide quality education. Education is a priority for our CIDA programming in Pakistan. It has a particular focus on education for girls and young women. That is an area of particular focus for us.
Senator Finley: The original compendium of loans was $450 million, for which the net present value is $132 million, you said. Which is the requirement for Pakistan to invest the money; is it the $450 million or the $132 million?
Ms. Biggs: Their project budget would be $132 million.
Senator Finley: Therefore, the $450 million has eroded over time through what? Was it a lack of payment, or was this originally written in? Was this freedom of payment for 10 years and a four-year repayment program? What occurred there?
Ms. Biggs: I might have to go to my chief financial officer.
Jim Quinn, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Canadian International Development Agency: As the president outlined, the debts of $450 million will be offset by Pakistan investing in education over a period of years. The value of that over the period of years, when you bring it back to the net present value of today, represents $130- odd million dollars. However, the money put aside today is representing what that future cost will be.
In fact, the money required to be put aside today is the $450 million.
Senator Finley: Do we know that this is new investment by the Pakistan government; that it would not have been money that they would have been investing anyway?
Mr. Quinn: That would be part of the regime that the president outlined that ensures that the Pakistan government meets its obligations of putting money into education, and it is validated. Only after that validation is the payment made.
Senator Finley: When is the next report due, and to whom are they reporting in terms of an audit of this particular program?
Ms. Biggs: A bi-national working group oversees the management of this project. The money goes to the government of Pakistan and, through them, to the ministry of education, which then reports back on what it has done in the area of education and teaching training. That is where we send in our independent validation exercise to ensure that the dollars were spent.
Senator Finley: You said that the money goes to the government of Pakistan. I thought it was money we had already given them.
Ms. Biggs: It is money that they have and that they are allocating toward education. However, it is the government of Pakistan's budget, and they are giving the money in turn to the ministry of education for specific purposes of education and teacher training.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Finley. Have we clarified this? Are all your questions on this issue of the Pakistan forgiveness?
Senator Runciman: It would be helpful for the committee to have the criteria with respect to the education requirements, as Senator Eggleton mentioned. We would like to have that forwarded to us, as well as a brief overview in writing of the oversight that will be involved.
The Chair: Please send that to the clerk, and we will see it gets to everyone on the committee.
Ms. Biggs: Absolutely. It will be easier to write it down and give you a full briefing.
Senator Runciman: When was this forgiveness first announced?
Ms. Biggs: It was announced in 2001 by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Senator Runciman: That is a long time ago.
Ms. Biggs: CIDA does not do loans any more. This goes back to earlier periods. It was consolidated and then there was an agreement. Agreements are done internationally to relieve this debt, and it was announced in 2001.
Senator Runciman: I think you answered the supplementary.
CIDA is not in the loan business any more. Are you aware of any funds received by Pakistan from the Canadian government in any other mechanism in that intervening time?
Ms. Biggs: We have a development assistance program in Pakistan. It is not directly with the government of Pakistan. We have a variety of program instruments, but this is the only area where, in previous years CIDA did do loans. In this case, the loan forgiveness was agreed to some time ago, and now we are trying to leverage that and translate that into new programming.
Senator Runciman: In the past, this was a direct loan to the Pakistan government.
Ms. Biggs: Yes, to the government.
Senator Marshall: I would like to see the actual agreement back in 2001.
Has any other audit work been carried out on this matter, either by the auditor general of Pakistan, any internal audit group or private sector auditor, or the Auditor General of Canada? Has any audit work been done that would give us some insight into this?
Ms. Biggs: There has not actually been much audit work done yet against this new initiative to translate the funds into educational programming. We have just had the first reporting period of June 2009 in terms of them indicating that they spent approximately $20 million in education. That has gone through the verification and validation process that I laid out for you. I can give it to you in writing. We are in the early days or early stages of actually moving forward with this. There is not much to look at yet.
Senator Marshall: I would be interested in seeing the actual agreement, if we can have a copy of it.
Senator Callbeck: You talked about the agreement of 2001, but it says here that there was an agreement in 2006. How do they differ?
Ms. Biggs: In 2001, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time announced the agreement to forgive Pakistan's debt. In 2006, an agreement was made to then translate that into the debt swap, if you will, for purposes of the education programming. That was done in 2006, and it has taken a few years to get that up and running. We are beginning to see the results of that now, but the decision to relieve the debt was made many years ago.
Senator Callbeck: You say that that was done in 2001; it was wiped out. Why are we talking about the debt in 2006 if it was wiped out in 2001?
Ms. Biggs: I would have to get back to you. The agreement was to relieve the debt but to then discuss what the conditions of that would be. That was resolved in 2006 with this agreement to have the debt swap for education. We are now bringing that on stream, and some progress has begun in that area.
The Chair: Why do we not have you provide us with all the background information? We are getting various numbers and various times, and $450 million is worth us pursuing. Senator Neufeld has a short question on this, and then I will cut off the discussion. If we decide, after we receive all the documents, that we want to pursue it further, then we could ask Ms. Biggs to come back and talk to us at that time. We can continue any of these issues.
Senator Neufeld: Mr. Chair, I am relatively comfortable with that because I know our time here is short. It astounds me that in 2001, we write off $450 million, or it is supposed to be written off, and in 2006, some government decided that they would spend some money on education, and in 2010, we are talking about $132 million going to education. I do not know where that $132 million comes from, or what that has to do with a $450-million write-off.
The Chair: Mr. Quinn will help with us that in the written document that they will send to us so that we can try to digest this present-day value of future obligations sort of thing. If we can all agree that you will provide us with some written materials with a chronology so that we understand this, then we can take it from there.
Mr. Quinn: Including when the write-off occurs?
The Chair: Yes, if you would.
Senator Neufeld: I would also like the reasoning. There must be reasoning for why it was written off.
The Chair: Policy decisions are here as well, but we are just receiving the evidence now. The policy decision was a government decision.
Senator Finley: On a point of information, I asked yesterday when we met if I could look at the equivalent of a balance sheet that showed the complete CIDA exposure or Canadian government exposure to loans or grants of this nature and to what degree there has been some indication that they have been written down or written off. I was shown a book of public accounts, which I went to, and it absolutely does not have this information. I would appreciate it, as well as the rest of the information that CIDA will supply, if they could also supply a complete rundown of every single outstanding program that falls into this particular category.
The Chair: Do you mean everything that was a loan?
Senator Finley: Yes, or that could be written off.
The Chair: Can you help with us that, Ms. Biggs? You must have compiled all of that.
Mr. Quinn: I want to clarify that if it is within the portfolio of CIDA, then that is something we could do.
The Chair: We talked to Treasury Board yesterday. They may be calling you to ask for that, and you can tell them that you are going directly. If the question is broader, you can send us what you can, and Treasury Board will continue to pursue the rest of the information for us.
Mr. Quinn: Right.
The Chair: Now we will move on to Haiti. First on the list is Senator Gerstein.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you, Ms. Buck and Ms. Biggs, for your opening comments. I will refer specifically to Haiti. I am sure that I can say that all Canadians, regardless of partisan affiliation, can be extremely proud of the extraordinary humanitarian response that Canada made. I am sure all members of this committee would join me in applauding you and your department for the remarkable alacrity and effectiveness of your response to this disaster. Having said that, such a rapid and utterly unanticipated commitment of funds also nevertheless requires scrutiny, so I would like to ask several questions in this regard.
The Government of Canada, as I understand, has committed to match the donations of individual Canadians to the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund between January 12 and February 12. My understanding is that Canadians donated $128 million, which is a remarkable indication of Canadians' compassion and generosity. Are the matching funds committed by the government included in these supplementary estimates? Could you tell us how these matching funds will be allocated?
Ms. Biggs: Thank you for the question. As of right now, we are still confirming the amounts. For the middle of February, the amount that we know of so far is how much?
Diane Jacovella, Vice-President, Multilateral and Global Programs Branch, Canadian International Development Agency: We were still calculating.
Ms. Biggs: It is $135 million.
Ms. Jacovella: Yes.
Ms. Biggs: We are still counting. We do not know the final number. It will be a significant amount of money, and it will be beyond what we actually have in front of you today.
We are asking in our Supplementary Estimates (C) today for $90 million for purposes of our Haiti program, and this is all to be done for purposes of our current operations there. If the matching amount is $135 million or $150 million or more, we clearly will be programming beyond what we have here before you today, sir, so we will have to come forward in our next year.
Senator Gerstein: Are you saying that in your request today you do not have any number included for matching the generosity of Canadians?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, we actually do. We have asked for $90.6 million. Of that money, a significant amount will go to the funds that we will be putting toward our match fund.
Senator Gerstein: How much of the $90 million have you accommodated for matching Canadians' donations?
Ms. Biggs: In this particular amount here, we have already cash-managed about $34.5 million of that, and we would need another $56.1 million for the total of $90.6 million. To go back to my opening remarks, we have already spent upwards of $85 million on behalf of the Government of Canada and Canadians as part of the Haitian relief. None of this, though, we would account toward the matching pool of funds that the government has announced. There will be more announcements and more programming that we will be doing to live up to our commitment to match the generosity of Canadians.
Senator Gerstein: This is certainly not taking away from the great humanitarian effort that Canadians expect of us to make to Haiti, but the Supplementary Estimates (C) that we are looking at now, as I understand from what you say, do not reflect all of the expenses to date that you are anticipating spending.
Ms. Biggs: The Supplementary Estimates (C) are for the year 2009 and 2010.
Senator Gerstein: Does it include everything that you would have incurred to the end of the period March 2010?
Ms. Biggs: Yes, and then we will start the new fiscal year, and we expect to have a significantly expanded program in Haiti for early recovery, reconstruction and development efforts. The size of that and the purpose and priorities for that will be determined in the months ahead, particularly after we get through the New York conference where the Haitian government will be presenting its plan.
We are just in the early days, if I could, Mr. Chair, of the Haitian response. As you know, it will go on for many years. We will be programming next year and beyond in a much more significant level than we have been in the past.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Could you tell us when the matching program ended?
Ms. Biggs: The program has not ended. The period for matching funds was from January 12, which was the date of the earthquake, to February 12.
Canadian organizations had a two-week period to do their paperwork, collect their numbers and to send them in to CIDA to attest to the amounts of money that they had raised. We are in the process now of confirming that money. I think by the middle of February, we knew that that amount was already up at about $135 million, and we would expect it to be a bit larger.
That was the period of time of accounting for how much Canadians had contributed. As you know, the response was overwhelming generosity. We will now take that amount of money and begin to program it.
The Chair: The $135 million is what Canadians donated, and then it will have to be doubled, is that correct?
Ms. Biggs: Yes. The $135 million is as of, I believe, February 12.
The Chair: It will not be less.
Ms. Biggs: It will definitely not be less because there was still time for them to collect their accounts and add it up.
The Chair: That is understood. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: First, I have to say congratulations to the Prime Minister and government for their very quick and decisive move on the crisis in Haiti, and to all of the people who serve us in the various departments that responded very quickly in a very efficient and effective way.
Of course I have to single out, being a former Minister of Defence, the terrific work done by the Canadian Forces. I am quite familiar with DART. I have gone with them a couple of times previously, and they are awesome. They, together with the naval ship that went into the area and others involved in the mission, moved very quickly and efficiently. I congratulate all in that respect.
I would like to look a little forward now. DART has come out, as I understand it, in the last few days, and the naval ship of course has returned to Halifax. I would like to know what forces are there now, and what work they might be doing if they are still there now.
Also, I would like to know, in terms of perhaps CIDA, what we are doing in this interim period. Ms. Biggs, you talked about this conference coming up in New York at the end of March, and that will help to determine the long- term plan. We are over the immediate crisis emergency period, but many problems remain on the ground there. I wonder what we are doing and how we are spending money in this interim period.
Additionally, the budget and the Throne Speech started bringing in phrases about freezing the public service, et cetera. Will any of that affect the way forward for our Canadian contribution, particularly in the long-term plan that will be devised at the end of March?
The Chair: Perhaps National Defence could clarify, for the record, the Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART?
Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette, Director General, Operations, Strategic Joint Staff, National Defence: The response team has known some real success in its deployment. It was very quickly on the ground, and, as you know, we have to take care of the most pressing issues. We are talking about water treatment. We had to use a Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit— it is an awful acronym — ROWPU, for treatment of the water. This was a priority, of course, and the deployment of engineers to ensure that we were able to have the water produced and delivered quite quickly. We must not underestimate the challenge when many people want that water.
In terms of engineering work, we also had to cooperate with our colleagues from CIDA to ensure that the efforts were coordinated on the ground. I must underline the fact that the work performed by the CIDA personnel was absolutely stellar there. It is easy, with our uniforms, to capture the camera lens, but when you really look at the work that is being performed on the civilian side, it was quite extraordinary. It was the same with the diplomatic mission that we had there. We had to be careful, of course. When we go to a sovereign country, we have to take into account the views of those Haitians who we are there to support.
To be more specific about how we have to be ready for more missions, to answer your question, senator, we had to reset DART quite quickly as soon as it came back. It is coming back as we speak. We have to look at the scalability of it as well because it is not always easy to have deployment of DART as a whole. In this case, we have used the expression of DART being a DART on steroids because it was a very strong DART. We ended up having a field hospital deployed that was able to take care of almost 17,000 patients. This was something that was absolutely outstanding from the perspective of the impact it had on the ground.
I could go into more detail, but I am mindful of the limited time.
Senator Eggleton: Are any Canadian Forces there at all; not necessarily DART, but any Canadian Forces? Are they out or still working there?
Brig.-Gen. Blanchette: Yes, we still have approximately 700 soldiers there, but they are on their way out as we speak.
Senator Eggleton: Let me get to the financial questions then.
Ms. Biggs: If I can just build on what my colleague, Ms. Buck and the Brigadier-General commented on, it is just to underscore how significant the whole-of-government effort was in Haiti. This is also something that is quite exemplary. No other country can perform in this civilian-military way, and it actually does work. Our CIDA personnel were embedded with the Canadian Forces in Jacmel and Léogâne, and similarly down at the mission, so it is pretty neat.
You are quite right that there are early relief operations where we focused, along with the military, et cetera, on hospital and basic medical triage care, et cetera. We had a field hospital sent as well. Therefore, that happened in the first little while; then the reconstruction and development effort will follow. We will get the plan out of New York, and we will build in behind that and align behind that and have a significant program there.
In the middle, we have a transitional period where the issues are around shelter, first and foremost, with the rainy season coming. The focus of the international effort is around transitional shelter because people will be displaced for a long time, and to ensure they have the sanitation, water and basic services needed for a protracted transitional period. That is the focus now, and the period that we are in as we speak.
Senator Eggleton: Do you have money for that?
Ms. Biggs: That is the piece we are looking at currently with the needs on the grounds. That would probably be one of the areas that we would want to look to with the matching fund, as a very first instalment on what Canada would do as part of its matched funds.
Senator Eggleton: Will the freeze affect this?
Ms. Biggs: No. We will work with the freeze. It is a question of being efficient and effective in our operations.
Ms. Buck: We are currently delivering programming in the security sector. We have about 85 civilian police on the ground mentoring and training the Haitian National Police, correctional services officers and border officers. As I said earlier, we are strengthening and refurbishing some of the security sector infrastructure. A large amount of programming is going out the door now, from a DFAIT perspective; about $15 million for this fiscal period, with more in next period.
The Chair: Colleagues, I must remind you that we have a second round, and another panel. If any of your questions can wait to the second panel, that is fine. That would be helpful. Please make your questions succinct.
If you cannot answer the question quickly, then we do not mind you sending us — as we asked earlier of Ms. Biggs — an explanation; that would help us all. We tend to learn quickly when we see documents and things outlined.
Senator Runciman: I am very proud, as is virtually every other Canadian, of the way this country, the agencies and the NGOs responded to this crisis in Haiti. I guess we do have a special relationship with Haiti, and I think your organization has been involved for many years.
You mentioned the New York conference and that you are waiting for the Haitian plan, I believe. I recall hearing some news stories in the midst of the recovery effort about the ability or lack of ability of the government to function. They have lost their infrastructure, and their parliament buildings were severely damaged. It is, perhaps, impossible for you to answer this, but I am wondering about the ability of the government. Are your eggs all in that basket with respect to the Haitian plan?
Ms. Biggs: It is true that the Haitian government took a serious blow. They lost ministers and their families were displaced, like others. Nevertheless, they have risen to the challenge and are working in concert with the international community on the ground to try to plan the relief effort, which is of historic proportions on a day-to-day basis there. They are working with international advisers, including some that Canada has helped them with, to try to figure out how they want to plan going forward.
The next two steps are important. The first, a post-disaster needs assessment, is just coming to a conclusion. Canada had nine or ten people that were part of that, along with many other countries, and they have done an assessment of their needs. The Haitian government has done its own assessment and its own sense of the "build back better'' vision that it has for Haiti. Those are coming together today to come up with a blueprint on how to do this. The Haitian government will need our support, but they are clearly in charge. That was a key principle coming out of the Montreal preparatory conference that Ms. Buck mentioned in terms of backing them and their leadership.
They have not been able to work; their ministry buildings have been destroyed. The Prime Minister has announced that we will be contributing resources. We are helping them build a temporary operations centre so that key ministers and staff can be co-located and have a functioning office or government office for 200 or 300 of their key personnel so that they can carry on. They asked Canada directly to support them in that because they knew Canada would step up and be able to do that quickly for them.
Senator Runciman: We could talk about this for hours, I suspect.
We talked earlier about negotiating the Pakistani loan. We have had officials and police in Haiti for many years due to the security issue.
To launch all the news coverage again, about the land being stripped of all the trees and wiping out the opportunities for the agricultural sector to grow, obviously, this will involve a long-term financial commitment. When we get involved in these efforts, which are humanitarian in nature, is there any light at the end of the tunnel? If these efforts are prolonged over an extended period of time, we are talking about Canadian tax dollars. Is there any effort to work as we did with Pakistan, where there is an understanding of how the government will proceed to try at some point in time to be able to stand on its own?
Ms. Biggs: That is a good question. It is true that the international community has been helping this country get back on its feet after numerous problems with the UN mission. Canada has been a key partner — that is, CIDA, DFAIT and the policing sector. We have been there for a long time, and I think both the government and Canadians want us to continue to be there.
One key principle that was part of the chair's statement out of the Montreal preparatory conference was around accountability. While Canada and other international partners want to stand with and behind the Haitian government and the Haitian people in their reconstruction and development, it must be monitored carefully. They want that, too, but we will have to account for what we are doing there not only in how the dollars are spent but also in the results that we are getting. Reporting and accountability will be the key here. It is a lesson that we learned out of the tsunami in Aceh province. Steps have already been taken for a private consulting firm, such as KPMG, to provide pro bono the accountability framework for what we will do on a go-forward basis. It is looking good.
Senator Callbeck: I want to echo what other senators have said about how proud Canadians were of how we responded to the situation in Haiti, and I also want to congratulate everyone who was involved in this.
Senator Gerstein talked about the matching funds. It appears that some confusion exists here between Treasury Board and yourselves. Officials from Treasury Board were here yesterday. You are asking for about $90.5 million, but some of the matching funds are in that. I am bringing that to your attention.
President Barack Obama asked past presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to mobilize the relief and rebuilding efforts on behalf the United States and Haiti. Do you think that, in Canada, we should have a full-time champion or champions to do a similar job?
Ms. Buck: Bill Clinton is the special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General who is mobilizing the international communities.
The conference in New York on March 31 is being co-hosted by the UN and the United States on behalf of all the core countries dealing with Haiti. It is a whole-of-international-community response, and that is Bill Clinton's role, to clarify that.
Within the Government of Canada, our approach has been that every part of the government has its role to play. We have achieved a degree of coordination and coherence, bringing those various parts of expertise together and maintaining Canadian visibility using that expertise. It is found in National Defence, in the Canadian International Development Agency and in our programming that we do with Public Safety Canada, the RCMP and Correctional Services Canada. It is working well. I have been working on natural disasters and wars for about 20 years now. It is working better than I have ever seen it.
Senator Callbeck: That is good news. I thought that President Barack Obama asked the past presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to head that up on behalf of the United States. I know about the role that you talked about concerning former President Bill Clinton.
Senator Marshall: I would like to also offer my congratulations on your success. I wanted to ask some non-financial questions. However, since we are pressed for time, I would like to go back to the matching funds.
Concerning the $135 million, how much did you say was included in the $90.6 million? Did you say that it was around $35 million?
Ms. Biggs: Of the $90.6 million, $56.1 million would be for the matching fund. We have not yet made any announcements or allocations for that, and $56.1 million would be in the category of the matching fund, beyond what we currently have.
Senator Marshall: Where are you going or where do you see yourself going in the next year? Obviously, additional budgetary funding will be provided next year; some will be the matching funding. Who decides what that matching money will be used for, that is, the money budgeted in the New Year?
Ms. Biggs: The decisions on how to allocate the matched funds will be made by the Government of Canada, by Minister Oda, based upon the decisions for priorities laid out in the Haitian plan, the needs laid out in the Haitian plan and also what Canada is best prepared to respond to and who and how we are best able to then meet those needs. Those decisions will be made by the government.
Senator Finley: My first question concerns the matching funds of $135 million, which could be $150 million and could mean a total of $300 million. Is all of that money scheduled to go through CIDA?
Ms. Biggs: Yes.
Senator Finley: One would assume, based on what you have said, that over the next few years several billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money could be involved in the reconstitution of Haiti.
Particularly as many basic industries in Canada are suffering carnage, such as our forestry industry, for example, does CIDA give preference to Canadian companies and products in their utilization of these funds?
Ms. Biggs: No, we do not, sir. The Government of Canada has already untied all of its food assistance, and that it will untie its other assistance, and I believe we are at about 90 per cent. The reason for that is that the purpose of our international assistance is to help the people who need the help and who we are assisting. The best way to do that is to program in the best possible way with the most effective partners to get the best possible results. That means going with whoever is best able to do the programming. That is a statement of policy for the Government of Canada.
I can give an example in the case of food aid where Canada has already completely untied its food assistance. We have, from the UN World Food Programme, indications that the food assistance is procured just as much or more from Canadian producers even though it has been untied because Canadian producers are best able to supply it. In terms of international assistance, it is designed to be of greatest value and most effective for the needs for which it is intended, and that is a statement of government policy.
The Chair: Ms. Biggs, you referred to the international assistance crisis pool. Am I using the right terminology?
Ms. Biggs: It is International Assistance Envelope Crisis Pool.
The Chair: Is this real money sitting there for you to dip into when the ministers or cabinet says to spend that money on this crisis? Are you asking us to top that up again? Is that the process that is happening here?
Ms. Biggs: The International Assistance Envelope Crisis Pool is, if you will, a special allotment in the fiscal framework that is under a lock and key. We can only access it if a significant disaster has occurred. It was set up after the tsunami and is there for things that are completely unanticipated and of a major scale. It cannot just be for anything. It has to be accessed through cabinet and through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for very exceptional purposes. For the purposes of Haiti, as you would understand, all of us have access to the Crisis Pool because of the nature of the disaster.
The Chair: Do you know how much that pool is?
Ms. Biggs: It is $200 million. It goes up and down, but it is $200 million. It is used for various crises, and we have used it for other instances as well.
The Chair: Has that provided CIDA, DND and DFAIT with money until you can come to Parliament and ask us to bring that back to being whole again; is that correct? Is that how that functions?
Ms. Buck: There is a bit of a nuance here, Mr. Chair, in that some of our costs would not come from the International Assistance Envelope, our consular costs, for instance, to cover those 45,000 calls, et cetera; some of our property infrastructure costs to basically stop the roofs in Port-au-Prince from falling down. Certain elements cannot come from the International Assistance Envelope because of its terms. Therefore, those come from the fiscal framework, and those are included in our Supplementary Estimates (C) requests.
The Chair: You used the term "money-managed'' or "cash-managed.'' Does that mean you are just taking a little out of whatever you might have for other programs, in the hopes of having it replenished in due course by Parliament?
Ms. Biggs: Because of the extraordinary nature of the crisis in Haiti, and also because some of our Haiti programming, as Ms. Buck said, we could no longer proceed with that because of the disaster there. We have internally re-allocated and re-profiled money so that we could have an immediate response, as I said, right out the door right away with some money.
We are cash-managing that right now because we thought Haiti was a higher purpose, and, if Supplementary Estimates (C) are approved, then we can return to the things that we have basically put on hold.
The Chair: I am not being critical of how you are doing it; I am just trying to understand it for all of the honourable senators. I will ask if there are any supplementary questions arising out of mine, but the final one is that this is all incremental. You have the 2,000 people who you sent to Haiti. It is not their basic salaries that are part of what we see in Supplementary Estimates (C) but just the additional costs, danger pay or something extra that you have to pay, such as transportation, food and so forth; am I correct on that?
Ms. Buck: Yes, senator.
Senator Dickson: I am a new senator from Halifax, Nova Scotia, and I would like to compliment the military on their quick response. My son was in the navy for 13 years. My question focuses on the reconstruction of the military resources, and I imagine many significant lessons were learned from that operation. Just briefly — and you may want to respond to this in writing — will the talked about freeze affect you in any significant way insofar as reconstruction of the military assets that were deployed in the Haiti mission?
Brigadier-General Claude Rochette, Director General, Financial Management, National Defence: In Budget 2010, we have to look at how we will maintain the forces and reconstitute the forces, so it is part of our plan to ensure that we will put in place Canada's first defence strategy, which will include the reconstitution of the forces.
The Chair: Senators, we have another panel starting shortly. If there are any other points, we will talk to steering committee, and if we have to follow up on this any further we will do so.
On behalf of the senators of the National Finance Committee, I would like to thank each of you: DFAIT, CIDA and DND. Thank you very much for being here and, more importantly, thank you very much for the good work that you and all of the people who work with you are doing for Canada and the world.
Honourable senators, this is our second panel for this evening. We are dealing fundamentally with the Supplementary Estimates (C), the final estimates for 2009-10. During our review, we noticed that a number of departments and agencies were asking for a significant amount of money. We thought we should talk a little about that to clearly understand it.
We are pleased to have with us this evening for discussion on the G8 and G20, as well as work with respect to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, from Public Safety Canada, Deputy Minister William Baker and Myles Kirvan, Associate Deputy Minister. Thank you very much for being here.
From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, we welcome William Sweeney, Senior Deputy Commissioner. From the Canada Border Services Agency, Stephen Rigby, President; thank you for being here. From Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we welcome Charles Bisson, Deputy Director, Operations. From the Privy Council Office, we welcome Ward Elcock, Coordinator for the 2010 Olympics and G8 Security.
I understand that Mr. Baker has some introductory remarks, and then we will go to a question and answer period, unless one of the other panellists wishes to make introductory remarks.
[Translation]
William Baker, Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada: First of all, I would like to thank the Chair and the honourable senators on the committee. I was pleased to receive the invitation to appear before you today to discuss an increase in funding for the public safety portfolio as outlined in the Supplementary Estimates (C). The funds are for the planning of policing and security at the G8 and G20 summits, for pre-event policing and security operations and for policing and security for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
[English]
Mr. Chair, you have already introduced all those who are here.
Subject to the approval of Parliament, funding requested for security preparations for the G8 and G20 summits will be put to good use to help ensure the success of these two critical events. Specifically, the requested increase in funds is $179.4 million, of which the Public Safety Canada portfolio represented here accounts for $164.3 million of that total amount.
For the information of the committee, of the remaining small amount, the lion's share would go to National Defence in support of these events.
These funds will be used to design, plan and coordinate security operations for the summits; provide the RCMP and its security partners with temporary accommodation facilities for the G8 summit; purchase information technology and portable communication assets; and protect the safety and security of all international protected persons attending the summits.
The Public Safety Canada, portfolio had access to a reserve that had been set aside of approximately $137 million for the Olympic and Paralympic Games this winter. We have obtained, from that reserve, $83.6 million, and of that, of the total amount accessed, $62.7 million went to the Public Safety Canada portfolio. Those funds went toward supporting the securing of private security contracts; the installation of a perimeter intrusion detection system; protection for international dignitaries; installation of marine barriers and provision of site security; and the deployment of Canadian Forces personnel.
Of the total increase in funds requested specifically for these two horizontal initiatives, Public Safety Canada is seeking to secure an increase of $32.1 million — that is the department — for the G8 and G20 summits; the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, are seeking an additional $131.7 million and $650,000 respectively. For the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, the RCMP is seeking an additional $62 million, and the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, an increase of $700,000.
I will conclude my remarks there, Mr. Chair, and we would happy to take questions from honourable senators.
Senator Eggleton: First, congratulations on the security measures at the Olympic Games. The Paralympics Games are still under way, but we have not heard of any incidents. We just heard about the person who wanted to get close to the vice-president of the United States. Other than that, everything seemed to go smoothly. That has to be a great credit to all the people involved. We do not know an awful lot about the details behind the scenes, but that is the way it should be, as long as we know it works.
I want to ask you about the one coming up, the G20 in Toronto. Is it a weekend, a Saturday and a Sunday?
Ward Elcock, Coordinator for the 2010 Olympics and G8 Security, Privy Council Office: Yes, it is, senator.
Senator Eggleton: Some of the officials of the City of Toronto were suggesting an alternative site to the downtown area. They are suggesting that Exhibition Place would be less disruptive to the operation of the city. If the venue were downtown, you would have to shut down much of the downtown area.
Is there a reason that you are at liberty to divulge as to why you could not pick the other site which might have been less disruptive?
Mr. Elcock: In the end, the choices were difficult ones, and it was a judgment call as to which would be the better site. If one had used the other site, one would still probably have had to block off a number of areas downtown because of hotel accommodation.
Senator Eggleton: Where people were staying. This makes it more compact.
Mr. Elcock: Yes. We would have had to have transit back and forth between the two sites, all of which would have made Toronto more difficult. In the end, we thought this was the better site and that it allowed better control.
Senator Eggleton: That is fair enough. Will people in the business community in the downtown area still have some access?
Mr. Elcock: There will be some challenges given that it is the business area. Having said that, it is the weekend, so there will be probably fewer people in that area. However, people who live in that area will have to have some accreditation to allow them access to their apartment, et cetera.
Many elements will have to be worked out with the local neighbourhoods and the people living in them.
Senator Eggleton: Will the policing operations, such as the RCMP, possibly the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP, and also the police for the City of Toronto be receiving money to cover their services, or does some of it need to be absorbed off the city's property tax?
Mr. Elcock: No, Public Safety Canada has a program that is usually on the basis of expenditures by the province or municipality that is hosting a prime ministerial event. There is a process for them to bring incremental costs that they have incurred as a result of holding a meeting such as the G8 and G20. We have taken some steps. Some money in Supplementary Estimates (C) allows some interim payments for certain purchases and things that have to be done up front to host the games.
Senator Eggleton: I assume there is total coordination amongst the police in the form of an advisory committee or whatever is needed to ensure it all hums together well, is there not?
William Sweeney, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: An integrated team is in place that includes all the security partners, the policing agency, Canadian Forces and all the federal and provincial organizations that have an interest in the summits. We try to be as inclusive and as integrated as possible. This is a model that has worked for us in the past. It had considerable success in the Olympic Games, and it is one that we are replicating in Toronto.
Mr. Baker: Further to Mr. Elcock's comments — he was referring to the security cost framework policy — this policy has been in place for a number of years to support local police forces, non-federal ones, that are staging events in their territory.
We have already reached agreement with the OPP, and we are close to having an agreement finalized with the Toronto Police Service under that agreement. Essentially, when looking at the supplementary estimates for Public Safety Canada, which is where that funding is located, the vast majority is for that express purpose.
Senator Eggleton: How many people do you expect are coming in? There are obviously 20 leaders, but they have big entourages, and then there is media. How many people are coming in for this two-day event?
Mr. Elcock: The numbers of the delegations are not finalized as far as I know, and that would be much more on the summit management office side rather than the security side. I have heard numbers as high as 8,000 to 10,000 for the number of people coming in. It is more than just 20 delegations. There are more delegations than that. International agencies and some other outreach nations are coming. It is a fairly large group of people. As well, media is on top of that, which could add another 4,000 to 5,000.
Senator Eggleton: Good luck.
Senator Finley: First, I would like to add to what my colleague mentioned about such a successful Olympic Games. I feel quite sure that the G8 and G20 will go well, also.
My questions are really for my own edification. The funding for policing and security at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games was close to $84 million. Is that the total cost for the entire Olympic Games, both before and during?
Mr. Elcock: No. The security budget for the Olympic and Paralympic Games was $900 million, including $137 million contingency. The amount in the supplementary estimates is in fact still within the $900 million budget. However, there are some additional costs over and above what had originally been anticipated, yet still within that $900 million.
Senator Finley: The $900 million included the contingency, did it?
Mr. Elcock: Yes.
Senator Finley: Therefore, you actually moved into the contingency area quite significantly.
Mr. Elcock: Yes, although we still do not know what the final expenditures will be because we do not have the final bills to what was actually spent in terms of some the programs for which money has already been set aside or had been authorized. Some of the money was for overtime costs, for example.
We will not know what the final overtime costs were for some time. The Paralympic Games are not even finished at this point.
Senator Finley: I understand that. I just wanted to get a feel for the purpose of this money.
The request for the funding for the G20 and G8 includes, if I remember what Mr. Baker said, the purchase of information technology and portable communication assets. Is not this material that could be transferred from the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games? I am asking what is so different.
Mr. Elcock: No, it cannot. The communication systems that the OPP use, for example, are not the same as the communication systems that are used in British Columbia by the RCMP and other police forces in British Columbia. We could not simply move the communication systems across the country. They have different systems; they are two separate systems, and we have to fund any additions that are required to ensure security in the separate provinces.
Senator Finley: Of the $131 million that the RCMP is looking for, how much of it is for the purchasing of this equipment?
Mr. Elcock: I think much of the RCMP costs are down to accommodation, but Mr. Sweeney may have a better breakdown than I have.
Mr. Sweeney: I do, but I do not have specific numbers. Perhaps I can get that and return to the committee with those specific figures.
With respect to the cost drivers for the G8 and G20, most of our costs today are attributable to the people who are actually planning the event: the information technology or IT systems that are used to allow them to facilitate that planning, travel, real property and professional services.
IT is a very small component. I have a general number of about $4.65 million related to IT, but I am not sure how that is allocated, so I should probably get more details for you on that and respond in due course.
The Chair: If you could provide it to the clerk, it will be circulated to everyone.
Senator Gerstein: NBC's Brian Williams had a wonderful testimony to Canada at the conclusion of the games. He spoke of the generosity of Canadians and sportsmanship. However, there was one line in his thank you note, if you might call it that, which particularly struck me, and I will quote for a moment. He said, "For securing this massive event without choking security, and without publicly displaying a single automatic weapon.
That is a marvellous testimony to what you accomplished. Could you outline how you approached this, did it in such a Canadian way and were so effective?
Mr. Elcock: The approach from the beginning was to have an Olympic Games that was about the athletes and not the security. That has been a complaint about some previous Olympic Games. That was certainly my goal as coordinator, and it was the RCMP's goal in delivering security for the event.
It is perhaps colloquial, but think of security as an onion: We need layers to have good security. The layers begin much further than the police or soldiers around a venue. They go as far out as our intelligence partners and others that provide information from around the world to border service officers providing security at the borders and to the venues themselves. There are different layers at each point through the process.
We had all the security we needed. We had many automatic weapons and the people to use them if they were to have ever been required. All of those were there and available. We relied on a risk strategy and intelligence of what we knew to be coming. We had the people, and we were ready to go if anything had happened, but, at the end of the day, it was a quiet Olympic Games. We had some problems that were all dealt with extremely well by the people on the ground.
Senator Gerstein: On behalf of all the members of the committee, I will say how proud we are of what was accomplished. We compliment you and your associates.
Mr. Sweeney: One hundred and nineteen police agencies were involved in this operation. As much as those of us involved in planning, preparations and setting the stage for all of those police officers to arrive, it really is a testimony to them as individuals. It is not one organization; it is not the Vancouver Police Department; it is not DND; it is Canadians that provide service. A great deal of gratitude has to go to all agencies across the country.
Mr. Elcock: I went to many of the venues and saw the security people present, from people all the way from Peterborough, Ontario, to a young constable outside a venue in Whistler from Thetford Mines, Quebec. I have never seen so many happy people and so many people doing a great job. They were spectacular.
Senator Marshall: I have great respect for the RCMP. I attended the opening ceremonies in Vancouver. Some of the people providing security were obviously in uniform and others were not.
Can you tell us anything about how you select people to provide security at the Olympic Games? Mr. Sweeney said that they came from over 100 different agencies. The quality of security goes back to the quality of people you hire.
Mr. Sweeney: A number of factors are taken into account with respect to that challenge. It is an enormous challenge when you bring people from virtually every corner of the nation to one event with one common goal — to provide security for the Olympic Games.
Some of the factors include the need for people with specialized training and assets: emergency response teams, people with CBRN training — chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear — and people who are VIP-trained. Those criteria are taken into account.
However, for those assigned to general duty security operations, it often comes down to selection at the local level. Generally speaking, it is people providing good service on a day-to-day basis who are given an opportunity to step out of their normal operating environment to participate in something that is quite remarkable. The selection comes from a number of different leaders across the country. We are, again, very grateful that they selected so well.
Senator Marshall: When you talk about the cost of providing security at the Olympic Games, would the biggest component be the salaries? Earlier in testimony, someone mentioned the cost of accommodations. Would the cost of personnel not have been the highest cost?
Mr. Elcock: The biggest drivers of cost were factors such as accommodation because many of the individuals did not come with enormous costs; the military, for example, their salaries are not an incremental part. It is not something on which we would have expended money. We would have expended additional money on some parts of the military such as Class "C'' Reservists. However, having said that, salaries were not the biggest drivers. Salaries of police officers from forces other than the RCMP were drivers because they would have had to be paid, and those from outside of the province would have had to be reimbursed as well.
Factors such as accommodation were huge. To rent three accommodation vessels, otherwise known as cruise vessels, is a substantial investment. However, it is required for 5,000 to 6,000 people, unless we fill all the hotel rooms in Vancouver so that no visitors can attend.
Senator Marshall: The hotels were already filled.
Mr. Elcock: Yes, at a fairly high cost.
The Chair: I note in the Supplementary Estimates (C), a request for $645,000 by Canada Border Services Agency. Mr. Rigby, this is not personnel; this is something else under the policing and security heading.
Stephen Rigby, President, Canada Border Services Agency: We requested that supplementary estimate to respond to the need to have portable X-ray machines on site in downtown Vancouver to review some of the trucks going into the downtown core. That was done in conjunction with the RCMP. We provided both the machines and operators. That $645,000 largely went to the rental of the machines and the extra staff that we had to hire to operate them.
The Chair: I see. Maybe Mr. Elcock can help us out with Canada Post Corporation as a security issue.
Mr. Elcock: They borrowed some equipment to allow them to survey mail to look for suspicious or problematic parcels and so on. They had some specialized equipment, which required that not all costs be paid — they did not have to buy the equipment and the van — but they had to borrow it. Costs were associated with bringing it in.
The Chair: My deputy chair has indicated that many security activities happen about which we hear nothing unless something goes wrong. Therefore, we are now asking you after the fact about these activities.
Senator Dickson: My questions relate to the G8 and G20 summits. According to a recent press release, this is probably the largest ever security event in Canada. I would appreciate your comment as to whether you feel confident that adequate funds will be provided as a result of this supplementary appropriation to cover the risks anticipated. We have is no doubt that the risk profile for the G8 and G20 summits is much different than the Olympic Games.
Mr. Elcock: Technically, it is perhaps not the largest security event that we have ever run. I think the 1976 Olympics Games still perhaps rank as the most significant security event.
However, it is very expensive to run G8 and G20 summits in separate cities on virtually the same weekend in the same country. It is unprecedented and will require considerable effort. I have no reason to believe at this juncture that we will not have all we require for the G8 and the G20 summits.
These costs in the Supplementary Estimates (C) are simply those for expenditures in this fiscal year and not for the subsequent fiscal year. Therefore, we will have to be back for additional monies between now and after the G8 and G20. This is not the total budget. It will be a little more expensive than the elements in Supplementary Estimates (C).
Senator Dickson: I anticipated that would be the case. In that regard, as I understand, you are now negotiating certain legal agreements with police forces and municipalities in the Toronto area. Would the contingent liabilities to the Government of Canada be significant as a result of these agreements? You could probably comment from your past experience in negotiating such agreements.
Mr. Elcock: Yes, I do recall negotiating an agreement with the honourable senator at an earlier time.
The Chair: Do you want to declare your conflict now?
Mr. Elcock: It was quite a few years ago, Mr. Chair.
The Deputy Minister for Public Safety, Mr. Baker, made it clear a few minutes ago that his department is in the process of administering or completing memorandums of understanding with the province, the municipality, the OPP, the Toronto Police Service and a couple of other police forces to pay for incremental costs that they may incur as result of security for the games.
At the end of the day, that process is after the fact. The provinces, municipalities, et cetera, bring in their costs, and they are audited and then repaid. Since the G8 and G20 are expensive projects to hold and do require some fairly substantial expenditures going in, an effort will be made in this case to have a capacity for interim payments. However, generally it is an after-the-fact payment for incremental costs. That would be the normal way it would work. That process, as Mr. Baker said, is ongoing. An MOU has been negotiated with the province; one with the Toronto Police Service is ongoing and a few other smaller ones as well.
Mr. Baker: To add to that, the issue here is largely the timing. These events are taking place in June, and demands are being placed on national police as well as OPP, some of the Toronto police and others to get ready. They could not wait until the new fiscal year and the approval of the Main Estimates and so on. Naturally, they had to get started. Some of the money available under these agreements is for planning purposes, and you can imagine the planning that will have to go into this. It is a pretty elaborate undertaking.
Senator Dickson: I would like to compliment you on the successful efforts you put into the Olympic Games, and thank you for the answers.
Senator Callbeck: I, too, certainly congratulate all those involved with the security at the Olympic Games. Mr. Elcock, you mentioned that the estimated projected cost for security at the Olympic Games was $900 million and that a contingency fund was in there of $135 million. What is the projected estimated cost for security for the G20 and G8?
Mr. Elcock: The Olympic Games process was a much longer process, and the announcement of the estimates for the Olympic Games occurred some time ago because we had a much longer planning process. The planning process for the G8 and G20 is much tighter, and it is therefore essentially an iterative process. We have not finished the planning yet, so we do not know precisely what it will all cost. We know some things have to be expended; hence the Supplementary Estimates (C) and some interim payments for some of the provincial and municipal entities. I do not have an assured estimate for the G8 and G20 at this juncture as I would have had originally in the case of the Olympic Games.
Senator Runciman: In the supplementary estimates, I noticed an allocation request for $32.1 million for the ministry itself, Public Safety Canada. It is not a boots-on-the-ground or operational service. For what are those funds utilized?
Mr. Baker: This is because of the security cross framework policy. This is the mechanism that allows the federal government to provide payments to provincial police forces in support of events such as these. The Minister of Public Safety has responsibility for that, and that resides in Public Safety Canada. You are absolutely right that we are generally not operational, but we manage that fund, and the vast majority of the supplementary request is for that very purpose.
Senator Runciman: What are the cost implications of Muskoka compared to Toronto? Was that primarily logistical or security or a combination of both? What was the rationale there?
Mr. Elcock: I am not quite sure I understand the question.
Senator Runciman: I was curious about the rationale for the decision of where to hold the summit. Was it not originally intended to go to Muskoka?
Mr. Elcock: Originally, the intention was to try to do both in Muskoka. We have to consider the sheer size of what a G20 meeting meant. Most of the major G20 meetings that have occurred so far have largely occurred in urban domains rather than in more rural domains, which has been the practice for G8 meetings in last few years. The reality was that Muskoka was too small to accommodate the numbers that we anticipate for the G20.
Senator Runciman: It was more logistical. Would concerns be linked to the size for security as well? I am curious about that. It strikes a novice such as me that in a city such as Toronto, perhaps your challenges might be even greater than they would be in a community such as Muskoka.
Mr. Elcock: A smaller community clearly has some security advantages. However, the reality is that the communities are insufficient in size and accommodation to accommodate all of the delegations, or the essential parts of them. It just simply is not doable. That was certainly one of the problems.
The Chair: I suppose for the Olympic Games, to a degree, and certainly for G8 and G20, security comes along with the leaders. Is that built into the security package that you put together, and is that an incremental cost? Does it cost Canada to accommodate the additional security from other nations?
Mr. Sweeney: Yes. It is the RCMP's responsibility to provide personal protection to internationally protected people, so that cost is built into our submissions. The only exception, perhaps, that would be excluded from that is the Prime Minister's protective detail, which is an ongoing requirement. Certainly all the other heads of state and internationally protected people require security components, and that is built into our numbers.
The Chair: In terms of peaceful demonstrations, which there undoubtedly will be, is accommodation made for that, and are those costs worked into what we see here?
Mr. Elcock: It is fair to say, Mr. Chair, that the potential for demonstrations of one type or another is an element that one has to plan for, given the events that have occurred at G8s and G20s in the past. Clearly, that will be part of the planning and of the ultimate result. We will have the right tools in place to deal with those demonstrations should they occur.
The Chair: Would that be part of the costs of the host nation?
Mr. Elcock: Yes.
The Chair: As well, for the G8 and G20, the Public Health Agency of Canada has a claim in. We are provided by Treasury Board with a horizontal item with all the claims for G8 and G20 in the supplementary estimates. Are you able to help me with what the Public Health Agency of Canada might be doing in relation to security?
Mr. Elcock: The questions would be best addressed to the specific agencies. We can certainly provide more specifics if that would be helpful. Certainly, on an event like the Olympics, for example, the Public Health Agency provided some essential capacities in terms of scientific capacity, which were impressive. They will provide similar capacities around the G8 and G20, which will allow you, rather than sending samples to Winnipeg, to have a lab on the ground that will be able to test right there and then anything you are dealing with so that you know exactly what it is.
In addition, there is some responsibility not only for the security but also the health and safety of Internationally Protected Persons coming to Canada for the G8 and G20, so there are capacities there as well. I am not sure precisely what these specifics are for.
The Chair: Thank you. We can follow up on that.
Another area is fisheries and oceans, under the Olympics.
Mr. Elcock: Fisheries and oceans, under the Olympics, was Coast Guard, I believe.
The Chair: Almost $3 million.
Mr. Elcock: Those costs were related to the provision of a couple of vessels that were part of the security plan on the water in Vancouver.
The Chair: They would have to be incremental costs.
Mr. Elcock: They are incremental costs, yes.
The Chair: It would not be a normal Coast Guard boat or ship that is asked to redeploy in and around the harbour?
Mr. Elcock: It would be the nature of the work that they were asked to do that would lead to incremental costs.
The Chair: Overtime?
Mr. Elcock: Yes, and fuel and so on.
Senator Marshall: I have one question: When the Olympics and the Paralympics are completed, is an assessment done after each assignment? Is there a review done of the strengths and weaknesses, or is it just that it is over and let us go on to the next one?
Mr. Elcock: We do have a lessons learned process, which has already started, to go back and look at what happened and whether it was good, bad or indifferent, and whether there are lessons we can learn from that. That process has already started and will continue for at least a few months.
The Chair: Mr. Bisson, your group is the only one that has not had anything to say. We see where you are getting $597,000 in Supplemental Estimates (C). Is there anything you want us to talk about?
Charles Bisson, Deputy Director, Operations, Canadian Security Intelligence Service: We provide assistance in terms of threat assessment. We also have responsibility for accreditation of people who have access. This is support that we provide to the RCMP, including being part of the integrated group.
The Chair: Again, this is all incremental. This is not man hours that are applied to that that would otherwise be doing some other job.
Mr. Bisson: No. This is all incremental.
The Chair: These are additional costs that you would not normally be put to; am I understand that correctly?
Mr. Elcock: All the costs are incremental costs.
Senator Neufeld: First, as a senator from British Columbia, I would like to thank you and all the people who were there for a very successful Olympics held in Vancouver/Whistler. You did a marvellous job with security. As Senator Gerstein pointed out, people talked about it all the time. It was a great Olympics. Thank you very much for that.
The cost for security at the Olympics is estimated to be $900 million. Would the province have shared in some costs? Did they pay their own costs for security or is that inclusive in the $900 million?
Mr. Elcock: The $900 million is inclusive of provincial contribution.
Senator Neufeld: Can you tell me what the provincial contribution was?
Mr. Elcock: I would have to send you to the precise number, but I think it is in the ballpark of $252 million.
Senator Neufeld: Is that done on some formula basis or just through negotiations?
Mr. Elcock: It was done as a result of negotiation between the provincial government and the federal government, some months ago.
Senator Neufeld: I do know that the estimated costs for security when the games were first applied for, and later on, were much less. Of course, some events took place around the world that had everyone saying we have to spend a bit more money on security, and therefore the costs did escalate quite a bit.
Thank you for that information. I appreciate it. Thank you for the good work you did on the planning and that your people did on the ground.
The Chair: Seeing no other questions, it is for me, on behalf of all the senators of the National Finance Committee, to thank you very much for being here — Public Safety Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Privy Council Office. Thank you all very much for being here and keep up the good work. I hope you will pass on to all the men and women who work for you how much we appreciate the good job they are doing for Canada.
(The committee adjourned.)