JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

[Translation]

Welcome everyone.

[English]

Welcome to the justice and human rights committee. Today we have the pleasure of the company of more than our regular gathering, so I commend Minister MacAulay for being a significant draw in this place.

• 1535

The Forum for Young Canadians—which most members are familiar with—and also Professor Kabundi's students in his criminal law class from the University of Ottawa are here. Welcome to you all.

Today, we'll be hearing from Minister MacAulay and members of his organization—who he will identify—on the main estimates for the year. Since time is always precious and I'm sure members are very anxious to engage the minister in some discussion, we'll turn to that. I understand that the minister has an opening statement, and then we'll go to questions.

Minister MacAuley.

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada): Thank you, Chairman Andy, colleagues, students, everybody. Welcome. I'm pleased to be here to discuss the spending estimates and priorities of the Department of the Solicitor General. Joining me is Deputy Solicitor General Jean Fournier; RCMP Commissioner Philip Murray; the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Mr. Ole Ingstrup; the chairman of the National Parole Board, Mr. Willie Gibbs; and the director of CSIS, Mr. Ward Elcock.

Mr. Chairman, before taking questions, I would like to update the committee on my efforts this past year to fulfil the ministry's mission, which is to maintain and improve public safety. I want to focus especially on what we have done to strengthen the capacity of the RCMP to fight organized crime.

When I appeared before this committee last year, I was asked if the government would remove the $1,000 bill from circulation because of its use by criminals. For example, mostly it was used in drug deals for payoffs. I am pleased to report that the government recently announced that the $1,000 denomination will be discontinued.

I was also asked about the government's intention with respect to money laundering legislation. As you know, with my support, the Minister of Finance introduced legislation that is in fact being debated in the House at this moment. There is no doubt that this legislation would greatly assist police and prosecutors in attacking organized crime. I would hope that all members support Bill C-22 as it moves through the House.

Of particular concern to me as Solicitor General has been the financial pressures being experienced by the RCMP. I know this was a concern raised by some members when I was here last. As I've said many times, I am committed to giving the RCMP the tools to do the job.

In the Speech from the Throne in October, the federal government emphasized once again its commitment to public safety. It is a priority of the government. It has been since 1993, when we took office, and it's the mission of the Solicitor General and the ministry.

We committed ourselves to strengthening the capacity of the RCMP to protect Canadians and deal with criminal threats to public safety. In the February budget, the government made good on that promise and allocated $810 million in new funding to the Department of the Solicitor General. This funding will strengthen federal policing and security activities, particularly in the area of organized crime and improved policing service to provinces, territories, and municipalities.

The RCMP budget was substantially increased by a full $584 million over the next three years. This represents a major turnaround for the RCMP. The government's decision to invest this very substantial amount will ensure that the force has the people, the tools, and the structure it needs to meet the public safety threats of today and in the future. The budget increase follows a comprehensive independent review of the RCMP resources and management.

The review looked at major operational challenges facing the force, and all aspects of the RCMP, from funding to administration to operations, were analysed. The review included extensive consultations with the RCMP, with provincial and municipal governments, and with federal departments that work with the RCMP. From that, we developed a battle strategy that involved both fiscal and organizational approaches to strengthen the RCMP.

• 1540

Of the $584 million, the RCMP will see $166 million in additional funding allocated in 2000-2001 as follows.

To federal policing services, $59 million has been added. That means additional resources to investigate organized crime, terrorism, and crimes like drug-trafficking and people-smuggling. These resources would also go towards increasing the RCMP's immigration enforcement and its ability to fight these pressing national and international concerns. It would also improve the RCMP's ability to investigate increasingly common economic and high-tech crimes such as fraud over the Internet, telemarketing scams, and credit card and currency counterfeiting. These are growing concerns, and we're taking action now to keep on top of them. In all these areas, the force will work in partnership with provincial and local police and other federal departments to maximize the collective impact on organized crime.

The increased funding will also mean more police officers on the street. Contract policing will receive an extra $65 million. This means the RCMP can hire and train new officers over the course of this year to fill unfunded and vacant positions in the RCMP divisions where they are needed, such as in British Columbia. I am pleased to report that the RCMP training academy is already operating at full capacity, and 1,200 new recruits will be trained this year.

An effective and reliable communications infrastructure is required for the RCMP, and so $20 million will be devoted to improvements such as modernizing the force's radio system. Improvements will be made to national police services, including CPIC and forensic labs, so that the RCMP will be in a better position to address the law enforcement challenges of the 21st century. This is good news for all law enforcement agencies across the country, and therefore good news for Canadians.

Finally, $22 million will be used to improve corporate management capacities, particularly in the area of financial and human resource management. A new civilian deputy commissioner for corporate management and comptrollership has been appointed, as has a civilian deputy commissioner of strategic direction.

I should remind the committee that this substantial new budget allocation and the action to address the recommendations of the RCMP review are the latest in a series of steps the government has taken to help the RCMP and law enforcement agencies across this country fight organized crime.

We were not standing still over the past year. While awaiting the conclusions of the review, I made a concerted effort to relieve immediate financial pressures on the RCMP and get important initiatives off the ground.

For example, in the 1999 budget, the government gave the RCMP $115 million to modernize the CPIC database, which is used by all police forces in Canada. Another $18 million was allocated to the national DNA data bank, which is set to open this June, and an extra $15 million each year to place 100 additional RCMP officers in three of Canada's largest airports to fight organized crime.

All these initiatives, taken together with the federal budget, demonstrate that we are serious about maintaining the RCMP as a world-class police service.

Along with the RCMP, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Citizenship and Immigration Canada were also given increased resources to strengthen our border security. The partnership and collaboration by these agencies and CSIS, working with their U.S. colleagues over the last several months on the Ressam and other related investigations, put a usually invisible process in the spotlight. Cooperation and collaboration with our U.S. partners was and continues to be excellent. I have been in regular contact with my counterpart, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.

I plan to meet with Ms. Reno next month in Washington as a run-up to our next meeting of the Cross-Border Crime Forum, which we co-chair.

• 1545

Now let me turn to a key priority of mine: effective corrections. When I first took over the position of Solicitor General of Canada, I made it very clear that one of my main priorities would be to work on the problem of alcohol and drug abuse among offenders. What concerns me most about it is the devastating human, social, and economic effects it has on Canadian society, particularly with respect to criminal behaviour.

It's a big job, but I know we're up to the task. I am pleased to report that Correctional Service Canada is making excellent progress in this area, such as the addictions research division we created to study the impact of addictions on the criminal justice system.

I am pleased to announce today a three-pronged incentive to combat the supply of drugs in the federal institutions, the demand for drugs by federal offenders, and the problem of substance abuse by offenders living in Canadian communities.

By the end of May, every medium and maximum security institution will be equipped with ion scanners to detect drugs. We are discussing with the RCMP and Canada Customs about expanding the drug dog program in our institutions. We set up a pilot program in five institutions to provide offenders with more intensive support to help them kick their addiction to drugs or alcohol, and we are working with the John Howard Society to develop an intensive community-based substance abuse program for offenders on conditional release.

There's a well-established link between substance abuse and criminal behaviour, and these initiatives will go a long way to helping offenders break their own cycles of addiction and criminality.

I'm also very proud of the 1999 study that showed our offender substance abuse pre-release program had been successful in reducing overall readmission by 13%, recidivism by 29%, and the commission of violent offences by 53%. Two of CSC's core substance abuse programs also achieved accreditation this year by an international panel of substance abuse experts.

Canada is clearly a world leader in the research and treatment of addictions in a correctional context. I intend to see that we uphold this excellent reputation by continuing to direct our efforts at breaking the cycle of addiction and crime among offenders.

Before leaving the subject of effective corrections, which is certainly a very comprehensive one, let me just say that we will be expanding the range of programs and services for aboriginal people. They are grossly overrepresented in our correctional system, and this will continue unless we develop more appropriate community-based alternatives.

I am proud to say that Correctional Service Canada has made considerable progress in a short time. These and other issues have been canvassed by the CCRA subcommittee in the past year, and I look forward to receiving their report in the spring.

All the initiatives I have mentioned today, when taken together, show that this is a ministry serious about keeping Canada safe. We're standing behind the RCMP to ensure it remains a world-class police service. We are taking steps in other areas, such as corrections, to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of Canada and Canadians.

Our work continues, and in my view, we are prepared more than ever to face the challenges of this century while upholding the highest of standards in all our efforts.

That's the end of my remarks. I expect there could be a few questions. We would be only too pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I'm sure there will be a question or two.

In that regard, so that everybody understands, the way we do this is, in the first round, each party has seven minutes on the opposition side, ending with the government side, and then we go back and forth for three minutes.

• 1550

Because of the enthusiasm that I'm sure is going to pour out of this, we're going to be very vigilant in keeping the times in order. I would ask both questioners and witnesses to try to help me avoid the amount of times I may have to interrupt. Thank you very much.

I now go to Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take a couple of minutes to make a statement or two and refer to some information I have before me. Then I will throw out one question that I think will probably take up the entire seven minutes. I'm anticipating that.

I thank the minister and all of you for being here today. It's appreciated that you do this.

I would like to get right into the topic of the day. I understand we're here to discuss main estimates. I find it rather unusual, Mr. Minister, that in your comments there was no reference to the 50-50 plan that your commissioner has denied, on a number of occasions, even exists, where 50% of the population should be released to society and 50% should be incarcerated. This has not been mentioned in your talk. It's been denied by the commissioner on a number of occasions.

Yet I have in my possession several items that are very confusing. For example, I have a letter from the warden in Grande Cache institute stating that the region has surpassed its goal. The goal this fiscal year was to have 2,000 offenders released to the community, and to date there have been 2,004. They are congratulating their staff for meeting their goal. This is either a goal of the warden or a goal of the department, but it sounds like a 50-50 thing to me.

In the minutes from the meeting there's one section I've underlined. I don't have it right here, but it says a region has surpassed its goal. The goal for this fiscal year was to have 2,000 offenders released to the community. To date there have been 2,004. That's the one that was in the region of Grande Cache. The warden commended the staff for their work in helping the region meet their target.

In minutes from another meeting that was held, a regional meeting, senior management in Ottawa were discussing with the minister the goal—and it's in the minutes of the meeting—of the 50-50 split of offenders in institutions and in the community. The goal is to achieve this by 2000, and it's seen as realistic on the national level.

I have the minutes from another meeting that were brought to me from the Atlantic development region. The ADC Atlantic also provided, for information purposes, a graphic display of the number of offenders who needed to be released each month until 2000, when the region would meet the 50-50 goal.

I have numerous minutes of meetings from across the country where Corrections Canada talks about this 50-50 goal. Yet the minister failed to even mention it in his address to this committee this morning. I find that rather strange, particularly when we're here to talk about estimates. I assumed the estimates would be based on a 50-50 goal. I'd have to quickly ask why the big increase in funds was needed for such a project if this were indeed going on.

When you look at everything that's lying before me and what's being passed on in terms of information, from your people in the field to my office, through minutes of meetings that are collected, I'm having a difficult time coming to a conclusion.

There are a few options. Either you, Mr. Minister, don't have a clue what's going on in your own department; the department's completely out of control and they're implementing quotas on their own without your awareness; or somebody is deliberately misleading the Canadian public and releasing dangerous offenders back into the community just to meet fiscal goals. This is a concern that's been brought to me, even from the management level, in a lot of penitentiaries. I think now would be an excellent time to clear that situation up.

Mr. Lawrence MacAuley: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I am aware that you are very concerned about this issue. I didn't mention it because it is not an issue for my department. There are no goals and there will not be goals. Public safety is always the number one issue.

I can also assure you, if this committee wishes.... This has been an ongoing issue from the time I arrived on the scene. If you would like me to write to each warden or management person and indicate quite clearly that this is absolutely not the case and should not be referred to, I would have no problem doing so.

• 1555

It will not be tolerated. I've said it many times in the House. I said it here last time at committee. I will certainly let the commissioner of Corrections respond too, but there are no quotas. I know what is going on in the department, and there will never be quotas. It all must operate on public safety, and will continue to do so.

If this committee directs me to write to certain people, it might be a way to put this issue to bed, if you wish me to do so.

I will let Mr. Ingstrup respond also, in case he's misunderstood by somebody.

Commissioner Ole Ingstrup (Correctional Service Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, Mr. Chairman.

I have said since the fall of 1998 that there is indeed at times some language out there that, taken out of context, could be interpreted as if there were a goal, something that had to be achieved. It is not the case.

We assess on a regular basis how many people we think we are going to have, if we perform well, at a certain later date. That's the way we do what is called long-term accommodation planning. We're required to do so by Treasury Board.

I don't know about the letter you referred to from Grande Cache, but I know about the minutes from a meeting at Grande Cache, and they talk about the region reaching its goal. This has absolutely nothing to do with having 50% on the inside and 50% on the outside, because the 2,004 people referred to in the minutes as being on the outside correspond with over 3,000 people on the inside, which is 62% of the population in the prairies region on the inside and 38% on the outside.

So there's nothing 50-50 in that. There is an assumption that according to what we know at this time, we are likely to have around 2,000 on the outside in the prairies region at a certain time.

I regret as much as you, Mr. Thompson, that people are using words like “goals”, but I don't think they are quite as inclined to make interpretations of words as we may be in this particular context. They are talking about whether the assumptions that were made about how many prisoners we would have on the inside and the outside are going to be the right ones or not. That's what we are talking about.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming these students who will discover the importance of always making sure that healthy pressure is maintained on the government.

I want to ask the Minister something. Your total portfolio includes resources of some $810 million. Perhaps you've seen an article that appeared this morning in La Presse, written by the well-known analyst Mr. André Cédilot. He says that you wanted to put some $584 million this year into the fight against organized crime and this concerns me a lot as my riding is in east Montreal and criminality there, unfortunately, is not a rare occurrence.

Could you give us a few more details on the resources earmarked or that will be earmarked for organized crime during the coming year?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Do you want a breakdown of the specific expenses in the budget?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Give us the major items in the budget. What are the resources this year, broadly speaking? Of course, I can understand you don't have the detailed budget at hand, but what are we looking at this year? Could you summarize the plan of action for this fight against organized crime?

Try not to disappoint the students with the clarity of your answers.

• 1600

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm trying to understand whether you want the total expenditures for the RCMP or the extra money for organized crime.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What financial resources will be available this year and how do you intend to react to respond to the threat represented by organized crime against public safety?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I can give you the additional figures that will be in place for 2000-01. Is that what you want, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, and could you tell us about the progress against motorcycle gangs? What specifically is to be done to counter the threat of criminal motorcycle gangs? For example, how is the situation evolving in Ontario and Quebec? Concretely, what resources will be used?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much. There'll be $59 million extra, as was announced in the budget, to fight organized crime and terrorism. Exactly how the fighting will be done, I will let the commissioner of the RCMP comment on that.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Zaccardelli and I were at a symposium in Montreal over the weekend, and that's exactly what the discussion was about. There is ongoing information gathering involving the RCMP, provincial police forces, municipal police forces, and organizations within communities on new ways of handling issues. That's what we did in Montreal last weekend.

I don't have the report on the symposium yet, but we put in $59 million to fight organized crime, terrorism, and smuggling and $166 million additional funding for the RCMP itself, which will of course assist in this area.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: To be more specific, if you don't mind, Minister, there are lawyers and people who follow the trends in organized crime very closely telling us Parliamentarians that Bill C-90 on which all the opposition parties agreed, I believe, as well as the government, of course, did not lead to the expected results. As we well know, organized crime is a very dynamic environment that is in constant evolution. Now I was told that this legislation, in its application, required three elements for a case to be built up by the Attorney General and brought to court.

I was first told that the attorneys general didn't know that legislation very well, that they were hesitant in using it because of its complexity and that one of the trends developed by these criminal motorcycle gangs was to make sure that the people committing crimes didn't have anything on the record against them during the last five years.

So I'd like you to tell me your department's evaluation of the impact of Bill C-90 on which, as you remember, we had pinned such high hopes.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'll let the commissioner who will be dealing with this explain it.

[Translation]

Commissioner Philip J.R. Murray (Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Minister and Chairman. Mr. Ménard, Act C-90 certainly did cause problems at the outset. There was the matter of training the police forces and the attorneys in each one of the country's provinces. Justice Canada is setting up a special course to train the Crown attorneys all across the country.

I think it is better now, but at the outset, there were problems because the legislation was new and it took a while for it to be fully understood.

As for the motorcycle gangs, there is a team made up of police officers, RCMP agents and Sûreté du Québec representatives as well as representatives from the province of Quebec's major cities to fight against organized crime in general and more specifically against the motorcycle gangs in the province of Quebec. There is certainly a terrible problem in the province of Quebec and also here, in Ontario. That is the number one priority, not only for us but also for all the other police forces.

• 1605

Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. Here is my last question. We were quite astonished to learn that the RCMP is preparing an operation that will take place a few days before the national holiday of all Quebeckers, which perhaps each and every one of you would like to celebrate with us. It is a kind of operation that worries the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, an operation being qualified as an anti-terrorist operation that will take place in a Montreal neighbourhood that people aren't willing to identify.

Would it be possible for you to give parliamentarians a bit more information on this operation, the resources that will be put into it, and, of course, its objective, its fundamental rationale?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

As part of that emergency preparedness, the RCMP regularly respond to things like this and always attempt to be well prepared. It is not going to be involved with Saint-Jean-Baptiste or anything else; it involves the SQ, the Montreal police. It will take place in early June, and the commissioner can likely add to this. It is an emergency preparedness program to make sure that if something like a terrorist act takes place, we're fully prepared. But the indication that it would happen on Saint-Jean-Baptiste is incorrect. It will take place in early June. Perhaps the commissioner has the date, but it will not be that date. I don't—

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's a great birthday.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I understand, but it will not be that date.

Commr Philip Murray: No, the exact date has not been decided yet. It will be in early June. It won't be anywhere close to June 24.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Peter MacKay.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the Solicitor General and his officials for being here with us. This is a very important process we have in the ability to interact with you and discuss the fiscal plans of the future and the past.

I want to touch very briefly on this issue of the 50-50 split and the importance of clearing it up, whether in fact or in perception, because according to CSC officials, who are responsible for inmates in the country, of 22,000 offenders, approximately only 13,000 are incarcerated. So whether perceived or real, we're rapidly approaching this 50-50 split.

The impression is out there, and I'm very concerned. I hope you are satisfied, given your answer, that we don't have a system in place where we have members of the RCMP and members of CSIS and other law enforcement agencies on the one hand working very hard to incarcerate those who are involved in criminal activity and another branch of your department releasing individuals before they're ready, bypassing safeguards that are currently in place, and all with expediency, either political or financial, in mind.

I've heard the references made by my learned colleague. I've made similar allegations and made it very clear that the questions and the information that we've been provided from officials currently working in this department don't seem to satisfy many people that there is not some plan in place. Words like “targets”, “goals”, “quotas” and “prisoner-citizen ratios”, lead me to believe that this is very clearly taking place as we speak.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. MacKay, I can assure you that as long as I'm Solicitor General, there will be no quotas. That is for sure.

As I indicated previously, if this committee wishes for me to indicate in writing to individuals within CSC that this is not the case, that it's not to be the case, that public safety always has been and must always continue to be the number one issue, I have absolutely no problem doing it. If this committee directs me to do it, I would be very pleased to do it, because I too have heard a fair bit about this 50-50. It doesn't exist, but then we have to be careful of perception.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With the greatest respect, Minister, it's not for this committee to direct you to do that. I would suggest strongly that we have enough evidence before us now that it would be very helpful if this were to happen.

I want to discuss something else that has been denied by the Commissioner of Corrections with respect to the setting up of an international corrections and prisons association or an international institute. We have evidence in hand that shows that over $200,000 was spent, or is earmarked, for this year, and another $200,000 for next year, to set up this international institute to look at corrections services both inside and outside this country.

• 1610

Looking at the main estimates, we know that over $200,000 was spent on international travel by the commissioner and the deputy commissioner from Ontario. We know there has been a great deal of effort put into setting this up. Maybe it's a good thing, but are you satisfied that you're getting dollar for value for examining institutions outside of Canada, given the fact that we have, I would suggest, significant problems already within this country? You've alluded to some of them, such as drug and alcohol abuse, the fact that there is still a great deal of violence within institutions, and that there is still a disproportionate number of aboriginal people within our institutions.

Mr. Minister, I have a couple of direct questions I'd like to ask you. Is it true that in addition to the CSC funding I've referred to—$200,000—that CSC is considering creating a separate international institute that would look at this question? The justification that was set out for doing so in this proposal for a proposed institute came from a Kingston conference called Beyond Prisons. Looking at that performance report, which is dated March of 1999, it says that the motion was for a centre or an association.

Is it your department's intention to pursue both? What is in the mix? What's the plan here for this international institute? And is it justified, in your opinion?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Mr. MacKay, and I appreciate your concern. As far as dealing with other institutions around the world is concerned, I think in running a system on which we spend a large amount of taxpayer dollars in order to run each year, it is very important that we evaluate other systems around the world and be involved with other persons and other correctional services around the world, and we do that. But this doesn't mean we adopt anything that doesn't improve public safety. Of course, we do not adopt anything that doesn't improve public safety. We're also very interested—as I am, which I indicated quite clearly when I came—in anybody around the world anywhere who has information on addiction research. That's one of the areas, but there are many other areas. There are certain areas in this country...for instance, you have one prison that's drug free. All these are of great interest to me, and if we could reach that goal and have those things happen, I would think we would have achieved something.

In fact, what I want to see happen, quite truly and honestly, is to be able to help the offenders, and with that you're helping those in Canadian society who have a problem with addictions. That's not just offenders; people outside of the prison system can also have this problem. I've been asked a number of times whether this research division we have put in place would just be for offenders. Quite simply, you can't hide excellent information that the world is craving for. If we can have the best minds in the world work together to deal with why people do this and deal with the addiction problem, that's what I'm interested in.

It will also deal with anger management and this type of thing. The two are involved, which creates a situation now in the country where half of the people in this country who commit a federal offence are intoxicated when they do so. That figure alone would be enough to tell you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think as I begin my remarks I should make a couple of comments. I should tell Mr. Murray that I'm the son of an RCMP officer and grew up in barracks. I worked at Matsqui penitentiary for a while and later in juvenile corrections. So I have a great deal of admiration and a great deal of support for the work, and I understand personally how difficult it is.

But I also have a concern. It's a concern that you've all heard about. It's the concern about who watches the watcher. We give the police enormous support in our communities because of the very important and difficult work they do, but there are issues of accountability that come up from time to time. I want to discuss one with you—not the case; I don't want to discuss the case specifics, because they're not germane to my question. The question is about the process.

• 1615

In 1995, a citizen in Winnipeg was assaulted, he claims, by four undercover RCMP officers. What happened in that incident, nobody knows. I don't know. I'm not qualified to comment on that, to reach an opinion on that. But he went down to the RCMP headquarters and filed a complaint. It turns out it was a case of mistaken identity; he in fact was a public servant and they were looking for somebody else.

He filed the complaint on July 11, 1995. On July 21, 1995, he spoke to the commission and he asked about the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. On July 26, 1995, five days later, he received a letter saying that at the conclusion of their investigation the RCMP will send him a final letter of disposition with relation to his complaint. Pretty good service, right?

On March 8, 1996, eight months later, he received another letter saying it's a time-consuming process and that was reflected in the delay in the handling of his request for review. But the person who wrote the letter went on to state that the review was being handled as expeditiously as possible.

On July 7, 1996, eleven months later, he got another letter saying that although a preliminary review had been conducted, his complaint was still under review. They went on to reassure him that his review was being handled as expeditiously as possible.

On September 20, 1996, 14 months later, he got another letter. It said that although a preliminary review had been conducted, his complaint was still under review, and the writer wanted to reassure him that his review was being handled as expeditiously as possible.

On January 17, 1997, 18 months after, he got another letter saying that concerning the letter he had provided the commission, which was received, they would like to advise him there was no delay; however the commission workload was considerable.

On April 17, 1997, another letter said the commission's further investigation into this matter had been completed and they expected the review of the complaint would be completed within two months.

On August 7, 1997, 25 months later...and I can go on for four years. I won't take the time of the committee to do this, but I can go on for four years and 15 letters.

Finally, a letter arrived after three members of Parliament wrote saying, come on, and three solicitor generals were involved. It took that long. Finally, he got a letter that said there was no problem, he was wrong, end of case.

I have no comment on the specifics of what he did. He and I have talked about it. We've become good friends in this process, frankly. But I really must ask you, does that constitute the kind of accountability that we should have in a service that's as important as the RCMP?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Alcock, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission was in a backlog, that's for sure. There have been additional resources allocated to that PCC, but I'll let the commissioner respond on how he feels this should....

Commr Philip Murray: I'm accountable for a lot of things, but one of the things I'm not accountable for is the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. It is an independent agency. But I would share your concern that it is not acceptable service to provide an answer three, or four or five years after the fact. I know the chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is actively pursuing the issue of backlogs. She's dealing with that in a number of ways, including some processes around alternative dispute resolution to try to deal with this fairly significant backlog that exists over there.

I think a citizen who makes a complaint should expect a better response from the public sector, and I would certainly share your view that four or five years down the road is not an acceptable response. As I said, I know she is effectively dealing with that issue. I can't really respond for her, but I have had the discussion with her and I know it's of a great deal of concern to her as well.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I cause the witnesses to stay alert. I ask short questions. No foreplay at all.

By the end of May, every medium and maximum security institution will be equipped with ion scanners. I'm very happy to hear that. Who are we going to scan? Is it everyone who enters the institution or just the inmates and their visitors?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Certainly, Mr. Grose, it will be the visitors and people who come into the institution, just to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they're not taking drugs into the institution. But I'll let the commissioner respond. I've seen the ion scanners work and they're extremely efficient.

• 1620

Commr Ole Ingstrup: There has been a task force on security within Correctional Service Canada. They have recently submitted their report. One of the recommendations that is being studied at this point in time, on which a decision will be made very shortly, is a recommendation that everybody that enters the institution—and according to the recommendation, that will include staff, visitors, inmates, anyone—will be going through the ion scanner.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you very much. That answers my question directly.

How much time do I have?

The Chair: You have 40 seconds.

Mr. Ivan Grose: We often read news reports suggesting that the relationship between CSIS and the RCMP is less than constructive. Inasmuch as we have the commissioner here and the director of CSIS, please tell me that everything I read in the newspaper is not correct.

Commr Philip Murray: I could perhaps respond first, with your concurrence, Mr. Chairman. It's a relationship that is very positive. It's something that we continuously have to work hard at to make sure it does work.

Mr. Elcock and I do work very hard and try to send the message from our level that it's absolutely essential that we cooperate with each other at every level within our respective organizations.

That matter was dealt with very recently by the security intelligence review committee, and Mr. Elcock may want to comment on that, but their conclusion was exactly the same as mine. They did reinforce as well that it was really necessary and that this relationship needs to be nurtured constantly, because there are certainly opportunities for things to go awry if you don't stay on top of it. But I'm certainly satisfied from my point of view that the relationship overall is extremely positive.

The Chair: Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock (Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service): Mr. Chairman, I've seen lots of stories too. Like a lot of stories, they're stories. It always makes good press to say those things. The reality of the relationship is that it's very close.

In any two large organizations—the force is a good deal larger than us, but we're not a tiny organization either—it's something you have to work at on a continuous basis, because the relationship depends on people.

That said, I don't know of anywhere across the country where there is a bad relationship. There are certainly ups and downs. There are periodically issues on which we'll disagree, but I know of none that we haven't been able to work out.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Abbott, you have three minutes.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Before I can ask some questions, I require some information from you about a paper that I just passed to you entitled Asian Organized Crime Roster, 1990, in which Mr. Ho Hung Sun is identified as gang file number 89-1779. Could you give me an opinion as to the authenticity of this information?

Commr Philip Murray: Certainly, off the top of my head, I can't really tell you anything about this other than that it's 8.5x11. I can't tell you whether it's—

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is there such a thing as an Asian organized crime roster?

Commr Philip Murray: I don't know. I haven't seen any such roster. This is dated 1990, so it's hardly what I would call current. I haven't seen this type of document personally.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Would you be aware of the story in the Vancouver Province and other stories from the Philippines and in the U.S. news media that referred to this document?

Commr Philip Murray: I do remember reading some articles in the past few months regarding that, but I haven't seen this particular document personally.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So, Commissioner, you can't confirm that there is such a thing as an Asian organized crime roster. Is that what you're saying?

Commr. Philip Murray: In 1990?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Even today.

Commr. Philip Murray: There's no such roster per se today that I'm aware of. Intelligence bases are not laid out in that type of a process. I don't know what was in place in 1990.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, what I'm looking for, Commissioner—and to the Solicitor General—is the fact that the Solicitor General, even in his comments today, made a point of going after organized crime. I believe there's a statement attributed to the deputy commissioner that:

For the first time, organized crime, serious criminal organizations, are actually threatening the democratic institutions....

That came out of your meeting in Montreal.

• 1625

It strikes me as being somewhat unusual, but if this is an authentic document, if Ho Hung Sun in fact is filed under gang file 89-1179, combined with the fact that he has had repeated access in and out of Canada, has had sequential access to premiers of the province of British Columbia, has had meetings with Brian Mulroney and with Jean Chrétien, and that he had a hotel suite at APEC, it strikes me that this is a rather important question. If this information is correct, if this person is filed with the RCMP or with CSIS under this or any other gang file number or any other identification, it strikes me as being very unusual and very troublesome that this individual would have had free access and egress from Canada and the access to the very high officials in Canada that he had. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Commr Philip Murray: My only response would be that I don't know why, if this document is authentic, this individual would have been on such a list in 1990. I don't know what that has to do with the year 2000. I'm not quite following you in terms of what the point is here.

The Chair: We'll have to come back.

Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I spoke to you last year, after I came back from the UN AIDS meeting, about our Canadian AIDS strategy being world-renowned, except for two areas. One is the sex trade workers and the other is our prisoners. As well as our goal to keep drugs out of prisons, how are we doing?

I was pleased with the help of the commissioner and the chair to visit Millhaven, Bath, and Kingston. I understand there is a phase one underway in terms of methadone treatment. I wonder how soon we can expect to have prisoners in your addiction program actually being able to be put on methadone when they are identified as requesting help. I believe at the present time we will only keep people on methadone if they arrive in prison on methadone, but we don't place them on methadone.

Secondly, I realize there's some debate on needle exchange, but I would be interested in your view on the data that show that violence in prisons goes down as soon as needle exchange is instituted.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much.

It is not in discussion to provide needle exchange in the institutions at this time.

Methadone is used as you indicated. It's continued as a means of controlling the addiction only for people who are on it when they arrive in the institution.

But it's ongoing, and I certainly don't have the answers for the addiction problem. If I did, I don't know where I'd be. The addiction problem is a massive question. But what I am trying to do, with the help of everybody from whom I can get help, is address the problem in the best way possible.

There have been a number of attempts around the world, and we have very successful treatment programs in this country. Some of us have ideas that we think would work better than others, but in my humble opinion, what has to happen is that the person who wants the drug has to be convinced or has to be relieved of the craving and not have the desire to receive it. It's human nature. If somebody has something and somebody has some money...if somebody has something and the person needs it, it's provided if the funding is available. That's in fact what we are faced with even in our institutions. We do everything possible to keep drugs out of our prisons.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I guess that's the question. Is the cost of methadone the issue, that we can only afford to treat the people who come in on it, rather than people who clearly have identified themselves as addicts and are asking for methadone, yet we don't give it to them because it costs too much?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: What we are doing is assessing the success and how it works with the use of methadone. We're considering looking at a phase two, but just what that would be....

What we have to do is evaluate the situation and how it works and how it turns out, to the best of our knowledge, when we evaluate how it has actually worked.

I can't give you the answer, because I don't have it.

• 1630

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: It's much more than money, though. It's much more than money. It's how it works. It's much beyond dollars, and that's unfortunately where you are in the addiction field.

The Chair: Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because of the lack of time we have and given your answer to the last question, I'm going to give you a number of questions at one time.

You haven't confirmed as yet whether there is in fact a plan in place to have a separate institute set up to look at corrections outside this country. I would like confirmation that that's happening.

I have four questions, and they're on plans, planes, parties on the high seas, and publications.

Mr. Minister, you'll recall a question was asked in the House of Commons prior to Christmas about the use of a coast guard ship by Corrections Canada. Mr. Trevor Whitehouse, a coast guard auditor, said this use of a coast guard ship appeared to be personal largesse. A party took place, arranged by someone within CSC for a number of CSC officials to have a gathering for goodwill on a Canadian Coast Guard ship. All kinds of problems came out of that, including the fact that a ship went down and this particular coast guard vessel was within the area, a helicopter had to be removed from the deck to make room for dancing, and that type of thing. I'm wondering if there was some justification for that taking place.

With respect to a calendar and a book that have been purchased by CSC, the performance report in March talked about fiscal responsibility as a challenge of CSC. Well, a glossy millennium calendar was produced, at a cost of $78,000, and distributed to 20,000 federal prisoners and parolees, the coast guard, parole officers, and other associated agencies. Is this the type of money we should be spending within that department, given its scarcity? And is any sort of public education tool associated with a calendar such as this?

As well, on the issue of publication, 700 copies of a book written by the commissioner were purchased, at a cost of over $20,000. This may in fact be a good use of money, but I would like to hear that from your lips. All the while we know there have been cuts to front-line policing agencies, and I'm sure that, given a priority, the money would be spent elsewhere.

Lastly, the CSC plane that cost $4 million, as I understand it, is supposed to serve the entire country, including the Ontario and Quebec regions. Or is it just serving those regions? Because we know the use of this plane, as I understand it, has not been even at full capacity by the RCMP, and now it's going to be utilized by CSC. As well, I'd like to know whether the representative here in Ottawa of Pilatus, who are the makers of the plane, was in fact a former RCMP officer who brokered that deal.

I've put forward a number of questions, and I know you only have a limited time to answer, but could you address as many of them as possible?

The Chair: I would note that was a three-minute question. I will allow the Solicitor General to answer, but I would appreciate it, Mr. MacKay, if we could just go straight through the answer without any dialogue back and forth, because we have a whole bunch of people lined up. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

That was a number of questions, Mr. MacKay.

The CSC plane was purchased both for CSC and the RCMP. The plane you're talking about is in Ottawa. It's my understanding the RCMP has used it, and I understand it gives us access to other planes. The RCMP has a number of planes, which have been used at least six times, if not more, by Correctional Services Canada, but not the specific plane that was bought. What it does is give us access in this area.

It's important to note on the book that the commissioner did not receive any money from the sale of this book. The book is a government publication and all the revenue goes to the consolidated revenue fund.

As for the calendars, they cost $1.56 each. What they do is indicate the programs that are available and provided. It's an attempt to raise public awareness of the corrections system in this country. In my opinion, it's a method of displaying in a very colourful manner what programs and systems we have in place to help rehabilitate our offenders.

• 1635

I'll let the director continue, if he has more to add. I don't think I addressed them all.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister.

There is no plan to build an international institute. We're looking at the best way of organizing our increasing international activities. One of the purposes of that review is to see if we can actually sell some of our Canadian programs to foreign countries instead of giving them away. So it's a revenue-generating thing, which is totally different from an international association.

On the coast guard, I would say it was a professional visit. There was no dancing, there was no removing of helicopters. All this is just, as Mr. Elcock said, a story. I'd be pleased to give you the full story; otherwise you can read the audit report, which says nothing of that at all.

Regarding the plane, you should be looking at the four point something million dollars as a good way of managing the fleet between ourselves and the RCMP. It was actually portrayed as a model way of doing it in the Vanguard Magazine quite recently. That comes out of a travel budget of about $17 million a year at CSC. By the way, the reason that many copies of the book were bought through us was that since I wasn't getting any revenue, we got it at half price. That is why.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Maloney, for three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to address the area of border security. I represent a riding adjacent to the U.S. border. I had the opportunity to tour the facilities with Congressman Lamar Smith from Texas, who is spearheading a section of the U.S. immigration act called section 110 that would in effect require non-residents of the United States to record their entry and exit. This would effectively strangle our borders. Certainly its a great concern because of our trade relationships with the U.S. and the amount of trade that crosses those borders each day.

When I questioned him about why, his concern was about terrorists entering the United States from Canada. His concerns reached some credibility near the end of 1999 when some Algerian terrorists were found with explosives on their way into the United States.

My concern, obviously, is that terrorists know no boundaries and they don't know many borders. Are your resources sufficient to protect Canada and Canadians, and indirectly our American neighbours, from terrorists and terrorism? Could you describe the level of cooperation with our U.S. neighbours? Is it ongoing? Do they have confidence in us?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney. I certainly had an active holiday season. I really didn't have much to do with Ms. Reno before that and a lot to do with her very quickly. It was a very tense time for us all, and in fact we had a number of conversations. The last time I spoke to her, she thanked me for the cooperation of the RCMP and CSIS and said how important it was for both countries to have this type of cooperation, that it made it so much easier for her.

I think what I would like to do is read a small quote from Mr. Freeh, the director of the FBI. On the question of the relationship, he indicated:

That relationship is almost a seamless one, not only in the cyber area but in generally all criminal justice areas, in the counter-terrorism area. That's probably one of the best relationships between countries on those issues than any place I've seen.

In fact, what the director of the FBI is telling us is that in his opinion, we have probably the best relationship in the world. And it's essential. We have so much trade back and forth. Also, regarding that bill—not that I'm an expert on American law—I understand that's being revisited, being looked at again. Active discussion is taking place on that. I will also be meeting with Ms. Reno next month in Washington. That could be an issue. I understand the American Senate is looking at the bill now.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.

We're back to Mr. Abbott.

• 1640

Mr. Jim Abbott: I know that Commissioner Murray would not want to just kind of wipe out or not show any concern for the questions I'm asking.

In answer to the commissioner's question of what does this have to do with 1990, Mr. Ho is fighting allegations in the congress and in the news media in the Philippines, where he has new gambling and restaurant ventures, that he's connected with the triads. For centuries the triads have operated in and around China, as well as in the former Portuguese colony of Macau, where Ho's gambling empire is based. The study of the National Defense University in the U.S. says:

The Triads could become the most dangerous organized crime group in the 21st century.

A 1988 justice department list authored by then Assistant Attorney General William Weld identified Ho as associated with the triads. Former congressional investigator Edward Timperlake is a co-author of Year of the Rat, a book condemning the ties between the Clinton-Gore administration and political fundraising from the Chinese interests and their effect on U.S. national security and decision-making. The book reported that Ho's triad connections are really quite extensive in his gambling partnerships.

This information is widely available, I'm sure, to many of the RCMP or CSIS analysts. If this is not a concern to the RCMP or CSIS, it should be. If this information is in their files, if this is an authentic document, and if this individual has these connections.... This is a fact. We do know that he has had meetings with successive British Columbia premiers, as well as having taken part in the APEC conference, with his own hotel suite, and has had access to and egress from Canada.

I'm sure the commissioner doesn't want to minimize my question. I think this is a very important question. If the commissioner doesn't have the information this minute, I wonder if he would undertake to reveal to myself or this committee just what information the commission has on this. This has everything in the world to do with the intrusion of the highest level of international organized crime into Canada, and I don't think we should minimize the question.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I'm sure the commissioner is not minimizing the question.

If you are aware, are you at liberty to discuss if you are investigating? Go ahead.

Commr Philip Murray: Thank you, Minister. I wasn't minimizing the question. I was trying to appreciate the context. You have explained further where you were going with it.

Obviously, what may or may not be in the intelligence banks within CSIS, the RCMP, or other enforcement agencies is hardly something that would be discussed in any public forum, including this one. There is certainly due process. Individuals and organizations have rights, and some allegations that may have been made here may or may not be true. I can't really comment. Even if I personally were aware, obviously, I couldn't comment in a public forum as to what may be in an intelligence database. I understand where you're coming from, but unless an individual is charged with a criminal offence, they're entitled to the same rights as anyone else if they do happen to be in an intelligence database. We have to be very careful about how this information is used in public.

So I wouldn't be in a position to really confirm or deny who may or may not be in intelligence databases. In order to have the confidence to have information on people—and certainly access to information commissioners and privacy commissioners watch these things very carefully—we have to make sure that we do protect the data that are inside those databases. To talk about them publicly would certainly not be in keeping with that principle.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Given the concern that has been expressed over the lack of resources or cuts to the RCMP over recent years, it's good to hear your comments setting out what the budget provides in increased funding for the RCMP. But in light of the globalization of crime and the use of technologies, etc., I was just wondering whether that funding is going to be sufficient for the RCMP to be able to fight crime in the new economy in the new millennium.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you very much. What is enough would, I suppose, be a massive question to answer.

• 1645

I had the privilege of meeting with American officials whose expenditures are much higher than ours, and they call it not enough. Nobody ever has what they call an oversupply of money to deal with these issues.

The Solicitor General's department got $810 million of new funding over the next three years. That's certainly a major commitment. The RCMP itself received $166 million of additional funding this fiscal year, which is a large increase and a much needed one. There is money going to fight organized crime, and the $65 million is awfully important for the contracting provinces and territories and for the depot in Regina, which is putting out 1,200 new recruits this year. Absolutely, organized crime has all kinds of money. It's an ongoing, full-time battle to stay ahead of new technology, and they have it. I think it's safe for me to say—and I'm not trying to make little of this, but they don't have to go to Treasury Board and I do.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul DeVillers: My question follows on Mr. Ménard's. It has to do with the Quebec motorcycle gangs that use farmers' fields to grow their marijuana. What is being done to help the Quebec farmers who have to deal with these motorcycle gangs preventing them from working in their fields? Are we about to do anything?

[English]

Mr. Lawrence MacAuley: There has been and of course there will continue to be. In this situation the SQ is the lead police force, and they're backed by the RCMP, as happens in many cases. The drug problem is an ongoing battle. But in the specific case you're referring to, it again indicates the great cooperation that takes place in this country between the RCMP and provincial and municipal police forces to fight organized crime. This is an ideal case in Quebec where—and I think the commissioner would agree—there has been excellent cooperation between the SQ, the lead force in this area, and the RCMP.

Perhaps you wish to add to that.

Commr Philip Murray: It has been very much a partnership. It is a significant problem in Quebec, as it is in other provinces, and we are trying to address it in a very cooperative fashion. The role of the RCMP is really to target higher levels. But we recognize that there is a relationship. We always talk about the effect of organized crime at the local level. I think that's an excellent example to show that even in rural areas organized crime is affecting the way people live their lives. When you have organized crime groups putting pressure on local farmers to cooperate in order to illegally grow these crops, that's certainly an indication of that. So it really does take a great deal of public awareness around the issue in terms of the impact at the local level. It takes cooperative efforts between the local police, the provincial police, and the federal police to make sure our intelligence databases are well used and that those relationships are well understood at all three levels of government.

We're very pleased with the cooperative effort that exists in Quebec, and that problem is being addressed very well.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Before we continue, I would give members of the committee the ten-minute warning, if there is such a thing.

We'll now turn to Mr. MacKay for three minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to my question about the calendar, the $78,000 that went for what you described as public awareness, my understanding is that the calendars were given almost exclusively to people who were already working for your department or to prisoners themselves. So I don't know how the public awareness was coming about.

With regard to your response about the plane being used six times with a price tag of $4 million, anything less than full capacity can hardly be justified as being a good use of money.

• 1650

With respect to other spending within your department, I understand—and please correct me if I'm wrong—that there has been money earmarked for a number of very worthwhile organizations. I'm not criticizing the allocation of funds to groups like the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, at $450,000, or $500,000 to the John Howard Society, and another $800,000 earmarked for voluntary organizations active within the criminal justice system.

However, CAVEAT, as I understand it, has been turned down. CAVEAT, as you know, deals specifically with victims' issues and issues stemming from problems that individuals in Canadian society have had with criminals. Can you confirm that no money has been set aside and that further funding requests from CAVEAT have been refused in your departmental budget?

A question with respect to SIRC: similarly, there is indication from my reading of the main estimates that irrespective of the problems CSIS has had.... They've been referred to already at this committee with respect to cooperation between the RCMP and CSIS, missing documents, leaks to the media, and increased criticism from SIRC and the head of SIRC about problems within CSIS.

I'm going to ask this question to you, Mr. Minister: is there some reason why this body, which is supposed to supervise and bring increasing accountability from CSIS, has had their budget cut, and why, similarly, the Office of the Inspector General within CSIS has been cut within the coming budget year as well? Is there some reason why that has happened?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

CAVEAT has just written. We are evaluating and looking at that situation, but a number of volunteer organizations that receive funding from us are very important to the administration, because what we have to do is that people who work with people who have difficulties, and that's like the John Howard Society and many others....

The plane...I don't have the exact details, and I will let the commissioner respond to that. I just indicated that what it does is give us access to the fleet of planes the RCMP has. Of course, the RCMP, I expect, use the CSIS plane if they need it.

As far as the missing documents issues are concerned, there have been a number over the last.... I've certainly addressed it a number of times in the House and with CSIS and the RCMP. We're dealing with human beings. It shouldn't happen, but it does happen. We address the security problems like this as quickly and as efficiently as humanly possible. I believe Mr. Elcock could probably have something to say on this. We had to deal with these issues.

Ward...?

The Chair: Mr. Elcock.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, it's hard for me to respond to the questions. As the minister said, we deal with any security problems we have in the service very quickly and, I think, effectively. That said, I'm not sure what the member is referring to, apart from the stories in the press, which frequently have little to do with reality but make good stories on the lines—

Mr. Peter MacKay: My question was very simple. Why have the budgets for supervision been cut? SIRC, which oversees CSIS, has had their budget cut, and the Inspector General for CSIS has had their budget cut. I would ask the minister to answer. I know we can't hear from the director, because if he told us he'd have to kill us—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter MacKay: —but I'd like to know from you, Mr. Minister.

The Chair: Well, if that were to happen, we have the RCMP on standby.

That's the last question from Mr. MacKay. We can have a couple of answers.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: The Inspector General's budget, to my knowledge, has not been cut—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: —and SIRC's budget is not our responsibility.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): As you know, as Parliamentary Secretary, I have to observe a certain discretion, but I'll change my mind. I have two things I want to mention. First, I haven't had the opportunity to do this publicly and officially, but I would still like to do it because it affects my riding directly. Operation Cisaille, undertaken by the RCMP together with the Sûreté du Québec was extremely well-received in my riding. There are farmers in my riding who have had to deal with the consequences of marijuana being planted in their fields and the Union des producteurs agricoles, the farmers themselves and the people in the community recognize that the work done through this co-operation was absolutely excellent. I wanted to thank you.

• 1655

I would have preferred it if someone else had asked this question before me, but I'll put it myself anyway. It's mainly for Mr. Elcock.

[English]

Mr. Elcock, I'm very concerned with the issue of terrorist organizations collecting funds here in Canada via charitable organizations or otherwise and using these funds for illegal activities abroad. Could you tell us what CSIS is doing in this regard, please? Maybe we can add some other things too.

Mr. Ward Elcock: Mr. Chairman, the issue of the collection of funds has long been of concern to us. It is true that a number of the groups that operate in Canada do a lot of that here.

The difficulty, of course, is that as I understand the law or as I am advised the law works, unless you can demonstrate that the money collected here was actually expended.... If a specific amount of money or a specific connected amount of money was actually collected here and used to buy a bomb, as distinct from being mixed with some other funds and then being used to buy a bomb, it's very difficult indeed to secure a prosecution. Certainly if we can ever obtain such information, it is something we would pass on to the police.

We certainly spend an enormous amount of our efforts in trying to determine the level of who is collecting, what they are collecting for, how much money is being collected, and trying to ensure, to the extent that it's possible through other mechanisms to interfere with that, that it's hampered.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Stinson, three minutes.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I'd like to get back to Mr. Thompson's questions with regard to the 50-50. It seems we have one lifeline left. I'd like to bring this up.

We have documents from minutes of meetings here and they talk specifically about the 50-50 split. I'll just mention part of it:

The Commissioner has stated to the Minister that we will achieve progress on the reintegration front within our current reference levels. There may be requests for new funding in specific non-operational areas but achieving the 50/50 split will result in resources being re-profiled into the community from institutions.

Here are some names: Irving Kukik, Ross Toller, Terry Sawatsky, Marcel Chiasson, Laval Marchand, Robert Babineau, Fraser McVie, Helgi Eyjolfsoson, Anne Kelly, Bill Staubi, Richard Harvey, Dan Rowan—that's just to name a few. If this has not been out there and this has not be discussed, could you tell me who these people are who have their names on this documentation?

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would have to let the commissioner respond to that.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: Sir, I would be glad to. I don't know this specific document, but I would like to review it.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Do you know the names?

Commr Ole Ingstrup: The names you have read to us, sir, are the names of people from the regions—assistant deputy commissioners from the region. They have their regular meetings and they talk about all kinds of things, including, of course, what is happening in the area of safe community reintegration.

I want to say that there is no target. There has never been a target. If that were the case—

Mr. Darrel Stinson: So the deputy commissioner was at one of these meetings.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Sir, I'm the commissioner of the service. I know if I'm setting targets or not. I am not setting targets. There have never been targets. If you care to look at the numbers, we have a situation now where about 42% are in the community. The rest of them, 58%, are in the institutions. So there is nothing to do with the 50-50.

What we do have, however, is an obligation to see if we're doing our work of preparing offenders for the National Parole Board as well and as effectively as we can. That has been pointed out to us several times by the Auditor General. I have to point out again, sir, that Correctional Service Canada cannot release one single offender; the National Parole Board does it. They have their criteria and we have never asked them to do anything to change their criteria.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I have a problem with that.

The Chair: Last question, Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: These are real people.

• 1700

Commr Ole Ingstrup: That's right.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: These are real meetings that took place. These were real questions put there in regard to the 50-50. So what's happening here? Who knows what's really going on here?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Commr Ole Ingstrup: I think I do, sir.

The Chair: Mr. MacAuley.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay: I would like to comment on Mr. MacKay's question. There was a small reduction in the total budget, something to do with pensions. I would like the deputy to respond so it's on the record.

The Chair: Mr. Fournier, in the interest of clarity.

Mr. Jean T. Fournier (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very quickly, page 27 of the Department of the Solicitor General's report on plans and priorities does show a reduction of $5,000 in the funding for the Office of the Inspector General of CSIS from $901,500 to $896,000 for this year. I've been advised that this is really in the nature of a minor technical adjustment relating to employee benefits. It's based on figures that were provided to us by the Treasury Board in terms of their projections of what the cost of employee benefits will be.

It does not affect, in any way, the number of people working in that office or the support the department and/or the minister provide to the inspector general.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister and all of your senior officials. You'll notice, Mr. MacKay, that we're all leaving alive.

I want to thank all of those people who are also attending the minister. From the department I see many familiar faces. All members of the committee recognize the great work that is done by the public service in this country.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, may I just bring up a short point of order?

The Chair: Yes. Is it to do with these particular guests?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes.

There is one individual who sat here very quietly all day. I think he's dreaming about his future retirement. I would like the committee to wish him well on his plans for his future and thank him for an excellent job. His name is Willie Gibbs.

The Chair: I'm sure Mr. Gibbs will have Mr. Thompson's endorsement etched onto some plaque some time in his retirement.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.